During the panel, moderated by Alex Wrottesley, head of Geovation, which hosted the event, several questions were raised. What is a fair balance between user privacy and the utility of a product or service? Should big tech companies be taxed on the data they hold and process? Where does the responsibility lie? Should consumers expect tech companies to adhere to a code of conduct? Is privacy a right or a privilege? Should you have to pay for privacy?

A lot of interaction took place with the very engaged audience, and poignant points were made. One being it is easy to give consumers what they want, but it is much harder to give them what they need. In addition, Basiri said that the two concepts of ‘usability’ and ‘useful’ are different.

One really good idea was put forward was of being able to change the accuracy settings different uses of data. This would mean that an individual could set their location accuracy at five metres for their navigation apps but at one kilometre for weather forecast apps. Currently, most consumers only have the option of turning location services off or on.

In the midst of this debate, it is important to remember the good that can be done with location data. Vehicle recovery and first response from emergency services are much easier when users do not have to describe their location, perhaps in unfamiliar surroundings, and some women feel far safer navigating a city with a mobile app and not having to ask strangers for directions.

Does privacy exist? Is everything public by default? These are questions that consumer groups, policy-makers, tech companies, law-makers and individuals have started to and must continue to grapple with to allow everyone to make the most of the utility of new technologies while still maintaining their preferred level of privacy.

The debate was part of the Benchmark Initiative, sponsored by the Omidyar Network. Geovation is an accelerator and hub for organisations working with location data.