Does your local newspaper have what may seem like an unusual job? An ombudsman? It’s a unique job and I’ve long wondered why most companies don’t have a similar role by now — specifically to represent consumer concerns from a privacy and data security perspective, but also for handling other issues that affect users, such as so-called “fake news” and dark experience patterns. Let’s call this role a “digital ombudsman.”

As the amount of data pertaining to each of us continues to grow at an astronomical rate, this role becomes an increasingly important way of keeping companies in check. It provides them with a form of consumer conscience. And it provides balance for consumers who face of an enormous imbalance of power.

If you’re not familiar with the ombudsman, it’s a role often found within newspapers, universities, government bodies, and sometimes, within corporations. Wikipedia’s crowd-sourced definition explains the role of ombudsman or ombud as a public advocate or “an official who is charged with representing the interests of the public by investigating and addressing complaints of maladministration or a violation of rights.”

There are other descriptors like “adjudicator,” “arbiter,” “assessor” — the “A” section of your Dictionary weighs heavy with these judgment-oriented labels — but these terms don’t touch on the element of consumer advocacy implicit to “ombudsman.”

“Ombudsman” is not a great gender neutral term. “Ombudsperson” sounds awkward. “And “ombud” sounds … weird? The word comes from the Norwegian “ombudsmann” and in turn from the Old Norse “umboðsmaðr.” And with that exciting examination of the word’s origins out of the way, let’s accept that the title comes with its own issues for the moment. Suggest your own alternative job title in comments if you like.

Who Needs this Role?

Google famously convened an ethics board to ruminate over the possible dangers A.I. poses for the future. That’s admirable from a Let’s-Avoid-the-Robopocalypse perspective, but Google needs this position of digital ombudsman to focus on their users’ concerns now. (A quick Google search reveals that I’m not the first to suggest it.) Facebook needs this position. So does Twitter. And Snapchat. And Amazon. But the need extends well beyond these obvious digital and social media companies. Anyone who is shuttling your data around the Internet and among apps including but not limited to those who may be bartering with and marketing it — they all need this internal watch dog position. And those companies are innumerable. From AT&T to Verizon. From Comcast to Spectrum. From Bank of America to Wells Fargo. From Audi to Volkswagen. And on and on and on.

This Is Not the Legal Department

This digital ombudsman should be a consumer activist, not a lawyer. Legal departments don’t operate on behalf of users or consumers. They operate on behalf of companies. To keep them from getting sued by users and consumers. Certainly, good lawyers would encourage adherence to data protection laws, but legal departments are typically motivated… by legal motivations. Their job is to ensure the letter of the law is kept. So it’s quite possible for a legal department to give a thumbs up to activity, which though technically legal flies in the face of valid consumer issues and concerns.

Similarly, some organizations have a Data Privacy Officer that acts somewhat like an ombudsman but that individual is typically a lawyer and may report to General Counsel. The digital ombudsman is concerned with ethics from a consumer’s perspective — and sometimes even human rights — not just laws or regulations or protocols.

Remember a few years back when Facebook suddenly made everyone’s “likes” public overnight? That meant that whether you had liked Outward Bound or Outback Steakhouse or Out Magazine on Facebook, your likes were suddenly revealed for everyone to see — without your knowing or agreeing to it. At that time, I brought up the ethical implications of this sudden change with a Facebook employee. Her response aligned neatly with Zuckerberg’s justifications. It was fine, she argued, because Facebook alerted users to this change — after the fact. I was a little flabbergasted by that response. But now, I wonder, would Facebook’s legal department have disagreed with her? I doubt it.

In reality, let’s consider even just one use case: How many people were outed when the LGBTQ-friendly companies and groups they had liked were suddenly made public? How many people lost “friends” immediately without having any say in the matter when Facebook suddenly made their sexual orientation or gender identity radically transparent to everyone? There’s likely myriad stories we’ll never know.

Similarly, legal departments may not care how your data is shared or sold, so long as the law allows for it and you’ve signed off on it when you accepted the transaction tacitly within the tiny terms and conditions copy you never read. (This gives us reason to celebrate the EU’s GDPR. More on that later.)