Dataveillance; Do you know what’s really going on?

Web 2.0 means that everyone is communicating online together. As this happens it is becoming increasingly easy for companies to track our behaviour. In this new era of ‘Dataveillance’ companies are creating data-bases full of information about everything we do online; from emails, what we search for, buy and anything else we happen to look at. They are creating a digital footprint for each online user. This is one person’s view of privacy;

Online security is hugely important to consumer and take so much care when setting up online banking or shopping online. However many don’t realise that all of the information you write online are stored for companies’ benefits.

Search engines such as Google as well as social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Foursquare say they are giving us free content but they are using our personal information for monetary gain. Facebook’s policies mean that they own everything posted on the site including all of your information (ref reading). As no one reads the small print many people don’t even know this is happening. This makes Facebook more attractive to advertise on than any other websites as they can show your advert only on certain pages depending on which demographics the advertiser is targeting.

The only real benefit in dataveillance for consumers is that they will only see adverts targeted to them specifically rather than random adverts which are irrelevant. Pam Horan found in her research that ‘the majority of consumers prefer to see more relevant ads’. This could mean that many consumers don’t mind that they are being targeted by advertisers. 

There are massive advantages of dataveillance for brands. Facebook makes its revenue from using the data to sell to advertisers and Twitter is planning to do the same thing in the future so it can start making money rather than operating at a loss. It not only benefits social networks but can be massively beneficial to every brand. They can reduce costs dramatically by targeting their exact audience rather than placing a banner ad on a website that will be irrelevant to many users. Companies such as Match.com can advertise on Facebook, targeting single over 40’s and put an ad straight onto their page. They can then link you to people that have the same interests through Facebook’s data as well as the data they already have. This could also be good for the consumer as this way they are more likely to find a date with common interests.

On the other hand brands could be seen in a negative light by a lot of consumers. Brands could get a bad public image if people think they are spying on them. Google admitted in 2010 that their Street View cars had been collecting personal information from non-password protected Wi-Fi networks since 2006. This was very worrying for consumers as they don’t know what kind of information that Google has.  

There is debate about whether dataveillance is ethical or not. Brands such as Facebook do say in their terms and conditions that they will use consumer’s information for targeted advertising. However many users do not read the small print and therefore they don’t realise that their information is being used in this way. I think it is important that consumers know this is happening, so governments should have some kind of regulation meaning that brands should made more obvious that they are using these techniques. I agree with Joseph Donahue who argues that if people are unaware that they are being monitored they are likely to be unaware that their information is being shared with other sources.  This means that anyone could have information about them and they don’t know it. Some states in America you can’t get married if you have an outstanding parking ticket. This is madness. How do they know all of this information about you? However in terms of online dataveillance I believe that as long as consumers are aware, it is ethical as targeted advertising can be a benefit to both brands and consumers.

Using the web to spy on digital activists

The new world that we live in with the public sphere means that everyone can have their say; people can communicate with each other all around the world. They can share comments pictures and advice about everything. People meet others through the internet which is why it is such a good tool for activists. They can find millions of other people that might want to join in with an activist movement. For example; the student protests were very much organised online. As we are the age of digital natives it is so easy for us to organise things this way.

On the other hand, as Julian Assange believes; the internet is the ‘greatest spying machine the world has ever seen’ and I agree to a certain extent. Even though this new digital age is making activism so much easier it means that it is easier for the people you are lobbying against to find out about it and stop it before it even starts. The internet, especially social networking sites is making it increasingly easier to organise activism. Many of the student protests in the UK were organised through Facebook as well as protests across the world. This year in both Egypt and Libya political demonstrations have become violent and so the government has tried to shut down many the internet focusing on social networking sites. This is all in a bid to stop activists communicating and organising public protests.


China has also been accused of tampering with the internet. There is no freedom for activism in China with Facebook, YouTube and parts of Google banned. Google has accused China of tampering with Gmail meaning that users can’t send or receive emails properly. The Guardian believes this is also as a result of the government trying to crack down on activism inspired by the events in the Middle East.

Although some, mainly communist governments watch activists online and have the power to close down sites, brands don’t have this power, nor does David Cameron in the UK. Here freedom of speech is legal, activism is not as heavily monitored online. Activism against brands isn’t harming the country so nothing is done about it.

Many people believe that ‘Clickivism’ is ruining activism. it is too easy for someone to move their mouse and click to join a petition. It is not the same and doesn’t have the same effect as actually going out onto the streets protesting. 

38 Degrees launched an online petition to ‘Stop the factory farm’. Over 60,000 people signed the petition and this was just an appeal to stop a US dairy farm from opening in Lincolnshire.

Surely this many people wouldn't have turned up if they had to actually go somewhere to sign the petition. It has become all about numbers. Even so, for brands this could mean death if they get on the wrong side of consumers. Bad word of mouth spreads like wild fire and if it is this easy for people to click for example, ‘like’ to a boycott BP Facebook campaign then companies need to be wary. 

Attack of the Cookies?

