Editor's note: The IAPP is policy neutral. We publish contributed opinion and analysis pieces to enable our members to hear a broad spectrum of views in our domains.
If Don Draper were around today — hmmm, somehow I think his liver would have prevented an extended long life, but I digress — I think he'd give pause to the panic that is sometimes created when we learn that we received an advertisement based on what the placer of the ad thinks about us.
In the 1960s the Mad Men and women — go Peggy — of marketing prided themselves on creating campaigns that gave the consumer exactly what they wanted. They were successful because they created ads — in an era with very little ability to do data analysis — that inherently resonated with the audience.
They did this, of course, without cookies and profiles, etc. But they did do research to figure out what general swaths of the population were like. It was not then, nor would we think today, a violation of anyone's privacy or a misuse of the consumer's personal information to learn the general characteristics of who you were trying to reach with your ad.
Today, the first ad I see when I go to the New York Times' home page — ostensibly to read the headlines, but my main priority is the Spelling Bee — I see either Brady Tkachuk or Thomas Chabot encouraging to spend, even more, on the Ottawa Senators. I'm not creeped out at all. In fact, I'd be insulted if the ad was of Austin Matthews or some other bloke wearing the dreaded blue and white.
This week, there are news stories that make me think we are still uncomfortable with the fact that the Don Drapers of the world are doing exactly what they've done since the end of WWII, but they can do it better and, for reasons that escape me, we instinctively suggest we don't want them to.
Case in point, and a story in this week's news, is the technology that is used in public where a monitor or large screen will place an ad on its screen based on what it thinks of the person looking at it. To be clear, the data being used is not nearly as detailed and sensitive as what is being used when I see my Senators ad. In this case, the screen is observing if the person looking at it is old or young. It will guess gender. It will compile that with the information it knows about the neighborhood, and it will try to "give that person" what they want.
Is this using the person's personal information in any malicious way? Does it cause any sort of harm to the individual who sees something more relevant to them? And, if it's not more relevant to them, then the technology failed but I question whether there was harm.
For years, Canada Post has survived because businesses ask them to deliver ads to certain neighborhoods based on the characteristics of the individuals in that neighborhood. Many years ago, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner determined that combining these characteristics with other information about individuals was permitted under our laws.
So, why are media jumping up and down this week to learn that an ad might be placed based on someone's vague characteristics. They are simply guessing, as much as the Acura dealership is guessing that the people in my condo building might like to buy an Acura. Oddly, the answer is apparently "yes" if you look at our parking lot.
Mired in this story is the tricky question: When I'm using someone's general characteristics — such as their age, gender or neighborhood — am I using their personal information? Do I need their consent to use my analysis of what I think they might like? If I need their consent to act on what I think someone might like, are we perhaps taking the principle of consent a little too far? And, is this perhaps even intruding my constitutional right to think and say what I want to people who I think might be of a certain character?
Anyway, provided these things are not collecting or using things beyond what they say they are, I'm in the camp of recognizing and appreciating that a little bit of information is necessary to tailor something to me. Then again, it's the holiday season, I'm behind on buying Christmas presents, and I can use all the help I can get.
Kris Klein, CIPP/C, CIPM, FIP, is the country leader, Canada, for the IAPP.
This article originally appeared in the Canada Dashboard Digest, a free weekly IAPP newsletter. Subscriptions to this and other IAPP newsletters can be found here.
