Becker, G. F., Ponschock, R. L. & Wilson, A. (2017). A conceptual model of personal privacy considerations in a transformative media eco-system. Journal of Strategic and International Studies, XII(2), 19-28. ISSN: 2326-3636. Presented at Spring International Multidisciplinary Academic Conference, Orlando, Florida, March 2017.
A CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF PERSONAL PRIVACY CONSIDERATIONS IN A TRANSFORMATIVE MEDIA ECO-SYSTEM
Anthony Wilson, Nyack College, New York Gerard F. Becker, Nyack College, New York Richard. L. Ponschock, Northern Arizona University, Arizona; Nyack College, New York
ABSTRACT
This research introduces a conceptual model for exploring and understanding various aspects of what this study terms, “Unconscious Permission? Utility vs. Price of surrendered privacy”. Through an initial meta-analytic approach of existent research, current events, and emerging trends, it was concluded that the impact on personal and professional privacy related to a rapidly transformative media eco-system is akin to exploring the “tip of an iceberg”. The emerging ramifications are compounding at an exponential velocity and must be fully grasped before its momentum becomes untenable to harness. As a follow-on to a book published by several of the authors herein (Ponschock & Becker, 2016), this conceptual model has emerged as another facet of the originally constituted longitudinal study related to the overall impact of digitization on society. This initial exploratory study into the far reaching impacts of personal privacy considerations requires consistent, rapid and in-depth follow-on discovery in order to fully grasp the depth of this “iceberg”.
Keywords: ToS; IoT; “Click Wrap”; Social Media, Software Contracts; DIGIPERSON; Surveillance Capitalism; Digital Bread Crumbs©, Digital Exhaust, Big Data
1. INTRODUCTION
In a song made famous by Tennessee Ernie Ford entitled “Sixteen Tons”, there is a repetitive phrase in the chorus - I owe my soul to the company store (Ford, 1988). This research sought knowledge related to a few similar statements and questions: Do we face the same outcome every time we select I accept or download a new app on our computers or smart phone? Through “Unconscious Permission”, do we sell our privacy to the company store? The underlying and overarching research question and premise attendant in this study is related to the constructs of the 21st century communication organism – The New Transformative Media Eco-system. The thesis is: What are the short, intermediate and long term ramifications associated with “Unconscious Permission”? What is the relationship between “Utility vs. Price” of this “surrendered privacy”?
Every moment of every day, significant numbers of applications are installed/upgraded on a myriad of digital mobility devices, computers, etc. while unconsciously accepting Terms of Service (ToS). Facebook currently has approximately 1.28 billion monthly active users. Therefore, it is reasonable to hypothesize that most users blindly agree to these ToS without fully reading and/or understanding the fine print/ramifications (Shrecker, 2014). Expanding the lens beyond Facebook, it would take every cyber user approximately 25 full days to fully read all the ToS for every website visited; nationalized this would equate to 53.8 Billion hours of ToS review (Madrigal, 2012). Regardless of the modality (Modalities, 2016) or device utilized, "I Accept" is considered the starting point for any such ToS review/agreement. Contrary to this statement, it should be argued that "Before the Click" is the actual onset of the ToS review (Bayley, 2009). Any web surfing which results in a sign-up option, creates a “digital identity crumb©” trail (Ponschock, 2007). Hence, with the creation of the “digital identity crumb©” trail, any/all competitive web services become the hunter. As an example, a search on a site such as Ford for a new car will result in numerous car companies having visibility into that query, information and knowledge.
