iap 2006 lecture - Massachusetts Institute of...

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 2

Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridge, Massachusetts

MyAmazon.com? Personalization and Privacy in the Marketplace

Frank Field

A look at personalization technologies and the policy implications of their widespreadapplication

Presentation is based on work undertaken as a part of the MIT’s NSF IGERT: theProgram on Emerging Technologies

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 3


Why Personalization? Marketing in the 20th/21st

century has a dream Return to the small town

shop Individual attention Cheers theme song:

“You wanna go whereeveryone knows yourname”

Recapturing one-to-oneconnection

So, why this drive to personalize?

Literature of marketing routinely cites the small town shopping experience as one ofthe ideals of its development; recapturing the feel of a one-on-one shoppingexperience. A level of connection that ensures that the customer will continue toreturn to the shop, and that the shopkeeper stays abreast of the needs and wants of thecustomer.

Something that, in an age of large scale retail, has not been terribly feasible.

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 4


Not About Nostalgia Technologies & economics of retail have favored

increases in scale At the expense of

directly “knowing”one’s customer

Striving to re-capture that levelof connection

To sell enough tomaintain large scale

Why infeasible?

The technologies and economics of retail increasingly favor large scale retail -- massmarketing; efficiencies of scale in purchasing and distribution, in particular, can leadto reductions in costs (although not always)

But, at that scale, the relationship between the shopper and the retailer is necessarilysacrificed; too many interactions, consuming too much time.

A less-than-virtuous cycle, favoring increasing scale and decreasing individualattention; potentially puts the retailer at risk; inadequate information to guideretailing decisions.

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 5


Marketing and Technology Communication technologies have been a key part of the

marketing industry’s response to the imperatives of scale Message delivery media

Newspapers Radio Television

Inference of response through extensive data collection Past purchasing histories Event studies Other research tools

Technological innovations at the heart of implementing these changes

In particular, the development of technologies that get the message out to largeaudiences; growth and success of newspapers, radio and television (over the air and,later, cable) tied to ability to reach audiences with marketing messages.

While unable to get the direct response of the customer to the messages, inference ofthe response through data collection

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 6


Marketing and Technology

Mass media means targeted sales Identification of market segments

(aggregated customer categories) Development of products to satisfy that customer

aggregate Deployment of sales messages to attract that

customer aggregate Driven by the fact that mass media (newspapers,

radio, television) are one-way communication

To cope with diversity of market membership, classification of membership

DINKs, GenX, GenY, soccer moms, …..

Cycle of product and message development around refinement of data-drivenclassifications

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 7


Marketing and Technology

Developing the “back-channel” meant increasinglysophisticated data collection techniques Services industry around data collection,

aggregation and analysis Rise of the consumer database/integration of IT Also, interconnection across systems; commercial

transactions

An industry around data collection and assessment developed; better categories, betterdecisions

Marketable asset

Other (publicly available) information can also be incorporated

Connections between data sources; commercial transactions to exchange information

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 8


A New Communications Channel: Internet A two-way channel of communication; esp. WWW Host of technical opportunities

Retail scale limited only by cleverness of WWW pagedesign and distribution channel

Programmability means immediate facilitation of consumerexperience

Server/database back-end directly integrated into orderfulfillment

… and direct integration of data collection into retailexperience -- database marketing (DBM), customerrelationship management (CRM) and variants

Last 20 years; the internet as a communications channel

Huge opportunity for retailers

Costs of scale fall; physical retail space exchanged for virtual catalog

Still problematic; a huge catalog is difficult to navigate

But, with the refinement of HTTP (introduce mechanisms for state-ful, rather thanstate-less, operation), and dynamic web pages, a new round of opportunities

Most particularly, integration of tools of IT into essentially all aspects of retailoperation; marketing, transactions, fulfillment, customer support, market research.

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 9


No longer need to rely on aggregates Personalization means, in

the limit, that individual isthe “market segment”

With carefulclassification, a host oftransactions costs can bereduced or eliminated Searching, information

collection, sizing, etc.

Personalize, v. trans. To render personal To represent as personal,

personify To embody in a person,

impersonate To make (some impersonal

object or thing) moreobviously related to, oridentifiable as belonging to, aparticular individual (ca. 1935)

OED, 2nd Ed., 1989

With the introduction of cookies, site registration, etc. marketers found that theycould explore eliminating aggregation and, instead, go literally to level of theindividual. By doing so, a large number of expensive and time consuming elements oftransactions could be eliminated:

E.g., once I know who you are, we don’t have to get the shipping address again; oryour billing address; or your preferences in color; or your sizes; etc.

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 10


From http://www.shopaudits.com/

Exchange the Salesperson for a WWW page

In effect, we swap the salesperson for a WWW page

A WWW page that, with good information collection and analysis strategies, cangive the customer something very like that mythical “corner store” shoppingexperience

http://www.shopaudits.com/

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 11


Dramatic Advantages Marketing gets their “personalized” shopping

experience -- “mass market of one” Customer sees a wider array of products, efficiently

culled from universe of options according tocustomer properties

Online shopping: the future of retail

But, what’s really going on “behind the curtain?” Is this really “shopping” at all?

The mass market of one -- exploiting all the techniques that engender the massmarket and large scale retail, with the information collection and data analysismethods that provide an individualized retail experience comparable to that of the oldcorner store ideal. The potential advantages are huge, giving retailers and customersthe best of both worlds.

But, what are the implications of the widespread deployment of these technologies?Are we missing anything?

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 12


Example: My Amazon page (1/31/2006) What does this

page say about me? Is it accurate? What does it

mean? What’s going on?

For example, here’s what I got when I went to Amazon this morning.

Note, the WWW page knows it’s me (I’m not a routine cookie-killer)

Note that there are recommendations, akin to showing up at my local bookstore andbrowsing the shelves at the front of the store (where publishers pay to place theirbooks -- note that this general practice happens in lots of retailing; even wonder whyall the candy, rather than, say the tuna, is down low where your kids can grab?)

Then there’s “The Page You Made” -- any inferences you might draw from what’sthere?

Does that say anything about me? Hmmmmmm.

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 13


Emerging Technology and Cultural Problems New technology means:

New ways of doing conventional things; and Opportunities for doing unconventional things

An expansion of scope and types of action, within apre-existing context for action Technical, social, cultural

Problem:What does it take to strike a new balance betweenwhat can be done and what should be done?

Emblematic of a set of problems surrounding new technologies

Generally, this is the way that one might approach the way in which we cope,socially and otherwise, with the emergence of new ways of doing things.

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 14


What About Technological “Surprises?”“Most Americans carry cellphones, but manymay not know that government agencies cantrack their movements through the signalsemanating from the handset. […]

With mobile phones becoming as prevalentas conventional phones (there are 195 millioncellular subscribers in this country), wirelesscompanies are starting to exploit the phones'tracking abilities. For example, companies aremarketing services that turn phones into evenmore precise global positioning devices fordriving or allowing parents to track thewhereabouts of their children through thehandsets.

Not surprisingly, law enforcement agencieswant to exploit this technology, too - whichmeans more courts are bound to wrestle withwhat legal standard applies when governmentagents ask to conduct such surveillance.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/10/technology/10phone.html?ex=1291870800&en=2019ce35d6b47983&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

How do we cope with novel technologies if they can surprise us?

Note the interesting assertion/assumption that “many may not know that….”

How to mediate the way that society manages new abilities if we are “surprised?”

Difficulties in accomplishing this balance in the face of this sort of “ignorance”

Does this mean we lurch from crisis to crisis? Why?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/10/technology/10phone.html?ex=1291870800&en=2019ce35d6b47983&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 15


Modalities of Control (Lessig’s “New Chicago School”)

A framing of the instruments of action and control Managing/mediating individual behavior Note: not independent!

Architecture includes technology

Architecture Individual

Markets

Law

Culture

Lessig’s framework is largely a basis for discussing control of the individual, but theindividual also gets to influence these controlling contexts; useful to think about howindividual’s respond to new developments, as well as how those new developmentsinfluence the individual.

