You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Data Privacy’ tag.
> Posted by Elisabeth Rhyne, Managing Director, CFI
Internet privacy rules have just been overturned in the U.S. by Congress and the Administration, and at the same time, struggles over banking privacy are taking place. There are striking similarities as well as crucial differences. As a consumer protection advocate, I am struck by how the narrative about these kinds of conflicts primarily centers on where competitive advantage lies, and which company or industry is made the winner or loser, rather than about the rights of consumers.
The internet case pits telecoms and cable companies, like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, against internet companies, like Google and Facebook. The Obama-era rules that were just overturned required broadband providers to ask customer permission before tracking, sharing and/or selling their data. These companies complain that the rules disadvantage them relative to internet-based companies, which can collect data without such rules.
The banking case, as reported in The New York Times, pits major banks against fintechs and data aggregators. The question is whether banks will transfer consumer data – at the consumer’s request – to companies that provide personal financial management tools, like Mint, Betterment, and Digit (or to data aggregators that facilitate the transfer – like Plaid and Yodlee). Without this data the financial management apps cannot build the complete portrait of a person’s financial life they need to provide analysis and advice. But banks are reluctant, even after specific consumer requests. You might think this reluctance is to protect their customers or because of data privacy rules for banking, but actually, according to The Times, it’s because the customer data reveals details about banks’ own business models – like pricing and products. The banks fear, probably correctly, that the personal financial management companies will use the information to undercut bank products with their own offerings.
> Posted by Danielle Piskadlo, Manager, Investing in Inclusive Finance, CFI
Data privacy is officially dead. The U.S. House of Representatives’ vote to overturn the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) internet privacy rules was yet another nail in the coffin, making data privacy a thing of the past.
In previous generations, banking may have been based on personal relationships and a handshake. More recently, it was based on your banking history and financial flows. But for future generations, access to financial products and services will almost undoubtedly be decided by big data algorithms, gobbling-up whatever digitized information, financial or otherwise, the corporate tentacles can seize.
We know what you’re thinking. Won’t this help underwrite previously-underbanked individuals? Of course. And what does data-sharing matter so long as you don’t have anything to hide? Won’t ultra-targeted ads make the consumer experience better? All definitely true. Well, actually there are inherent problems with these lines of thinking, but honestly what’s the point of resisting? The notion of being “data rich” has never been more powerful. And what are negative social externalities in 2017? After all, the U.S. political system breathed new life into the fallacy of “clean coal” earlier this week in the name of making a few bucks.
In the following post, John Owens offers an overview of his research project with the CFI Fellows Program.
Background & Research Questions
More and more online credit providers have started to offer loans to not only consumers but also to SMEs around the world.
Outside of digital banking platforms, new alternative online and digital platforms that target consumers and small SMEs include:
- Peer-to-peer (P2P) SME lenders
- Online balance sheet lenders
- Loan aggregator portals
- Tech and e-commerce giants
- Mobile data-based lending models
While the rise of alternative data-based lending has opened new and innovative credit opportunities for individuals and SMEs, these new technologies and providers also come with several consumer protection challenges. These can be categorized into seven main areas:
Read the rest of this entry »
> Posted by Daniel Balson, Lead Specialist for Eurasia and MENA, the Smart Campaign
This is the fourth and final blog entry in a series exploring how financial services can be leveraged to assist refugee populations. This entry will consider the future of refugee financial services and what our sector can do to ensure that the future is an inclusive one that serves genuine needs and protects refugee rights.
Syrian refugees shop at a market with their bank card given by the Turkish Red Crescent.
It is worth asking whether the financial inclusion sector is at the forefront of the movement to financially include refugees. The humanitarian sector has long struggled to determine how to provide assistance during a crisis in a way that is sustainable, effective, and accountable. Recently, humanitarian organizations such as Oxfam and the International Finance Corporation (IFC) have begun considering whether it’s possible to use payments as an on-ramp for financial inclusion of refugees. Cash transfers have historically facilitated corruption and failed to make it into the hands of the people who needed it most. In-kind donations of goods such as tents, food, sleeping material and other items undermined local merchants who made their livelihoods selling these very goods. In response, the sector has begun experimenting with digital financial payments. In Afghanistan, for example, the World Food Program (WFP) has issued e-vouchers and mobile money to cover food aid. The first e-voucher pilot was carried out on a small user base of 603 recipients in Kabul for a three-month disbursement cycle from April to June 2014. The total value of e-vouchers disbursed was US$72,360. The program proved successful and the WFP launched several follow-on pilots across the country in the subsequent year.
> Posted by Susy Cheston, Senior Advisor, CFI
Data analytics is a big story these days, and we’re excited about its potential. In fact, we discuss its promise in the Technology, Addressing Customer Needs, and Credit Reporting sections of the FI2020 Progress Report. In terms of credit reporting, data analytics start-ups claim that their algorithms can cull information from Internet searches, social media, mobile apps, and so on to identify creditworthy people who might otherwise be left out of the system.
