Commentary

Does More Relevance Always Equal Less Privacy?

by Kaila Colbin , Featured Contributor, March 16, 2009

You cannot have been surprised, in any way, by Google's announcement last Wednesday that it was launching a behavioral targeting program. After all, the company has masses of historical data to work with, has unfettered access to an extensive content network of proprietary properties and AdSense sites, and is the proud owner of a company that earned its $3.1 billion price tag via -- you guessed it -- behavioral targeting.

Again unsurprisingly, the pro vs. con tennis rally began almost immediately following the announcement. Google's affirmative defense is transparency: we show you what categories we put you in, we let you create profiles and we let you decide whether or not to participate.

Privacy advocates, on the other hand, believe that this defense is undone by the opt-out model being employed. Jeffrey Chester, the executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, calls opt-out "a very incomplete and flawed safeguard." Ari Schwartz, of the Center for Democracy and Technology, concurs, saying "the opt-out is based on a failed premise... these plug-in options just serve to confuse users about what they need to do to protect themselves." Others have been less tactful. Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, calls the program "a disaster."

In reality, the core of the problem isn't the opt-in or the opt-out; it's what gets collected, what gets stored, what gets known about you. Opt-out is only an issue because of the sensitivity of the information that can be collected if you remain "opted-in." What makes it worse is the feeling that an analysis of historical data isn't the best method to predict behavior; it's simply the most widely accepted method right now. As one commenter over on PC World put it, behavioral datamining is "studying the corn kernels in somebody's p00p, then trying to guess what they will decide to eat for lunch."

Behavioral prediction based on historical data must produce results or nobody would be interested, but it's not the only option. Along with Google's BT program, this week saw the launch of VortexDNA's Web Genome Project, a movement to map the Web. (Disclosure: I blog for them am and a minority shareholder. Are you listening, David Koretz?)

The WGP is built around an interactive search tool, but it isn't aiming for the search market. Its key proposition is non-historical personalization: relevant content based on an aggregate and continually updated "genome," rather than on a collection of data about which sites you've visited.

Google is not the only one offering behavioral targeting, and no doubt the Web Genome Project isn't the only endeavor to come up with an alternative. But I do get the sense that the current BT efforts of the big players are based on a flawed axiom: the more we follow you, the better. Given that, the importance of the WGP and others like it is to open the door to the idea that there are alternatives.

We've been constrained for too long by the assumption that More Relevance = Less Privacy. Come on, guys! Instead of a tug-of-war over that win-lose proposition, let's focus instead on a new equation: More Relevance + More Privacy = Happier Netizens.

After all, we're the Internet Generation. Solving problems like this is in our DNA. Don't you think we can do it?

8 comments about "Does More Relevance Always Equal Less Privacy?".

Check to receive email when comments are posted.

Marissa Louie, March 16, 2009 at 10:12 a.m.
This is a flawed and naive response. Here, I outline why Google's behavioral targeting is the equivalent of illegal wiretapping: http://marissalouie.com/?p=521
I can be reached for comments at marissa@ad-village.com
Reply

Vincent Vandeputte from You View.tv, March 16, 2009 at 10:15 a.m.

The era of 'Big Brother is Googling you' is near. I am against it 100%. Let me make my own choices and leave my personal information, private. When are we going to put the internet user first and not the advertisers?

Paula Lynn from Who Else Unlimited, March 16, 2009 at 10:15 a.m.

I like it - illegal wiretapping.

Jim Dugan from PipPops LLC, March 16, 2009 at 10:45 a.m.

Let's define personal/generic information.

Yes, Vince, your personal information can be kept personal. But, what is it? Your pin number?

If you're able to go to a site in your area that knows you're in the area because of your location submission (zip code, for example) or because of the gps on your mobile.

"They" can tell where you've been and where you are, who you called and when, what you transacted and when.

Advertisers call it valuable data and when taken to the mobile level, there's so many ways to know alot about you (hey, did that camera just catch you running a red light, before you got to the camera at 7-Eleven?).

We do take it a step further, though, with our mobile advertising site - only gathering generic info (age, location, gender and such) and allow you to come to us, at your leisure, for all of the deals in your area.

We only know where you are when you want us to and it's all about preference.

So, while once you step out of your cave you're open for view in this day and age, I believe there are ways to enable all of us to use services such as ours without the fear that we've been GoogleEyesed!

Vincent Vandeputte from You View.tv, March 16, 2009 at 11:27 a.m.

To Jim,
the problem is 1) what happens if all this information gets combined in one way or another. 2) I want to be able to make my own choices and I don't want to be told what is on the menu because some company thinks I need, based on my previous behaviour.

Jim Dugan from PipPops LLC, March 16, 2009 at 5:31 p.m.

Not to trade on another's site, but to Vince, all of the information is already easily able to be combined, as I said in my previous comment, the camera's there - you run the red light - they see you -

My goal is to have people understand that, but let's say, that all of this info is out there about us - what do you think we have about another 90 days? - it's out there - but is it right? Is it really you?

The trend is you are being urged to even create your own 'defense' to make sure nothing's out there about you that's wrong - if you care - but, and since this seems as though everybody has to become their own marketing expert about themselves (which it's probably going to get to - see the person across the street - point your phone - click and if they're open, you know them). People want it. Look at the social networks.

My goal is to gather a significant amount of information you're willing to give up (the advertisers need something to play) and I'll provide instant global local information and my goal is to supply you with the menu on what I believe is you're future needs and wants and behaviors, not based on your past. I don't know about your past. I'm concerned about your future.

David Koretz from Adventive, Inc., March 16, 2009 at 9:46 p.m.

yes, I'm listening.

And I stand by my original statement: if you have to disclose a conflict, you shouldn't be writing about it.

David Koretz

David Thurman from Aussie Rescue of Illinois, March 17, 2009 at 3:54 p.m.

Since it's an opt-in to even use Google, I am not sure what can be done, unless they are the only option to locate information on the web.

I use their Google Latitude, which is the BIGGEST Brother app of all time. (I want to see what they do, I see a big advertising angle in it).

http://www.google.com/latitude

Try it on your mobile, it's creepy!