As 21st century actors, there are multiple ways of offering individual information and data (in many cases unconsciously). Consider that there is a myriad of access to thousands of assumed free services over mobile devices, with a latent (if at all existent) concern about the use and disposition of the data imparted during the process. As an older adage states: “If you are getting the service for free, you are the product…” (Powazek, 2012). Many of these actions have little or nothing to do with a direct acceptance of a permission based process. Use of credit cards, mobile phones, purchasing a car, etc. are all unilaterally initiated, yet result in the creation of individualistic information in the form of the “digital identity crumb©”. The use of free web-based email service, word-processor, or texting information is easily accessible; as an example, consider that the use of a cloud based service to layout bedroom furniture, and one has shared more than realized (or desired). Therefore, it becomes an unconscious process that has ramifications. All these are data points that create a profile and feed the synthesis domain of the Transformative Media Eco-system. While at the core of this study, the eco-system is evaluated in the context of “Unconscious Permission” as well as “Utility vs. Price of surrendered privacy.”
Figure 1: Conceptual Model
Understanding of the eco-system begins with the fundamental understanding related to the basics of systems theory (von Bertalanffy, 1969). Systems theory remains an interdisciplinary study relative to the nature of complex systems in nature, society, and science; and is a framework by which provides for exploration, investigation and potential understanding related to any group of objects which synergistically produce results. While 21st century society is an aggregation of digital components, the digital landscape is now portrayed via the Transformative Media Eco-System. This eco-system may be best illustrated as four concentric domains comprising the existent social communication environment (see Figure 1). These organic domains are continually interacting; providing a continuous feedback loop to the adjacent domains. The product of the ecosystem has been referred to by some as “Surveillance Capitalism”.
2. “SURVEILLANCE CAPITALISM”
Surveillance Capitalism is a relevant and powerful concept initially related in an article based on a discussion with Shoshana Zuboff is quoted (Carr, 2017):
Privacy values in this context become externalities, like pollution or climate change, “for which surveillance capitalists are not accountable.” In fact, Zuboff believes, “Principles of individual self-determination are impediments to this economic juggernaut; they have to be vanquished. They are friction.” ... Consumer-citizens feel the assault, but for the surveillance capitalists, their creation is like “a living organism now, that has to grow.” (para. 3)
If hypothesized that Surveillance Capitalism is the output of the posited Transformative Media Eco- system, then what are the inputs and costs of production? Research illustrates that the transformative media is a system of interdependency. “As systems become more and more sophisticated the reality of interdependency becomes more and more pronounced” (Gharajedaghi, 2006, p. 15). Further argument could be inferred that Surveillance Capitalism is a prime enabler; the driving feedback for the growth of the eco-system. “In system thinking it is an axiom that every influence is both cause and effect. Nothing is ever influence in just one direction” (Senge, 1990, p. 79). The posited transformative media eco-system follows the complex system theory. The actors/users of the eco-system seek the utilities afforded by the system. Payments for these digital utilities are via typical means and by “Unconscious Permission” through handing over privacy.
Figure 2: Communication Model
The feedback loops occur between domains in the Transformative Media Eco-System (see Figure 2). Actors seek utility; input begets output; output increases utility; and the overall system grows as a living organism.
3. FIRST DOMAIN – COLLECTION: “GRID” MODALITY
When defining inputs to any data collection domain, a fundamental aspect is the “grid modality” – either one is “on the grid” or “off the grid”. This is comparable to thematic analysis in qualitative research approaches as well as the utilization of a specific coding schema (Creswell, 2013). The posited Eco- system is the communication “grid” that society’s actors plug into. Collection of personal information by government or private organizations is not overtly new or unique to the digital age. Prior to this introduction of the Transformative Media Eco-System, various collection points existed (see Figure 3).
Figure 3: Collection Points-20th Century
Consider that collection points could go back significantly in history: i.e. smoke signals, petroglyphs, etc. In the not too distant past, inquiries to the internet were isolated to a computer and attached keyboard. This collection environment has rapidly expanded and continues to morph as the Internet of Things (IoT) exponentially evolves. More, better, faster and unique devices become available on a daily basis. As the digital age evolves, so do the various collection points (see Figure 4).
Figure 4: Collection Points-21st Century
Currently, over two thirds of Americans own a smartphone of some kind (Anderson, 2015). The term smart phone has its fundamental development in the ability of the device to perform an unlimited number of functions in addition to telecommunications. One of the cellphone companies used the catch phrase “there’s an APP for that”. Apps (short for “applications”) are programs that users download to their smartphone or tablet computer (Gross, 2010). Type, tap, and click are being rapidly replaced and/or reinvented.
