Transparency and data harvesting

Here is an interesting article that came across my Twitter feed: An ethical bargain

In it, the author (Jim Stogdill) uses the example of a relationship he has with a bookseller, who is always ready with a book recommendation, and compares that to his relationship with a large grocery chain, which asks for information such as date of birth when someone purchases alcoholic beverages.

In the case of the former, Stogdill argues that what Al the bookseller is doing is open, honest and ethical. He (Al) observes the types of books that Stogdill has purchased and liked and then uses that information to make better recommendations for future purchases. In the case of the latter, Stogdill states that asking for a purchaser's DOB is "sociopath[ic]" in the sense that the grocery store chain wasn't really open about why it wanted the information and what it would do with it in the future.

Hmm, I wonder if what we have here is a distinction without a difference. That is, even though Al doesn't say that the reason he watches what his customer buys is so that he can sell more books, because he is a real live person, they have a relationship and are "friends." But at the most basic level aren't both Al and the grocery store collecting information that will make it more likely they will make future sales?

I do agree with Stogdill that corporations are often less transparent in how much data they collect and how they use it and that there is value in rethinking how open we (as representatives of clients) should be about the nature of our activities.

It's also worth noting that Stogdill is not just some technophobic crank. Rather, he works trying to make sense of customer data--something he seems not to like when others do to him.