Thursday, May 30, 2013

Todd Park: A Data-Powered Revolution in Health Care

A Data-Powered Revolution in Health Care


Todd Park

May 28, 2013
12:40 PM EDT

Share This Post

Thomas Friedman’s New York Times column, Obamacare’s Other Surprise, highlights a rising tide of innovation that has been unleashed by the Affordable Care Act and the Administration’s health IT and data initiatives. Supported by digital data, new data-driven tools, and payment policies that reward improving the quality and value of care, doctors, hospitals, patients, and entrepreneurs across the nation are demonstrating that smarter, better, more accessible, and more proactive care is the best way to improve quality and control health care costs.   

We are witnessing the emergence of a data-powered revolution in health care. Catalyzed by the Recovery Act, adoption of electronic health records is increasing dramatically. More than half of all doctors and other eligible providers and nearly 80 percent of hospitals are using electronic health records to improve care, an increase of more than 200 percent since 2008. In addition, the Administration’s Health Data Initiative is making a growing supply of key government data on everything from hospital charges and quality to regional health care system performance statistics freely available in computer-readable, downloadable form, as fuel for innovation, entrepreneurship, and discovery.

As Friedman describes, these trends, combined with efforts under the Affordable Care Act to change how we pay health care providers to better reward improving the quality and value of care, are creating a “new marketplace and platform for innovation.” Entrepreneurs and innovators across the country are developing and deploying new data-powered IT tools to help clinicians succeed at delivering better care at lower cost.

These tools are giving clinicians the ability to measure how they are doing, compare how they are doing relative to others, and set and meet goals. They are enabling clinicians to analyze their patient population, understand who needs help (including and especially patients who haven’t been able to come into their office), and proactively reach out and give those patients the care they need. They are helping clinicians and patients get the latest and greatest evidence-based, life-saving best practices at their fingertips. And much more.

Many of the entrepreneurs and innovators who are driving this revolution will be joining us and leaders from across the health care system next week at the fourth annual Health Datapalooza, a national celebration of data-powered innovation in health care.

We are beginning to see what happens when you unleash the power of American innovators and data to transform health care for the better from the ground up.  It’s no surprise to the doctors, hospitals, patients and entrepreneurs who have been working so hard to improve health care. But it is, indeed, great news for the nation.


Read more:

 

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Technology executives could be the next public enemies

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b4d11650-c45b-11e2-bc94-00144feab7de.html#ixzz2Ub2SWALy

Technology executives could be the next public enemies

About a year ago I was in San Francisco’s Pacific Heights, gazing down at the Golden Gate Bridge from one of Larry Ellison’s many spectacular homes. The Oracle chief executive wasn’t there – he had lent the house out for a reception. In any case, he would be the last person to apologise for enjoying the fruits of his success. But the view from technology executives’ balconies is getting stormier. After banks and bankers, could they be next to feel the sting of a populist backlash?

It sounds unlikely. For the tablet-toting, smartphone-stroking, Amazon-and-Googling masses – you and me, in other words – to attack companies that provide the products and services we love would be a case of biting the data feed they hand us.

But consider these rumbles: politicians on both sides of the Atlantic attack Apple, Google and Amazon for their tax arrangements; commentators take Silicon Valley’s wealthy to task for the growing economic inequality in northern California; activists worry about ill-protected privacy, dirt-cheap labour and energy-inefficient server farms; antitrust regulators circle closer.

Like banking, technology is ubiquitous and its benefits often taken for granted. Executives and engineers are highly paid and unafraid to reinvest their wealth in real estate, cars and luxury goods. Forget Wall Street – “after decades in which [the US] has become less and less equal, Silicon Valley is one of the most unequal places in America”, wrote George Packer in a withering recent analysis in The New Yorker. Like big banks, tech companies are protected by a bubble of their own making – literally in the case of Amazon, which is planning a trio of biospheres for its new Seattle headquarters – and their representatives often exude a sense of entitlement and an overconfidence that technology can solve the world’s problems.

Technology companies do have some clear advantages over banks. They start with what Laurence Evans, who oversees Edelman’s annual Global Trust Barometer, calls a brand “halo”. Technology regularly tops the list of the most trusted industries and has done since the survey started 13 years ago. Even before the financial crisis, banks never rose above the middle of the ranking. Users have an intimate involvement with their iPhones and Samsung Galaxys they will never have with their current accounts or mutual funds. Crucially, technology companies do not stand accused of bringing down the global economy.

One Silicon Valley entrepreneur I contacted last week said it was “a stretch” even to imagine a backlash. I’m not so sure. Technology executives could shrug off the first gentle jabs at their superiority, as financiers did in the years before the credit crunch bit in 2007-08. But they would do better to act now.

Instead of doing as the banks did – closing ranks and deploying battalions of lobbyists to crush dissent – their first priority should be to ensure their products continue to serve customers’ needs. The challenge from new competitors and innovations is a big incentive for technology companies, unlike the banking oligopolies, to go on improving. But still, the temptation to take users for granted, or exploit them – say, for their personal information – is high.

So they must also share their wealth and react early to any perception of excess. Some founder-billionaires, having sweated to build a technology business, may justifiably claim they have no obligation to direct their earnings to good causes. (Others, such as Mr Ellison himself, have made pledges to give away much of their wealth to charity.) But the populist wave of anger at banks and bankers was, and is, fuelled in part by envy. It makes sense not to aggravate that.

Technology executives should keep listening, and keep talking. Tim Cook may not have satisfied critics when he was grilled by the US Congress last week about Apple’s tax affairs but he was a model of calm and reasonableness.

Finally, stay clean. The risk is that technology titans’ undoubted success will breed complacency, which begets arrogance, and can lead to actual wrongdoing. Big Tech has huge advantages over High Finance when it comes to defending its reputation. So its leaders should adopt a new slogan, borrowed from Yahoo chief executive Marissa Mayer’s declaration to fans of Tumblr, the blogging platform her company has just bought: “We promise not to screw it up.”

 

Saturday, May 25, 2013

Tom Friedman on Health Information: Obamacare’s Other Surprise

May 25, 2013

Obamacare's Other Surprise

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/opinion/sunday/friedman-obamacares-other-surprise.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print#h[]

LISTENING to the debate about President Obama's health care plan, some critics argue that Obamacare is going to need Obamacare — because it's going to be a "train wreck." Obama officials insist they're wrong. We'll just have to wait and see whether the Affordable Care Act, as the health care law is officially known, surprises us on the downside. But there is one area where the law already appears to be surprising on the upside. And that is the number of health care information start-ups it's spurring. This is a big deal.

The combination of Obamacare regulations, incentives in the recovery act for doctors and hospitals to shift to electronic records and the releasing of mountains of data held by the Department of Health and Human Services is creating a new marketplace and platform for innovation — a health care Silicon Valley — that has the potential to create better outcomes at lower costs by changing how health data are stored, shared and mined. It's a new industry.

Obamacare is based on the notion that a main reason we pay so much more than any other industrial nation for health care, without better results, is because the incentive structure in our system is wrong. Doctors and hospitals are paid primarily for procedures and tests, not health outcomes. The goal of the health care law is to flip this fee-for-services system (which some insurance companies are emulating) to one where the government pays doctors and hospitals to keep Medicare patients healthy and the services they do render are reimbursed more for their value than volume.

To do this, though, doctors and hospitals need instant access to data about patients — diagnoses, medications, test results, procedures and potential gaps in care that need to be addressed. As long as this information was stuffed into manila folders in doctors' offices and hospitals, and not turned into electronic records, it was difficult to execute these kinds of analyses. That is changing. According to the Obama administration, thanks to incentives in the recovery act there has been nearly a tripling since 2008 of electronic records installed by office-based physicians, and a quadrupling by hospitals.

The Health and Human Services Department connected me with some start-ups and doctors who've benefited from all this, including Dr. Jen Brull, a family medicine specialist in Plainville, Kan., who said that she was certain she had been alerting her relevant patients to have colorectal cancer screening — until she looked at the data in her new electronic health care system and discovered that only 43 percent of those who should be getting the screening had done so. She improved it to 90 percent by installing alerts in her electronic health records, and this led to the early detection of cancer in three patients — and early surgery that saved these patients' lives and also substantial health care expense.

Todd Park, the White House's chief technology officer, said many new apps being developed have been further fueled by the decision by Health and Human Services to make available massive amounts data that it had gathered over the years but had largely not been accessible in computer readable forms that could be used to improve health care. 

It started in March 2010 when Health and Human Services met with "45 rather skeptical entrepreneurs," said Park, "and rather meekly put an initial pile of H.H.S. data in front of them — aggregate data on hospital quality, nursing home patient satisfaction and regional health care system performance. We asked the entrepreneurs what, if anything, they might be able to do with this data, if we made it supereasy to find, download and use." They were told that in 90 days the department would hold a "Health Datapalooza," — a public event to showcase innovators who harnessed the power of this data to improve health and care.

Ninety days later, entrepreneurs showed up and demonstrated more than 20 new or upgraded apps they had built that leveraged open data to do everything from helping patients find the best health care providers to enabling health care leaders to better understand patterns of health care system performance across communities, said Park. In 2012, another "Health Datapalooza" was held, and this time, he added, "1,600 entrepreneurs and innovators packed into rooms at the Washington Convention Center, hearing presentations from about 100 companies who were selected from a field of over 230 companies who had applied to present." Most had been started in the last 24 months.

Among the start-ups I met with are Eviti, which uses technology to help cancer patients get the right combination of drugs or radiation from Day 1, which can lower costs and improve outcomes; Teladoc, which takes unused slices of doctors' time and makes use of it by connecting them with remote patients, reducing visits to emergency wards; Humedica, which helps health care providers analyze their electronic patient records, tracking what was done to a patient, and did they actually get better; and Lumeris, which does health care analytics that uses real-time data about every aspect of a patient's care, to improve medical decision-making, collaboration and cost-saving.

Obamacare will be a success only if it can deliver improved health care for more people at affordable prices. That remains to be seen. But at least it is already spurring the innovation necessary to make that happen.

 

If My Data Is an Open Book, Why Can't I Read It?

May 25, 2013

If My Data Is an Open Book, Why Can’t I Read It?

By NATASHA SINGER
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/technology/for-consumers-an-open-data-society-is-a-misnomer.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&&pagewanted=print

OUR mobile carriers know our locations: where our phones travel during working hours and leisure time, where they reside overnight when we sleep. Verizon Wireless even sells demographic profiles of customer groups — including ZIP codes for where they “live, work, shop and more” — to marketers. But when I called my wireless providers, Verizon and T-Mobile, last week in search of data on my comings and goings, call-center agents told me that their companies didn’t share customers’ own location logs with them without a subpoena.

Consolidated Edison monitors my household’s energy consumption and provides a chart of monthly utility use. But when I sought more granular information, so I could learn which of my recharging devices gobbles up the most electricity, I found that Con Ed doesn’t automatically provide customers with data about hourly or even daily use. Robert McGee, a spokesman for Con Ed, suggested that I might go down to the basement once an hour and check the meter myself.

Then there is my health club, which keeps track of my visits through swipes of my membership card. Yet when I recently asked for an online log of those visits, I was offered a one-time printout for the year — if I were willing to wait a half-hour.

Never mind all the hoopla about the presumed benefits of an “open data” society. In our day-to-day lives, many of us are being kept in the data dark.

“The fact that I am producing data and companies are collecting it to monetize it, if I can’t get a copy myself, I do consider it unfair,” says Latanya Sweeney, the director of the Data Privacy Lab at Harvard, where she is a professor of government and technology.

Of course, she notes, we can replicate the information that companies collect and collate about us with third-party apps or other workarounds, but we shouldn’t have to resort to redundancy. Professor Sweeney says: “We would like to see people have access to all of the data that they produce.”

In fact, a few companies are challenging the norm of corporate data hoarding by actually sharing some information with the customers who generate it — and offering tools to put it to use. It’s a small but provocative trend in the United States, where only a handful of industries, like health care and credit, are required by federal law to provide people with access to their records.

Last year, San Diego Gas and Electric, a utility, introduced an online energy management program in which customers can view their electricity use in monthly, daily or hourly increments. There is even a practical benefit: customers can earn credits by reducing energy consumption during peak hours.

About one-quarter of the company’s 1.2 million residential customers have tried the program, says Caroline Winn, the company’s vice president for customer services. Newer features, she says, allow customers to download their own use files. Or they can choose to give permission for the utility to share their records directly with a handful of apps that can analyze the data and suggest ways to reduce energy consumption.

“The customer owns their data,” Ms. Winn says. “Whether they want to use our app or somebody else’s, we want to make sure we are facilitating that.”

(Con Ed in New York also offers customers reduced pricing if they use electricity during off-peak hours. But the program requires the installation of a special meter.)

People might feel more comfortable about being subject to data-mining if companies did a better job of demonstrating a direct benefit to them, argues Jules Polonetsky, director of the Future of Privacy Forum, an industry financed research organization in Washington. One model for this, he says, is the product recommendation engine at Amazon, which lets customers view their purchase histories and excise one-off items they bought for friends that might not represent their own personal tastes.

“They are providing transparency as a feature,” Mr. Polonetsky says. “I can tweak their algorithm in a way that is mutually useful.” (Amazon is one of the sponsors of his organization.)