4. FIRST DOMAIN – COLLECTION: ARE YOU LISTENING?
Voice recognition technology has now matured, and has transformed personal data collection into another layer of potential intrusion. Most major technology providers are rapidly implementing voice as a form of reliable and effective interface. Products like Alexa/Echo, Siri, and Google Voice are becoming immersed as part of the digital landscape replacing clicking or tapping with a more simplistic “just talk” option (Knight, 2012). “In surveillance capitalism, rights are taken from us without our knowledge, understanding, or consent, and used to create products designed to predict our behavior (Carr, 2017). “Facebook said that it does listen to audio and collect information from users – but that the two aren't combined, and that sounds heard around people aren't used to decide what appears in the app” (Griffin, 2016). Even if you don’t have an app on a mobile device, it is highly probable that you are having conversations with people who do (Flaherty, 2017).
A relatively new phenomenon is now emerging: be careful your home digital assistant doesn't rat on you! Voice data is now being used beyond marketing. In Arkansas, police obtained a search warrant for an Amazon Echo belonging to James Bates in the hopes the device would cough up voice evidence to suggest Bates had strangled his friend in a hot tub (Weise, 2016; Higginbotham, 2016). Although Amazon did not release any recorded information, the utility meter, not controlled by a private company, showed the investigators that an abnormal amount of water was used during the time of the murder suggesting that Bates washed traces of blood from the patio (Weise, 2016).
5. SECOND DOMAIN – FUSION: COST OF UTILITY
The unconscious surrendering of privacy has potential and significant ramifications. These ramifications could be positive or negative in nature. Should there be concern? The history of relying on legal frameworks and remedies for rapidly advancing technology is relatively sporadic, therefore consideration for Caveat Emptor appears appropriate. A more holistic grasp and understanding of what is actually occurring may assist in the evaluation of the risk/benefit equation.
A single, non-intrusive inquiry may not appear to surrender much privacy. However, the synthesis of unrelated “surrenders” could be aggregated into a profile of an overall identity of digital and physical being. Users and industry analysts indicate that the addition of purchasing and behavioral data to conventional data fusion outmatches rival systems in terms of capabilities, and creepiness (Duhigg, 2012)). Furthermore, information that is ascended into the cloud begins to create a more carefully constructed picture of the digital entity: “The cloud never forgets, and imperfect pictures of you composed from your data profile are carefully filled in over time,” stated Roger Kay, president of Endpoint Technologies Associates, a consulting firm. “We’re like bugs in amber, completely trapped in the web of our own data.”… IDI, a year-old company in the so-called data-fusion business, is the first to centralize and weaponize all that information for its customers. The Boca Raton, Fla., company’s database service, idiCORE, combines public records with purchasing, demographic, and behavioral data. Chief Executive Officer Derek Dubner says the system isn’t waiting for requests from clients—it’s already built a profile on every American adult, including young people who wouldn’t be swept up in conventional databases, which only index transactions. “We have data on that 21-year-old who’s living at home with mom and dad“ (Herbert, 2016).
Data fusion is at the core of the next revolution in the Transformative Media Eco-System - predictive analytics and artificial intelligence (AI). Big-data remains a key component as well, but AI is the key. IBM’s Watson winning on Jeopardy may have seemed like a PR stunt, but the core machine-learning techniques used to program Watson are at the heart of the new AI. The volume of data, the velocity of data, and the variety of data requires extremely advanced data parsing techniques to effectively construct correct outcomes. The AI factor is at work today in Google searches and your Amazon purchases.
Consider an example: One household had a middle-aged couple who kept receiving offers for maternity products. They received so much mail that the man of the household took the offers to his local Target store to complain and point out they were clearly the wrong “target”. Neither he nor his wife were pregnant or were planning to become pregnant. But while this seemed to be an egregious mistake in marketing, something else was going on. Their teenage daughter was pregnant but hadn’t told her parents!
