Has Personalized Filtering Gone Too Far?

In a world of plenty, algorithms may be our saving grace as they map, sort, reduce, recommend, and decide how airplanes fly, packages ship, and even who shows up first in online dating profiles. But in a world where algorithms increasingly determine what we see and don’t see, there’s danger of filtering gone too far.

The global economy may be a wreck, but data volumes keep advancing. In fact, there is so much information competing for our limited attention, companies are increasingly turning to compute power and algorithms to make sense of the madness.

The human brain has its own methods for dealing with information overload. For example, think about millions of daily input the human eye receives and how it transmits and coordinates information with our brain. A task as simple as stepping a shallow flight of stairs takes incredible information processing. Of course, not all received data points are relevant to the task of walking a stairwell, and thus the brain must decide which data to process and which to ignore. And with our visual systems bombarded with sensory input from the time we wake until we sleep, it’s amazing the brain can do it all.

But the brain can’t do it all—especially not with the onslaught of data and information exploding at exponential rates. We need what author Rick Bookstaber calls “artificial filters,” computers and algorithms to help sort through mountains of data and present the best options. These algorithms are programmed with decision logic to find needles in haystacks, ultimately presenting us with more relevant choices in an ocean of data abundance.

Algorithms are at work all around us. Google’s PageRank presents us relevant results—in real time—captured from web server farms across the globe. Match.com sorts through millions of profiles, seeking compatible profiles for subscribers. And Facebookshows us friends we should “like.”

But algorithmic programming can go too far. As humans are more and more inundated with information, there’s a danger in turning over too much “pre-cognitive” work to algorithms. When we have computers sort friends we would “like”, pick the most relevant advertisements or best travel deals, and choose ideal dating partners for us, there’s a danger in missing the completely unexpected discovery, or the most unlikely correlation of negative one. And even as algorithms “watch” and process our online behavior and learn what makes us tick, there’s still a high possibility that results presented will be far and away from what we might consider “the best choice.”

With a data flood approaching, there’s a temptation to let algorithms do more and more of our pre-processing cognitive work. And if we continue to let algorithms “sort and choose” for us – we should be extremely careful to understand who’s designing these algorithms and how they decide. Perhaps it’s cynical to suggest otherwise, but in regards to algorithms we should always ask ourselves, are we really getting the best choice, or getting the choice that someone or some company has ultimately designed for us?

Question:
*  Rick Bookstaber makes the case that personalized filters may ultimately reduce human freedom. He says, “If filtering is part of thinking, then taking over the filtering also takes over how we think.” Are there dangers in too much personalized filtering?

Data Tracking for Asthma Sufferers?

Despite the recent privacy row with smartphones and other GPS enabled devices, a Wisconsin doctor is proposing use of an inhaler with built in global positioning system to track where and when asthma sufferers use their medication. By capturing data on inhaler usage, the doctor proposes that asthma sufferers can learn more about what triggers an attack and the medical community can learn more about this chronic condition. However, the use of such a device has privacy implications that need serious consideration.

For millions of people on a worldwide basis, asthma is no joke. An April 9, 2011 Economist article mentions that asthma affects more than 300 million people, almost 5% of the world’s population.

Scientists and the medical community have long pondered the question; ‘What triggers an asthma attack?’ Is it pollen, dust in the air, mold spores or other environmental factors? The key to learning the answer to this question is not only relevant for asthma sufferers themselves, but also society (and healthcare costs) as there are more than 500,000 asthma related hospital admissions every year.

In an effort to better understand factors behind asthma attacks, Dr. David Van Sickle, co-founded a company that makes an inhaler with GPS to track usage. Van Sickle once worked for the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and he believes that with better data society can understand asthma in a deeper manner.  By capturing data on asthma inhaler usage and then plotting the results with visualization tools, Van Sickle hopes that this information can be sent back to primary care physicians to help patients understand asthma triggers.

A better understanding of asthma makes sense for patients, health insurers and society at large. The Economist article notes that pilot studies of device usage thus far have resulted in basic understandings of asthma coming into question. However, there are surely privacy implications in the capture, management and use of this data, despite reassurances from the medical community that data will be anonymized and secured.

Should societal and patient benefits outweigh privacy concerns when it comes to tracking asthma patients? What do you think?  I’d love to hear from you.

Should Online Companies Be Forced To Forget?

Online companies have raised the eyebrows of privacy advocates who think web generated data should only be archived for a specified period of time. And while some companies have bowed to public pressure and only keep data on customer searches for a maximum of three months, others have not acquiesced. When it comes to privacy concerns, should Internet based companies be required “to forget?”

Neuroscientists have long claimed the act of forgetting is important to the processes of the human mind. Humans have a need to forget especially because each day our brains deal with tons of trivial information and clutter, not to mention hundreds if not thousands of marketing messages.

Therefore, our mental processes must prioritize which facts should have more importance than others—such as ‘where are my car keys?’ versus ‘what did I eat for lunch last Thursday?’ We must forget, because according to neuroscientists, our brains would overload if we captured every detail of our lives.

Yet, unlike the human mind which has a fixed capacity, computer data stores (i.e. disk, tape etc) are getting larger and cheaper to manufacture thereby allowing companies to keep more transactional details very inexpensively.

In fact, thanks to accelerating technological change, companies can now take advantage of less expensive data storage to keep transactional data for longer periods of time—with the ultimate goal of mining data for insights to improve the customer experience.

