Hacker News Reader

Comment by jgw | Hacker News Reader

They effectively did, because step 2 was really:

"2. Based on girl's purchases, company sends flyers - not private mail - addressed to girl by name, advertising specific types of products directly to her."

That her father didn't immediately put 2 and 2 together is besides the point. I think in his position, I might well have figured it out.

Perhaps its a function of age (I'm 37), but I am genuinely surprised at someone not finding this a clear violation of privacy.

[EDIT: Afterthought - it might be quite interesting to plot HN's attitude towards this against age. Would the younger people be less uncomfortable with it because this is the world they've grown up in?]

View on HN

I do find it an invasion of privacy. I just take issue with this statement:

  they effectively took it upon themselves to disclose
  to her father that she was pregnant

Mostly with the 'took it upon themselves.' I'm pretty sure that this was an unintended consequence. It just goes to show you that when you do these things you're really playing with fire, and you can't be so cavalier.

Yes, you're right - I concede your point.

"They effectively disclosed to her father that she was pregnant"

> invasion of privacy

Like most, you have a naive and non-legal concept of what privacy is. Analyzing public behavior (shopping) and sending mail to your public address isn't even close to the realm of privacy.

  > you have a naive and non-legal concept
  > of what privacy is

I'm curious as to why your immediate response was to claim that I don't know anything about the legal concept of privacy.

1. This is not a court.

2. Very few of us are lawyers.

3. Nobody is talking about criminal charges or civil suits.

Who said it was about legality? Substitute "decency" for privacy if you prefer, the point is essentially the same.

There is no law that requires anyone (least of all, a corporation) to be decent.

Which is why the parent comment about legal issues is apropo. That, is what will be, and only be, considered.

I'd sort of expect older people to be _less_ uncomfortable about it. Back in the day you bought more things from from smaller stores with proprietors who might recognize you and remember what you purchased last time. I'm pretty sure I've old movies where someone walks into a store and the guy behind the counter says something like "Hi Bob, we've got a new order in of those Foozits you like!" and Bob is embarrassed because he's with someone who he didn't want to know that he bought Foozits. I'm not very sensitive to privacy issues for a HN reader, but I know that my parents positively want to have personal relationships with the entities they buy things from.

I see what you're saying - in fact, I just switched my usual hardware store from a big Home Depot to a local Home Hardware (a somewhat smaller, Canadian chain), partly because of that personal relationship you're alluding to.

I think, though, that the relationship to Target isn't like that, because while they know an awful lot about you personally, you don't know them personally at all - they're just a corporate face, not a familiar one behind the counter.

In fact, you've just helped me figure out a bit more specifically what I found vaguely unsettling about it.

With the local sole proprietor knowing your intimate details, you as the customer know his. You probably go to the same, if not similar church. You also have neighbors who you both have in common. You also know about his life, his children, his wife.

In the end, he's another person (not 'person' like target) who lives in your community.

Who, perhaps, is Target? Or Wal-mart?

In this case, the difference is if Foozits were something you used to stop your whatzit from itching, the proprietor probably wouldn't mention that out loud in the company of others. Target, on the other hand, is fine sending you an ad for it - and I suspect when the day comes that they can announce that to you when you walk in the store, they'll use all the tact and grace they apparently used in divining a girl was pregnant without also divining her age.

I'm 41 and did a long stint working with social services and I find it problematic. I agree with your expansion of point 2 and can very much imagine and have heard cases where a step 7 is added.

  7. father reacts violently and girl is injured (with potential loss of child)
     or is killed.

sometimes these situations have:

  1b. girl is looking to escape current situation

It is mentioned later in the article (or maybe in another) that mixing coupons that have nothing to do with the person into the mix to disguise the company's knowledge might be a better way to handle it. I do wonder if Target knew the age of the person receiving the flyer?

If I had a business that could gather this type of information, I would be very careful about how the full extent of my company's knowledge is presented to my customers. It is worth looking into the presentation to make sure you will not be the subject of a tabloid article with the words "Killed" or "Spying" in the title.

Perhaps its a function of age (I'm 37), but I am genuinely surprised at someone not finding this a clear violation of privacy.

I'm 38 and I don't know that it's a clear violation of privacy. They presumably didn't realize that she lived with her father and that he would have access to her mail. To me, this one is a bit of a gray area.

Father didn't know the reasoning in step two though. So it isn't like they sent a letter that said hey we know you have bought multiple pregnancy tests this week, and as such are probably due in may. Here is a coupon for a car seat that will work in the Buick you regularly drive.

That is to say the store sent coupons but that doesn't imply knowledge of anything other than a name and an address. Given the number of ads that they mail it seems almost impossible for this to not happen just by random chance. I know I get baby ads from target and I don't have a baby. Wait, does this mean I knocked up an ex? Should I start calling all of my exs to verify pregnancy status? Oh wait that would be stupid, ads might be targeted but it is more shotgun targeting than laser targeting.

I dont think people would care so much if they receive baby ads. On the other hand, I imagine I'd be pretty pissed if I had a teenage daughter and she received this.

Well, I'm 21, and I don't see it as a violation of privacy because they're choosing to publish the data (their purchasing habits) simply by making the purchases. I think it'd be naive to assume otherwise. Similarly, Google and Facebook track you to show you more relevant ads, and thus increase conversions.

That's not to say I don't find things creepy, but if the data is obviously collectible, you should assume it's being collected.

I don't think the issue is with the fact that they are data-mining purchasing habits. I think it's the way they acted on it without any subtlety.

  > they're choosing to publish the data (their purchasing habits)
  > simply by making the purchases

I would not call it 'publishing.' In this case, the girl's purchasing habits were really only between her and Target. Target then inadvertently disclosed them to her father.

  >  Similarly, Google and Facebook track you to show
  > you more relevant ads, and thus increase conversions.

Google/Facebook would be wise not to fill your browser with ads about herpes medication just because they think that you have herpes... Just sayin'.

  > if the data is obviously collectible, you
  > should assume it's being collected.

This isn't free license to say that data collecting is good or bad though. If you walk through the 'bad part of town' wearing expensive jewelry, you'll probably be robbed. That doesn't make robbery acceptable.

The second half of TFA is about how they realized they creeped people out and what steps they took to remedy that - namely to "hide" the targeted coupons among irrelevant ones to make them look random.

I don't see how buying something is "publishing data". I'm sure most people realize that their purchasing habits are being "collected", but I don't think people expect that that information is going to be casually leaked to people around you like this was.

It seems to me that this is somewhat analogous to Facebook posting on my wall, "Hey, jgw, would you be interested in buying some of this special topical cream that is remarkably effective on certain types of rashes? Nudge, nudge."

Or Google sending me targeted advertising for anatomical adjustments by email - and casually CC a few of my friends in my address book.

>I'm sure most people realize that their purchasing habits are being "collected", but I don't think people expect that that information is going to be casually leaked to people around you like this was.

That's a good point, and while I don't think that was Target's intention, the potential is certainly notable.

Later in the article, it mentions that Target got smarter with these. Instead of just sending coupons for diapers and such, they would send coupons of diapers interspersed with coupons of, say, lawnmowers and chainsaws. In other words, they would use the same customer database to send coupons that they knew the customer wouldn't want, just to through them off the scent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com