Surveillance-Driven Advertising: A Misnomer
On November 9, German MEP Birgit Sippel made headlines by calling for the end of “surveillance-driven advertising” during her first public remarks on the proposed EU ePrivacy Regulation.
If by surveillance, Ms. Sippel was referring to practices that mislead and harm consumers, I couldn’t agree more. The digital advertising industry is predicated on consumer trust. Practices that violate consumers’ privacy erode trust and stifle the growth of the ad-supported internet. In response to consumer expectations, our industry offers meaningful notice and choice about how and when their data is used. As a result, millions of citizens from around the world have learned about how online advertising works and have expressed their preferences for what types of ads they wish to receive through the industry-lead Digital Advertising Alliance AdChoices program. And bad actors that have failed to adopt industry best practices have been referred to government regulatory agencies for further investigation.
If, on the other hand, Ms. Sippel was calling into question the globally accepted and decades-old practice of businesses improving their advertising through the use of data, and equating such practices, either directly or indirectly, to much more pervasive and potentially intrusive forms of government surveillance, I have serious objections. In this context, such an expansive definition of the word surveillance could indicate an intention to mischaracterize how the internet actually works. I worry this type of rhetoric hinders individuals’ ability to discern between the truly harmful and the harmless when online.
To the average person, the word surveillance conjures images of mass monitoring of individuals by government entities. CCTV cameras, the National Security Agency, or the Great Firewall may come to mind. In some instances, government surveillance serves to benefit society by preventing crime and terrorism. In other instances, surveillance is used as a tool of oppression and a means of restricting human rights. Because of government’s ability to both conduct surreptitious mass surveillance and to limit or restrict citizens’ rights, we are right to be cynical of these efforts and to demand assurances that our freedoms and values are not being undermined.
But data-driven advertising is not equivalent to mass surveillance and should not be construed as such. Our industry is driven by the competitive marketplace, which is driven in turn by consumer trust. Absent that trust, there is no data collection because there is no advertising industry. Surveillance, in this context, serves as a dysphemism, equating ethical industry practices with unethical and uncontrollable practices.
Rather than relabel and mischaracterize data-driven advertising in order to insight fear and gain support for a legislative proposal, we should all focus on better educating the public about how data is actually used for advertising, what existing privacy protections are already in place, what the actual harm to consumers would be should information be used inappropriately, and what the cost to European citizens and the broader economy would be in terms of media pluralism and access to digital services should consumers elect not to have data-driven advertising. Only then can we have an honest debate about the pros and cons of the proposed ePrivacy Regulation.