By Frank J. Diekmann
In the cartoons, the Voice of Conscience is always portrayed as a little white angel sitting on a character’s shoulder, struggling to be heard over the temptations being whispered into the other ear by a grinning, little red devil.
Whatever the devil is selling is always more fun, and hey, no one likes listening to the angel. And that incudes credit unions. But…
But the kumbaya community had just such a Voice of Conscience not whispering but shouting and cajoling and pulling it back when it so wanted to gloss over an issue and get back to the devil’s data pitch during the REACH Conference sponsored by the California and Nevada leagues. But the voice wouldn’t let them—and good for it.
If you’re member-owned, ACT like you’re member-owned, the angel said again and again, telling credit unions to quit “pretending” and “drinking your own Kool-Aid.”
Playing the role of the angel was Michael Josephson, a former law professor and an “ethicist” who repeatedly challenged credit unions to really give some thought to the morals of using “big data.”
When it comes to the “how’s” and the “what’s” and the “why’s” during panel discussions at credit union conferences, it’s typically the small picture “how to execute a strategy,” “what are the compliance requirements,” and “why should we make this investment?” It’s rarely ever about big picture questions such as “how should we deal with this in the context of member ownership?” “why are we doing this?,” “what are we all about?”
Those latter questions make people feel uncomfortable. And people who are proud of wearing their white hats do not like to hear there might be a smudge on them; it makes them uncomfortable, even defensive.
But Josephson pointed to the smudges and more. And good for him. During a discussion of big data at the California and Nevada league’s REACH Conference, one of his co-presenters argued that data was being collected by “everyone else,” to which Josephson quickly replied, “But you’re not like everyone else!”
From the very beginning of the discussion, Josephson made his theme clear: “I’ve been very concerned with the ethics in big data,” he told credit unions, making it clear he included credit union ethics among those concerns.
When Josephson’s fellow panelists—and I felt a bit sorry for them because I’m sure they were feeling a bit ambushed in a discussion of ethics—suggested big data is now an essential “necessity,” Josephson challenged that basic assumption, saying that every credit union should “start at the beginning with a fresh plate.”
But here’s the critical piece you need to know—you’d be wrong to assume Josephson hails from the Luddite School of Law and is opposed to data collection. He isn’t. What he wants, instead, is for member-owned institutions to act like those member-owners actually matter.
“I have said the question should be when does it become too intrusive. The question is how should we use it and should we collect more. Once you start it becomes, ‘Gee, wouldn’t it be nice if…” It can be intrusive. To me the standard is when does the amount of information you have on me and you’re using on me become uncomfortable,” said Josephson, who was an articulate presenter of his case. “The biggest question becomes, ‘Do you think people are comfortable with what you have on them?’ And if they are, why don’t you disclose it? I think we don’t want people to know how much we know about them when we’re trying to manipulate them, and that’s what troubles me. The issue is transparency…I think you’re a member organization, your mission is about your members, so just tell them, ‘This is what we want to use, this is how we’re going to use it, we’re going to determine if you are having economic problems, and we’re doing all this to help you.’ And then allow them to opt in rather than opt out.”
'It Always Escalates'
When it comes to collecting data on consumers and members, Josephson said it’s become a “keep-up-with-the-other-guys thing,” and that it always “escalates.” What Josephson said he expects from credit unions is some simple self-examination.
“I just want to suggest is there a little of ‘what are you pretending not to know here?’ It would be relatively easy to develop notification. The fact is business is going to push it and push it and push it, and I predict there will be legislation on this in five years.” That legislation, he predicted, will be “restrictive.”
In the meantime, the voice of the angel proposes this. “Why don’t we agree on the solution that those who want it, opt in, those who don’t, opt out,” said Josephson. “I don’t see any reasonable argument against complete, open consent and choice about whether they want to be in the pool.”
And I don’t see any reasonable argument against inviting more angels to sit on the shoulders of credit unions when CUs meet. Angels shouldn’t win in just the cartoons.
Frank J. Diekmann is Cooperator in Chief at CUToday.info, and can be reached at Frank@CUToday.info.