Abstract
This study analyzes the increasing presence and capabilities of wearable computing devices in the cornucopia of personalized digital data. We argue that the institutional data practices typical of Google Glass will pose policy challenges and herald yet another dramatic shift to personalized data marketing. We also highlight the characteristics of Google’s existing synergetic data practices that will shape the development of not only Google Glass, but also all subsequent wearable mobile devices in light of 360-degree data collection. The key organizing concept of our study is the disjuncture between (1) institutional and (2) policy forces in harnessing dual market mechanism, which frames how the new communication industry operates in the marketplace of ubiquitous personal advertising. We conclude by summarizing the three key areas of political-policy concern (privacy; anti-trust; and user competence) and suggest future solutions, with the discussion on the future of wearable computing practices related to the freedom of the human body.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In fact, there was a case in which Google challenged a U.S. gag order in order to prevent them from revealing information to the public about the kind of data being collected. This demonstrates how Google is concerned with the public backlash from privacy concern, offering foundation for the argument that corporations can be motivated to address privacy concern to prevent negative PR. As the recent digital landscapes present a potential wakeup call for consumers and spur the consumer movement like Stop Watching Us, the extent of public awareness concerning search engine business practices remains to be explored with a paucity of academic research conducted so far.
Here the arrows between Human Body → Google Glass → Google go both ways because that is the nature of Google Glass, which the wearer puts information in, it goes through the cycle, and then winds up back at the human. Likewise, the arrows through “Tracking” and “DoubleClick” are going both ways because all data points in the ecosystem are interconnected, not isolated in individual functions.
The criticism of the EU approach was documented in the two grounds: (1) the 1995 EU data directive in the lack of its enforcement power (Robinson et al. 2009) and (2) the 2013 anti-trust battles in which the EU Commission decided to accept Google’s proposal (see Kanter 2013). The most recent ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning ‘the right to be forgotten’ was also questioned in its vagueness and impracticalities. Still, scholars (e.g., Park 2011, 2013) consistently pointed out the relative strength of the EU principles, as opposed to the self-regulation model in the U.S. where anti-trust charges against Google were dismissed by the FTC in 2013.
Note the distinction between the institutional privacy, associated with data marketing surveillance, and the social privacy, concerning a wearer’s interaction with others in public places. While Google Glass newly disrupts both dimensions of privacy, this study focuses on institutional data practices under formal regulatory policies. This is to be distinct from unwritten social norms that may guide the public–private boundary management of social interactions. Accordingly, the intermediate solutions that we are considering fall into the codified policy areas such as statutes or/and administrative rules.
We fully acknowledge that this critical and insightful point was raised by an anonymous reviewer.
See Napoli (2001) who succinctly addressed the long-standing tension in the formulation of communication policies between economic efficiency and normative social objectives.
References
Ashworth, L., & Free, C. (2006). Marketing dataveillance and digital privacy: Using theories of justice to understand consumers’ online privacy concerns. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(2), 107–123.
Brin, S., & Page, L. (1998). The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual Web search engine. In Proceedings of the seventh international conference on World Wide Web (pp. 107–117), 14–18 April 1998, Brisbane, Australia.
Campbell, A. J. (1998). Self-regulation and the media. Federal Communications Law Journal, 51, 711.
Campbell, S. W., & Park, Y. J. (2008). Social implications of mobile telephony: The rise of personal communication society. Sociology Compass, 2(2), 371–387.
Danna, A., & Gandy, O. H., Jr. (2002). All that glitters is not gold: Digging beneath the surface of data mining. Journal of Business Ethics, 40(4), 373–386.
Davidoff, S. (2013, June 18). Google’s effort to skirt regulation may invite more scrutiny. The New York Times, p. B9.
Economist. (2010, February 25). Data, data everywhere. Special Report: Managing Information. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/node/15557443?story_id=15557443.
Fallows, D. (2005). Search engine users: Internet users are very positive about their online search experiences. Pew Research Internet Project, January 23, 2005.
FTC. (1999). Self-regulation and privacy online: A report to congress. Retrieved from http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_statements/prepared-statement-federal-trade-commission-self-regulation-and-privacy-online/privacyonlinetestimony.pdf.
FTC. (2012). FTC strengthens kids’ privacy, gives parents greater control over their information by amending childrens online privacy protection rule. Press Release, Dec 19, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/12/ftc-strengthens-kids-privacy-gives-parents-greater-control-over.
Gandy, O. H. (2012). Coming to terms with chance: Engaging rational discrimination and cumulative disadvantage. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Google. (2013). What it does—Google Glass. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/glass/start/what-it-does/.
Hargittai, E. (2008). The digital reproduction of inequality. In D. Grusky (Ed.), Social stratification (pp. 936–944). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Hindman, M. (2007). “Open-source politics” reconsidered: Emerging patterns in online political participation. In V. Mayer-Schönberger & D. Lazer (Eds.), From electronic government to information government (pp. 183–207). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kang, J. (1998). Information privacy in cyberspace transactions. Stanford Law Review, 50(4), 1193–1294.