Cookies are not as scary as people are led to believe. They are just a clever little marketing tool that is designed to be helpful to you. They remember details such as usernames and passwords (if you allow them) to make it easier and quicker when logging in to websites like Facebook. Cookies can be really helpful as they can store information about a users location and can then make sure that when the user types for example ‘weather’ into a search engine, only local weather results will be shown. All of these things are designed to make your online experience more personal. 

Research from warc found that ‘65% of consumers believe targeted advertising is an abuse of privacy’ however they also found that ‘64% of consumers think advertising tailored to their individual tastes and interests is a good idea’. How can people believe both without completely contradicting themselves? 

Many people believe that tracking cookies are some kind of virus or bug that is sent to steal personal information. The Electronic Privacy Information Centre (EPIC) believes that as the online world develops the cookies are getting more advanced and ‘poses a great threat to consumer privacy’.  They believe that most of the public aren’t even aware of these cookies and what they are doing. EPIC and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) discuss the development of Flash cookies which are harder to find and get rid of. Users are not notified that they exist on their webpage and they don’t expire like traditional HTTP cookies. They are more advanced which means that if a user deletes a HTTP cookie the new Flash cookie can reinstall data that was deleted. Many groups believe this is a massive invasion of privacy. People are choosing to ‘opt out’ by deleting the tracking cookies but other cookies are re-installing the information without the user knowing. Clearly this is an invasion of privacy because the whole point of cookies is that people can opt out.

However I don’t believe that these are as harmful as people are led to believe. There are benefits to Flash cookies. They save more information about your online interests and can be really helpful. If you are watching a program on BBC iplayer it will remember the volume that you set as well as how far into the program you are. This means that if you close the web page and go back to it later it remembers your settings. You don’t have to log in, adjust sound or even find the place in the program when you stopped watching. It means that a consumer can time when surfing the internet.

I believe the benefits of cookies outweigh the negatives. The intention of cookies is for companies to find out about your interests so that they can target you with products that would be useful to you. I agree with Peter Adams who believes that people aren’t really sure what cookies are. People just presume that they are bad and don’t think about how they can be helpful. I don’t think they realise that the things that are saving them time are the things that they are against. I like that when I go to a website it has remembered my log in details and my preferences. I don’t want to have to type in my location whenever I check the weather. It is so much better that it remembers who you are and the information that you actually care about. And if you still hate cookies there are still ways to delete tracking cookies on your antivirus software, so the choice is up to you.

Will Product Placement ruin the UK viewing experience?

As of Monday regulatory body Ofcom has allowed product placement in both TV and radio. The first ever UK television placement was Nescafe’s Dolce Gusto coffee machine on ITV show ‘This Morning’. Nescafe spent £100,000 for the product to be placed for three months in the kitchen area of the set. There wasn’t an obvious logo, just the machine itself. I couldn’t even see it until it was pointed out by the Telegraph.

Not much is known how viewers will react to this new law but some professionals have suggested this is a bad idea. A report by the European Journal of Marketing found that “product placements that play a passive role... are generally perceived as less ethical” however, Ofcom’s rules make it more ethical. Product placement is a good opportunity for brands to remind viewers of products. As long as programs stick to current Ofcom regulations which state that programs need to be responsible and are not allowed to alter plot lines to fit a product then it should be fine. UK viewers are used to seeing product placement in programs that have been brought over from America so I don’t think they will be worried at all. In Glee Sue Sylvester wears Adidas all the time and even got married in an Adidas wedding dress!

The P symbol identifies programs which contain product placement. Although this could be seen as more ethical as viewers will be aware, I think this will be more interruptive of their viewing experience than the product itself. It is likely that viewers will actively look out for the product in that program rather than just enjoy the program.

The television advert that goes with this symbol is being shown on television to explain what the symbol is. I think the advert would work well without the P logo during programs. It is making sure that product placement is ethical as people understand what’s going on without the intrusion to their program.

As well as physical product placement in television in the UK, digital product placement is looking likely to become popular. Currently it is being used in other countries and there are many companies which specialise in this. A company will digitally edit a product into a scene rather than it actually being there during filming. Myriad (a company who specialises in this) discusses this on BBC radio 4. They believe this is a better way of using product placement as it will not affect viewers as the character is not referencing the product outright. They will not be obviously promoting a product which may put consumers off. It will be similar to the Nescafe machine and just be placed in the background. Digital product placement may also benefit brands as they can pay for their product to be advertised in a program but can vary each product in each country the program is aired in.

As this is new for UK viewers it is hard to predict how they will react as a result. However we can look to other countries to see what opinion may be like. Product placement has been used in America for a long time and theirs seems to be very obvious; for example Coca Cola on American Idol. If the UK becomes this obvious my views are likely to change. Having products in programs will mean that the big companies like get bigger and the small companies don’t stand a chance which will mean that monopolisation of markets will be even more prominent. For viewers however they will be more interested in if the product starts interfering with storylines.  In this case consumers are likely to get annoyed and this will be detrimental to a brand’s image.

Product placements in American TV shows have not been a problem to UK viewers before. As long as Product Placement doesn’t end up like the Truman show, I don’t believe it will be detrimental to consumers viewing.