Particularly interesting to consider when technologies “surprise” the users of thetechnologies.

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 16


Sources of difficulty

New ways of doing Upsets tacit assumptions

What’s happening, how governed, monitored Differential rates of adaptation

Failures of old assumptions Failures to revise assumptions Incentives to sustain false assumptions

Conflicts arise; (resolved?)

Why? Some outgrowths of this:

Differential rates of adaptation leave openings for differential exploitation;compounded by possible absence of an institutional remedy; then there’s somethingelse - out pseudo-commensuration concept of moving the goalposts without debate

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 17


Personalization Technologies

Many names, variants Technologies to tie (sales) data to individuals Nothing new, in one sense

Classic marketing strategies Tied to major IT infrastructures

Database marketing - DBM Customer relationship management - CRM

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 18


Personalization Surprises“As explained by Editor-in-Chief NickGillespie on page 2, this is no ordinaryissue of reason. It represents anunprecedented experiment in hyper-individualizing a commercial printpublication. The overwhelming majorityof subscribers has received a magazine inwhich the photo on the front cover, theinformation in the editor’s note, and theadvertisements on the back covers havebeen customized to individual readers. Outof a total print run of about 60,000, we’veproduced more than 40,000 uniqueeditions of this issue to underscore some ofthe benefits of living in what our coverstory calls a "Database Nation" (see page26).” - Publisher’s Note; June 2004 issue

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 19


Online Shopping Working framework:

“It’s shopping, online … and personalized” Yes, but only one “salesman”

Aware of every customer’s purchasing patterns Never forgets (persistence) Reports to others, in detail (replication) Able to make inferences, connections and act upon them

(analysis/synthesis) Knows everything a customer reveals, but reveals little

about itself A “familiar,” rather than an agent

This kind of confusion of the metaphor with reality is the thing that pervades the material that we have been exploring in P/C-G. Aprimary exemplar of personalization in the digital world today is Amazon.com, and the connection between Amazon’s processes and themuch older processes of marketing is a striking example of the degree to which the disconnect between what people think is happeningand what’s really taking place can lead to a host of problems.

As presented, Amazon is just shopping -- online and personalized. A store with an almost infinite variety of products, computer assistedsearches and suggestions of options that one might never have considered. And, while it is true that one can shop at Amazon, it’s hardto see that there are some things that are certainly not “shopping,” as we conventionally think of it, going on.

A handful of differences -- (1) there’s only one “salesman” (2) who “knows” what every customer has bought, (3) who never forgetsanything you’ve bought, (4) who reports to others, in detail, all of this information and (5) who, in conjunction with other actors, can docomplex analyses and make complex inferences based not only upon this sales data, but also other publicly available and/or privatelypurchased data.In effect, this is an actor who knows everything that you reveal of yourself, not only to Amazon, but also to many other actors, whilerevealing almost nothing of itself -- and certainly very little about what makes it “tick.”This imbalance in information and power is what led us to characterize this software tool as a “familiar,” rather than an agent -- itempowers the customer, but at the expense of giving up a certain amount of autonomy to an agent whose motives are not knowable and,potentially, not aligned with the customer’s interests.Such instruments are the marketers dream; opportunities for price discrimination abound; complex sales strategies become feasible;information can be revealed/sold with little direct consequence. When these things happen blatantly, people get upset; when lessblatant, the concern seems to disappear. Why?

So, looking at these differences -- would you conclude that online shopping is shopping? In a way, yes it is; but in other ways, certainlynot.

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 20


Evolution of Retail Increasingly, brick& mortar

retail adopting onlineshopping methods “It’s just shopping, after all” Acceptance of the frame,

acceptance of theassumptions

Reframing of ALLshopping

Some provocativeconsequences to consider

Big chain stores used to be among themost egalitarian of places. They wereaimed at the average person, thegeneric “shopper,” without consciousregard to background, race, religionor sex. That is changing as computerdatabases have allowed corporations togather an unparalleled amount of dataabout their customers. Many retailers,like Best Buy, are analyzing the datato figure out which customers are themost profitable – and the least – and toadjust their policies accordingly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/16/AR2005081601906.html?nav=rss_business

Of course, if this new way of thinking were restricted to the online world, we might not be so troubled. If online shopping justhappens online, then the context alone might help to establish guidelines to resolve the conflict between what really happens and themetaphor used. BUT, this way of thinking is not restricted to the online world anymore. Increasingly, we see that the instrumentsand notions of online shopping are coming to reframe “real world” shopping -- and we are coming to a series of questions that we arenot doing particularly well at resolving.

