Today, The Wall Street Journal finished its 3-part series on internet privacy. Part 1 last week was greeted with skepticism from the online ad community, and accusations of being "alarmist." But according to WSJ's instant poll, over 60% of people are "very alarmed."
Part 2 featured an in-depth look at private browsing, specifically focusing on the in-fighting at Microsoft between the InPrivate IE browser team and the Microsoft Advertising Group. You mean ad interests and consumer privacy are at odds? Nothing new here.
Part 3, written by Emily Steel and Julia Angwin, takes a
scary, microscopic look at the data compilation industry and how it intersects the consumer's online experience. The WSJ research study covers data handler [x+1] and how their technology benefits clients like Capital One. They take us step by step through exactly how many bits of data are passed to Capital One in an instant, merging what [x+1] has already gleaned, with back end data modeling enabled by Nielsen. Once the user is sufficiently silo-ed, Capital One knows which credit card offer to serve up.
If consumers and industry folks are "alarmed" that the data that passes between third party data aggregators and their clients is just a few bits short of enough information to go from "anonymous" to knowing your name, they've obviously not paid much attention to internet consumer privacy arguments that have been raging for years. But [x+1], while acknowledging the possibility of de-anonymization, says its unlikely to happen because it's not worth the effort. "It would be a massive undertaking," says John Nardone, CEO of [x+1], "and
it is hard enough to make money." OK. I'm sleeping better already?
We talk a lot about privacy here at TruEffect. Is it crazy to believe in the possibility of productive and engaging internet ad encounters, that don't abuse a consumer's right to privacy. We think not.
– Layne Salter
Comments