Boalt Spyware Talk

Eric Goldman

eric.goldman@marquette.edu

Introduction

• My goal: achieve optimal flow of relevant content
• Problem: consumers have heterogeneous but undisclosed (possibly latent) preferences
• Outcome: it’s impossible for consumers to get only relevant information
• Outcome: information consumes attention
• Attention is scarce and valuable
• Collateral risk of regulating spyware
• may deprive consumers of ability to take steps to conserve their attention
• may lead to more unwanted pop-ups

Attention and Relevancy

• consumers want consumer surplus-producing information
• reduce search costs
• reduce attention consumption
• current search methods are surprisingly crude
• search engines lack a context
• search engines lack user’s history
• Future: personalized searching
• Personalized searching requires data (context, history, preferences)
• Solution #1: user provides that information to software/service provider
• Ex: Google Personal
• But, requires time and creates stickiness
• Solution #2: software infers user information by monitoring in background
• Ex: Aware software
• Better targeting reduces search costs, helps consumers discover latent preferences, reduces wasted attention, can lead to consumer surplus producing transactions
• Conclusion: the perfect relevancy machine may look at lot like adware/spyware
• Utah law: consumers can’t use adware even if they want it
• Removes user’s ability to pick optimal tools for themselves

The Consent Problem

• Assuming we determine that adware-like functionality is valuable, how do we get it?
• Mandated disclosures are like pop-ups
• consume attention for irrelevant info
• users can’t even turn off
• The regulator’s vision: a world filled with pop-ups
• since we don’t trust consumers when they consent, force more information into their attention sphere
• Utah’s vision: force more pop-ups about geography
• Consumers don’t read user agreements. Why? Because they are irrelevant information
• can’t negotiate
• don’t understand
• standard in industry
• many disclosures do not affect consumer decisions
• Ultimately, overdisclosure leads to
• Bounded rationality
• Diminished cognitive authority of all disclosures
• Utah Spyware Control Act is about anti-competitive protection, not consumer protection
• Even other laws, especially in Congress, have capacity to harm consumer interests more than they help them