One could argue that the dismay that comes from the blatant exploitation of the differences between expectations and reality merelyarise from the fact that small differences fall below a “pain threshold.”

However, there is another possible explanation: that, as people become accustomed to speaking of what goes on at Amazon as“shopping,” we become inured to the mental model that underlies that assertion, and shopping begins to evolve TOWARD whathappens at Amazon. [The conversion of a focus upon “what shopping is” into “how shopping can be done (and exploited)” can takeplace.] In fact, we can see this going on now. (In addition to the WaPo article, see the wiki RFID materials, Froogle, etc.)

And the fact that it has been going on is one of the particularly complex things about this inquiry. As we have strived to find ways todistinguish between the attributes of the new technology and the incumbent ways of doing things, we find that there is a dynamic thatleads to both the new and the incumbent technologies acting to converge toward the new mental model of what the technologies areexpected to do.

This dynamic makes it very difficult to articulate what’s problematic about what’s new -- we spent a lot of time this summer askingwhether what we see in personalization/customization is truly something different, or merely the consequences of the “scaling up” ofconventional (and “acceptable”) practices. In the face of this “co-evolution” of the framing of the technology and the notion of theacceptable purposes it serves, distinguishing between these two notions of change can be very difficult. The more successfully a newtechnology is able to redefine the objectives of the undertaking -- to “move the goalposts,” as it were -- the more likely the incumbenttechnology will evolve toward the new paradigm.

And the threat is, as these new paradigms are adopted, the necessary dialog about what ought to be commensurable, as well as whatshould not, is lost.

(Note: again, the field of sociology may yield some useful insights here. In particular, there has been a long-standing discussion of thedegree to which structure (and the resources thereof), versus culture, determines the trajectories of a society’s development. If wemap “technology” to structure and “mental models” to culture, we end up in at a similar crossroad -- see A Theory of Structure:Duality, Agency, and Transformation by William H. Sewell, Jr., from The American Journal of Sociology, vol. 98, no. 1 (July, 1992)-- on the wiki) - https://msl1.mit.edu/twiki/pub/Scratch/WhattheSociologistsTellUs/sewell.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/16/AR2005081601906.html?nav=rss_business

https://msl1.mit.edu/twiki/pub/Scratch/WhattheSociologistsTellUs/sewell.pdf

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 21


A Look At This DisconnectThese questions are important becauseit is becoming clear that shopping in thetwenty-first century will be quitedifferent from the way it was in thetwentieth. One does not have to turn tothe movie Minority Report for an ideaof futuristic gizmos consumers willconfront in local malls. Activities arealready underway across the retailingspectrum—in banks, high-end boutiques,supermarkets, and discounters—that arefundamentally altering the relationshipAmericans have with stores.Two particular developments stand out:behavioral targeting and pricediscrimination.

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 22


Results from Annenberg Survey (June 2005) 64% of American adults who have used the internet recently do not

know it is legal for “an online store to charge different people differentprices at the same time of day.” 71% don’t know it is legal for an offlinestore to do that.

72% do not know that charities are allowed to sell their names to othercharities even without permission.

64% do not know that a supermarket is allowed to sell other companiesinformation about what they buy.

75% do not know the correct response—false—to the statement, “Whena website has a privacy policy, it means the site will not share myinformation with other websites and companies.”

Open to Exploitation: American Shoppers Online and Offline; Turow, Felman & Meltzner; June 2005 http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/04_info_society/Turow_APPC_Report_WEB_FINAL.pdf

Most Americans who use the Internet have little idea how vulnerable they are to abuse by online andoffline marketers and how the information they provide can be used to exploit them.

