[LINK] Google developing eavesdropping software

[Richard Chirgwin]

Tom Worthington wrote:
> At 10:27 AM 9/7/2006, Craig Sanders wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 09:38:46AM +1000, Tom Worthington wrote:
>> > ...PVR ... read the closed text captions ...
>> > to select ads, much as good does for web pages
>> > <http://www.tomw.net.au/technology/it/adwords.shtml>.
>>
>> ... i'm sure advertising people would love it, but why would the end 
>> user
>> want it - or even tolerate it?...
>
> If targeted well the end user will see fewer TV ads and those will be 
> on topics they are interested in.
>
> Advertisers will pay more for targeted ads, so fewer of them will be 
> needed to pay for the program. Also if the ads are well targeted, they 
> are likely to be more tolerable for the viewer. I would rather one 
> minute of ads about something I might buy, than fifteen minutes of ads 
> about toilet cleaner, which I never buy*.
Isn't this, however, to project your preferences outwards? "I would 
prefer targeted ads to non-targeted ads" tells me about Tom's 
preference, but not where (a) that preference can be extrapolated to 
Richard; nor (b) whether the binary preference implied here (target / no 
target) exhausts all of the possible choices.

Further, extrapolating TV ads from Google ads is apples >> oranges. The 
TV ad is intrusive - it interrupts the prorgam - the Google ad does not 
interrupt the program. There is, at least, a third factor at work in 
Google's success: it is "non-intrusive and targeted". Can you provide 
any evidence other than being personally impressed with the technologies 
or ideas to support the proposition:

"Success in non-intrusive, targeted Web advertising is a good indicator 
that the Google model can be applied to intrusive targeted advertising 
on TV."?

Furthermore, the existence of the capability says nothing about the 
conditions under which that capability is used. "Do you want targeted 
advertising?" is much different from "do you want targeted advertising 
by Google if it means the collection of personal data by Google?" The 
two would get very different answers from anyone who knows Google's 
record and isn't swayed by its army of apologists.

The question can be reasonably expanded even further: "Do you want to 
hand over masses of personal information in order that Google can 
provide targeted advertising to your TV, even though within six months 
the "grey goo" of Google spammers will make the targeting worthless?"

To turn this around, you object to toilet cleaner ads; well, how much 
more would you object to Google's advertising engine's association 
between Peter Brock and collectables (I just tried this; searching on 
Peter Brock, the first thing in the "sponsored links" is 
kaoscollectables.com.au, offering me "Biante Classic-Carlectables Goth 
SciFi Barbie LOTR Buffy Angel +More"

So no, I cannot agree with:
> Google does a reasonable job of making its web ads targeted, so that 
> they are not such a burden. 
Google does a good job for advertisers. I can do without the 
advertising, because frankly with an IQ slightly warmer than cardboard, 
I am capable of choosing products for myself and don't need advertising 
... "oh wow, is it 2006 and I've still forgotten to buy a 100" plasma 
TV? Thanks Google for saving my life!" ... targeted or otherwise. Given 
all the rampant and offensive creepiness - the privacy invasion, the 
crappy mis-advertising by don't-care-how-just-want-eyeballs advertisers 
- I don't care what Google is prepared to kid its investors it can 
achieve, I would absolutely never connect my TV to Google, under any 
circumstances whatever.

I'd even give up watching the Ashes tests if it were the only way to see 
them live...

RC