"It is not anonymous if the companies are tracking the same user over time," said Ari Schwartz of the Center for Democracy and Technology. Of particular concern are the cumulative effects of tracking across multiple sites over prolonged periods of time -- activities that decrease anonymity, according to opponents.
While ethical considerations are the first and most prominent criticism of behavioral targeting, they are not the only considerations. The Newspaper Association of America has expressed concern that the FTC's proposed voluntary rules allowing users to opt out of tracking may violate the First Amendment. The association claims that if users don't want to be tracked, they can avoid certain sites.
An interesting critique of behavioral targeting is raised by Jack Jia. Ethics aside, Jia questions whether the practice is effective:
"Beyond privacy concerns, there are accuracy and quality issues with BT that all marketers may not be aware of. Traditional BT struggles precisely because it tries to discern what I want now based on my past behaviors...This is the pitfall of profiles. In a given month, an individual will have thousands of roles. Knowing my past is not necessarily a better way to predict my future. In fact, this phenomenon has been known by psychologists and other scientists for years - humans are animals of context and situations, much less so of our historical profiles or roles."Jia suggests that the user's intent, such as ads posted on current Google searches, is more relevant than a past profile.
With government regulation hanging over the heads of marketers, it may be time to reevaluate behavioral targeting. Can marketers reap the benefits from a neutered targeted, where opt out mandates are strengthened? Could intent-based advertising, as Jia proposes, fill the void?
Whatever the outcome of the FTC rules, or the implications of Jia's critique, the onus is on marketers to use data more wisely to avoid the pitfalls of overreach and wrong assumptions, respectively.
Posts