Even so, companies rarely offer customers more than a cropped snapshot of their activities.

Right now, for example, fitness enthusiasts who use blood pressure monitors, calorie calculators and movement sensors typically can’t collate the data for a unified view of their wellness, Doc Searls, a technology writer who has experienced this kind of problem himself, told me. If people could easily integrate their data, he wrote in a recent blog post, they might be able to correlate weight loss to a particular workout routine or diet. Those companies that do allow customers to export their files and integrate their data elsewhere, he says, have a market advantage over companies that are data misers.

“Stock data, bank data, and bond data are all more valuable when they are looked at together,” says Mr. Searls, the author of “The Intention Economy: When Customers Take Charge.” “If I have a choice between apps and one of them shares the data that I can use more easily, I am going to choose that one.”

INTEL, for instance, recently introduced a “data economy” project, intended to encourage companies to think of consumers as participants in the information economy, and not just as data-harvesting opportunities. The venture includes a site called WeTheData.com, which looks at current obstacles to information sharing.

Ken Anderson, a senior research scientist at Intel Labs who oversees the project, compares corporate data-hoarding today to a faulty mind-set of the fast-food industry in the early 1980s. Back then, he says, fast-food chains thought that they should open outlets only at a good distance from their competitors. But when food courts in malls became popular, he says, those restaurant chains realized that they benefited from shared retail space.

“If you put it all in one place, you get more business,” says Mr. Anderson, a cultural anthropologist who studies how people interact with technology.

The same goes for consumer data. He envisions an online answer to food courts — an information smorgasbord where consumers could browse their own records. “We are trying to show companies the value of opening data up” he says, “and having them be more communal in nature.”

 

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Profiling Is Great ... Except When You Do It to Me

Profiling Is Great ... Except When You Do It to Me

Will the IRS's scrutiny of Tea Party groups convince conservatives that all kinds of profiling are wrong?

Pretend you work at the Internal Revenue Service. Actually, let’s make this exercise even more terrible. Pretend you’re an underpaid, low-level clerk working in the understaffed IRS backwater of Cincinnati. Every day, a big stack of files lands on your desk. Every day, the stack gets a little bigger than the last. Each file represents a new application for a certain tax status—501(c)(4), a tax-exempt designation meant for “social welfare” organizations. Nonprofits with this status aren’t required to disclose the identity of their donors and they’re allowed to lobby legislative officials. The catch is that they must limit their political campaign activity. According to IRS rules, 501(c)(4) groups can participate in elections, but electioneering must not be their “primary” mission.

Got all that? Good—now let’s get to work. It’s your job to decide which 501(c)(4) applications represent legitimate social-welfare organizations, and which ones are from groups trying to hide their campaign activities. What’s more, you’ve got to sort the good from the bad very quickly, as you’re being inundated with applications. In 2010, your office received 1,735 applications for 501(c)(4) status. In 2011, the number jumped 30 percent, to 2,265, and in 2012 there was another 50 percent spike, this time to 3,357 applications.

So what do you do? You look for a shortcut. Someone at your office notices that a lot of the applications for 501(c)(4) status are from groups that claim to be part of the burgeoning Tea Party movement. Aha! When you’re looking for signs of political activity, wouldn’t it make sense to search for criteria related to the largest new political movement of our times? So that’s what you do: Without consulting senior managers, you and your colleagues set up a spreadsheet called “Be on the Lookout,” or BOLO, which spells out specific criteria for flagging potentially politically active groups. The spreadsheet lists keywords like “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “9/12 Project.” It also flags groups whose primary concerns are government spending, debt, and taxes, that criticize how the country is being run, or that advocate policies that seek to “make America a better place to live.”

Advertisement

We’ll get to whether this was right or wrong in a bit. For now, let’s note that there’s a name for the kind of shortcut that the IRS’s Cincinnati office used to pick out applications for greater scrutiny: “profiling.” By using superficial characteristics—groups’ names or mission statements—to determine whether they should be subject to deeper investigation, the IRS was acting like the TSA agent who pulls aside the guy in the turban, or the FBI agents that target mosques when investigating terrorism, or New York City cops who stop and frisk young black males in an effort to prevent crime.

All these efforts rely on the same intellectual justification—looking at surface characteristics makes sense because they’re a potential signal of deeper activity, whether it’s terrorism or crime or electioneering. As a right-wing blogger might say, “Not all Muslims are terrorists—but most terrorists are Muslims.” If you believe that, doesn’t it make sense to focus on Muslims when you’re fighting terrorism? Take it away, Michelle Malkin: “Where else are federal agents supposed to turn for help in uncovering terrorist plots by Islamic fanatics: Buddhist temples? Knights of Columbus meetings? Amish neighborhoods?”

That’s exactly what the IRS was doing with Tea Party groups. Not all Tea Party groups applying for 501(c)(4) status were engaged in campaign politics. But out of all the many groups that applied for such status, wouldn’t any reasonable person guess that a group called “Tea Party Patriots” is more likely to be engaged in campaign activity than, say, a group focused on rescuing abandoned puppies?

The deep irony of the IRS scandal is that people on the political right are being subjected to exactly the kind of profiling that they’ve long advocated in fighting terrorism and crime—and they don’t seem to appreciate it. I’m on their side: This case perfectly illustrates why profiling is wrong—why it’s inefficient, ineffective, and morally dubious. The IRS scandal should thus be a lesson to anyone who’s called for any kind of profiling, whether it’s racial, religious, or political. If you believe it was wrong for the government to single out certain groups just because of their names, then you’re really arguing that government officials should look for deeper characteristics when deciding whom to investigate. If you don’t like what happened at the IRS, then, you’re arguing that profiling is bad policy.

The inspector general’s report on the IRS’s targeting of Tea Party groups offers a couple of primary reasons why we should object to profiling. One, it’s unfair—and government officials, the report argues, should make an effort to treat everyone fairly. Profiling Tea Party groups violated this basic tenet: Going after certain groups because of their names “gives the appearance that the IRS is not impartial in conducting its mission,” the report says. Instead, the inspector general argues that the IRS should have looked deeper—not at superficial characteristics like their names, but at “the activities of the organizations and whether they fulfill the requirements of the law.”

This is the moral case against profiling: You should look at the substance rather than the surface—look at what a person does, not what he looks like. And it’s one that conservative pundits find pretty hilarious. Why should we expect the government to apply its resources “fairly” if the world isn’t fair? “It is terribly unfair we can't find an international terrorist organization that ‘looks like America,’ as they used to say in the Clinton administration,” says Jonah Goldberg. “But the sad truth is the people responsible all happen to be Middle Easterners.” He adds: “You have to be a fool to willingly fish where there are no fish just because you want to be fair to everyone.”