However, data retention policies of considerable length run head first into concerns from privacy advocates. For example, according to a Washington Post article, online search companies have policies in which they actively keep query data from 3-18 months, and in some instances longer. Their rationale? Online search companies say query data is used to improve their algorithms, optimize search results, and provide advertisers better targeting.

Privacy advocates, however, argue that search queries often contain personal details, and taken collectively can reveal a complete picture of the person using the search engine. Ultimately they say, too much power in the hands of a few key search engines is a privacy nightmare.

To effectively meet customer needs in a very complex and fluid economic environment, companies must be able to collect and analyze data to understand customer behavior, drive better communications and respond to changing customer needs. That said, the benefits of data collection and analysis must coincide with responsible behavior.

Questions:

• Should online companies be required to “forget” what they know about their customers and transactions? If so, what is the cut-off point?
• Should corporations advertise that they quickly “forget”—much as Ask.com has?
• Are consumer privacy concerns regarding data collection policies more bark than bite?

Reality Mining – Too Much Personalization?

What does your mobile phone usage say about you? Probably a lot more than you think.

Mobile phone operators are using advanced analytics to “mine” call detail records hoping to use the information to improve service quality and create more personalized and relevant offers. But that’s old hat compared to what’s coming next.

Land line and mobile operators—by nature—capture a significant amount of transactional data (call detail records, web visits/transactions, and GPS data just to name a few). To extract value from this data, companies employ data mining techniques.

Data mining is the process of discovering hidden patterns from large data sets. Using sophisticated algorithms, companies in all industries are “mining” mammoth data warehouses to identify useful information (relationships, rules, and sequences) that can help them customize and personalize offers, and optimize business processes.

However, according to a Technology Review article titled “Reality Mining,” MIT professor Sandy Pentland thinks mobile operators are poised to take data mining to a whole new level.

Dubbed, “reality mining”, Dr. Pentland thinks mobile operators have an opportunity to record more than just where you’ve been or who you have recently called.

The article notes that Pentland “would like to see phones collect even more information about their users, recording everything from their physical activity to their conversational cadences.”

In the near future, Dr. Pentland suggests the following can be “learned” from studying data captured from your cell phone:

• Your cadence may reflect your state of mind that day – are you happy, sad, depressed?
• Through capture of location based data, it will be possible to “predict” places you are more likely to visit
• Your calling patterns can help map your social network
• Your physical activity (or lack thereof) could be monitored by health professionals via your mobile device. Pedometer anyone?

The article continues, “Within the next few years, Pentland predicts, reality mining will become more common, thanks in part to the proliferation and increasing sophistication of cell phones. Many handheld devices now have the processing power of low-end desktop computers, and they can also collect more varied data, thanks to devices such as GPS chips that track location. And researchers such as Pentland are getting better at making sense of all that information.”

Of course, there are strong privacy considerations with the advent of these services. How does one opt in/or opt out? What information is shared and how much is shared and with whom?

Arguably, on the marketing side, more detailed information (including location based data), collected and analyzed by your wireless carrier could help them tailor and personalize specific offers—raising marketing effectiveness. And mapping your social network could help you share information more easily (think: favorite five plans—on steroids).

But there is a fine line between “benefit” and “big brother”.

• What do you think of the concept of “reality mining”?
• Would you be willing to opt-in to potential benefits of reality mining?
• Where would you “draw the line”?

Mental Privacy Destined for Extinction?

Imagine walking down a busy street when suddenly you hear a voice in your head. Is it schizophrenia? The demonic? No, you’ve been subjected to modulated ultrasound from an advertiser, a beam of sound directed only at you. Is this the beginning of the end of mental privacy?

Frequent NewYorker columnist Clive Thompson has an interesting one page article in Wired Magazine titled, “It’s All in Your Head”.

The author mentions walking in downtown Manhattan when he is subjected (my words) to an advertisement from a cable channel through the use of modulated ultrasound.

Wikipedia describes modulated ultrasound as “a beam of sound (that) can be projected over a long distance to be heard only in a small well-defined area. A listener outside the beam hears nothing.”

Mr. Thompson’s describes the modulated ultrasound as “(emanating) from inside my skull.” His first reaction? “Cool”. His second? “Creepy”.

In the instance above, the advertising was for a television show on the paranormal (hence the fit with modulated ultrasound). However, the use of this technology on the denizens of Manhattan seems to raise some ethical questions about how far marketers are willing to go to “get inside the heads” of customers.

The Wired article quotes bio-ethicist Paul Root Wolpe, “If the skull is not an absolute domain of privacy, there are no privacy domains left.” He argues the “civil rights of the mind” will be the battleground of the 21st century.

In a related post, “Marketing Mind Meld, Part 2”, Ted Mininni discusses how some marketers are now resorting to hypnosis to glean more candid observations about brands and corporate initiatives from customers.

Granted, taking part of a focus group that uses hypnosis techniques is definitely “opt-in”—but I am seeing a disturbing pattern of marketers willing to scale new heights to “get into” or extract insights from the minds of customers.

Most marketers know that adherence to well-designed corporate privacy policies helps maintain our brand reputation and engenders customer trust—but not every company has adopted privacy policies. And for those companies with privacy policies, monitoring compliance is often “extra costs”.

• Do we have a right to privacy—in our own skulls?
• Where is the cut-off line between “invasive” and “allowed”?
• Modulated ultrasound – fair play or foul?
• What (if any) backlash will there be for companies without proper privacy policies in place? More importantly, do customers care?
• Would you stop doing business with a company that you feel has violated your “mental privacy”?