For consumers, there may be advantages. Assisting individuals with massive amounts of information available to find specific information relevant to themselves is part of this initiative; albeit, marketers must exercise caution so as not to over-target and miss serendipity at work. Additionally, as the Target case clearly depicts, there is a need for caution related to displaying how much they know since that can, would and does alienate prospects and customers. Although AI will increase in its predictive power, the individual consumer may still be very opaque in their behavior. People do strange things - and often do things completely at odds with their obvious self-interest. So, do you want to go ahead and press that accept button… (Vaas, 2016).
There are three main uses and abuses that online activity can surface.
5.1 SECURITY, LAW ENFORCEMENT & EMPLOYMENT
The issue of national security permeates the global discussion; a global narrative and debate that will continue to be addressed in legal approaches in an ongoing basis. While the unknown aspects of the daya analysis, use and interpretations are considered the most effective current approach, the question remains, is it an effective tool, approach, and/or process? Successful uses are rarely publicly shared as it would give way to revealing the underlying techniques. Before police departments began to subpoena voice data, they were using cell phone location data to track suspects. And they have engaged frequently in astro-turfing suspects in borderline entrapment schemes.
There’s a commercial aspect to this as well. Background checks are pervasive in employment for good and bad reasons. Health and financial history could be used to deny a job without even knowing the underlying rationale. Competitive intelligence is always valuable, and all data points may contain relevant information. Therefore, access to this level of personal data has become valuable, and companies are capitalizing on it. IDI, like much of the data-fusion industry, traces its lineage to Hank Asher, a former cocaine smuggler and self-taught programmer who began fusing sets of public data from state and federal governments in the early 1990s. After Sept. 11, 2001, law enforcement’s interest in commercial databases grew, and more money and data began raining down, says Julia Angwin, a reporter who wrote about the industry in her 2014 book, Dragnet Nation (Herbert, 2016).
5.2 I AM YOU AS YOU ARE ME….
Consistent with theme of data- fusion is the omnipresent “hacking” for identity theft (and other uses of collected “digital identity crumbs©”. Security breaches are continually occurring and ever-present in the news. Many of these hacks cause chaos for individuals as their identities are used for fraudulent purposes. Should companies that have your data be more vigilant? Of course; but they are continually analyzing cost/benefit equations, and required investment may be forestalled. Security and identity theft are two examples that share something in common that are critical to understand in the context of the Transformative Media Eco-System. They want data about you - specifically you. While a security scan may be seeking more prevalent patterns, the underlying intent is ultimately identifying specific individuals. Identity thieves are looking for certain profiles, but then seek your identity specifically.
In an article entitled, Internet Tracking Has Moved Beyond Cookies, Jody Avirgan interviewed Arvind Narayanan, one of the authors of the Princeton study on online tracking. The new tracking technique is referred to as “fingerprinting” — using information about your computer such as battery status or browser window size to identify your presence. During the interview Narayanan stated:
In the ad tech industry, cookies are gradually being shunted in favor of fingerprinting. The reason that fingerprinting is so effective is that even if you have a device that you think is identical to the device of the person sitting next to you, there are going to be a number of differences in the behavior of your browser. The set of fonts installed on your browser could be different. The precise version number of the browser could be different. Your battery status could be different from that of the person next to you, or anybody else in the world. And it turns out that if you put all of these pieces of information together, a unique or nearly unique picture of the behavior of your device emerges that’s going to be relatively stable over time. And that enables your companies to recognize you when you come back. (Avirgan, 2016, para. 5)
5.3 STALKED BY BITS
A very noticeable aspect underlying the various elements discussed herein is the overall impact and potential ramifications of the marketing aspect related to the data itself. Consider as an example the search for a used car online; banner ads are prevalent throughout the search. The repercussions occur with the email in-box as a landing site for direct pitches based on the underlying online behavior. A physical mailbox, mobile phone, smart TV all become promotional platforms to reach specific individuals in way never before imagined; and the level of sophistication continues to expand. While this reality can be annoying (and concerning), it is perhaps not as pernicious as the first two uses - for now. In today’s complex and sophisticated consumer society, data is extremely useful, powerful and manipulative to companies and their attendant marketing teams/initiatives.
