The WSJ's Datapocalypse 2010

By Jason Carmel | 1 Comments | Posted in in Analytics , Current Affairs , Marketing | Permalink

Technorati Tags: cookies, privacy, web analytics, WSJ

The Wall Street Journal has an amazing interactive piece entitled "What They Know" that focuses on the data that is collected and used for tracking and reporting by 50 of the most visited sites on the Web. Play around with it for a while- you get a sense of the massive amounts of data that popular sites such as ebay and CNN.com collect about you behind the scenes and how that data might impact your privacy online.

Unfortunately, the good people at the WSJ couldn't leave it alone with a powerful display of information. Instead of representing an informed understanding of what data companies are tracking, the risks and benefits of collecting and using that data to the end consumer, and an assessment of efforts that are or should be made to improve the system, they got all "DATAPOCALYPSE 2010" on us. Let's unpack a few issues I had from this little suitcase of drama, shall we?

This is how the author starts off the article (note the bold was their emphasis, not mine), and it's an exaggeration of the grossest order. "Spying" is not a term one should thrown around lightly. In fact, unless it is literally applied to the act of assassinating someone with an umbrella tip or swallowing something on microfilm, the only people who use the verb "spying" in this context are those who are trying to create controversy. Are marketers "spying" on you as you navigate the web? Of course not. Collecting anonymous data to inform how successfully an audience is consuming certain content is a far cry from sending someone with an accent to open up your home safe and take pictures of your offshore bank account numbers with a very, very tiny camera. Using the term "spying" when you mean "sharing aggregated web data" is from page 12 of the Fox News Handbook of Journalism, and the WSJ needs to be better than that.

Issue #2:  I'm not even going to justify the graphic of the dude with the binoculars with a comment.

"Watchers?" Honestly. The WSJ makes Web Analysts and Data Miners sound as if they are video taping you in the shower.

Issue #3: Exposure Index?

The Exposure Index is the grade that the WSJ folks give to each site to inform the reader of how worried she should be about her data being traded around like prison cigarettes. The WSJ explains its methodology obliquely at best. Volume of trackers and opt-out options are interesting circumstantial factors, but they pale in comparison to an analysis of 1) what information is being shared 2) with whom 3) for what purpose, which this index appears to lack:

• More tracking isn't necessarily more sensitive tracking - The fact that a site collects 200 pieces of information doesn't make that information particularly relevant or sensitive, in aggregate. There is a false assumption permeating the data as it's presented that each data tracker leads to information of equal value. Think about how patently untrue this is. Information concerning which articles I read on espn.com and how ESPN would share that information in an aggregate way, even to 100 third party advertisers is in the grand scheme of evil out there in the world fairly low on the totem pole. Compare that to the very sensitive financial data that is collected and used by PayPal, which gets a better score on the exposure rank, in part because it has significantly fewer trackers.
• Define your terms - I think the infographics would be a lot more telling, and consequently a lot less sensationalist, if they included a key explaining what these 3rd party sites are that get your data and what they are doing with it. When a site shares information with Microsoft, for example, it likely has to do with the Bing! search terms used to get to the site. The trackers are not sniffing your machine to see if that copy of Outlook 2010 is registered. Similarly, "Coremetrics," will sound a lot less ominous if you know that it is a standard web tracking tool that monitors anonymous visitor behavior on site, rather than a collective of Nigerians trying to steal your daughter's college tuition.

I don't want to be misinterpreted here as saying that we shouldn't be concerned about what data is being collected about us on the Web and how it is being used. Privacy policies are impossible to understand, a lot of unnecessarily sensitive data is being collected and stored indefinitely for no discernible advantage to the end user, and, let's be frank here, businesses can't always be trusted to act in good faith when an opportunity to make a killing arises, and the only thing standing in its way are the sanctity of a few words on a web page that no one really reads anyway. I work in the industry and know full well that it needs to change. I applaud the WSJ for releasing its findings and recognizing Internet privacy as an important issue.

My concern here is that the language used by the WSJ inspires panic (check out the results of their poll) rather than conversation, and panic invariably results in knee-jerk reactions and ineffective legislation- both of which are on the way.