The Do Not Track mechanism for digital footprint privacy protection in marketing applications
Abstract
Serious concerns about the invasion of digital footprint information privacy due to intense commercial promotion through data mining has led to the emergence of privacy by design in the form of the Do Not Track (DNT) mechanism. This paper attempts to construct a theory to justify and find an appropriate solution to balance the different interests by implementing the DNT mechanism in the real-world marketing industry. The research method involves deduction in legal reasoning. This paper argues that digital footprint information privacy, which has high commercial value, should at least be awarded the status of a semi-fundamental human right. Additionally, when to adopt a DNT opt-out or default mechanism depends on the type of personal information involved. The practical implications suggest a compromise between digital footprint privacy protection and commercial applications in the marketing industry, to be achieved through technology. Since this important topic is relatively new in the area of marketing applications and no primary academic research has established a complete theoretical legal foundation, this article is among the first to do so. Beside its originality, this article also contributes to the literature by proposing a theoretically practical mechanism for both digital footprint privacy protection and marketing profits.
Keyword : information privacy, digital footprint, information protection, do not track, data mining, reasonable expectation, big data
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Baesens, B., Bapna, R., Marsden, J. R., Vanthienen, J., & Zhao, J. L. (2016). Transformational issues of big data and analytics in networked business. MIS Quarterly, 40(4), 807-818. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2016/40:4.03
Bambauer, J. (2014). Is data speech. Stanford Law Review, 66, 57-120.
Bartholomew, M. (2014). Intellectual property’s lessons for information privacy. Nebraska Law Review, 92, 746-798.
Bhattacharyya, M., & Chatterjee, U. (2016). A study on people’s concerns on social media analysis for online audience identification and its impact on new media advertising. Amity Journal of Media & Communication Studies, 6(1), 124-130.
Cheng, F. A. (2010). Electronic medical records in U.S. and the inspiration to Taiwan. Journal of Law & Medicine (Taiwan), 17(1), 9-23.
Cheng, F. A. (2012). Commentary on the protection of information privacy. In T. K. Buckner & B. L. Knowles (Eds.), Privacy: management, legal issues and security aspects (pp. 125-130). New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc.
Cohen, J. E. (2015). The zombie first amendment. William & Mary Law Review, 56(4), 1119-1158.
Derikx, S., de Reuver, M., Kroesen, M., & Bowman, H. (2015). Buying-off privacy concerns for mobility services in the Internet-of-things era: a discrete choice experiment on the case of mobile insurance. In BLED 2015 Proceedings, 7-10 June (pp. 228-238). Slovenia.
Doty, N., & Mulligan, D. K. (2013). Internet multi-stakeholder processes and techno-policy standards initial reflections on privacy at the world wide web consortium. Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law, 11, 135-182.
Goodman, M. (2015). Future crimes: everything is connected, everything is vulnerable and what we can do about it (pp. 44-104). New York: Doubleday.
Guffin, P. J., Glover, K. J., & Benjamin, S. M. (2014). Foreword (in) symposium: who is governing privacy? Regulation and protection in a digital era. Maine Law Review, 66(2), 369-371.
Hayes, A. S. (2014). The USPS as an ops: a remedy for users’ online privacy concerns. Common Law & Policy, 19, 465-507. https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2014.955770
Jerome, J. (2014). Big data: catalyst for a privacy conversation. Indiana Law Review, 48, 213-242.
Kaminski, M. E., & Witnov, S. (2015). The conforming effect: first amendment implications of surveillance beyond chilling speech. University of Richmond Law Review, 49, 465-518.
Kim, M., Ly, K. M., & Soman, D. (2015). A behavioural lens on consumer privacy. In Rotman School of Management (pp. 1-40). Toronto, University of Toronto.
Koponen, J., & Mangiaracina, A. (2013). No free lunch: personal data and privacy in EU competition law. Competition Law International, 9(2), 183-195.
Lau, A. (2017). The privacy box: enabling consumer choice and meaningful consent in online privacy. In The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (pp. 1-58). Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Manshaei, M. H., Zhu, Q., Alpcan, T., Basar, T., & Hubaux, J. P. (2011). Game theory meets network security and privacy. ACM Computing Surveys, 45(3), 1-45.
Markos, E., Milne, G. R., & Peltier, J. W. (2017). Information sensitivity and willingness to provide continua: a comparative privacy study of the United States and Brazil. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 36(1), 79-96. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.15.159
Maxwell, K. (2013/2014). Online behavioral advertising: the pros and cons of regulation and suggestions for adherence to California’s constitutional right to privacy. Nexus: Chapman’s Journal of Law & Policy, 19, 51-76.
McKinnon, A. (2014). Sacrificing privacy for convenience: the need for stricter FTC regulations in an age of smartphone surveillance. Journal of National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, 34(2), 484-526.
Nizio, A. (2014). Taking matters into its own hands: why congress should pass legislation to allow the FTC to regulate consumer online privacy with a ‘do not track’ mechanism. University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology & Policy, 283-306.
Shelton, A. (2014). A reasonable expectation of privacy online: ‘do not track’ legislation. University of Baltimore Law Forum, 45(1), 35-56.
Stark, L. (2016). The emotional context of information privacy. The Information Society, 32(1), 14-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2015.1107167
Strauss, B. (2014). Online tracking: can the free market create choice where none exists. Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property, 13(2), 539-570.
Wheeler, T. (2016). Chairman Wheeler’s proposal to give broadband consumers increased choice, transparency & security with respect to their data. Retrieved from http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0310/DOC-338159A1.pdf
Willis, L. E. (2013). When nudges fail: Slippery default. The University of Chicago Law Review, 80, 1155-1229.
Yaprakli, T. S., & Unalan, M. (2017). Consumer privacy in the era of big data: a survey of smartphone users concerns. In 2nd World Conference on Technology, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Press Academia Procedia, 12-14 May, 2017. Istanbul, Turkey. https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.509