Data Grabbing at Privacy Rights
Are Universities and their fact-tracking abilities any more ethical than big name companies, such as Target, when using the sales information for future advertising endeavors? Authors Kashmir Hill and Sophie Quinton discuss the perils of privacy issues that ensue in both contexts. They both discuss the lengths at which these two types of institution go about gathering data for related individuals that they use for analytic purposes, often without the knowledge or consent of the individual whose data is being analyzed. Concerns expressed by the two authors emphasize the fact that we as consumers and data-users of any kind are willingly providing these companies with the personal information they use for purposes beyond our common knowledge and permission.
Hill engages readers with a crazy story and what some might consider a huge “oops” on Target’s end when she informs us that a teenage girl’s pregnancy was first known to the popular retailer before her own father. Not to mention, Target was also the way in which her father was eventually informed. She explains the methods Target uses to gather this information about each of their consumers’ Customer IDs (Hill). Without realizing it, these soon- to-be-moms were telling a whole different story with their purchases than they would have chosen to share with such an impersonal entity. Bolded with emphasis in Hill’s article is a quote from one of Target’s statisticians, Andrew Pole:
“But even if you’re following the law, you can do things where people get queasy. (Hill)”
To me, this shows how little regard this company has for the individuals who are unknowingly providing their personal information through their purchases that could, as in the case of the young girl in the article, cause the organization to make assumptions and send you relative advertising materials. Target causes further discomfort when Hill quotes an article from the NY Times discussing how they started integrating unrelated random advertisements towards the women they analyze and label as pregnant, simply to persuade her that the coupons are being sent to all customers, not just her as an expectant mother. They are openly manipulating their customers, and all because they are taking information from purchases made by customers that didn’t realize they provided in the first place.
Sophie Quinton tells a different story of data grabbing that shows how little is done to protect the rights of people who are providing information that will be used for further analytic purposes beyond their control. Quinton discusses universities tendencies to use their students’ virtual information for monitoring purposes that will supposedly be of great assistance to the students individually (Quinton). The reasons universities, such as Georgia State University, use these analyzing algorithms is to notify the administration when a student is falling behind or in need of assistance. This, to me, sounds a little less harmless and deceitful than Target’s methods that are founded simply for the basis of gaining more business at the consumer’s cost. However, I believe the two authors would agree that these institutions are being selfish in the fact that although they are aware of the fact they are invading these peoples’ privacy, they are able to provide legal justification and continue in their efforts.
Hill, Kashmir. 2012. “How Target Figured Out A Teen Girl Was Pregnant Before Her Father Did.” Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/.
Quinton, Sophie. 2015. “Are Colleges Invading Their Students’ Privacy?” The Atlantic, April 6. http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/04/is-big-brothers-eye-on-campus/389643/