GO Finance, operating in Tanzania, and Konfio, in Mexico, are online lenders whose models are based on data analytics. GO Finance leverages digital data and mobile money channels to underwrite and manage loans for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), particularly targeting farmer cooperatives and others in the agricultural value chain. Konfio uses credit algorithms based on alternative data to help micro and small businesses obtain working capital loans. Konfio’s digital platform allows for low-cost customer acquisition and rapid credit assessment, enabling the company to offer lower rates. Demyst Data, by contrast, partners with financial institutions – global banks, online lenders, and card issuers. It analyzes online, social, and internal data to help its partners lend to thin-file, underbanked customers. Alibaba’s Ant Financial and its new Sesame Credit use proprietary customer data drawn from non-banking transactions to support lending, with Alibaba’s e-commerce business, financial service provider (Ant), and credit reporting service (Sesame Credit) all arms of the same conglomerate.
For data analytics to reach its enormous potential for credit reporting, there are big questions that need to be worked out. Is it really predictive? Will it really enable more customers at the base of the pyramid to obtain credit? Will customers’ rights to data privacy be protected? How can data analytics be effectively regulated?
> Posted by Susy Cheston, Senior Advisor, CFI
Visitors to our FI2020 Progress Report on Client Protection will have noted our poor math skills. (This is the section of the report that assesses global progress to date in advancing fair treatment for lower-income financial services clients.) We rated regulators a 6 on consumer protection and providers a 3—and somehow averaged those out to a 5. Our averaging skills make even less sense when you consider the three legs of the client protection stool—providers, regulators, and consumers—and realize that consumers are not even on the radar, rightfully earning a 1 at best in terms of their capacity to advocate on their own behalf. So why the optimism?
We were certainly swayed by the impressive momentum among a range of actors at the global level—including policy and private sector initiatives—toward improved consumer protection. But it’s what happens at the national level that really counts. The World Bank’s 2014 Global Survey on Consumer Protection and Financial Literacy reports that some form of legal framework for financial consumer protection is in place in 112 out of 114 economies surveyed. We are not so Pollyannaish as to think that having a legal framework is equivalent to having a regulatory and supervisory system that protects consumers well, but we do think it’s a good step in the right direction.
> Posted by Haset Solomon, Communications and Operations Associate, the Smart Campaign
I rarely think about the cost of convenience. I often use my phone’s navigational system, seeking turn-by-turn directions, but I usually don’t consider the trail of data I’m leaving behind – and even if I do, I decide the benefit outweighs the cost. We live in an age where leaving myriad digital footprints is almost inescapable. Increasingly, we hear of big data analytic companies that “liberate data” or “democratize data” for the purpose of improving products and services or making them more widely available. There are true benefits to advancing our society’s data capabilities and unearthing new patterns and insights. (The phone that tracks my travel can give me advice on promising restaurants nearby.) But the costs can be high. Here in the U.S., the anonymity of “meta” data sets is continually being challenged. Fortunately, in this country consumer advocacy groups and institutions such as the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), Bureau of Consumer Protection at FTC, and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) are working to address and remedy breaches of privacy and data rights.
In most of the world, similar institutions are nonexistent or under-developed. The fast uptake of technology has opened up large population segments to new possibilities, while leaving them vulnerable. Digital financial services users in developing countries are often choice-less and voiceless on how their data is used.
> Posted by Rafe Mazer, Financial Sector Specialist, Government & Policy, CGAP
It’s a great time to be working on consumer protection. Even while risks change or expand in scope as new products evolve and access increases, it seems that there are just as many talented researchers and new approaches to making consumer protection work emerging. Some of the most important breakthroughs are coming from consumer and behavioral research. This includes insights into what sales staff really do and why (see, for example, this infographic on a recent World Bank/CGAP/CONDUSEF audit study in Mexico), how consumers make financial decisions—not always for purely economic reasons, and what the context of low resources or scarcity means for financial behavior.
The next step is to take these research insights and turn them into improved consumer protection policies in emerging markets. CGAP’s recent publication, Applying Behavioral Insights in Consumer Protection Policy, describes a range of current and potential ways we can bridge the research and policy fields. But what about providers? What can we take from the recent behavioral insights emerging for the Client Protection Principles?
> Posted by Jamie M. Zimmerman, Senior Policy Consultant, CGAP
Achieving financial inclusion by 2020 will depend in large part on the proliferation of fast, affordable, and accessible digital financial services (DFS). Indeed these effective, scalable models were a clear theme at the FI2020 Global Forum hosted by CFI last fall. Yet as excitement for DFS dominated much of the public discussion, a small and diverse set of financial inclusion leaders convened a private side-meeting to discuss an often-overlooked question: what are the consumer risks to these new, innovative digital models?
The meeting, co-hosted by CGAP and UNCDF’s Better Than Cash Alliance, introduced the concept of “responsible digital finance” and revealed heightened awareness of and interest in an array of issues related to the potential consumer risks of digital financial services, including:
Read the rest of this entry »