advertisement
advertisement

CMU: Consumers Have Sharply Reduced Public Data Sharing

Written by Evan Schuman
March 6th, 2013

For years, conventional wisdom about privacy has been that shoppers—especially younger shoppers—have been consistently sharing more information online to the general public, a trend that would likely continue as privacy desensitization progressed. But a report released Tuesday (March 5) from Carnegie Mellon University found the opposite when it tracked 5,076 Facebook (NASDAQ:FB) users from 2005 through 2011, one of the most extensive studies of social media privacy yet.

“Over time, Facebook users in our dataset exhibited increasingly privacy-seeking behavior, progressively decreasing the amount of personal data shared publicly with unconnected profiles in the same network,” the CMU report said. The implications for retailers are stark, suggesting that many of the privacy strategy underpinnings on both retail and e-tail may be flawed.

The report also found that those same consumers started sharing more information during that period, but only with people they assumed to be in a private group. And that sharing was expanded “both in terms of scope and amount of personal data.” For retailers trying to extrapolate insights from this report to apply to chain CRM and mobile programs, these two conclusions are frustrating. Is public data comparable to posted comments on sites? And private data to answers shared directly with the chain? If this private-vs.- public privacy psychological dichotomy also plays out with shoppers, how would it impact shopper feelings about mobile tracking?

What does this all likely mean for retail? First, consumers are sharing more personal info overall—which is good—but they are decidedly not doing it because they have become desensitized to privacy in general. If that was the case, the study would have found an increase in public sharing and it, in fact, found the opposite.

The increases were with so-called private sharing. And with Facebook—and many other social sites—the definition of private is light years removed from what the dictionary considers private. Friends lists on Facebook can often move into the hundreds and many lists easily top 1,000. (Full disclosure: Please don’t ask me how many of my LinkedIn connections are people I actually know. It’s a touchy subject.)

And those increasingly large amounts of disclosed private data are not merely shared with that battalion-sized group of intimates. That data also is shared with, as the report notes, “third-party apps, advertisers and Facebook itself.” And there’s no practical limit on who Facebook will choose to share it with. Contractors? Partners? Random winos?

This suggests that shoppers put a great deal of faith in promises of privacy, even when those profound pretend privacy protocol promises are impressively not private. Hence, privacy policies need to be properly prominent.

This report truly reinforces what privacy officers have been arguing for years: Shoppers will share an awful lot, as long as at least a half-hearted effort is made to indicate that the data won’t be shared with anyone, unless there’s a critical business need to do so, such as if someone offers us a couple of bucks.

The most over-the-top experiment with social retailing was likely Blippy, a site that told everyone what a specific shopper was buying. That move was initially applauded by some retailers, until Blippys imploded in 2011.


advertisement

One Comment | Read CMU: Consumers Have Sharply Reduced Public Data Sharing

  1. Oisin Says:

    Makes allot of sense especially that users are moving to mobile where users do allot more sharing then on browser.

Leave a Reply

Readers, specifically those who want to comment on a story:
Our Comment SPAM system is getting very aggressive these days and has been blocking legitimate comments. If you post a comment and don't see it appear within 2 hours or so, can you please send a heads-up to customer-service@storefrontbacktalk.com? Ideally, please include the time you posted the comment. That will allow us to try and hunt for it. Thanks! P.S. We're working on fixing the system, but we don't want to lose any valuable comments in the meantime.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 17,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

StorefrontBacktalk
Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.