Page 411 - Introduction to Electronic Commerce and Social Commerce

12.7 Privacy Rights, Protection, and Free Speech 399

Privacy in E-Commerce Information Pollution and Privacy

The reason for privacy concerns stems from the fact that in Information pollution, the adding of irrelevant, unsolicited
using the Internet, users are asked to provide some personal information, may raise privacy issues such as the spreading of
data in exchange for access to information (such as getting misinformation about individuals. In addition, polluted infor-
coupons and allowing downloads). Data and Web mining mation used by decision makers or by UGC may cause inva-
companies receive and gather the collected data. As a result, sion of privacy.
users’ privacy may be violated (see the slide presentation
titled “Your Data, Yourself” by Justyne Cerulli at prezi.com/ Global View
fgxmaftxrxke/your-data-yourself).
Privacy rights protection is one of the most debated and fre- Note that the issue of privacy on the Internet is treated differ-
quently emotional issues in EC and social commerce. According ently in different countries. For example, in November 2009,
to Leggatt (2012), in a survey conducted by TRUSTe, 90% of Google was sued in Switzerland over privacy concerns
Internet users “were found to worry about their online privacy.” regarding its Street View application. In 2012, the Swiss high-
Many EC activities involve privacy issues ranging from collec- est court ruled that Google may document residential street
tion of information by Facebook to the use of RFID. Here is an fronts with its Street View technology (now Google Maps),
example. For issues of EC privacy, see Kenyon (2016). but imposed some limitations on the kinds of images the com-
Here we explore the major aspects of the problem as it pany can take (e.g., lowering the height of its Street View
relates to social networking. cameras so they would not peer over garden walls and hedges).
For more about the court’s decision and the reaction of the
Example: Google Glass parties, see O’Brien and Streitfeld (2012). In June 2013, the
In May 2013, eight lawmakers, concerned about Google European Union highest court determined that government
Glass (and other smart glasses), wrote a letter to Google ask- agencies cannot force Google to remove links to personal
ing what the company planned do to protect people’s pri- material. However, in May 2014, Europe’s highest court ruled
vacy. See Guynn (2013) for a description. A similar example that people should have the right to say what information is
is that stores can see where you go while you are in the store available when someone Googles them. The ruling applies to
or shopping mall. 28 nations and all search engines (Google, Bing) in Europe.
The decision does not apply to the USA or any other country
outside Europe (see Sterling 2014).

Social Networks Changing the Landscape
of Privacy and Its Protection Privacy Rights and Protection

Today’s youth seem to be less concerned about privacy than Today, virtually all U.S. states and the federal government
young people were in the past. The younger generations are (and many other countries) recognize the right to privacy, but
more interested in blogs, photos, social networking, and texting. few government agencies actually follow all the statutes (e.g.,
Attitudes about what constitutes private information are chang- citing reasons of national security). One reason is that the defi-
ing. As a result, there are new opportunities for marketers and nition of privacy can be interpreted quite broadly. However,
marketing communication, mainly in offering experiences that the following two rules have been followed closely in past
are better personalized, which do not violate Internet user U.S. court decisions: (1) the right to privacy is not absolute.
privacy. Privacy must be balanced against the needs of society; (2) the
This problem has been articulated by Andrews (2012), public’s “right to know” is superior to the individual’s right to
who studied privacy protection in social networks and con- privacy. The vagueness of the two rules shows why it is some-
cluded that very little privacy protection exists (e.g., college times difficult to determine and enforce privacy regulations.
applicants are being rejected because of what they posted on Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act protects
the social networks; criminals read posts about vacations to privacy. For an explanation of the FTC Act, see ftc.gov/news-
know when to break into an empty house). events/media-resources/protecting-consumer- privacy.
However, in May 2014, Facebook announced the addition Those practices extend to protecting consumer privacy,
of the “Anonymous Login” feature and changes in login pro- including the “do not track” option, protecting consumers’
cedures, which allow users to try apps without sharing per- financial privacy, and the Children’s Online Privacy Prot-
sonal information from Facebook. ection Act (COPPA).