That is one conclusion from this unprecedented national phone survey conducted by the AnnenbergPublic Policy Center. The study indicates that many adults who use the internet believe incorrectlythat laws prevent online and offline stores from selling their personal information. They also incorrectlybelieve that stores cannot charge them different prices based on what they know about them. Mostother internet-using adults admit that they simply don’t know whether or not laws protect them.

The survey further reveals that the majority of adults who use the internet do not know where to turnfor help if their personal information is used illegally online or offline. The study’s findings suggest acomplex mix of ignorance and knowledge, fear and bravado, realism and idealism that leaves mostinternet-using adult American shoppers open to financial exploitation by retailers. (from theOverview)

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/04_info_society/Turow_APPC_Report_WEB_FINAL.pdf

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 23


Results from Annenberg Survey (June 2005) 76% agree that “it would bother me to learn that other people pay less

than I do for the same products.” 64% agree that “it would bother me to learn that other people get

better discount coupons than I do for the same products.” 66% disagree that “it’s OK with me if the supermarket I shop at keeps

detailed records of my buying behavior.” 87% disagree that “it’s OK if an online store I use charges people

different prices for the same products during the same hour.” 72% disagree that “if a store I shop at frequently charges me lower

prices than it charges other people because it wants to keep me as acustomer more than it wants to keep them, that’s OK.”

Open to Exploitation: American Shoppers Online and Offline; Turow, Felman & Meltzner; June 2005 http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/04_info_society/Turow_APPC_Report_WEB_FINAL.pdf

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/04_info_society/Turow_APPC_Report_WEB_FINAL.pdf

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 24


Ubiquitous Personalization & Privacy Sales agents (physical & digital) can now know quite a lot

about you What are the guarantees that what you reveal will not be

misused? What does “misuse” mean? Is there a consensus? Are there institutions that exist to address these kinds of

misuse? What kinds of strategies can/will be adopted in reaction to

this? Socially acceptable? Institutional support? Alternatively, are you really “what you eat?”

What does it mean when your identity is defined in terms ofwhat you want/consume?

Consider, for example, the consequences of “ubiquitous personalization.”

Now, any sales agent can assemble a vast amount of information about you, make inferences about you based upon thatinformation, and act in accordance with that information, those inferences and the policies of her firm.

Where are the lines? When does this sort of activity step over them? How will you know? Can you enforce controls onthis?

Today, you think nothing of the fact that your next door neighbor’s kid gets a part-time job at Best Buy. What if,through these technologies, you suddenly realize that this kid now knows your income; your latest purchases; someinferences about your sexual proclivities, religious orientation, drinking habits or social status? How would you find out?What would you do about it? Is anyone breaking the law? What law? Does this mean that ALL sales representativesshould, for example, be bonded? Would some other surety be required? Who would offer it? Could he afford it? Whatdoes that mean about the employability of certain classes?

What institutions have a stake in this development? Do any of them have any power to act upon that stake? How to findout what’s needed? What changes to the institution is required? Is a new institution required?

Fundamentally, what does this mean about privacy? What about the different ideologies of privacy in a global economy?(See, for example, Europe Zips Lips; U.S. Sells ZIPs, New York Times, 2005 Aug 07; available through FurdLog -http://msl1.mit.edu/furdlog/index.php?p=4061)

Important questions, all arising from the disconnect between the framing of a new technology & the reality of what thetechnology actually does, and the dynamics of human action in the face of this disconnect.

Also, these sites construct an identity for you, based upon what you have elected to tell them, and incorporating what theyknow about you from what you have purchased (e.g., Amazon still suggests books on divorce to me, even though Ipurchased the book to learn more about a relative’s situation rather than my own). Is this the identity that we want to seepassed around? (Great quote: “The information collected about consumers is the most sophisticated and confusing taggantof all. It is a marvelous tool, a real timesaver and a kind of electronic bracelet that turns the entire world into a place wherewe are living under house arrest.” -- New York Times; Magazine; 2005 July 17 - A Pass On Privacy?; ChristopherCaldwell - at http://msl1.mit.edu/furdlog/?m=20050718#post-4006

http://msl1.mit.edu/furdlog/index.php?p=4061

http://msl1.mit.edu/furdlog/?m=20050718#post-4006

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 25


Online Consumer Tactics (after Zwick 2004)

