For some years now, we've been predicting a tipping point in consumer awareness that would motivate brands to adopt responsible data practices. 

We have long understood that consumers deeply value their privacy. However, there was a nagging question about their seeming apathy toward the current state of data privacy—a feeling helplessness over how their data is used and even abused.

As we delved deeper, we realized that this apathy didn't mean a lack of concern; rather, it reflected the overwhelming burden placed on consumers to manage and protect their own data and hold brands accountable for data practices. 

Consider the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), a landmark in data privacy and the dawn of a new era where consumer rights are respected, and businesses are committed to transparency. Five years on, it's clear that one of its central tenets—opt-in consent—does not equate to “informed” consent for consumers. How many people are willing to sift through pages of data agreements before consenting to how their data is manipulated? This approach is simply not right for most people. 

Some argue that interest in data privacy varies by population segment—a tech-savvy, ad-blocking user might care, but not online shoppers or avid users of social media apps. Or that Gen-Zers and millennials care more than boomers.  There is some truth to those statements, but not with the framing.

Everyone cares about data privacy—but care more or less depends on the type of data in question. Consumers might not mind sharing location data if they believe the value exchange is worth it, while others may recoil at how behavioral data is used to generate hyper-personalized ads.

Each consumer’s threshold is unique. Are you comfortable with your location data, behavioral patterns and purchasing behaviors being accessed? How about the way you drive, where you go and how you brake and accelerate? 

Is car data the tipping point?

The New York Times recently highlighted how some car manufacturers are collecting and sharing driving data, including details of every trip, speed, acceleration and braking information. This data is sold to data brokers and has been used by auto insurers to, among other things, increase policy premiums. The crux of the issue is the lack of transparency about data-sharing practices. Drivers were in the dark about driving behavior being monitored. Some manufacturers such as General Motors which was called out in the article, had not sufficiently informed drivers about how their data was being used.

Within weeks of the Times article, GM stopped sharing data with the two data brokers involved in creating insurance risk profiles. The rapidity with which GM addressed its data-sharing practices was noteworthy—practically instantaneous.

Consumers are growing increasingly aware of how their data is used and surprised at the pervasiveness. And it’s not just auto data.

Take the backlash against Amazon subsidiary, Ring, and its smart doorbells. The discovery that Ring was sharing user video footage with police without explicit user consent was tinder for increased transparency and user control over their data. Ring responded by changing its policies on data sharing with law enforcement.

Regulatory enforcement continues to highlight egregious cases and is a catalyst for further awareness of data privacy issues among individuals. The rhetoric among regulators in the U.S. is that advertising is “surveillance capitalism,” and at times it certainly feels like it.

As part of a crackdown on mass data collectors, The Federal Trade Commission last month issued a warning to businesses in the data trade: “Browsing and location data are sensitive. Full stop.” The FTC’s broadened definition of sensitive information is aimed at curbing the widespread and intrusive practices taking hold in the martech and ad tech ecosystems.

The new standard

In the digital age, we've somewhat resigned ourselves to the idea that our data is collected and shared as part of how the internet works. We trade bits of our data for the benefits of custom experiences, attractive discounts and personalized content. But at a certain point, we need to draw a line. Maybe it’s automotive data, maybe it’s health or other personal data. Will revelations about surveillance, such as those reported in the New York Times regarding automotive data, spark a collective realization that we've reached our limit?

The question on everyone's mind should be: Is nothing sacred anymore? In a world where individuals have varying thresholds for when they care about data privacy, there is only one option: choice. Data dignity demands that brands provide people with transparency on their data practices, and choice and control over how that data is used. 

In the words of Steve Jobs in 2010, “Privacy means people know what they're signing up for, in plain English and repeatedly. People are smart and some people want to share more data than other people do. Ask them. Ask them every time. Make them tell you to stop asking them if they get tired of your asking them. Let them know precisely what you're going to do with their data.”