A broad coalition of technology companies, including AT&T, Google and Microsoft, and advocacy groups from across the political spectrum said Tuesday that it would push Congress to strengthen online privacy laws to protect private digital information from government access.
While this proposed legislation would tighten privacy rights for online users to prevent the government from accessing our information, these protections don't acknowledge the ways in which our data is mined on a daily basis for potential marketing targets. Do we accept consumer data mining because we're cool with free market capitalism? Why is it more acceptable for a marketer to manipulate me while I assume Big Brother is coming to take away my rights when a governing body accesses my personal information? How are they different? One is an illusion of free choice while the second doesn't even try to disguise its ability to mine my data.
In "Mastercard Set to Open an Online Shopping Mall," Andrew Martin focuses on how Mastercard is creating an online shopping site, Mastercard Marketplace, that will use a new technology to monitor customer behavior all over the internet to better target the customer. As part of his report, he interviews Anita L. Allen, a law professor who studies privacy issues at the University of Pennsylvania. Allen says that as consumers give up more private information for short-term gains,
“'In the end, we turn into citizens who live in a world where we have no control over our own data.'”
Martin's article works well with the Helft piece because both suggest free market capitalism as a naturalized entity that does not seem to concern people as much as governmental invasions of privacy.
This recent editorial in the NY Times discusses online privacy in connection to government officials having no real legal prohibitions to prevent them from invading a user's privacy. However, there is a move toward developing legislation that will take issues of internet privacy into account. I do think this is important, but again, I find it ironic how willingly people accept being marketed to because of data mining.
In "Bringing a Smarter Search to Twitter, With Fees," Todd Woody highlights the strong connection between marketing and internet use. Here, people are willing to pay for a Twitter service that will (like Google) decide which feeds are most useful to the user. That service will use a data collecting technology to customize info for users, but this information can easily be used for marketing purposes, too.
Woody talks with the folks at the forefront of this entrepreneurial venture:
“TweetUp is to Twitter what Google is to the Web,” Mr. Case said.
Here is how the service will work, according to Mr. Gross: people can bid on key words or phrases, like “iPad” or “solar energy,” to push their Twitter profile or posts to the top of TweetUp’s rankings. Bids begin at 1 cent and people will pay each time their profile or a post shows up in a search.
Mr. Gross stressed that bids were not required to appear in search results. The service will also calculate rankings based on an algorithm that uses data from a company called Klout that measures a Twitter user’s influence. Bit.ly, a service that shortens Web addresses for display on Twitter, will provide data on how often people click on a link in a post.
So who does Mr. Gross expect to pay to put something as ephemeral as a Twitter post on top of the charts? “I think everyone who is looking to build a following will pay,” he said. That means companies that want to build their brands as well as individuals who hope to drive readers to their Web sites.
Beyond explicit economic reasons for data mining (what folks are often up in arms about in relation to e-privacy), many online newspaper services are asking whether the veil of 'privacy' for their viewers should be pulled back a bit. Richard Pérez-Peña reports in "News Sites Rethink Anonymous Online Comments" that the days of unmediated nasty comments or the prevalent 'LOL' and 'So Random' internet shout-outs may be numbered:
When news sites, after years of hanging back, embraced the idea of allowing readers to post comments, the near-universal assumption was that anyone could weigh in and remain anonymous. But now, that idea is under attack from several directions, and journalists, more than ever, are questioning whether anonymity should be a given on news sites.
The Washington Post plans to revise its comments policy over the next several months, and one of the ideas under consideration is to give greater prominence to commenters using real names.
The New York Times, The Post and many other papers have moved in stages toward requiring that people register before posting comments, providing some information about themselves that is not shown onscreen.
...“Anonymity is just the way things are done. It’s an accepted part of the Internet, but there’s no question that people hide behind anonymity to make vile or controversial comments,” said Arianna Huffington, a founder of The Huffington Post. “I feel that this is almost like an education process. As the rules of the road are changing and the Internet is growing up, the trend is away from anonymity.”