Consider that when Gmail is utilized, does Google read it? In a sense, it is inconceivable that they do not in some way or form. They are constantly scanning their users content and behavior. Keywords and brand names are being hunted. One individual may be of specific interest to a marketer if certain parts of the data and behavior connect to larger patterns and themes (consider thematic analysis consistently used in qualitative research) (Creswell, 2008). This is a concept behind “trending” and “viral”, which are nothing but examples of a prior “band-wagon” effect that has been used in marketing for decades. All this data can be sold outright or used to sell advertising and promotion. Both are the core revenue engines for providers such as Google and Facebook.
6. THIRD DOMAIN - BROKERAGE
Data collection and fusion builds a wealth of information that is valuable to marketers, competitors, and foreign nations. Responding to a congressional query, nine data companies provided responses to a detailed set of questions related to the kinds of information collected about individual Americans, and where the data was obtained. Some companies collected and analyze information about users’ “tweets, posts, comments, likes, shares, and recommendations,” according to Epsilon, a consumer data company. Data companies of course, do not stop with the information on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn. Intelius, which offers everything from a reverse phone number look-up to an employee screening service, stated that it also collects information from Blogspot, Wordpress, MySpace, and YouTube (Beckett, 2012). What do a retired librarian in Wisconsin in the early stages of Alzheimer’s, a police officer, and a mother in Texas have in common? The answer is that all were victims of consumer data brokers. Data brokers collect, compile, buy and sell personal, identifiable information about specific individuals; who they are; what they do; as well as much of what is termed “digital exhaust” (Mayer-Schö nberger, & Cukier, 2013).
Individuals are their business models. The police officer was “uncovered” by a data broker who revealed his family information online, jeopardizing his safety. The mother was a victim of domestic violence who was deeply concerned about people finder web sites that published and sold her home address online. The librarian lost her life savings and retirement because a data broker put her on an eager elderly buyer and frequent donor list. She was deluged with predatory offers (Dixon, 2013). “Posting to Facebook should not also mean putting personal information into the hands of data reapers seeking to profit from details of consumers’ personal lives,” Massachusetts Rep. Edward J. Markey told ProPublica in an e- mailed statement. The social media population want to share with friends, customers without enabling the sale of their personal information to data brokers (Snopes, 2016).
7. FOURTH DOMAIN – SURVEILLANCE CAPITALISM AND SOCIETAL IMPACT
You have probably noticed it already. There is a strange logic at the heart of the modern tech industry. The goal of many new tech startups is not to produce products or services for which consumers are willing to pay. Instead, the goal is create a digital platform or hub that will capture information from as many users as possible — to grab as many ‘eyeballs’ as you can. This information can then be analyzed, repackaged and monetized in various ways. The appetite for this information-capture and analysis seems to be insatiable, with ever increasing volumes of information being extracted and analyzed from an ever-expanding array of data-monitoring technologies. (Danaher, 2015, p1).
Shoshana Zuboff posited in a research article that surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization would evolve an emergent logic of accumulation in the networked sphere termed “surveillance capitalism”; and considered its implications for “information civilization.”. Google is to surveillance capitalism what General Motors was to managerial capitalism. Therefore, the institutionalizing practices and operational assumptions of Google Inc. emerge as a primary lens for this analysis. “Surveillance capitalism is immune to the traditional reciprocities in which populations and capitalist needed one another for employment and consumption. In this new model, populations are targets of data extraction. The social impact under surveillance capitalism is an attack on democracy. Democracy no longer functions as a means to prosperity. Surveillance revenues are threatened by democracy” (Zuboff, 2015).
