The Ethics of Data Mining

The topic of data mining for this week’s blog post seems almost eerily appropriate, as it comes right after I watched an episode of NBC’s Parks and Recreation which deals with this exact issue. Leslie Knope and her husband Ben Wyatt tackle this issue against a pseudo-Facebook type company called “Gryzll”, who has been reading all their texts, emails, etc. in order to find out what people like. In Andrea Petersen’s article, “Parks and Recreation’ takes on online privacy. And it hits close to home”, she uses a quote from Ben who aptly says of this:

The Internet is no longer optional; it's a necessity for everyone. And I think that you do know that data-mining isn't chill because you stuck it into the 27th update of a 500-page user agreement. A person should not have to have an advanced law degree to avoid being taken advantage of by a multibillion-dollar company. You should be upfront about what you're doing and allow people the ability to opt out.

I think what Ben is saying speaks very much about the topic of transparency that we have discussed in class. Companies should be upfront about what they do with their customers’ information, yet many of us do not even know how our personal information is being used. While on some level, we all know that data mining exists, it is really quite unsettling when you sit down and think about it. While some data mining can be used in a beneficial way, the majority of it is used for the company’s personal gain: to sell us products.

In term’s of this week’s article about Target, I very much think the company’s use of data mining is cause for ethical concern. We might look at this through the lens of Mill and his utility principle which focuses on the consequences of the action. Clearly, in this case, the consequences of the action were quite negative as the girl’s father was upset and confused by the situation. In looking at this outcome, Mill might say this was not an ethical situation.

Even though we as the consumers do know that this type of targeted marketing happens, I find it disconcerting, both on a personal and ethical level.  Our article for today quotes Andrew Pole who says, “…as long as a pregnant woman thinks she hasn’t been spied on, she’ll use the coupons. She just assumes that everyone else on her block got the same mailer for diapers and cribs. As long as we don’t spook her, it works”. This in itself is cause for concern; Target knows that what it’s doing is somewhat sketchy, yet they do it anyway, so that they sell more products. Don’t get me wrong, I love Target and shop there all the time, but in looking at this under a closer lens, it is troubling. The very fact that they knew of a teen pregnancy before her father did sounds like something from television! This goes against the entire concept of communitarianism, which looks out for the good of society. Sneakily placing baby coupons among other ads would not be considered good for society, general speaking. I don’t think the manager behaved appropriately as he did not even know what was going on. It would behoove the company to let their employees know of the sneaky practices they’re using. While the manager did apologize and called the father again, the whole thing seems somewhat fishy.

In looking at this next to certain codes of ethics, many red flags appear. Firstly, the code of ethics for public relations focuses on honesty and loyalty, among others. Target certainly did not act in an honest or loyal way to its customers, since it basically admitted in this article that as long as women didn’t realize the specific ad placement, they could get away with it. Is that a definition of honesty? I don’t think so. The same can be said for the code of ethics for advertisers; advertisers are not knowingly supposed to create “false or misleading statements or exaggerations, visual or verbal” (http://www.aaaa.org/about/association/Pages/standardsofpractice.aspx). While Target’s marketing strategy is not false per se, it can be defined as misleading. This deals with the idea of credibility, something we have read about in Wilkins and Lee’s book. Plaisance also touches on this in listing out 5 key values of credibility:

•      A sense of responsibility to consumers, community concerns, and society
•      Decency, honesty, and truth
•      Avoidance of misrepresentation and deception
•      A sense of fair competition
•      The protection and promotion of the reputation of the advertising industry 

While items 4 and 5 don’t really come into play here, items 1-3 certainly do. I think many of the philosophers we have looked at would have strong opinions about Target’s marketing practices. Rawl’s ‘veil of ignorance’ is an appropriate term to be used here; Target certainly is pulling a veil over their customers’ eyes. Rawl looks at a case by asking himself what is the best course of action for everyone? This example with Target seems to only be the best course of action for the company itself, not the consumer or the consumer’s family. As Duhiggs suggests, “even if you’re following the law, you can do things where people get queasy.” As he very appropriately puts it, stories like these are both “unsettling and unsurprising”. We know companies need to make money and keep their customers shopping, but at what cost?