SecrecyConfidentialityLow

Anonymity/PseudonymityIdentifiabilityHigh

Am

ount of PersonalInform

ationE

xternalized

LowHigh

Accuracy of PersonalInformation Externalized

Am

ount

of P

erso

nal

Info

rmat

ion

Ext

erna

lized


Markets

Law

Culture

Doesn’t really work in the digital marketplace -- you have limited (to no) options toimplement these tactics if you want to conduct trade; we fool ourselves into thinkingthat we can manage this; and statistical tools and external database linking kill off thelow rows…..

Note also that this table assumes that “accuracy” is implicit in the datasets; in reality,they are rife with errors; and the problem is that we act as if there are no errors

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 26


“Moving the Goalposts”

“You have zero privacyanyway. Get over it”

- Scott McNealy, SunMicrosystems, Jan 1999 Q&Aon the release of Jinihttp://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,17538,00.html

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,17538,00.html

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 27


ACLU Movie

http://www.aclu.org/pizza/

http://www.aclu.org/pizza/

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 28


Beyond Digital Shopping; Digital Identity

Several possible meanings In the context of personalization:

The construction of a digital record from whichindividual characteristics can be inferred or derived

Composed of the “digital detritus” of daily life Privately held; composed of private and public

elements Used to lower transactions costs in relationship-

intensive activities

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 29


Legal Notions of Privacy

Start with Warren and Brandeis’ “The Right ToPrivacy,” Harvard Law Review, 1890. New technologies -- “portable” (i.e., non-studio)

cameras and rapid photographic processing An “intrusive press”

Found a harm (“tort”) in infringing privacythrough examination of extant common law torts

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 30


Torts of Privacy Today (from Solove 2004)

Intrusion upon seclusion Intrusion into private affairs in an offensive way

Public disclosure of private facts “offensive” and “not of legitimate public concern”

False light Slander/libel -- reputation protection

Appropriation IPR in one’s personhood

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 31


Legislative Fixes

Context-specific (e.g. HIPAA) But fundamentally tied to “privacy” as “secrecy” Like the equation of “shopping” and “online

shopping,” a framing that misses the point “Digital identity” is not “identity,” but is

increasingly used that way Again, transactions costs are vastly reduced But an odd sort of identity

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 32


“Digital Identity”

Who owns it? Who knows it? Who controls it? Who monitors it? Any limits on its use? How do we talk about it?

And can we resolve this problem without learninghow to talk about it?


Markets

Law

Culture

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 33


Key Observation Existence of a disconnect between

How a disruptive technology is “framed” and What a disruptive technology actually is/does

Hypothesis:The magnitude and direction of the tension that resultsfrom this disconnect is A key indicator that a technology may be socially disruptive An insight into the nature of possible disruption(s) A pointer toward the actual (or prospective) social

institutions that are (or may be) central to mitigating &managing the consequences of the technology

The P/C-G has been wrestling with the wide ranging nature of personalization and customization inthe digital age, with a particular exploration of its role in “helping” users to navigate the increasinglycomplex realms of activity that are available online. This topic is a vital element of the developmentof ubiquitous computing -- as you may recall, the notion of UC is that of many computers,everywhere, acting to serve/respond to individuals and their needs. (Pervasive computing being morethe notion of computing everywhere available -- see workshop notes from last year).

As we have continued to explore how the notion of digital agents/servants has been deployed, we havebeen repeatedly struck by a fundamental disconnect: between (1) the way in which these technologiesare positioned in the mind of the public and (2) the actual capabilities and operation of the technology.Repeatedly, we find that the public’s basic notions of these technologies are significantly different fromthe reality of what the technologies do, and how they do them.

The P/C-G has devised the following working hypothesis: the tension that arises from this disconnectis an indicator that a technology may be disruptive and, moreover, the nature of the disruption maybe related to what this tension is built upon.

