Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Business Ethics
Published in: Journal of Business Ethics 1/2017

12-07-2015

Personalized Ad in Your Google Glass? Wearable Technology, Hands-Off Data Collection, and New Policy Imperative

Authors: Yong Jin Park, Marko Skoric

Published in: Journal of Business Ethics | Issue 1/2017

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

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.
previous article Beyond Coercion: Moral Assessment in the Labour Market
next article Knowledge Stewardship as an Ethos-Driven Approach to Business Ethics

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Footnotes
1
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.
 
2
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.
 
3
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.
 
4
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.
 
5
We fully acknowledge that this critical and insightful point was raised by an anonymous reviewer.
 
6
See Napoli (2001) who succinctly addressed the long-standing tension in the formulation of communication policies between economic efficiency and normative social objectives.
 
Literature
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
Davidoff, S. (2013, June 18). Google’s effort to skirt regulation may invite more scrutiny. The New York Times, p. B9.
Fallows, D. (2005). Search engine users: Internet users are very positive about their online search experiences. Pew Research Internet Project, January 23, 2005.
Gandy, O. H. (2012). Coming to terms with chance: Engaging rational discrimination and cumulative disadvantage. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
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.CrossRef
Kanter, J. (2013, February 1). Google makes offer in 3-year European antitrust case. The New York Times, pp. 2, B2.
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
Park, Y. J., & Jang, S. M. (2014). Understanding privacy knowledge and skill in mobile communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 38, 296–303.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
Sandvig, C. (2007). Network neutrality is the new common carriage. Info, 9(2/3), 136–147.CrossRef
Solove, D. J. (2001). Privacy and power: Computer databases and metaphors for information privacy. Stanford Law Review, 53(6), 1393–1462.CrossRef
Stead, B. A., & Gilbert, J. (2001). Ethical issues in electronic commerce. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(2), 75–85.CrossRef
Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Republic.com 2.0. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Turow, J. (1997). Breaking up America: Advertisers and the new media world. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef
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.
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.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Personalized Ad in Your Google Glass? Wearable Technology, Hands-Off Data Collection, and New Policy Imperative
Authors
Yong Jin Park
Marko Skoric
Publication date
12-07-2015
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Journal of Business Ethics / Issue 1/2017
Print ISSN: 0167-4544
Electronic ISSN: 1573-0697
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2766-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Journal of Business Ethics 1/2017 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

An Ethical Perspective on Emerging Forms of Ubiquitous IT-Based Control

OriginalPaper

When Organizational Identification Elicits Moral Decision-Making: A Matter of the Right Climate

OriginalPaper

Knowledge Stewardship as an Ethos-Driven Approach to Business Ethics

OriginalPaper

The Rawlsian Critique of Utilitarianism: A Luhmannian Interpretation

OriginalPaper

Implicit Theories and Issue Characteristics as Determinants of Moral Awareness and Intentions

OriginalPaper

Decreasing Unethical Decisions: The Role of Morality-Based Individual Differences