How We Interact With Our Data

Wealth, relationships, and information are core concepts in society. Not only do these provide the staples for existence, they are symbolic of the footprint left behind by all people throughout their lifetime. More recently, however, all of these socioeconomic identifiers have converged. In the information age, computers and personal digital footprints have increased in importance. When every interaction and transaction becomes the transfer of a few photons, the accumulation of every microtransaction becomes the backbone of a new economy. Tangible resources have decreased in value significantly over the past fifty years, making the importance of individuals in perpetuating a more theoretical economy all the more important. In surveying and interviewing almost 15 individuals both online and with a follow-up to three individuals for clarification, respondents had similar understandings of the concepts of money, but placed different values on the importance of different modes of currency and ethical accumulation of wealth. Despite a common and almost unanimous belief that data is a central driving force of modern society, perception of the technologies currency now functions through remains contested in feelings of distrust.

The preceding interviews were conducted with a sample of 13 individuals. Of those individuals, five were female and eight were male. None of the respondents are minors, but the individuals in the sample do not exceed 24 years of age. All respondents would consider themselves moderately liberal, liberal, or progressive, though two initially described themselves as apolitical. Five of the respondents identify as white, four as exclusively Latino, two identify as sub-continental southeast Asians, one as biracial east Asian and Latino, and one as biracial Persian and White. All respondents have also completed or are in the process of completing an undergraduate degree.

Before delving into the personal perceptions of their own roles in the modern economy, most of the respondents agreed that money was a socially constructed object made to represent the value of tangible resources. Most respondents, however, described money by indicating its function, commonly referring to it as a ‘medium of exchange’ for goods and services. Aside from one respondent, who referred to money as a confidence scheme created by society, most other answers were specific in explaining money as a representation of wealth rather than a direct exemplar of wealth. Additionally, while some answered the second question, “Who invented money?,” in a historical manner, one-quarter of the answers indicated that a societal desire for a more immediate and symbolic form of trade made bartering systems obsolete. In the follow-up on what drove the invention of money, respondents clarified their understanding that money is a symbol of value, making it less of a qualified need and more a tool for the immediacy of wants in society — a placeholder for the bartered resources and materials of previous economies.

In approaching the question of whether individual wealth was more or less ethical than crediting expenditures, there was some confusion among respondents. Where some stated outright that they failed to understand the question, others focused less on the ethics of credit than the generational ramifications of debt. By contrast, as the questions became more pertinent to conventional economics, responses favoring tangible precious materials began to reflect the skepticism towards data-dependence. Of the six individuals who, all insinuated that technology is less applicable to concrete value, but three directly expressed skepticism at the reliability of modern currency should ‘the grid’ fail. However, all but one respondent found data to be either more or most important to modern society on a scale from 1–5, five being most important. Despite the singular respondent who found data neither important nor unimportant, The consensus among respondents was that data is among the most valuable commodities to society. This is backed by those same respondents’ responses to personal questions.

Most respondents, nine out of thirteen, acknowledged, acknowledged the constant commoditization of their data. All but four respondents indicated that they believed the tech industry sells their data all of the time. All but one respondent indicated that they believed that their data was sold at least most of the time. Despite acknowledging the frequency with which their personal identifiers are sold, every respondent defined the worth of their personal data as less valuable than the value of data as a matter of society. Data, to many, exists in the abstract. It fails to reach the individual on a practical level. In such a young demographic, it becomes more obvious that the intuitive relationship with computers and the ‘world at my fingertips’ paradigm the internet has perpetuated. Technology has had an outsized effect on the relationship that individuals have with their personal identifiers and the value they associate with their privacy.

Similarly, as individuals feel less agency over their personal data and privacy, there is a greater distrust with the institutions tasked with protecting that data on a public stage. The Facebooks and Twitters of the world, the Amazons and Targets, all of these businesses are tasked with the safe dissemination of information without exposing users. All of them, consequently, have also failed to honor the duty they have to customers and members. In 2013 and 2019, two separate data breaches compromised the personal and financial information of Target members. Thus far, 18.5 million dollars have been paid in settlement for the first and a class-action suit is underway for the latter. Very few will ever see money from that settlement and even fewer will receive the higher $10,000 reparation, but many of those affected will continue to purchase goods from the retail giant (McKoy). Twitter and Facebook have experienced predatory advertising and data breaches affecting more than 50 million users worldwide (Isaac and Frenkel). As these major breaches of trust and privacy recur, so do users become more accustomed to them and apathetic to grand invasions to their privacy.

There is a societal understanding of the importance and profitability of data, but a disconnect arises as that data becomes more personal with younger individuals. Not only is there a disassociation, but there remains a complacency that undermines the importance of data for individuals when the population continues to use services known to be insecure. Each of the interviewees themselves admit that they view their data, personal identifiers and information, as transactional rather than factors of personal security in an increasingly social world.