In particular, the nature of the disconnect can expose not only the limitations in the public’sconstruction of the technology, but also the limitations in the existing social institutions to manageand/or mitigate the consequences of this disconnect.

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 34


Confronting A Compelling, “Magical” Technical Novelty

Incremental compromises, against the backdrop ofan imperfect metaphor or mental model Fundamental issues missed or deferred in the rush

to do things the “new way” Resolving the imperfection of the metaphor

Denial; or Breakdown, explicit reconsideration, rethinking the

application; or Imposition of the dictates of the metaphor to

everything else

The problem is that frequently these metaphors emerge out of an effort to popularize, rather than toexplain. The seduction of novelty becomes the excuse for glossing over the degree to which themetaphor is only an imperfect description of what the technology is actually doing -- the selling ofwhat it does, rather than what one needs accomplished (compounded, potentially, by the engineeringtradeoffs and technical limits)

How can one resolves the disconnect between how the technology is described and what it actuallyaccomplishes? One can deny that there is a disconnect at all, one can force a reconsideration of theimperfections of the metaphor or one can elect to “force” the metaphor to work. In many ways, thedefects of commensuration arise out of the first and third of these potential responses.

So, this has been all very interesting and all, but what does this have to do with personalization andcustomization? Let’s talk briefly about an example of how its attractions are reshaping our reality===>

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Arthur C. Clarke; essay“Hazards of Prophecy: The Failure of Imagination” in Profiles of the Future; (revised 1973 edition)

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 35


Some Proposals: Digital Identity

Open access to the instruments of “dataveillance” tothe public (Brin’s Transparent Society)

Give individuals access to their “digital golems”(Zwick & Dholakia)

Reframe privacy as more than secrecy; restructurearchitecture of information collection to reflect thatreframing (Solove)

Others? Or do we live with “ubiquitouspersonalization?”

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 36


Example: My Amazon page (1/31/2006) What does this

page say about me? Is it accurate? What does it

mean? What’s going on?

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 37


References/Readings Brin, David; The Transparent Society; Basic Books; New York; 1998 Clarke, Roger A.; “Information Technology and Dataveillance;”

Communications of the ACM; Vol. 31, No. 5; May 1988; pp. 498-512. Froomkin, A. Michael; “The Death of Privacy?;” Stanford Law Review; Vol. 52;

pp.1461-1543; available online athttp://www.law.miami.edu/%7Efroomkin/articles/privacy-deathof.pdf

Solove, Daniel J.; The Digital Person: Technology & Privacy in the InformationAge; New York University Press; New York; 2004.

Warren, Samuel D. and Louis D. Brandeis; “The Right to Privacy;” HarvardLaw Review; Vol. 4, No. 5; 1890; pp. 193-220; available online athttp://www.lawrence.edu/fast/boardmaw/Privacy_brand_warr2.html

Zwick, Detlev and Nikhilesh Dholakia; “Whose Identity Is It Anyway?Consumer Representation in the Age of Database Marketing;” Journal ofMacromarketing; Vol. 24, No. 1; June 2004; pp. 31-43; available online athttp://jmk.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/24/1/31

If you really want to scare yourself to death, there’s Robert O’Harrow Jr.’s No Placeto Hide; Free Press; New York; 2005, 2006 -- all the stuff he describes is also cited inSolove’s book, which is a painful thing to realize.

http://www.law.miami.edu/%7Efroomkin/articles/privacy-deathof.pdf

http://www.lawrence.edu/fast/boardmaw/Privacy_brand_warr2.html

http://jmk.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/24/1/31

IAP; 2006 Jan 31 38


Image credits

Various “corner store” images http://ntxga.com/Archer_Historical_Markers.html http://www.nbm.org/

Salesperson image http://www.shopaudits.com

WalMart image http://browndailysqueal.com/archives/week_2005_0

1_16.html

http://ntxga.com/Archer_Historical_Markers.html

http://www.nbm.org/

http://www.shopaudits.com

http://browndailysqueal.com/archives/week_2005_0

iap 2006 lecture - Massachusetts Institute of...

Documents

Transcript of iap 2006 lecture - Massachusetts Institute of...