A cynic could make the same argument about the Tea Party. Of the 298 applications for tax-exempt status that were pulled aside for closer review by the IRS, about a third were related to Tea Party groups. More than 200 were unrelated to the Tea Party, which the IRS says is proof that the agency was not being “politically biased” in its selection for further review. But the inspector general disputes that—the report notes that all groups with “Tea Party” or related terms in their names were given closer scrutiny. But why shouldn’t that be the case? A “Tea Party” group is, by definition, interested in politics. If you’re fishing for groups that want to influence elections, wouldn’t that be a pretty good pool to fish? Wouldn’t it have been foolish to look at other groups just to be “fair”?

Actually, no. This gets to the inspector general’s second criticism of profiling: It didn’t work. The IG found that of the 298 groups that the IRS selected for further review, 91 showed no sign that they were engaged in “significant political campaign intervention.” Seventeen of those 91 groups were Tea Party organizations, meaning that 19 percent of all false positives were caused by profiling. Thanks to profiling, the IRS was spending a lot of time scrutinizing groups it shouldn’t have been looking at.

But that’s not all. The IG says that as a result of profiling, there was also a high false-negative rate—investigators were quickly approving certain groups even though they were likely to have engaged in political activity, all because they didn’t fit the profile. This is the Richard Reid scenario: Sometimes, a white guy tries to blow up a plane. Sometimes, two Caucasians blow up a sporting event. If you’re only looking for the brown guys, you’re going to miss those cases. Based on a statistical sample of applications it reviewed, the IG says there were a total of 185 cases that should have been flagged for further review but weren’t. That’s because, instead of looking at those cases, investigators were spending their time looking at groups with “Tea Party” in their names. About 2 percent of applications that were ultimately approved fell into this category, the report says.

By profiling Tea Party groups, not only was the IRS applying its rules unfairly, it was also spending a lot of time investigating good guys, and it was letting a few bad guys through without extra scrutiny. If you wanted to make a case against profiling, you couldn’t pick a better example than what happened here.

I suspect that longtime advocates of profiling won’t agree with me. They’ll argue that racial profiling in crime- or terrorism-prevention is more appropriate than the “political” profiling the IRS conducted. That’s because, they’ll likely say, profiling works in those instances. There are numerous studies that show that’s not true—that we simply don’t know whether racial profiling is an effective way to combat terrorism.

Even if Tea Party partisans don’t buy that argument, they now at least know what it feels like to be investigated just because of their characteristics, not their actions. They don’t like it, and in this case they should trust their instincts. They’re right. Profiling is wrong.

 

Monday, May 20, 2013

Intel Fuels a Rebellion Around Your Data

Intel Fuels a Rebellion Around Your Data

The world’s largest chip maker wants to see a new kind of economy bloom around personal data.

By Antonio Regalado and Jessica Leber on May 20, 2013

View full report

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/514386/intel-fuels-a-rebellion-around-your-data/?utm_campaign=newsletters&utm_source=newsletter-daily-all&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20130520

 

Why It Matters

The economic importance of personal information has outstripped the legislation that governs it.

Part of our Business Report:

Big Data Gets Personal

Data science and personal information are converging to shape the Internet’s most powerful and surprising consumer products.

Intel is a $53-billion-a-year company that enjoys a near monopoly on the computer chips that go into PCs. But when it comes to the data underlying big companies like Facebook and Google, it says it wants to “return power to the people.”

Intel Labs, the company’s R&D arm, is launching an initiative around what it calls the “data economy”—how consumers might capture more of the value of their personal information, like digital records of their their location or work history. To make this possible, Intel is funding hackathons to urge developers to explore novel uses of personal data. It has also paid for a rebellious-sounding website called We the Data, featuring raised fists and stories comparing Facebook to Exxon Mobil.

Intel’s effort to stir a debate around “your data” is just one example of how some companies—and society more broadly—are grappling with a basic economic asymmetry of the big data age: they’ve got the data, and we don’t.

Internet firms like Google and Amazon are concentrating valuable data about consumers at an unprecedented scale as people click around the Web. But regulations and social standards haven’t kept up with the technical and economic shift, creating a widening gap between data haves and have-nots.

“As consumers, we have no right to know what companies know about us. As companies, we have few restrictions on what we can do with this data,” says Hilary Mason, chief data scientist at Bit.ly, a social-media company in New York. “Even though people derive value, and companies derive value, it’s totally chaotic who has rights to what, and it’s making people uncomfortable.”

In February, for instance, legislators in California introduced the first U.S. law to give individuals a complete view into their online personas. The “Right to Know” bill would let citizens of the state demand a detailed report showing all the information about them that companies like LinkedIn or Google had stored, and whom they had shared it with.

That bill quickly got shelved under pressure from lobbyists for technology companies, who called it “unworkable” and financially damaging to Internet firms and said lawmakers don’t understand “how the Internet works.” Some of the data covered in the bill, like a computer’s IP address, or location, is so basic to communication between machines on the Internet that companies admitted they don’t even know where it ends up.

And that’s the wider dilemma: our personal data is inextricably tied to “big data”—those far larger data sets that now power many of the online services we use. If you don’t tell a navigation app where you are, it can’t tell you where to turn, or tell others there’s traffic ahead. One doesn’t work without the other. What’s more, the economic importance of products fueled with personal data is growing rapidly. According to the Boston Consulting Group, as methods for basing transactions on a person’s digital records have spread from banks to retailers and other sectors, the financial value that companies derived from personal data in Europe was $72 billion in 2011. The consultants concluded that “personal data has become a new form of currency.”

Yet that doesn’t mean it’s a currency easily understood or traded on by individuals. Although a few startups have attempted to help individuals monetize their personal facts (see “A Dollar for Your Data”), the truth is that information about people’s identity and habits has financial value mostly in the aggregate. A single user’s value to Facebook, for instance, is only about $5 a year. Mason, the Bit.ly executive, says trying to put a value on one person’s data is like calculating the value of one unmatched shoe. “And here we are talking about sets of millions or billions of shoes,” she says. “I just don’t think that data plays by the economics of any goods we are familiar with.”

Some believe the market may have already found the right economic balance. “It seems like we have a working model where companies own our data and we’re okay with that because of the free stuff, personalization, and convenience we get in return,” says Gam Dias, CEO of First Retail, an e-commerce consulting company. “There’s not a lot I’m going to do with my extra data anyway. I already know who I am and what I want.”

Intel this year judged the questions swirling around personal data important enough to launch a “Data Economy Initiative,” a multiyear study whose goal is to explore new uses of technology that might let people benefit more directly, and in new ways, from their own data, says Ken Anderson, a cultural anthropologist who is in charge of the project.