8. CONCLUSION? FOLLOW-ON RESEARCH
“Surveillance Capitalism is a striking turn of phrase. It captures in two words the centralized and systematic monitoring of your every action (digital and analogue now the two are increasingly difficult to tease apart), the algorithmic translation of your past behavior into predictions of your future behavior, and the buying and selling of this ‘consumer insight” (Zuboff, 2015). Marketers desire and yearn for expanded, trendier and holistic target data. When a cookie (not the kind that’s eaten!) for a specific product, the “digital bread crumb©” trail emerges; it becomes personal in nature for a specific individual. Consider that the accumulation, processing and thematic analyses related to these various “digital bread crumbs©” only aids and abets the goals and objectives for the marketers - and to a limited extent the individual (relevant targeting). “Every move you make. Every click you take. Every game you play. Every place you stay. They’ll be watching you.” (Herbert, 2016 p. 1) This progression evolves and is consumed under the aspects of big-data and the undeniable specificity of predictability. Voluminous discussion, debate and emerging research remains omnipresent on whether big-data leads to predictability, or, simply past/current trends, patterns and landscapes. AI may (or already does) emerge as the big differentiator, technically.
The existent and potential ramifications of the various researched elements herein, certainly provide more questions than answers (but that is what constitutes good research-explore, explain, understand). The underlying proposed Transformative Media Eco-System establishes a model upon which further research can delve into the complexities associated with each element introduced, providing validation or refutation of the underlying theoretical premise(s). More importantly, there does not currently exist a reasonable framework for establishing a “price” for the “utility” obtained. Consider the iceberg; it appears that this meta-analytical approach, as part of a follow-on to a substantiated longitudinal study (Ponschock & Becker, 2016), has fully described, defined and caused proactive rationale for taking the deeper dive as to the underlying depth and breadth of this iceberg: The Transformative Media Eco-System and the societal elements have been related, and focus on the attendant issues. Big brother security state issues and violations of constitutional rights appear relevant. But, voluntary permissions as exchange for free services is a crucial element as well. Behavioral economics provides a more scientific and quantitatively defined relationship based on the macro-economic modelling failures since 2008. Therefore, an (or does) Big-Data better model economic outcomes? Further exploration is warranted.
REFERENCES
Anderson, M., (2015) Technology device ownership: 2015. Retrieved February 10, 2017 from: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/29/technology-device-ownership-2015/ Avirgan, J. (2016). Internet tracking has moved beyond cookies. Retrieved from: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/internet-tracking-has-moved-beyond-cookies/ Bayley, E., (2009). The clicks that bind: Ways users "Agree" to online terms of service. Retrieved 2/10/2017 from https://www.eff.org/wp/clicks-bind-ways-users-agree-online-terms-service Beckett. L. (2012). Yes, companies are harvesting – and selling – your Facebook profile. Retrieved from: https://www.propublica.org/article/yes-companies-are-harvesting-and-selling-your-social-media- profiles Carr, N. (2017). From Fordism to Googlism. Retrieved January 1, 2017 from http://www.roughtype.com/?p=7539 Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications. Danaher, J. (2015). The logic of surveillance capitalism. Retrieved February 10, 2017 from: Dixon, P. (2013). Congressional testimony: What information do data brokers have on consumers? Retrieved from: https://www.worldprivacyforum.org/2013/12/testimony-what-information-do-data- brokers-have-on-consumers/ Duhigg, C. (2012) How Companies Learn Your Secrets. New York Times. Retrieved February 16, 2016 from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html Flaherty, K. (2017). How is the Facebook App so diabolical? Retrieved January 2, 2017 from http://www.cryptogon.com/?p=50149 Gharajedaghi, J. (2006). Systems thinking: Managing chaos and complexity (2nd ed.).Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heineman. Goodman, M. (2015). Future crimes: Everything is connected, everyone is vulnerable and what we can do about it. NY: Anchor Books Griffin, A. (2016). Facebook is using smartphones to listen to what people say, professor suggests. Retrieved from: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-using- people-s-phones-to-listen-in-on-what-they-re-saying-claims-professor-a7057526.html Gross, D. (2010). Apple trademarks 'There's an app for that'. Retrieved February 10, 2017 from: http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/mobile/10/12/app.for.that/ Herbert, D. G., (2016). This company has built a profile on every American adult. Retrieved from: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-05/this-company-has-built-a-profile-on-every- american-adult Higginbotham, S. (2016). How Is the Facebook Android app so diabolical? Retrieved from: http://fortune.com/2016/12/27/amazon-echo-murder/ Knight, W. (2012). Where speech recognition Is going. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 2/10/2017 from https://www.technologyreview.com/s/427793/where-speech-recognition-is-going/ Mayer-Schö nberger, V. & Cukier, K. (2013). Big data: A revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Modalities. (2016). What's new, new media? retrieved 2/10/2017 from http://newmedia.wikia.com/wiki/Modalities Ponschock, R. L. (2007), Computer technology, digital transactions, and legal discovery: A phenomenological study of possible paradoxes (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University, 2007) (UMI No. 3246872). Ponschock, R.L. & Becker, G.F. (2016). DIGIPERSON: A socio-technological odyssey. Createspace. ISBN: 978-1519493507 Powazek, D. (2012). I’m not the product, but I play one on the Internet. Retrieved February 10, 2017 from http://powazek.com/posts/3229 Senge, Peter M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency Shaw, J. (2017). The Watchers, Harvard Magazine. Retrieved January-February 2017 from http://harvardmagazine.com/2017/01/the-watchers Snopes (2016). Facebook privacy notice. Retrieved 20/10/2017 from http://www.snopes.com/computer/facebook/privacy.asp Vaas, L. 2016 https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2016/07/15/users-sign-away-their-firstborns-on-fake- social-network/ Weise, E. (2016). Police ask Alexa: Who dunnit? USA Today. Retrieved from: http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/12/27/amazon-alexa-echo-murder-case- bentonville-hot-tub-james-andrew-bates/95879532/ Zuboff, S. (2015). "Big other: surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization." Journal of Information Technology, 30(1). 75–89.
AUTHOR PROFILES
Dr. Gerard F. Becker (Ph.D., Capella University) is a noted leadership consultant, author, and professor at Nyack College, as well as a Visiting Professor at several universities. He has been recognized as a Faculty of the Year, Online Instructor of the Year, and a Best Paper Award recipient for research. Dr. Becker is considered a futurist as an enabler of innovation; mentoring and evolving emerging senior leaders in various organizations; as well as leading major change initiatives in the higher education, financial services, manufacturing and merchandising industries. He actively performs research, teaches and actively assists various organizations and leaders through his leadership consulting practice - Orgtran, Inc.
Dr. Richard L. Ponschock (Ph.D., Capella University) is noted author, university professor, and industry practitioner. He held several senior management positions, most recently as the General Manager of a hazard material warehouse for a 3rd Party Logistics Company. Dr. Ponschock is a futurist for information archaeology and teaches strategy as well as operations management at Northern Arizona University and Nyack College’s MBA program. His notable contributions have focused on the alignment of technology to achieve strategic organizational initiatives and sustainable growth. Dr. Ponschock has published research on technology architecture, applied technology, and the future impact of virtualization and social networks on future generations; and been recognized as a Best Paper Award recipient for research. He also serves on the Arizona Western College Foundation Board.
Anthony Wilson (MBA; Adelphi University) is a respected marketing professional with experience spanning technical, corporate, and marketing communication initiatives. Mr. Wilson’s expertise is in integrated message development and brand positioning for use across promotional disciplines; including public relations, events, advertising, social media, and print promotion. Mr. Wilson directed communications for the international marketplace while based in the UK for five years. He is a noted visiting professor of marketing at several universities, and is an active consultant/contributor with Communication Strategy Group (gocsg.com), a leading brand development agency that created Brandtelling.