Privacy or NUTS
AdVoice, Singapore, April 2003 issue
I am not a Singaporean. I have lived here for some time now and greatly admire the place. For an outsider, it is often difficult to fathom how it works, why things happen or why they don’t happen. Sometimes one might even wonder whether anything spectacular is happening at all.
Take for instance the issue of consumer privacy. Almost everywhere this is an increasingly hot issue, subject to intense public debate. It is driven into two opposing directions by two different developments: spam, the deluge of unwanted and unwarranted messages that floods our mailboxes and our handphones; and the fight against terrorism. Spam causes a public outcry for privacy protection, putting legal restrictions on the use of contact data and other personal information. Terrorism causes governments around the world to become increasingly careful with restrictive legislation on the use of personal data, afraid that they themselves might be limited in their possibilities.
Strangely enough, very little of this debate shows up in Singapore. I find this hard to understand, especially since this country is renowned for both its efficiency and its desire to be at the forefront of any type of development in the Information Society. Where places like Hong Kong and Shanghai already have extensive legislation in place, Singapore has little to show except an IDA guideline issued in 2000 on a single issue (provoked by SingNet’s scanning of 200,000 users’ PCs without asking permission), and a public consultation round organized by the National Trust Council in 2002. That consultation yielded a handful of public comments by virtue of the fact that the deadline was moved by three months, and finally resulted in a Model Data Protection Code intended to become mandatory only for certain online businesses that operate under the TrustSg seal. Oh, and did I mention a Code of Practice with a word or two on privacy, issued by the Direct Marketing Association of Singapore aeons ago and out of print for at least half a decade?
Why is it, I wondered, that Singapore, although aspiring to be an Information Services hub for the region, as yet did not provide its consumers with an exemplary protection regime?
Then two things happened. The first was an article by Creative’s CEO and founder Sim Wong Hoo on a phenomenon he calls NUTS. The acronym stands for No U-Turn Syndrome, a distinctive Singaporean trait. Anywhere in the world you can make a U-turn wherever you wish – unless there is a sign that forbids it. Except for Singapore, where you cannot make a U-turn unless there is a sign that tells you so.
A couple of days later I attended a conference that included a panel discussion on privacy issues in Direct Marketing. One of the panellists was a Singaporean Marketing Manager, who started his contribution with the following words (and I quote literally): ‘In Singapore we are not used to privacy. We all live at a stone's throw from each other. The Government has all the data on us it can possibly want. The Government uses that data for every purpose it wants. I guess privacy just doesn't mean very much to us...’
Who said that privacy was a boring subject? In one masterstroke, a world of cultural insights opened up. Singaporean roads do not need centre barriers to prevent people making U-turns, only the absence of a sign. Marketers in Singapore do not need laws to respect consumer privacy; they will refrain from it by virtue of the absence of rules that say they can.
True, legislation should only be issued insofar necessary and appearances are that it is not needed in this case. But other interests are at stake. Singapore may be an island geographically; it is not an island in the Information Society. Singaporean users too are bombarded by spam that originates from elsewhere. And then there is Singapore’s ‘regional hub’ ambition. Shouldn’t Singapore provide a shining example?
Singapore is in a unique position to showcase a modern system of privacy protection that respects commercial interests. Throughout the last decade, a set of principles has emerged that makes this possible. Indeed, if laid out clearly, privacy protection runs parallel with maintaining satisfactory customer relationships. Not only is this an opportunity for Singapore, it is also in the interest of both consumers and the industry.
I am not a Singaporean. I have lived here for some time now and greatly admire the place. For an outsider, it is often difficult to fathom how it works, why things happen or why they don’t happen. Sometimes one might even wonder whether anything spectacular is happening at all.
Take for instance the issue of consumer privacy. Almost everywhere this is an increasingly hot issue, subject to intense public debate. It is driven into two opposing directions by two different developments: spam, the deluge of unwanted and unwarranted messages that floods our mailboxes and our handphones; and the fight against terrorism. Spam causes a public outcry for privacy protection, putting legal restrictions on the use of contact data and other personal information. Terrorism causes governments around the world to become increasingly careful with restrictive legislation on the use of personal data, afraid that they themselves might be limited in their possibilities.
Strangely enough, very little of this debate shows up in Singapore. I find this hard to understand, especially since this country is renowned for both its efficiency and its desire to be at the forefront of any type of development in the Information Society. Where places like Hong Kong and Shanghai already have extensive legislation in place, Singapore has little to show except an IDA guideline issued in 2000 on a single issue (provoked by SingNet’s scanning of 200,000 users’ PCs without asking permission), and a public consultation round organized by the National Trust Council in 2002. That consultation yielded a handful of public comments by virtue of the fact that the deadline was moved by three months, and finally resulted in a Model Data Protection Code intended to become mandatory only for certain online businesses that operate under the TrustSg seal. Oh, and did I mention a Code of Practice with a word or two on privacy, issued by the Direct Marketing Association of Singapore aeons ago and out of print for at least half a decade?
Why is it, I wondered, that Singapore, although aspiring to be an Information Services hub for the region, as yet did not provide its consumers with an exemplary protection regime?
Then two things happened. The first was an article by Creative’s CEO and founder Sim Wong Hoo on a phenomenon he calls NUTS. The acronym stands for No U-Turn Syndrome, a distinctive Singaporean trait. Anywhere in the world you can make a U-turn wherever you wish – unless there is a sign that forbids it. Except for Singapore, where you cannot make a U-turn unless there is a sign that tells you so.
A couple of days later I attended a conference that included a panel discussion on privacy issues in Direct Marketing. One of the panellists was a Singaporean Marketing Manager, who started his contribution with the following words (and I quote literally): ‘In Singapore we are not used to privacy. We all live at a stone's throw from each other. The Government has all the data on us it can possibly want. The Government uses that data for every purpose it wants. I guess privacy just doesn't mean very much to us...’
Who said that privacy was a boring subject? In one masterstroke, a world of cultural insights opened up. Singaporean roads do not need centre barriers to prevent people making U-turns, only the absence of a sign. Marketers in Singapore do not need laws to respect consumer privacy; they will refrain from it by virtue of the absence of rules that say they can.
True, legislation should only be issued insofar necessary and appearances are that it is not needed in this case. But other interests are at stake. Singapore may be an island geographically; it is not an island in the Information Society. Singaporean users too are bombarded by spam that originates from elsewhere. And then there is Singapore’s ‘regional hub’ ambition. Shouldn’t Singapore provide a shining example?
Singapore is in a unique position to showcase a modern system of privacy protection that respects commercial interests. Throughout the last decade, a set of principles has emerged that makes this possible. Indeed, if laid out clearly, privacy protection runs parallel with maintaining satisfactory customer relationships. Not only is this an opportunity for Singapore, it is also in the interest of both consumers and the industry.
posted by Jos. at Tuesday, April 01, 2003
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home