Gmail, Google’s e-mail service, has several patents for the use of advertisement alongside e-mails. The use of advertisements based on the content of e-mails received many complaints about violating users privacy. In fact, several of my friends addressed concerns about this feature. I decided to look into this matter to see if there is any real reason for concern. Two articles, Tailoring Ads to Email Users, Google Has Some Poor Fits and Gmail Leads Way in Making Ads Relevant, as well as Google’s own website FAQs have some information on the system and relevance of ads.
Advertisements directed through the use of emails are auctioned in the same manner as those seen on Google’s main site through keyword based advertising as discussed in lectures; charging advertisers each time ads are clicked and auctioning off slots for certain terms. These advertisements are the main source of revenue for Gmail, and Google argues that it is a small price to pay for the amount of space Gmail offers. Google co-founder Sergey Brin mentions that scanning is automated (not seen by human), content is not stored relating to the ads, and that there is no data going out to advertisers. This can be seen as a directed edge in the information network. Also, it is important to note that all e-mail systems scan the content of e-mails, if not for keywords for ad-targeting, than for viruses and spam. Perhaps a larger concern should be to work on better parsing of e-mail content to eliminate irrelevant, poorly matched advertisements.
Interesting enough, Google acts as an intermediary, or possibly although it may be a stretch to say, a trader. As an intermediary, Gmail provides a platform for advertisers to have a place, connection to e-mail users and consumers after using a 2nd price bid type auction. Gmail makes profits on clicks rather than just viewing, so the better matched the ads are, the better the profit. This analogy has a few places that are not well matched. The buyer may click on an ad and make a transaction, but the actually buying is done directly with the seller on that webpage. Where it relates to trader networks, is that Google makes “commission” or profit from that click in transit to the purchase. A slight difference is that even if the e-mail user clicks an ad and does not complete the transaction, Google will still receive pay from the advertiser. This is also very much like real estate brokers or other brokers as Gmail’s role with buyer and seller. Why is it in one case that privacy is such a large concern and not in the other. Contrary to intuition, people feel more comfortable sharing their salaries, home life, and problems with a real-estate broker than a machine that temporarily stores words. Networks online create problems due to the lack of built relationships. Edges in hyperweb are ordered by strength in numbers more often than determined by quality of the connection. As of now, it is difficult to measure trust among edges. Perhaps if there was a way to build trust among online connections between machines, then the fear of privacy invasion would not be so prominent.
Below are some examples of patents which are fun to read through briefly.
(This is an older patent, but provides the best example for the analogy of a trader with buyers and sellers. Page 8 of Drawings has an interesting setup with directed edges from servers where the server system acts as intermediary between e-mail client and outside sourcs such as advertisers.)
[…] A recent post by babaganoush discussed the issue of privacy in keyword-based advertising. As touched on in class, maintaining privacy is one of the chief concerns moving forward as we develop more sophisticated methods of targeted advertising. A recent paper by Chopra and White discusses various implications of privacy as automated agents become increasingly sophisticated. Consider the following scenario where Google’s technology becomes advanced enough such that it can discern that terrorists are using Gmail to plot an attack on a major city. One can imagine the government’s desire to create laws to leverage this technology (analog of a human failing to report a crime being a criminal act). As agents become more sophisticated, one can imagine companies such as Google facing increasing pressure to protect the privacy of their users. […]