CNN has a very insightful feature about the advertising of the future; In The Future, Eyes Are the Window to the Wallet. The article starts by listing four different examples of biometric applications, two of which are real and two are in Spielberg's latest film (he might actually have an accurate prediction this time ;)

The rest of the article shows how such Artificial Intelligence based technologies will allow advertisers to take their businesses to the next level -- advertising at the individual level.

What about you? Would you sacrifice anonymity and privacy to allow companies to serve you better, despite their making profit from the process? Personally, I would...

The CNN article manages to blend two issues into one: easy identification and appropriate identification. Scanning your retina before giving money at a cash point is easy and appropriate, doing it as you walk past a billboard is invasive. Advertisers have been talking about identifying mobile phones or PDA's in a very local area, and sending text messages or emails to individuals, for some time. The trouble is, do you really want 30 text messages (one for each shop you pass) as you walk down a high street? And how irritating would it be to have billboards constantly calling out your name? You wouldn't be able to think, maintain a conversation or just have a quiet walk home at the end of a long day.

This goes for moving and talking cereal packets as well. The last thing you want in the morning when you pick up a cereal packet is a singing, animated kids cartoon, as shown by John Anderton throwing his cereal packet across the room!

In addition, I for one do not want to be tracked everywhere I go (1984?). Your route could always be traced, there is always a record of where you have been or where you are. It might be easy to say that you have nothing to hide from anyone, but that lack of privacy might one day catch up with you when some unscrupulous man in the know (or even a hacker) exploits the knowledge that can be built up about you.

Linden

> to have billboards constantly calling out your name?

Or have a huge shark launch itself out of nowhere towards you and almost give you a heart attack... That's been done somewhere else, hasn't it? (another Spielberg ;)

Advertisers are always in the front line for using technology to make money -- right behind the pron industry, and our cooperation or concerns won't make much difference on the outcome I'm afraid.

I was actually reading a very interesting report of a top TV executive (Treating Viewers as Criminals -- in the US of course), saying that watching the features without the adverts was in fact theft, and you shouldn't go out the room to make tea, or flick through the channels, or even take a bathroom break! The contract between us and them is implicit at the moment, so there's not much they can do legally; but the point is they're thinking about it!! One channel has a game of pong that you have to play above a constant stream of adverts...

With the disappearance of cash soon, shops will soon have the ability and the technology to monitor you (cue data-mining); it'll be a clause of their contract if you buy from them, or set foot in their shop. They'll predict your moves and desires (based on your mood walking around), and target you within the shop. ITV has a great report on supermarkets which was all about using colours, product placements to get people to buy almost subconsciously. AI will allow them to take that a step further.

I don't like the idea, but I'm ok with it as long as it remains within their shops. It's not assault if this smart advertising doesn't pour out into the streets! But I guess the scary thing is that the difference between the two is etiquette and consumer freedom, and we all know there's not much of that around at the moment!

Nice to have you with us Linden ;)

I suppose what you are really talking about is an automated assistant. There is no conceptual difference between a human shop employee who recognises the customer and that of a computer system doing the same task. The difference perhaps is in the detail - do we feel happy about constant monitoring of our actions by a system that records our behaviour? It would be interesting to hear the view of a privacy expert on an issue like this.

On the face of it I would agree that this would be within the rights of a retailer within their own property. I think we need to be careful about invasive advertising though. Amazon is an example of effective use of customer information to make suggestions that blend into the shopping experience, but as the internet has shown, new technologies open the way for new methods of spamming and scamming. It might be desirous to carry around advert busters, much like programs that filter out banners on the internet

Linden

P.S. Thought it was about time I showed my face :)

I'd be a bit more worried if the shark called out my name before leaping towards my face though!

All this sounds like it's going to make shopping an even worse experience than it is already. I hate being bothered in shops by people asking if I am "alright", or if I'd "like any help", because I like to just wander aimlessly until I find things I might like, or until I feel the need to ask for some advice.

This kind of in shop "assistance" will make it even worse in my opinion. The way things are going, eventually there will be no free will in buying things at all, we'll all have to buy what is suggested for us based on what our parents used to buy! (I guess it could help women find things that would fit them though!)

This reminds me of Lawrence Lessig's book "The Future of Ideas." He talks about when VHS first came out, and the big worry of the movie execs was that people who didn't pay to rent the movie would watch it anyway, and it would ruin the movie industry. Of course, the industry is still thriving, just like the music industry is despite MP3s online.

I, for one, prefer anonymity over safety. I know that keeping track of where I go and what I do is good for my protection against fraud, but I would rather take that chance and not have anyone keep track of me. Many people don't mind big brother because they think the government won't misuse that information -- and right now they won't, but sooner or later someone will rise to power who will.

I agree totally. Without wanting to sound paranoid (maybe just cynical...), the more information that is stored about you, and the more people (e.g. government departments) that this is distributed to, the more chance there is of some form of exploitation. Libertarians maybe a bit fanatatical, but they have a point!

Linden

You have a right to sound paranoid. An article in the weekend paper revealed just how easy it is to get information on almost anybody.

Just by selecting a name at random from a cycling newsgroup, this journalist (using google) found out this woman's age, habits, likes and dislikes, that she'd been married and it hadn't worked out, why it hadn't worked out and that she owned her own company. And this was all found out for free!

By paying for subscriptions to relevant sites, such as companies-house.gov.uk, 192.com the journalist was able to find out the name of the company, whether she had a good credit rating, her home address and phone number, the name of her ex husband, what her dad did for a living, a lot of other pretty personal information.

Apparently "identity fraud" is the largest fraud in Britain at the moment, (stealing someone's identity in order to get credit) and this article really hammered home how little privacy we really have.

Andy