"The information we put online is only a fraction of what they know about us"

The best way to explain Big Data would be to say that it's machine-readable data, meaning that it's not only the data we knowingly make available online, but also data from platforms and websites that record what we do on the internet. It comprises millions and trillions of individual pieces of data, to which machines apply a range of mathematical techniques on the basis of a series of given patterns. Exactly. The information we put online is part of Big Data too, but it's only a fraction of what they know about us. Our movements on the internet generate a huge quantity of data. Everything we do is measured by software, and that's what's referred to as Behaviour Data. We tend to think of our behaviour as the activities we carry out, such as going swimming or shopping, but our online behaviour consists, for example, of all our clicks on different websites, the pages we visit, etc. That's the sort of online data that readily becomes Big Data. There are many American companies, such as Facebook and Google, which have lots of users in Europe but, should you have a complaint about their privacy policy, are governed by US law. They only adapt to European law when forced to do so by the courts. In that sense, a lot of things that aren't really legal are happening, but there's very little money allocated to investigating them. Taking those major companies to court, as the European Commission sometimes does, entails trials that usually require years of work, as the issues involved are highly complex. Additionally, a great deal needs to be done in relation to how consent is obtained from users when they visit such websites. Exactly. The kind of companies we're talking about have lawyers who sit down, probably with communications officers, and work on producing a text on their privacy policy which nobody will read. No, because people have known about that for some time. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been studying data programmes of the kind in question since 9/11, as its website shows. It's interesting to see that Americans are angry because their government has been spying on its own citizens. The idea that they can spy on anyone except their own people has been widespread in the USA for years. I don't think so. What's new about Big Data is that it generates models that are used to predict our behaviour. That means we can be manipulated though, which is a huge problem. It's very important that people realize that and start to get involved in the whole system. Data monetization is a way of creating transparency, but I'm not convinced it's the right way. I think we need to develop something that doesn't exist yet, a system with an appealing design which lets each individual know where our data is, which companies have it and what they do with it. We have to give the industry an incentive to do it, a way of making it possible for companies that do it to criticize those that don't. We need legislation and provisions to that end. Transparency has to come from companies and governments, but we mustn't depend on them, because checking the accuracy of the information they supply would be very difficult. It should be someone with a good reputation and platforms via which people can participate. It's vital that the system be appealing, like a game. People need to be given some kind of incentive, appealing applications conducive to citizens generating transparency. Yes, that's exactly the case, and that's what makes Big Data and governments such a dangerous combination. It's a major risk, and that's why all that data needs to be placed at the disposal of civil society organizations. I often say that it's like a village, where people tend to know things about you that you yourself don't. Kevin Warwich, professor of Cybernetics at the University of Reading, once told me that what I'm worried about is a way of life in villages. I replied that that's why so many people move away from villages and go to live in big cities, to be anonymous. I don't want to live in a kind of large village in cyberspace, where all the important people know so much about me. We want a transparent government that won't manipulate us. If there has to be a Big Brother though, I think it's best that it be the government, because companies are only interested in us as customers and consumers. Plenty of people say there's nothing to worry about as Facebook might not exist any more in six years' time. The government certainly will though, and it'll have all that data. When people talk to me about governors' good intentions, I feel as if we've gone back to the 18^th century and enlightened despotism, when governments were full of good intentions towards the population. This data, all that knowledge about citizens, can't depend on governmental good intentions though, because we might suddenly find ourselves with another government with very different intentions. That's why we need to be able to monitor our governors.