Anderson, who once helped Apple develop the sliding application bar that appears on Mac computers (after studying how people organized their desks and stacked items on shelves), says Intel believes technology based on personal data may end up in the control of individuals, in much the same way that mainframe computers gave way to PCs. “It doesn’t matter what you look at in terms of technology. Usually, there is this move toward individualization,” he says.

Intel, which has started surveying consumer opinions, has also been supporting efforts like a competition in New York last fall in which developers wrote apps for the elderly and single mothers. It’s also underwriting the National Day of Civic Hacking, an event focused on new uses of municipal data being released by city governments, such as records of health inspections.

It’s too early to say just what kinds of products might result for Intel, Anderson says,. “When you talk about the data economy, it’s really something that doesn’t yet exist,” he says. “There are people who [are] trying to control a lot of your personal data. But that’s not an economy—that’s just profit for one company.”

 

Saturday, May 18, 2013

Meghan McBride Kelly: Aristotle Wouldn't Friend You on Facebook

Meghan McBride Kelly: Aristotle Wouldn't Friend You on Facebook

The Greek philosopher knew nothing of social media. He did know a thing or two about relationships.

By MEGHAN MCBRIDE KELLY

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324767004578487211194059582.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

 

Facebook has made an indelible mark on my generation's concept of friendship. The average Facebook user has 142 friends (many people I know have upward of 500). Without Facebook many of us "Millennials" wouldn't know what our friends are up to or what their babies or boyfriends look like. We wouldn't even remember their birthdays. Is this progress?

Aristotle wrote that friendship involves a degree of love. If we were to ask ourselves whether all of our Facebook friends were those we loved, we'd certainly answer that they're not. These days, we devote equal if not more time to tracking the people we have had very limited human interaction with than to those whom we truly love. Aristotle would call the former "friendships of utility," which, he wrote, are "for the commercially minded."

AFP/Getty Images

I'd venture to guess that at least 90% of Facebook friendships are those of utility. Knowing this instinctively, we increasingly use Facebook as a vehicle for self-promotion rather than as a means to stay connected to those whom we love. Instead of sharing our lives, we compare and contrast them, based on carefully calculated posts, always striving to put our best face forward.

Friendship also, as Aristotle described it, can be based on pleasure. All of the comments, well-wishes and "likes" we can get from our numerous Facebook friends may give us pleasure. But something feels false about this. Aristotle wrote: "Those who love for the sake of pleasure do so for the sake of what is pleasant to themselves, and not insofar as the other is the person loved." Few of us expect the dozens of Facebook friends who wish us a happy birthday ever to share a birthday celebration with us, let alone care for us when we're sick or in need.

One thing's for sure, my generation's friendships are less personal than my parents' or grandparents' generation. Since we can rely on Facebook to manage our friendships, it's easy to neglect more human forms of communication. Why visit a person, write a letter, deliver a card, or even pick up the phone when we can simply click a "like" button?

The ultimate form of friendship is described by Aristotle as "virtuous"—meaning the kind that involves a concern for our friend's sake and not for our own. "Perfect friendship is the friendship of men who are good, and alike in virtue . . . . But it is natural that such friendships should be infrequent; for such men are rare."

Those who came before the Millennial generation still say as much. My father and grandfather always told me that the number of such "true" friends can be counted on one hand over the course of a lifetime. Has Facebook increased our capacity for true friendship? I suspect Aristotle would say no.

Ms. Kelly joined Facebook in 2004 and quit in 2013.

A version of this article appeared May 18, 2013, on page A13 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Aristotle Wouldn't Friend You on Facebook.

 

Friday, May 17, 2013

UK: Public Data Will Boost Business, Report Says

http://blogs.wsj.com/tech-europe/2013/05/15/public-data-will-boost-business-report-says/

Opening up government data to the public could help forge the next Google Inc. GOOG +0.49% or Amazon.com Inc. AMZN +2.06% in Britain, the author of a U.K. government report said Wednesday.

The report into public data commissioned by the department for Business, Innovation and Skills  said that creating an open national database would benefit both the U.K.’s private and public sectors. Data will be a core resource in the future, said Stephan Shakespeare, chair of the U.K.’s Data Strategy Board and the report’s author.

“If the U.K. wants to make sure that in the next phase of the digital revolution Britain has the Googles, and the Amazons and the eBays  … Then the government needs to turn its current enthusiasm [for data] to a really solid, defined implementation for a national core data set,” he said.

“This is a major new piece of infrastructure for all society. It will be a platform on which we live our lives.”

Gavin Starks, CEO of the Open Data Institute, an independent government agency tasked with assessing the government’s use of data, agreed that the opening up of public data would provide an opportunity for businesses across Britain.

“Health care, transportation, finance, insurance; it will affect many, many different sectors, the change will be as broad as the Web itself. There’s a huge amount of value to be unlocked,” he said.

An analysis by Deloitte accompanying Mr. Shakespeare’s report calculated that the use of public data in 2011-2012 had added up to £7.2 billion ($11 billion) to the U.K. economy. In one case, opening up live transport information from Transport for London had saved Londoners working time valued at up £58 million in one year alone, Deloitte calculated. Opening up more public data would unlock more value, said the accountants.

In the document, which the government will respond to this summer, Mr. Shakespeare outlines a strategy for how the government could open access to everything from trash-collection data to information on heart treatments. Nigel Shadbolt, also at the Open Data Institute, a founder of the agency, said the report could have been clearer on how the strategy would be implemented.  “The Shakespeare review is very strong on the general strategy, what we need to do now is take the strategy and say how you deliver it. How do you deliver the detail?”

Mr. Shakespeare acknowledged the challenges.  A core national database would require different levels of access and the careful managing of certain data sets, particularly in health, to ensure that privacy was respected. “It will be a big and continuous and growing job,” he said. “But it will become an essential piece of government.”

 

Friday, May 10, 2013

the economist: Feel the force

Technology and the future

Feel the force

Three new books look at power in the digital age

May 4th 2013 |From the print edition

http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21577039-three-new-books-look-power-digital-age-feel-force/print

 

To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism. By Evgeny Morozov. PublicAffairs; 415 pages; $28.99. Allen Lane; £20. Buy from Amazon.comAmazon.co.uk

Who Owns the Future? By Jaron Lanier. Simon and Schuster; 397 pages; $28. Allen Lane; £20. Buy from Amazon.comAmazon.co.uk

The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Future of People, Nations and Business. By Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen. Knopf; 319 pages; $26.95. John Murray; £25. Buy from Amazon.comAmazon.co.uk

SILICON VALLEY is synonymous with sunshine, in outlook as much as climate. Young men and women wear shorts to work, earn six-figure salaries and blithely claim they are trying to make the world “more open and connected”. Three new books, including two by consummate insiders, show how a new, much stronger ingredient has been added to the technology industry’s already potent mix of youth and optimism: power.