Kanter, J. (2013, February 1). Google makes offer in 3-year European antitrust case. The New York Times, pp. 2, B2.
Larson, J., Glanz, J., & Lehren, A. (2014, January 27). Spy agencies probe angry birds and other apps for personal data. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.propublica.org/article/spy-agencies-probe-angry-birds-and-other-apps-for-personal-data.
Lessig, L. (1999). Code and other laws of cyberspace. New York: Basic books.
Litman, J. (2000). Information privacy/information property. Stanford Law Review, 52(5), 1283–1313.
Maclaren, S. (2014, June 28). The Supreme Court’s baffling tech illiteracy is becoming a problem. Salon. Retrieved from http://www.salon.com/2014/06/28/the_supreme_courts_baffling_tech_illiteracy_is_becoming_a_big_problem/.
Napoli, P. M. (2001). Foundations of communications policy. New York: Fordham University.
Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York: Knopf.
Neuman, W. R. (1991). The future of mass audience. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Neuman, W. R., McKnight, L., & Solomon, R. J. (1993). The politics of a paradigm shift: Telecommunications regulation and the communications revolution. Political Communication, 10(1), 77–94.
Neuman, W. R., Park, Y. J., & Panek, E. (2012). Tracking the flow of information into the home: An empirical assessment of the digital revolution in the US from 1960–2005. International Journal of Communication, 6, 1022–1041.
Park, Y. J. (2011). Provision of Internet privacy and market conditions: An empirical analysis. Telecommunications Policy, 35(7), 650–662.
Park, Y. J. (2013). Offline status, online status: Reproduction of social categories in personal information skill and knowledge. Social Science Computer Review, 31(6), 680–702.
Park, Y. J. (2015a). My whole world’s in my palm! The second-level divide of teenagers’ mobile use and skill. New Media & Society, 17(6), 977–995.
Park, Y. J. (2015b). Do men and women differ in privacy? Gendered privacy and (in)equality in the Internet. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 252–258.
Park, Y. J., & Jang, S. M. (2014). Understanding privacy knowledge and skill in mobile communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 38, 296–303.
Pool, I. d. S. (1977). The social impact of telephone. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Pool, I. d. S. (1983). Technologies of freedom. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Purcell, K. (2012, Feburary, 2012). Search engine use survey. Pew Internet & American Life.
Robinson, N., Graux, H., Botterman, M., & Valeri, L. (2009). Review of the European data protection directive. Cambridge: Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), RAND.
Samuelson, P. (2000). Privacy as intellectual property? Stanford Law Review, 52(5), 1125–1173.
Sandvig, C. (2007). Network neutrality is the new common carriage. Info, 9(2/3), 136–147.
Solove, D. J. (2001). Privacy and power: Computer databases and metaphors for information privacy. Stanford Law Review, 53(6), 1393–1462.
Stampler, L. (2013). Advertisers can’t stop thinking about the Google Glass ‘pay per gaze’ patent. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/advertisers-cant-stop-thinking-about-the-google-glass-pay-per-gaze-patent-2013-8#ixzz2weUtVJvY.
Stead, B. A., & Gilbert, J. (2001). Ethical issues in electronic commerce. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(2), 75–85.
Strickenland, J. (2013). Why is the Google algorithm so important? How stuff works. Retrieved from http://computer.howstuffworks.com/google-algorithm.htm.
Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Republic.com 2.0. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Timberg, C., & King, C. (2013, June 18). Google challenges U.S. gag order, citing First Amendment. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/google-challenges-us-gag-order-citing-first-amendment/2013/06/18/96835c72-d832-11e2-a9f2-42ee3912ae0e_story.html.
Turow, J. (1997). Breaking up America: Advertisers and the new media world. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Turow, J., Carpini, M., & Draper, N. (2012). Americans roundly reject tailored political advertising at a time when political campaigns are embracing it. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Annenberg School of Communication.
Vaidhyanathan, S. (2012). The Googlization of everything (and why we should worry). Berkeley, CA: Univ of California Press.
Vetter, G. R. (2006). Exit and voice in free and open source software licensing: Moderation the rein over software users. Oregon Law Review, 85, 183–274.
Wagstaff, K. (2014). Give me your Google Glass and nobody gets hurt! NBC News. Retrived from http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/mobile/give-me-your-google-glass-nobody-gets-hurt-n82131.
Wasik, B. (2013, December 17). Why wearable tech will be as big as the smartphone. Wired. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/2013/12/wearable-computers/.
Wu, T. (2003). Network neutrality, broadband discrimination. Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law, 2(1), 141–179.
Wu, T. (2011). The master switch: The rise and fall of information empires. New Jersey: Random House LLC.
Yan, M. Z., & Napoli, P. M. (2006). Market competition, station ownership, and local public affairs programming on broadcast television. Journal of Communication, 56(4), 795–812.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Park, Y.J., Skoric, M. Personalized Ad in Your Google Glass? Wearable Technology, Hands-Off Data Collection, and New Policy Imperative. J Bus Ethics 142, 71–82 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2766-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2766-2