Where are the digital generation projects?

In the recent history of Western society, there have always been extensive generational projects. If more and more social challenges are shifting to the digital sphere, it is only logical to think that these generational projects will also become digital. But they do not exist.

(Reading time 7 minutes)

Tunnel

Each country has managed its own category of intergenerational projects in the past. In Switzerland, for geographical reasons, a lot of it revolved around railroads and tunnel construction. With its small area, Switzerland is ideally suited to building a dense rail network. Many of my German colleagues joke after their first visit to Switzerland that even delays of a few minutes are communicated. Which is actually the case. If anyone in the world knows railroads, it’s the Swiss.

However, such a perfect rail network did not develop on its own overnight. The investments in this area were, and still are, gigantic.

For example, the construction of the Gotthard railroad tunnel was not a purely state-run and coordinated project, but a collaboration between many different parties. Alfred Escher, who managed the Schweizerische Kreditanstalt and played an important role in financing the Gotthard Railway, had to negotiate with domestic and foreign investors, the countries and ultimately also the suppliers. He later wrote:

“Since it was a question of raising very considerable private capital, foreign finance had to be approached, even if the participation of Swiss finance had to be secured initially with a quota of the private capital to be contributed in order to instil confidence abroad. Endless negotiations were also necessary in this regard. The views of the domestic and foreign financial powers differed widely and were, moreover, subject to constant change. A sea of difficulties had to be overcome before it was possible to unite the various elements into a unified program. Once the ways and means had been prepared in this way, the Federal Council saw itself in a position to organize an international conference of those states that had shown an inclination to support the construction of the Gotthard Railway.”(1)

The Gotthard Tunnel project had an almost unimaginable dimension today. Not in the physical sense, but in the way it was supported by these same many parties and on what a thin foundation it was launched. In the course of its construction, it became dangerously sideways and almost failed. The story can be read here in condensed form. It reads like a thriller. Here is the short version.

Where are the current generation projects?

In today’s world, in which more and more aspects of daily business and social life are supported and implemented digitally, such generational projects are nowhere to be seen. Although there have been initial attempts, such as Suisse ID, a kind of electronic identity card designed to guarantee identity in electronic transactions, this project and many others have failed due to overly petty, over-organized and hesitant action.

Meanwhile, the basic digital infrastructure is being built by private companies and here, too, Europe is sobered by the fact that it is mainly private American corporations that are laying the foundations. Data protectionists and legislators never tire of criticizing how sensitive and potentially dangerous this is. However, the majority of consumers do not seem to care.

There would be a need

You could say that the infrastructure is already in place, so why do we need such large-scale digital projects now? If you only look at the real-live infrastructure, that may be true for now. But on the digital level, we are tinkering half-heartedly at every turn.

Data protection, for example, is a wild west. And I don’t just mean this explicitly in relation to the big internet companies. No, regulatory authorities, state executive agencies and industry associations also often interpret data protection law to their own liking.

Data protection dilemma

“At the heart of the data protection issue is the question of whether the data collected belongs to the person who collects it or to the person who forms the basis for this data collection.”

This question can be answered and argued in favor or against one party or the other. There is no stringent, globally valid and accepted best practice. Laws in different countries differ considerably in some important details. And so does legal practice. An impossibility in a world that operates a global economy.

It would be relatively simple: the data belongs to the person who carries out the survey, if only because they are the ones who make the effort to collect it. The right to consent to or refuse a survey logically remains with every citizen and consumer from whom data is collected.

Squaring the data protection circle

Now that we do not have such a uniform and accepted infrastructure, legislators are trying to declare the data the property of the person collecting it. The collectors, for their part, try to circumvent existing and emerging laws with ever new tricks, whether at a legal or technological level. The speed of decision-making and economic efficiency alone always give them a considerable head start.

Digital infrastructure

Our fintech start-up Accounto, for example, is currently demonstrating just how cumbersome and damaging this unholy mechanism is for business and private life. Reconciling European and Swiss data protection law is time-consuming and laborious. Another frustrating aspect is that many customers, or rather the majority of our customers, are not the least bit interested in these issues anyway.

A digital generational project: data protection infrastructure

That’s why I think a digital generational project of our time would be to create an infrastructure that reliably solves data collection and release for collection. The technological possibilities for this have existed for some time. The only thing missing is the realization that we need something like this in the long term.

Privacy

One possible solution could be that we first have to approve the collection of data as a user in terms of infrastructure. This is the same mechanism as we know from confirming the terms and conditions. Only simpler, more convenient and technologically guaranteed. Do you know anyone who reads these terms and conditions?

With such a mechanism, it would be possible for everyone to allow or refuse the collection of data based on their social and technical movement profile. This would save companies large investments and laborious processes. The user, on the other hand, could reliably grant access to individual companies or services or prevent this access.

Ironically, the implementation of such a project would not be that technically complex, as existing parts and mechanisms of the network infrastructure could be used for it.

It does not happen

An infrastructure for data protection is just one possible major project that could and should be tackled at this time. Nevertheless, not much is happening.

There are initiatives, new groups, associations and politicians in every country who are now trying to advance digitalization. In many cases, the exponents are able to make a name for themselves through the topic, even though they didn’t want to know much about digitalization just a few months ago.

There’s a lot of talk, a lot of “workshoping”, a lot of press coverage, but little is actually done. We just don’t have the Alfred Eschers, the people who always put all their eggs in one basket with their projects. Those who have a lot are afraid of losing a lot. This is probably the paradigm that (still) dominates our time in terms of broad innovation.

On the other hand, you also have to recognize that it used to be incredibly easy to see the value of the railroad, for example. When you only knew muddy and paved roads and had to travel long distances on those, every grandmother and child could see that the railroad solved many daily problems comprehensively.

All virtual?

It’s different with digital infrastructure. Because development is progressing so quickly, the older generation doesn’t even recognize the value of the infrastructure. It doesn’t solve any of their real problems, so to speak.

In my experience, the younger generations have almost no affinity for the topic of data protection. The opinion that those who have done nothing wrong have nothing to hide is widespread. I think this is mainly due to the fact that we are still at the very beginning with digital technologies and the resulting possibilities.

This is because most people have not yet fully grasped the impact that data collection and utilization will have on citizens in the future. On the one hand, there are many very positive things in store for us, but on the other hand, working with data also means that individuals and groups of people will be denied access to opportunities to a greater extent than they are today.

Central pillar of our social value system

Now that is nothing new. Life on this planet has never been fair and, by definition, it cannot be. However, the right to self-determination is a central pillar of the Western order of values. That is why it must also be possible in the future for individuals to decide for themselves which data they share with which services or companies.

In the absence of this mechanism, and don’t think that legislation and jurisprudence can be such a mechanism, we are gradually delegating our self-determination away from ourselves.

For this reason, I rate the importance of such a data protection infrastructure much higher than tunnel construction. Perhaps it will simply take a moment until the next generation is mature and capable enough to tackle these things. After all, 28 years passed between the first idea for the Gotthard tunnel and the tunnel breakthrough.

But perhaps, and this is the great danger, too little interest will be shown in this topic in the future. And the lobbyists from the judiciary and the state apparatus will retain sovereignty in these matters. Real solutions, on the other hand, look different.

 

(1) (“Der Aufbruch zur modernen Schweiz”, Verlag Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Zurich 2006)