Evgeny Morozov, who sees himself as an outsider looking in, is a harsh critic of Silicon Valley’s vanities. His first book, “The Net Delusion” (2011), took apart the much-repeated claim that technology and social networking are in themselves good for democracy. Instead, he argued that technology is the perfect tool for repressive states to control their citizens. His sprawling new work, “To Save Everything, Click Here”, goes further.

Mr Morozov attacks the technologists’ urge to solve the world’s woes by “recasting complex social situations as neatly defined problems”. He calls such an attitude arrogant. Silicon Valley’s obsession with data—a quantitative approach to solving problems that has been taken up by Google, among others—ignores subtlety and analytical thought. If people allow geeks to run the world, he says, everyone will be posting the contents of their rubbish bins on Facebook and monitoring themselves around the clock in the name of science and efficiency. This is power wielded without wisdom.

Mr Morozov has made a name for himself by attacking his peers, and his critics dismiss him as an attention-seeker. A snarky, hectoring tone certainly detracts from his argument, something which cannot be said of Jaron Lanier, a computer scientist who popularised the term “virtual reality” and who now works for Microsoft. As Mr Lanier admits many times in his new book, “Who Owns the Future?”, he is part of what he criticises, and he benefits from actively participating in the schemes he would like to see ended.

Mr Lanier’s views have been shaped by his side career as a musician. Instead of ushering in a new age of prosperity, he says, the tech industry is making the world poorer. Jobs in creative professions, such as music and writing, have disappeared, thanks to the ease of communication and copying. More traditional middle-class jobs are surely next.

Mr Lanier blames the architecture of the web. The system is set up to convince internet users to exchange data for free services—e-mail, social networks, search—a deal that favours the biggest companies. He calls these firms “siren servers”, for their irresistible attraction. While they grow fat on the abundance of data collected at nearly zero cost, ordinary people are not paid and are driven to penury.

Mr Lanier has an audacious solution. If information is worth money (and the rise of companies trading on data would suggest that is the case) then people should be paid for what they contribute. He envisions a complicated mechanism in which services such as Facebook stop being free, but also stop obtaining data for nothing. Creators of data would be remunerated with millions of nanopayments; users of information would have to pay. Even the author admits this would be a hard sell.

Whereas Mr Morozov’s work is rooted in theory and Mr Lanier’s in personal experience, Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen base their new work, “The New Digital Age”, on extensive research. Mr Schmidt is the chairman and former CEO of Google. His writing partner is a former State Department whizz-kid, who now runs Google’s in-house think-tank.

Their ideas are ambitious, even if the language is restrained. Artificial intelligence and thought-controlled robots are familiar futures. Driverless cars and augmented reality are already becoming consumer technologies, in part because of Google itself. They dispense with “holographic avatars” and “motion-stabilised automated helicopters” early in the book, focusing instead on how technology will affect power structures. The interviewees alone are proof of the clout that tech firms enjoy: business magnates, high-ranking bureaucrats, intelligence chiefs and leaders and former leaders of Malaysia, Mongolia, Rwanda, Mexico and Tunisia.

Governments that are in denial about impending change will find themselves battling to control their citizens. The authors cite Egypt as one example. On January 28th 2011 the Mubarak government shut down the internet in anticipation of protests. That caused activists to pour onto the streets, perhaps hastening the regime’s end.

Suspending the internet may be a blunt instrument but controlling it can be an effective tool. China and Iran like to do this a lot. Other countries are more subtle. Turkey, for instance, constantly adjusts its levels of filtering depending both on the whims of authorities and public demands. The authors call this the “sheepish” model of filtering.

As governments come to terms with the changes wrought by free services offered by companies like Google—services that Egyptians, unlike Americans, may not be able to afford if Mr Lanier’s universal payment system were a reality—the internet will inevitably splinter and balkanise. The authors see a dismal future that could include walled-off national internets, with virtual visas required for entry. The internet is already divided to some extent, with restricted access to the outside world from repressive regimes, and language barriers rendering others, such as the Russian- language Runet, a separate ecosystem.

The most pressing concern is cyber-warfare, which, by using proxies, offers states some deniability. Attacks are increasingly common, with China and America among the major provocateurs. A British parliamentary committee report last year urged the use of cyberwar to access enemy networks “without detection (or at least without attribution)”. Cyber-security, the book’s authors argue, will become a far more pressing concern in coming years.

“The New Digital Age” is a considered work. Despite the authors’ affiliations, it is no purveyor of Silicon Valley propaganda even if it does betray some of the industry’s usual arrogance. More important, it shifts the debate about technology, elevating it from mundane arguments about the utility of dating apps to the wider issues of how technology interacts with power.

As Mr Lanier points out, the industry’s leaders have accumulated great power. Some has come from ordering and analysing information through the algorithms that Mr Morozov derides. Mr Schmidt and Mr Cohen show that power can be used thoughtfully. For centuries the world has been kept in order by the impulses of religion or the state. These books signal the arrival of a third force.

 

Thursday, May 9, 2013

White House Announces Executive Order -- Making Open and Machine Readable the New Default for Government Information

 

·         Press release: http://go.usa.gov/TAMQ  

·         Executive Order: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/09/executive-order-making-open-and-machine-readable-new-default-government-

·         Fact Sheet: http://www.whitehouse.gov//sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/2013opendata.pdf

·   

·         Project Open Data: http://project-open-data.github.io/

·         On the Clock Video: http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2013/05/09/clock-open-data-executive-order

 

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 9, 2013

 

Obama Administration Releases Historic Open Data Rules to Enhance Government Efficiency and Fuel Economic Growth

 

The Obama Administration today took groundbreaking new steps to make information generated and stored by the Federal Government more open and accessible to innovators and the public, to fuel entrepreneurship and economic growth while increasing government transparency and efficiency.

 

Today’s actions—including an Executive Order signed by the President and an Open Data Policy released by the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Science and Technology Policy—declare that information is a valuable national asset whose value is multiplied when it is made easily accessible to the public.  The Executive Order requires that, going forward, data generated by the government be made available in open, machine-readable formats, while appropriately safeguarding privacy, confidentiality, and security.

 

The move will make troves of previously inaccessible or unmanageable data easily available to entrepreneurs, researchers, and others who can use those files to generate new products and services, build businesses, and create jobs.

 

“One of the things we’re doing to fuel more private sector innovation and discovery is to make vast amounts of America’s data open and easy to access for the first time in history.  And talented entrepreneurs are doing some pretty amazing things with it,” said President Barack Obama. “Starting today, we’re making even more government data available online, which will help launch even more new startups.  And we’re making it easier for people to find the data and use it, so that entrepreneurs can build products and services we haven’t even imagined yet.”        

