Advertising may be a necessary evil for those of us that would rather not pay to use Facebook and Twitter, but trading privacy for free services has proven a double-edged sword. Since the introduction of targeted advertising, many users have garnered the impression that advertisers are granted access to their interests. Looking under the hood, you’ll actually find that Facebook and Google advertisers are not privy to personal details about individual users. But there is a far more nefarious advertising practice that has managed to keep its distance from the public’s eye.
Between social networks and the advertisers they serve lie “data brokers,” third parties that buy and sell detailed information about you to advertisers. Where you live, how much you paid for your house, who you’re related to, your hobbies and interests, and just about every detail these corporations can learn about your life is fair game.
“Typically with online advertising, it’s not about the individual. It’s rather about the demographic. [Data brokering] is about the individual, where they’re sending a catalogue to their house and finding that specific person as opposed to an online profile,” says Robert Leshner, CEO and co-founder of Safe Shepherd, a private data removal service.
Companies like Acxiom will compile and sell that information to marketers by scouring through public records, purchasing cookies, and scraping data from social-network profiles. Here, the privacy settings that you set on your social network profiles become important. Individuals who don’t control their privacy settings and social networks will often times find that their information can be found in far more databases than those who control their privacy settings. Coupling your online social data and habits with public records is a goldmine for data brokers, and a Pandora’s box for advertisers.
“Knowing that you bought a house for $200,000 is valuable for advertisers, but knowing that you bought a house for $200,000 and love motorcycles is even more valuable,” Leshner explained.
The scale of Acxiom’s database, which was the subject of a New York Times article, is massive. Acxiom has already collated a database of 500 million people and 1,500 data points per person, yet fewer than 100 people per year will request a data report.
Leshner says that most of this information is sold to offline businesses to be used offline, and not online. If you’ve received junk mail from banks, automakers, or on occasion a “Happy Birthday” gift card with a free “gift” from a company like Gillette, it’s an indication that advertisers know more about your life than you’d like to reveal.
For those of you worried about the transparency of your information, Safe Shepherd’s service, for free or a small fee depending on the thoroughness, can opt you out of marketing databases or prevent your personal information from being included in deals with advertisers. At the moment, however, Safe Shepherd can only opt out users from the “worst offender” databases. With the innumerable marketing services competing with Acxiom to appease data-hungry advertisers, an untold number of smaller firms already exist, not to mention that opting your information out is a never-ending game of cat and mouse.
The data-brokering industry has flown below the radar, but its non-transparency with consumer data has caught the Federal Trade Commission’s eye. Consumers who request a report on themselves are not offered the complete data that brokers would sell to advertisers, but it’s a practice that the FTC would like to regulate. “Consumers should have access to all the details that data brokers collect on them, as well as any analyses that the companies sell about their behavior,” Julie Brill of the Federal Trade Commission told the New York Times. Not surprisingly, these data brokers are lobbying for self regulation.
But as technology grows more sophisticated, so do a data broker’s practices. These days, as Leshner explains to Digital Trends, the data broker’s efforts have shifted to the development of mobile applications. “The trend that we’re seeing right now is that many data broker companies like MyLife and Intellius are launching their own apps with very little value proposition, simply to collect personal information of its users,” Lesher said.These apps require you to sign up with Facebook or Twitter, granting the app developers access to your newsfeed, posts, work history and other information.
If there’s an indicator for the consumer’s awareness about their privacy, Safe Shepherd is it. Safe Shepherd, founded by Geoff Hayes and Robert Leshner in August 2011, saw a significant number of new users and subscribers just in the past six months. Leshner declined to specify the number of subscribers, but its user base totals approximately 50,000 users to date.
Congratulations, Francis. You’re an unwitting enlistee in the data wars, and you’re aligned with the side that does the gathering of data. Ghostery tells me that there are 18 trackers on this article. Guess your publisher has to make a living too, hmm? Why don’t you guys list them in the copy? Or at least recommend to your readers that they download Ghostery so they can see what’s happening behind the browser. See, there is no secret war, except the one beng promulgated by ignorant reporters and editors who have no idea how their publishers actually make money. And once consumers see what kind of data is being gathered behind the browser, like IP addresses and browser sessions, what they learn is that there is no “there” there.
Hi Mike,
The only cookies coming from Digital Trends should be Comscore, Doubleclick (our ad server) and Google analytics. The rest are coming in from 3rd party ad networks.
And we have posted several articles recommending to our readers they they download Ghostery and other apps.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/do-not-track-plus-vs-ghostery/
http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/15-chrome-extensions-for-a-better-browsing-experience/
http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/protect-yourself-online-with-these-web-apps/
No need to be harsh. We try our best to make sure advertisers are not stealing data illegally. But again, we are not a data company, just a publisher accepting advertisements. There are only so many tools we can use to prevent this short of simply not running ads.
Thanks for your reply, Ian. Why do you think cookies are the only problem?
There are many kinds of trackers in use online, from pixels to tags and other tracking elements. You guys are in the mix. That’s all there is to it. What is that mix? is it something insidious or scary? Of course it isn’t. It’s just the data exchange that readers provide for free content.
See, there is no secret war. I use Ghostery, and so do the people doing enforcement for the self-regulatory program. So do about 8M other people, each of whom can see what’s happening behind the browser, instead of being afraid of it.
You work for a data company, Ian. Every online publisher that accepts advertising sells data on their users. If you think otherwise, then what is it, exactly, that you sell?
Ok Mike. I sell data. Just waiting for the check to come in then I guess. :)
That’s pretty funny. A typical AdSense publisher gets about $35/month from Google. One of the funny things about this whole secret data thing is that your response is the correct one -there just is not so much of a “there” there.
But, without it. you and every other digital publisher would have nothing to sell. Unlike print publishers, who have PII such as name, address, credit card info, etc., all you have is a subscription form with an email and an IP address. “Big data,” right?
Agreed. I wish there was more I could do without folding the business and I don’t like it any more than you do either. It makes me sick what these data companies can get away with.