How do I feel about the
use of online personal data tracking in order to better target market to me? On
one hand I appreciate the “recommended for you” aspects of online shopping:
such as recommend songs on iTunes or books on Amazon. On the other hand, when I
see an advertisement for the dress I just clicked on from the French Connection
website pop up on my Facebook newsfeed, I’m a little creeped out. That’s the
best way I can describe online data tracking: sometimes useful, almost always
creepy.
A
prime example of creepy comes from the Bloomberg article on bionic mannequins: “To
give the EyeSee ears as well as eyes, Almax is testing technology that
recognizes words to allow retailers to eavesdrop on what shoppers say about the
mannequin’s attire” (1). While spying for security purposes is standard, spying
to gather information on shoppers via facial recognition is a little Big
Brother. The article points out several retailers that echo this concern, such
as Nordstrom and Burberry. At least some retailers are “sensitive about
respecting the customer’s boundaries.” Retailers must remember to treat their
customers as people, not just as sales numbers or informational databases.
“Dataium
said that shoppers' Web browsing is still anonymous, even though it can be tied
to their names. The reason: Dataium does not give dealers click-by-click
details of people's Web surfing history but rather an analysis of their
interests” (2)
To a certain degree I
agree anonymous data is harmless: how many visited this site over another, how
many clicked through from a certain ad, etc. But shopping data tied to a name
isn’t anonymous. In fact that represents the exact opposite of the definition
of anonymous. Although, like all
modern debates regarding privacy, it’s hard to determine where exactly the line
get’s drawn. Is tracking information on every click and demographic attribute a
protection of privacy, as long as it deletes your name? This issue does come
down to the idea of protection. It is violating to have your personal information
such as name, birthday, family, medicine prescriptions, and those embarrassing
websites you’ve visited once or twice, shared with any company willing to pay
the price. What’s happening is a buying and selling of you, that you are never
really an active part of. It feels plain dirty. Sure many companies do make you
check a box for the “terms of agreement” but c’mon really? Do they expect you
to read a two page, tiny-font novel full of legal and technical jargon?
What’s scary is that these
data tracking companies are only become more and more aggressive in their
information gathering ventures. They’re at competition with each other to
supply ad agencies and other third parties with the most complete and useful
information. This means they must constantly one up each other, and if the
other guy is violating online users information what’s the harm if they jump on
the bandwagon too?
When do the rights of the
watched become less than the rights of the watching? I know the US government
would say when the watching are protecting the watched from people of mass
destruction. Where does that leave retailers who are just trying to get a more
money by using more of your information? One answer could be when the
information is given with consent and when the information is used in a means
that is beneficial to the consumers. But here is when the line becomes blurred
again. Do the lengthy “terms of agreement” qualify as consent? Is selling all
your personal information really beneficial to you?
“Much
of the data being collected through tracking technology is used to make
services more convenient or for other benign purposes. Companies that track Web
browsing say that they only want to use the data to show better advertisements.”
(3)
More
targeted ads can be seen as beneficial to end consumers. When it comes down to
it I’ll admit I rather be shown an advertisement for the French Connection
dress I just looked up, over one for Rogaine or life insurance, even though the
thought of being watched as I browse displeases me. The danger comes with the
fact that once these companies have your information, after they have used it
to provide you “better advertisements,” they have it stored. Your information
can be accumulated and leaked or given or sold to third party companies that
have more deceiving end games.
While
we would like to believe natural rights are black and white, they often consist
of blurry shades of grey. Privacy is a right that falls under this description.
I do believe more legal limits should be placed on online personal data
collection, but what exactly those limits should be and how they should be
enforced, is a question that has been and will be debated for years.
(1)
Bionic Mannequins Spy on Shoppers to Boost Luxury Sales by Andrew Roberts.
Bloomberg.
(2)They
Know What You’re Shopping For By by Jennifer Valentino-DeVries and Jeremy
Singer-Vine. Wall Street Journal.
(3)
The Economics of Surveillance by Jennifer Valentino-DeVries. Wall Street
Journal.
No comments:
Post a Comment