 

Later today, President Obama will meet with entrepreneurs at the Capital Factory—a startup incubator—who are already leveraging open government data to create new products and services as part of his new series of Middle Class Jobs & Opportunity Tours to highlight how a growing, thriving middle class is critical to America’s economic future. 

 

The American economy has consistently benefited when government data have been released to entrepreneurs and other innovators.  The public release of weather data from government satellites and ground stations generated an entire economic sector that today includes the Weather Channel, commercial agricultural advisory services, and new insurance options.  Similarly, the decision by the US Government to make the Global Positioning System (GPS), once reserved for military use, available for civilian and commercial access, gave rise to GPS-powered innovations ranging from aircraft navigation systems to precision farming to location-based apps, contributing tens of billions of dollars in annual value to the American economy. 

 

And the Administration’s current Health Data Initiative, which has opened government-held data on hospitals, drugs, insurance products, healthcare costs, and more in machine-readable form, has already contributed to hundreds of new products and companies that are transforming health care delivery and improving patient health.  Just yesterday, Medicare published data that for the first time gives consumers information on what hospitals charge for common inpatient procedures, signaling a major step forward for hospital price transparency and accountability.

 

Along with the Executive Order and Open Data Policy, the Administration announced a series of complementary actions:

 

·         A new Data.Gov.  In the months ahead, Data.gov, the powerful central hub for open government data, will launch new services that include improved visualization, mapping tools, better context to help locate and understand these data, and robust Application Programming Interface (API) access for developers.

 

·         New open source tools to make data more open and accessible.  The US Chief Information Officer and the US Chief Technology Officer are releasing free, open source tools on Github, a site that allows communities of developers to collaboratively develop solutions.  This effort, known as Project Open Data, can accelerate the adoption of open data practices by providing plug-and-play tools and best practices to help agencies improve the management and release of open data.  For example, one tool released today automatically converts simple spreadsheets and databases into APIs for easier consumption by developers.  Anyone, from government agencies to private citizens to local governments and for-profit companies, can freely use and adapt these tools starting immediately.

 

·         Building a 21st century digital government.  As part of the Administration’s Digital Government Strategy and Open Data Initiatives in health, energy, education, public safety, finance, and global development, agencies have been working to unlock data from the vaults of government, while continuing to protect privacy and national security.  Newly available or improved data sets from these initiatives will be released today and over the coming weeks as part of the one year anniversary of the Digital Government Strategy.

 

·         Continued engagement with entrepreneurs and innovators to leverage government data.  The Administration has convened and will continue to bring together companies, organizations, and civil society for a variety of summits to highlight how these innovators use open data to positively impact the public and address important national challenges.  In June, Federal agencies will participate in the fourth annual Health Datapalooza, hosted by the nonprofit Health Data Consortium, which will bring together more than 1,800 entrepreneurs, innovators, clinicians, patient advocates, and policymakers for information sessions, presentations, and “code-a-thons” focused on how the power of data can be harnessed to help save lives and improve healthcare for all Americans.

 

For more information on open data highlights across government visit: http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/library/docsreports

 

###

 

Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Open Data: Hospital Billing Varies Wildly, Government Data Shows

May 8, 2013

Hospital Billing Varies Wildly, Government Data Shows

By BARRY MEIER, JO CRAVEN McGINTY and JULIE CRESWELL
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/08/business/hospital-billing-varies-wildly-us-data-shows.html?pagewanted=print

A hospital in Livingston, N.J., charged $70,712 on average to implant a pacemaker, while a hospital in nearby Rahway, N.J., charged $101,945.

In Saint Augustine, Fla., one hospital typically billed nearly $40,000 to remove a gallbladder using minimally invasive surgery, while one in Orange Park, Fla., charged $91,000.

In one hospital in Dallas, the average bill for treating simple pneumonia was $14,610, while another there charged over $38,000.

Data being released for the first time by the government on Wednesday shows that hospitals charge Medicare wildly differing amounts — sometimes 10 to 20 times what Medicare typically reimburses — for the same procedure, raising questions about how hospitals determine prices and why they differ so widely.

The data for 3,300 hospitals, released by the federal Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, shows wide variations not only regionally but among hospitals in the same area or city.

Government officials said that some of the variation might reflect the fact that some patients were sicker or required longer hospitalization.

Nonetheless, the data is likely to intensify a long debate over the methods that hospitals use to determine their charges.

Medicare does not actually pay the amount a hospital charges but instead uses a system of standardized payments to reimburse hospitals for treating specific conditions. Private insurers do not pay the full charge either, but negotiate payments with hospitals for specific treatments. Since many patients are covered by Medicare or have private insurance, they are not directly affected by what hospitals charge.

Experts say it is likely that the people who can afford it least — those with little or no insurance — are getting hit with extremely high hospitals bills that may bear little connection to the cost of treatment.

“If you’re uninsured, they’re going to ask you to pay,” said Gerard Anderson, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Hospital Finance and Management.

The debate over medical costs is growing louder, spurred partly by President Obama’s overhaul of the health insurance system.

Hospitals, in particular, have come under scrutiny for charges that are widely viewed as difficult to comprehend, even for experts. “Our goal is to make this information more transparent,” Jonathan Blum, the director of the agency’s Center for Medicare, said in an interview.

The data covers bills submitted from virtually every hospital in the country in 2011 for the 100 most common treatments and procedures performed in hospitals, like hip replacements, heart operations and gallbladder removal.

The hospitals were not given the data before its release by Medicare officials.

Some hospitals contacted Tuesday said that the higher bills they sent to Medicare reflected the fact that they were either teaching hospitals or they had treated sicker patients.

For example, billing records showed that Keck Hospital of the University of Southern California charged, on average, $123,885, for a major artificial joint replacement, six times the average amount that Medicare reimbursed for the procedure and a rate significantly higher than the average for other Los Angeles area hospitals.

“Academic medical centers have a higher cost structure, and higher acuity patients who suffer from many health complications,” the hospital said.

The hospital added that it wrote off any difference between what it charged and what Medicare paid, rather than seeking to collect it from patients. Centinela Hospital Medical Center, also in Los Angeles and owned by Prime Healthcare Services, charged $220,881 for the same procedure.

A spokesman said the hospital served a sicker and older patient base.

The data showing the range of hospital bills does not explain why one hospital charges significantly more for a procedure than another one. And Medicare does pay slightly higher treatment rates to certain hospitals — like teaching facilities or hospitals in areas with high labor costs.

Mr. Blum, the Medicare official, said he would have anticipated variations of two- to threefold at the most in the difference between what hospitals charge.

