I know advertisers are constantly looking to determine how effective their ads are, but this story is just creepy.  Not necessarily for what it is at the moment—which seems harmless—but for what it can (and will) lead to in the not-too-distant future.  It seems that advertisers, in their never-ending quest to gather as much information as they can about you to supposedly better target your preferences, have now started to embed cameras in video screens that display advertisements.  These cameras watch you as you watch the ad.

The cameras can apparently determine—with a fair degree of accuracy—the person’s gender, approximate age range, and ethnicity (in some cases).  As a result, the advertisements can tailor themselves to the person viewing them.  Thus, according to the article, men could see ads for razors, women could view cosmetics ads, and teens could check-out the latest video game advertisements. 

The advertising industry hasn’t quite decided what to call these ads yet, but early contenders include such terms as “smart ads,” ”proactive merchandising,” “gaze tracking,” or the lengthier “face-based audience measurement.”  Sounds innocuous, doesn’t it? The article is quick to point out that the technology doesn’t identify people individually, but only the categories mentioned above. 

So it’s far from perfect.  For now.  But does anyone truly think that it won’t be vastly improved in the future?  Advanced face-tracking technology is already used by various government agencies and security companies.  How long do you think it will be until these types of ads can identify people individually, correlate and aggregate the information, and then engage in “hyper-targeting” (for lack of a better word)?

Imagine staring at an advertisement for Ex-Lax at a local mall for a few seconds only to return home and find a $5.00 off coupon waiting for you in your e-mail.  Or how about ads from Ex-Lax’s competitors, with the heading, “Constipated”?  Or better yet, how about if it’s sent directly to your cell phone or PDA, especially when you walk past a drugstore?  There’s nothing like instant gratification these days. 

Think it won’t happen?  It’s only a matter of time.  Of course, Congress or the states can step in and try to outlaw these eventual types of advertising practices (which will hopefully withstand First Amendment challenges), but there’s no indication that they will—especially given the considerable strength of the advertising lobby.  

Advertisers will undoubtedly claim that such methods will allow them to tailor their message to people who not only want their products, but need them.  I can see the pitch to Congress now during the hearings:  “Our methods allow us to deliver specifically-targeted content to consumers who will not only benefit from use of our product, but will also be given the opportunity to derive savings and . . .” blah, blah, blah.  Remember, the business of America is business, and advertising is the great facilitator of that.

And of course, the issue is never just the collection and aggregation of the data, but what happens to it, who can see it, how it’s used, under what circumstances it can be disclosed, and all of those other pesky policy questions that relate to giving an individual some semblance of control over their personal lives.  Just don’t expect any help from the advertisers.  

It’s always refreshing to see companies take affirmative steps to try and protect users from malicious programs that can be inadvertently downloaded onto their computers.  Yahoo and McAfee are joining forces to unveil a new security feature designed to warn Yahoo users about potentially dangerous links to software such as adware, spyware, keystroke loggers, and other malicious programs.  Yahoo users will see a red exclamation point and a warning next to any links that McAfee has identified as containing harmful software.

It’s a good start and is one more weapon in the fight against increasingly sophisticated hi-tech criminals.  However, it’s only a matter of time before this new service becomes the target of lawsuits by companies who are identified as “false positives.”  That is, legitimate companies whose links are mistakenly identified as being malicious.

Remember the “real-time blackhole list (“RBL”)?”  This was a Mail Abuse Prevention Service (MAPS) which published lists of ISP addresses which were known to be associated with spammers.  A network could then filter out any questionable e-mail traffic and it would disappear in a metaphorical “black hole” and never reach its destination.

This prompted lawsuits from companies (who called themselves “e-mail marketers”) against RBL providers who claimed that they were being defamed by being erroneously or improperly included on these lists.   (They also included “false light” and restraint-of-trade claims.)  While most suits were dismissed or unsuccessful, they were designed to target and harass RBL providers who devised an otherwise sensible solution to an evergrowing spam problem.

It’s only a matter of time before some disgruntled company sues Yahoo and/or McAfee for being falsely identified to users as a provider of malicious software.  (Due to the Yahoo Terms of Service agreement, users will be unable to successfully sue if some malicious links or sites slip through.)   Still though, despite the threat of lawsuits, Yahoo and McAfee should be commended for trying to develop a solution—however temporary or imperfect—to this problem.  Of course, if any of my clients end up being falsely identified as providers of malicious software, then those companies will hear from me.  Until then, the battle continues.