10/9/2017 0 Comments Reading 07: Online AdvertisingIs it ethical for companies to gather your information and data mine it in order to sell you products and services? What responsibilities do companies have to their end users in regard to this information?
I think that it’s ethical for companies to gather your information and data mine it for the mentioned purposes, provided that it’s done through legal means and done for purposes that aren’t malicious. If a company wished to gather this information in order to propose deals and show ads that they felt I would be more likely to respond to as a consumer, that’s just market and consumer research. I personally think it’d be odder for them to be able to provide a better consumer experience and elect not to do it. As Rebecca Rosen of The Atlantic wrote in her article, “What Does It Really Matter If Companies Are Tracking Us Online?”, it’d be widely accepted as immoral if companies were using this data against users, as if they identified that a husband was buying flowers the day after his anniversary and jacked up the price for orders placed by him, his machine, or his payment information, etc. Companies undoubtedly have the obligation to keep this information stored securely. I imagine most terms and conditions allow for companies to retain and use that data, as well as reserve the right to sell it to who they see fit. Those conditions do not allow for malicious parties to freely gain access to that data, so companies need to do what they can to prevent such breaches. As said above, I also feel they have the obligation of using for non-malicious purposes and shouldn’t use this data to make for a poorer experience for their users, as users seem to believe that their data is being shared in exchange for a better experience, rather than a worse one. Does privacy become an unrealistic expectation in light of this pervasive information gathering? I think privacy online from the services you make use of is an unrealistic expectation in today’s connected atmosphere. A lot of these services we rely heavily on are free, but are only so because of their alternative methods of generating revenue (data mining us, advertising). If we wish to continue to use these services, we have to be prepared to meet their terms of operation. I do think that we can have certain expectations to be met in the name of protecting our privacy to an extent. We should be able to hold these companies accountable for not unintentionally disclosing our data to malicious parties, for example. There’s been discussion that’s been had about privacy on the internet being more reasonable to expect than in physical spaces because we’re accessing it from our personal devices and homes, but I feel that’s not reasonable as the internet’s sphere of influence is outside of your device or home. You’re connecting to several different places that effectively exist elsewhere. Do you find online advertising too invasive or is it tolerable? Do you use things like NoScript or Adblock? Why or why not? Is it ethical to use these tools? I think that most online advertising is tolerable. While some sites really over-do it (ads that block the whole page every time you scroll, play sound without warning, show NSFW images on an otherwise non-NSFW site), I feel most are okay for the good services that they provide. That being said, I personally do still use AdBlock. It makes for a better experience and eliminates most of those exceptionally poor experiences with certain sites that I alluded to earlier. Additionally, it provides protection from ads that introduce security flaws to the site (and by extension, your machine). There’s been discussion of it not being ethical because websites rely on ads to keep their services free for users, and by blocking ads, you’re keeping food from finding the mouths of the children of those who work for these companies. I find issue with this line of reasoning. You’re not obligated to stare at teenagers flipping signs on the road-side just because they’re there, you’re not obligated to talk with those who approach you at the mall from their niche kiosk or those who knock on your door at your home, you’re not obligated to purchase a product or use a service from a company just because the employees of that company have children to feed, so why should you be obligated (at first interaction) to subject yourself to this type of advertising? The counter argument to this sentiment would be that you’re actually using the service, so you need to “pay” for it. If the company feels so strongly that this agreement should be honored (despite users very rarely actively and clearly consenting to such ads and just going to a site), then they should detect users’ ad blockers and force the user to white-list their site in order to use their services. That way, if the user really wants to use their services and forgo AdBlock, they can. If they don’t, then they don’t get to use the services, either. I believe it’s a fair dynamic.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorNikolas Dean Brooks is a current Senior at Notre Dame. This blog is for the "Ethics and Professional Issues" course under Dr. Peter Bui. Archives |