However, hospitals submitted bills to Medicare that were, on average, about three to five times what the agency typically pays to treat a condition, an analysis of the data by The New York Times indicates. And variations between what hospitals charge may be even greater.

Mr. Blum said he could not explain the reasons for that large difference.

An official at the American Hospital Association, a trade group, said there was a cat-and-mouse game between hospitals and insurers that affects what hospitals charge.

As insurers demand bigger discounts from a hospital, a facility may raise its charges to protect its bottom line, that official, Caroline Steinberg, said. “The hospital raises its rate to cover the discount,” said Ms. Steinberg, who is the group’s vice president for trends analysis.

Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, the nation’s largest association of health insurers, said some member companies were reporting sharp price increases of 20 to 30 percent for some services. Some insurers are seeking similar price increases from policy holders.

“There’s very little transparency out there about what doctors and hospitals are charging for services,” Mr. Zirkelbach said. “Much of the public policy focus has been on health insurance premiums and has largely ignored what hospitals and doctors are charging.”

Ms. Steinberg said that the Affordable Care Act required that hospital charges be limited for patients who qualify.

“That’s driving all of the rates for uninsured patients towards the same amount that Medicare pays,” she said.

That big variation in what hospitals charge Medicare exists even in procedures that are standardized and do not involve patient complications, the Times analysis of the data shows.

For a cardiac procedure in which a small tube, or stent, is implanted to open up a clogged blood vessel, the average hospital charge is over four times the average Medicare payment.

In addition, bills submitted by profit-making hospitals to Medicare are typically higher than those submitted by nonprofit centers, the analysis found.

Government hospitals typically billed Medicare less than either nonprofit or profit-making hospitals, the data shows.

Medicare payments represent about 91 cents of every dollar that a hospital spends on treatment, Ms. Steinberg said.

Mr. Anderson, the hospital finance expert, said that private insurers negotiated rates with hospitals that were typically about 30 percent above what Medicare pays. He understands that hospitals will often charge above the Medicare rate, but he said the huge premiums at some hospitals make no sense.

“If you’re charging 10 percent more or 20 percent more than what it costs to deliver the service, that’s an acceptable profit margin,” Mr. Anderson said. “Charging 400 percent more than what it costs has no rational basis in it at all.”

 

Tom Cochran: Personal Information Is the Currency of the 21st Century

Personal Information Is the Currency of the 21st Century

Published on May 7, 2013
by Tom Cochran

http://allthingsd.com/?p=318826&ak_action=printable

The currency of the 21st century digital economy is your personal information. It has no transaction costs and does not decrease in value when the supply increases. Contrary to the laws of economics, it may even increase in value with greater supply. The more information you provide to companies, the more value they can extract from it.

Now that 21st century digital behemoths such as Facebook and Google have discovered how to make personal information the most valuable resource in the history of humanity, they are strip-mining mountains of it into completely unrecognizable states.

Conversely, we tend to ignore this process because the most magnificent, technologically advanced and socially connected digital city is being built from it.

You are living in this growing digital city, and I’m guessing that you really like it here. Unfortunately, you can’t live in this city for free. Your rent is due in the form of your personal information, and you have to accept a certain loss of your privacy.

There’s no credit check to move in. You just need to share your name, birth date, where you’re from, your alma mater and a few more personal details. It’s effortless to hand over your information, and will only take you about 60 seconds to sign a lease.

But if you don’t read the fine print of your lease, you’ll gloss over the fact that surveillance cameras and microphones have been installed to cover every square inch of the city and that you have consented to being watched at all hours.

Meanwhile, marketers and advertisers will eavesdrop on your conversations and abruptly interrupt when you bring up any topics related to their products. (Bizarrely, you are also required to eat a complimentary cookie every time you enter a building.)

Real estate metaphors notwithstanding, losing your privacy is not such a bad thing. You pay into the new digital economy with your demographic and behavioral information.

Some people raise legitimate concerns, but claims of an Orwellian dystopia are alarmist hyperbole. There is a level of discomfort that comes with voluntarily divulging private information, and, understandably, greater anxiety results from being watched at all times.

As a society, we need to define the rules under which our personal information can be mined. Our collective unease is largely the result of not having clear parameters to create an equilibrium between privacy and personalization.

These parameters will help shift our focus from the negatives to the positives, because in return for your personal information, you realize a net benefit with tremendous value.

Access to Your Data From Anywhere, at Any Time, Using Any Device

I don’t want access to my data being constrained by the time of day, where I am or what digital device I have access to. I shouldn’t have to go to work to grab an Excel file off my computer and I shouldn’t need my personal device to show a photo of my dog to coworkers.

The solution is adopting a cloud service like Dropbox, Google or Facebook. They become the stewards of your data, responsible for keeping it secure and accessible at all times. In exchange, you grant them full visibility of your data and permit them to monetize it.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t like carrying a USB stick around and I definitely loathe the pain of a hard drive failure corrupting three years of photos and memories. I’m sticking with the cloud.

Personalized Experience

A personalized experience is why companies like American Express, Brooks Brothers and USAA consistently rank at the top of consumer surveys. These are giant corporations, but they make you feel special by focusing on you. They also happen to know a lot about you and your spending habits.

The sheer volume of information online is overwhelming and often leads to decision paralysis. You need help cutting through the noise; the best companies personalize your digital experience, only presenting information that is relevant to you.

I don’t want to dig through the iTunes or Netflix libraries. I want to choose from recommendations based upon what I’ve watched in the past and what my friends are watching. If I’m buying something on Amazon, or planning a vacation on TripAdvisor, I’d like to see reviews and recommendations from my friends. I’m far more likely to make a better and more informed choice with the trusted validation of my social circle.

Proactive Digital Assistant

Google knows where I live, where I work and the typical route I take to commute between them. I find it extremely valuable when I am alerted about an accident before I’m already stuck in the horrific traffic jam for over an hour.

Facebook pings me with a push notification about my friend’s birthday so I don’t forget yet again. I can see from Instagram photos that my friend went to the Nationals game and I can ask him how it was. Foursquare will let me know if one of my friends has checked in near me and we can now meet for a serendipitous drink.

Our 21st century digital economy makes my life better. I have access to what I need, when I need it. My online experience is largely customized to suit my needs. And, I have better ambient awareness of what’s happening in my social circles.

The cost to improve my life is sharing my personal information. A barter economy is based on the exchange of goods and services of perceived equal value. In my mind, I’m receiving far more than I’m giving up.

There is a zero-sum relationship between personalization and privacy. To get the personalized digital experience you want and have grown accustomed to, you have to accept the loss of your privacy.

Tom Cochran is CTO at Atlantic Media, publisher of the Atlantic, Quartz, National Journal and Government Executive. Prior to that, he was at the White House as the Director of New Media Technologies. Follow him on Twitter at @tommer.