Archive: Opinions

I read an article this morning about new data protection laws the European Union is implementing.  The law gives consumers more control over how their data is used, but opponents say it will be a blow to online advertising companies.  At issue are those ads that seem to follow you around.  For example, I look at a product on Amazon.com, and then go to a news site.  To my surprise, there is an ad for the thing I just looked at, or something very similar on... Amazon.com.

Advertisers can do this because current laws only require sites to have something in their terms of service saying that use of the site implicitly gives permission to use your data to target ads toward you.  Full disclosure -- the Lansing Star is an advertising company.  Readers get it free because it is supported by mostly local advertisers who want to reach our market.  But the Star will never use user data-based targeted advertising for one simple reason.  It's creepy.

When I look at a product on Site A and then see an ad on Facebook for the same or a similar product available at Site A, as I did just one minute ago... it creeps me out.  How does Facebook know I looked at something on the first site?  (I do know how they do it.  That's not the issue.  The issue is WHY do they do it and who said they could use my data to do it?)  Then, I go to another site and see the same ads.  It feels like I am being cyber-stalked.

In fact, I am.  Even though personal identifying information like my name may not be available to the sites showing me these advertisements, something linked to my IP address (where my computer or phone is located on the Internet) definitely is.  These companies know where I live, and are tracking what I do.

Advertising companies will say that pushing targeted ads that are based on your data is helpful to you.  These ads are for things you have demonstrated an interest in, so it makes it easier for you to find the things you want.  So these companies are actually helping you, not violating your privacy.  They are making your life easier, yup, sure, that's their motivation.  They will argue that's why so few people opt-out.

But you have to take affirmative action to find out how to opt-out, and then actually do it.  For each site that does this, and you have to figure out which of the sites you visit actually do it.  That's a lot of work to make something you don't want and didn't initiate stop happening.  This is the real reason so few people opt out.

The new law would reverse that -- consumers would be opted-out as the default.  If you want targeted ads you will be given the opportunity to opt in.  Of course under opt-in rules a lot more people will not receive targeted ads, just as more do now with the opt-out system.  Businesses that do not comply could be fined up to 4% of their global turnover, no small amount.

Despite the ad companies' insistence on the benign benevolence of targeted Internet ads, it comes down to that creepy thing.  The technical explanations aimed at reassuring me my personal information is safe and anonymous don't convince me.  I don't care if it really is creepy.  I care about the creepy feeling I get from their ads because I perceive it as creepy.  I don't want to buy stuff from stalkers.  It would be like buying condoms from rapists.  Or borrowing money from bank robbers.  This kind of advertising does not give the consumer a good impression.  And despite the adage that even bad publicity is good publicity, a company's reputation actually does figure in to my buying decisions, especially online.

Advertising is big business.  There is a lot of money to be made with this kind of targeted advertising.  Would you pay a premium for an ad that is guaranteed to be served only to customers who are interested in buying what you are selling?  Of course.  It's a much more efficient use of your ad dollars.  That's why, for example, if you sell something that hunters might like, it is better to advertise in hunting journals than in, for example, Time Magazine.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that only a portion of Time readers want products like yours, while almost everyone who reads a hunting journal does.

So what's the problem with targeted Internet ads based on user data?  You have to be interested enough in hunting to buy a hunting journal to see those ads.  Being on Facebook doesn't make you a hunting enthusiast.  You are not being stalked.  You are going where you know you can find information you are interested in, both in the journal content and the ads.  That is not creepy.

None of the excuses for using personal data in advertising ring true, but big business means big money.  That is why there will be a lot of push-back against this EU law because big profits are involved.  To these companies it is not a matter of privacy, or doing the right thing, or even the reputation of the advertisers they convince to do business with them.  It's just about money.

To consumers it is about a lot more than money.  We have become the product that these particular ad companies are selling.  Information about you and me is what they are actually selling, and even if they make the distinction that it is only the use of this data that they are selling and not actual the information, isn't that the same as selling you and me?  Do you want to live in a world where there is no expectation of privacy?

I have a lot of experience with this.  As an editor I get all sorts of emails that claim that the reason I am receiving these emails is that I requested to be included on their distribution list.  In almost 100% of the cases I did not opt in to these mailing lists.  To some extent it is legitimate to send press releases to newspapers.  But a large proportion of the emails I receive are not relevant to this newspaper, and when they have the audacity to claim that I opted in, that's when I get angry.  So I am here to tell you that even if we had strict privacy laws about the use of personal data, they will be abused.  That certainly doesn't mean we should give up.  When companies refuse to do the right thing, laws can be useful, if not 100% effective, in protecting consumers and our privacy.

Just because you can do a thing doesn't mean you should do it.  Our own government should take note of what the EU is doing and pass a similar law here as well.  Enough is enough.

v11i48