I've heard Eric Schmidt talk to the industry about Google and how they get excited about the possibilities of using technology like cell phones, with GPS, internet, and a video camera, to create infinite possibilities with targeted advertising.
As he put it, he's driving along and the cell phone announces that he's got a Burger King on his left, and a Subway on his right, and the cell phone advises him that he had a burger for lunch so he wants Subway now. At which point, aware that this would be extremely intrusive and going too far, he says he'd turn the cell phone off because he doesn't want it telling him what to do. :) For the purpose of demonstrating to advertisers and businesspeople the possibilities of future technology to target very precisely, the example illustrates his point very well.
Eric Schmidt would argue that the problem with his example was intrusiveness, not targeting precision. At the same time, I've also heard privacy activists treat the spread of the targeting itself like it's the devil incarnate, due to the necessity of having large amounts of personal information.
I've thought about this, and so long as it is merely targeted (and not extra intrusive), I certainly wouldn't mind seeing all the ads I see actually cater to my interests. On the other hand, privacy is a concern; if I have private interests, do I want them publicly announced through the display of targeted ads catering to that interest where others can see them? It's like the old "my Tivo thinks I'm gay" thing, only now your roommate thinks you're gay too because the Tivo is recording gay-themed shows for you. Even if the Tivo is actually right, what if you didn't want your roommate to know about that?
I don't mind the principle of it, but I do think there are certainly privacy issues to be considered.
I guess I assume some inaccuracy, in fact, I count on it. If it comes to a time when the only ads you see are the ones that some corporation determined according to their ideal definition of your being, then your chances of being exposed to something truly novel (according to your mindframe) are decreased. I like a bit of randomness in the information I recieve.
As he put it, he's driving along and the cell phone announces that he's got a Burger King on his left, and a Subway on his right, and the cell phone advises him that he had a burger for lunch so he wants Subway now. At which point, aware that this would be extremely intrusive and going too far, he says he'd turn the cell phone off because he doesn't want it telling him what to do. :) For the purpose of demonstrating to advertisers and businesspeople the possibilities of future technology to target very precisely, the example illustrates his point very well.
Eric Schmidt would argue that the problem with his example was intrusiveness, not targeting precision. At the same time, I've also heard privacy activists treat the spread of the targeting itself like it's the devil incarnate, due to the necessity of having large amounts of personal information.
I've thought about this, and so long as it is merely targeted (and not extra intrusive), I certainly wouldn't mind seeing all the ads I see actually cater to my interests. On the other hand, privacy is a concern; if I have private interests, do I want them publicly announced through the display of targeted ads catering to that interest where others can see them? It's like the old "my Tivo thinks I'm gay" thing, only now your roommate thinks you're gay too because the Tivo is recording gay-themed shows for you. Even if the Tivo is actually right, what if you didn't want your roommate to know about that?
I don't mind the principle of it, but I do think there are certainly privacy issues to be considered.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment