New Ad Technology Tracks Consumer Movement

mingrassia writes "Over at CNN: New technology tracks consumer movement, flashes messages and calls out to passersby. Meet the Human Locator. It's a new technology developed by Canadian ad agency Freeset Interactive that purports to detect when humans are near, track their movement, and then broadcast messages directed at them on a nearby screen. Conspiracy theorists can relax, however. The Human Locator can't yet identify, say, obese pedestrians and then bombard them with images of a cheeseburger and fries."

Comments

No big deal

[MiKM]

I don't see why this is revolutionary technology. This could have been done for years, with basic motion-detector technology. I also don't see why this would make ads any more "localized" than any other print billboards. I don't see why people would mind a billboard talking to them either, it's not as if they haven't heard any other recorded voices being played back.

Anyways, this technology seems redundant and pointless. Researchers should spend their time working on something useful than coming up with a billboard that lights up when you pass.

Re:No big deal

[DoraLives]

this technology seems redundant and pointless

Oh ye of little imagination. Just you wait, till they marry it with face recognition technology. And after that they're gonna be going after your general "look," what you're wearing, where exactly you are when it spots you, how much disposable money you actually have in your accounts at the time, and on and on and on.

There will be a great outcry over this, and the upshot will be large corporations (Do we even want to bring the government into this scenerio? No, I didn't think so either.) "promising" not to invade anyone's privacy this way. And of course they'd never LIE to us about a thing like that, would they?

Screw the tinfoil hats, before this shit's over we're gonna need some serious countermeasures. REAL ones.

How long before they do identify you?

[Prof.Phreak]

I'd imagine they'd start with `identification' of the sort of "average color on the moving blob/person", then (in a few years) move to female/male recognition (to better target ads), then to possibly scanning various chips embeded in your teeth for a positive match of who you are, and how often you pass by that ad.

GPS Stalker

[Poeir]

Uh, wasn't it just three articles ago we were talking about a GPS stalker, and it was a bad thing that one person was tracking one other person? Does many to many, instead of one to one, make it okay?

Fine

[Lord_Dweomer]

You know, I read this, and immediately got pissed off. Then I realized something. If a company wants to make that special effort, wants to go that extra mile, just to PISS ME OFF, thats fine. Let them waste their money. When a company pisses me off, I remember that company, and not in a good way. Yeah, they got brand recognition all right, just not the kind they wanted.

I will just make sure I go that extra mile to avoid buying their products, and make sure I inform people of why.

So to all /.ers who will get up in arms over this...don't. It is inevitable that this technology will be developed. They will use it to intrude on our lives. But remember, ultimately you have a choice (until the law states otherwise) about whether or not they get your dollars. And if they don't, they just wasted all that cash on something that will just lose them customers.

If you really want to do something about it, write to the company (and the ad agency they use) and let them know that you will be buying the product of a competitor who uses less intrusive, annoying advertising. Its as simple as that, and you don't have to stress about anything.

Re:Fine

[TCM]

They will use it to intrude on our lives. But remember, ultimately you have a choice (until the law states otherwise) about whether or not they get your dollars.

"What? You say our ads are not leading to increased sales? We need even more and better directed ads!"

Re:Fine

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess what? You are more likely to buy it.

I have not bought any Belkin products since they pulled this little number.

Don't think all consumers have the memory of a fruit fly. Or, for that matter, that an emotional reaction will necessarily incline one to buy a given product.

Re:Fine

[Anonymous Coward]

To quote Bugs Bunney: "He doesn't know me very well, does he?". I hate to break it to you, but some of us have memories longer than the [aparent] 5 minute average. When something, like an invasion of my personal space, annoys me I REMEMBER the incident and THE CAUSE.

great

[t_allardyce]

If companies (walmart for example) are willing to sell data such as who bought which product containing rfid tag x then the advertisers just need to scan for certain rfid ids and figure out what to try and sell the person. Just remember its your duty to make sure these sorts of databases are filled with the most useless crap you can think of!

What Happend when RFiD Meets Locator?

[CygnusXII]

What is going to happen when the DBases from the Frequent User Programs, RFiD's and Locator Combine?
It's just a matter of time. All that Data available, and when someone figures out it is Sellable, crosslinkable and updatable (via RFiD detection.) You think they are going to Turn those little suckers off after purchase? You think they will not develop its' range ability and storage capacity to it maximum abilites. It will become the greatest marketing and tracking, and profiling tool since targeted marketing was developed. Then to top it all off the data that the GOV. has and swore would never be used inappropriately, why that's just sitting there to be tapped. If they cannot keep track of simple floppies, and Top Secret Data what makes you think they are going to be able to maintain Non Secret Databases.

Big fricken deal

[aussie_a]

I'm seeing either funny posts or angry posts about this. So to those who are angry, who gives a shit?

Does this technology identify who I am yet? No. Does it identify where I go yet? No. Does it identify what I have brought yet? No. Then what's the big deal? These advertisements don't intrude upon you anymore then current adverts do. They just pop up when they see a person as opposed to always being shown.

Most likely people feel it WILL do a lot of the things I just said. But I have to ask, are they such a bad thing? The biggest problem is most likely won't get to decide if the ad does a lot of the stuff I just said, but what if you could opt-in. Would you care then? They aren't going to show more ads JUST because of this technology, so why not opt-in to have them target the ads to you? I know I wouldn't mind on one proviso, I could fill out a form saying "I don't wish it to take into consideration anything involving sex that I buy" (condoms, porno, etc). If the advertising companies allowed for that sort of control on our part, I think many people would use it.

Imagine instead of having to watch yet another viagra advertisement or another herpes ad or another car ad, you got to see ads about the latest video game, some special on ram. Now wouldn't you much prefer that to a toyota ad. And if you don't, don't opt-in. But people are forgetting advertisements aren't a bad thing, it's just a lot of the time they're not interesting to us and therefore a waste of time. If they could stop being useless, they'd be useful.

Re:Fried detetor

[sydb]

Like the other poster said, a hammer would work, but you'd probably end up with a court appearance.

An easy non-destructive disabler would be good old fashioned duct tape.

Re:Not gonna work.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think most of us believe this about ourselves. Most of the studies I've seen have shown the opposite to be true though, those of us who zone out still have our shopping patterns altered by commercials. We're simply not aware of the semi-subconscious effects. I've come to terms with the fact that deep down I'm still just another primate who, somewhere in my brain no matter how much I deny it, is still unconsciously taking note of associations with breasts and shiny things.

Privacy and it's removal from government

[Deliveranc3]

The thing about this is the Canadian government is commited to transparency to a far greater extent than any government I've heard of before. If you authorize a questionable contract you can expect the canadian public to track you closely.

Canadian politicians make far less than other politicians ($150,000 aprox for an mp, $100,000 for an mpp). They theoretically do it because they love our country. But they have denied technological transparency, such as streaming their day onto the internet or allowing their meetings to be tracked on the internet, which seems pretty suspicious to me. I have no problems with totally free information (I think people will get bored of watching pamela anderson [note:she's canadian] showering after a few days) and use the information practically.

However I think the first step towards removing privacy is for the government to do it, as public servants it's almost their responsability.

Think what you can learn just by talking to an elderly person now imagine being able to watch their whole life.

Got a bit off topic but basically the Canadian government is allowing businesses to collect information in one area while a perfect group for testing and transparancy goes ignored.

I can't say "shame on the Canadian Government" for not implementing it, because it's a new conecpt and there are emotional reservations but I really think allowing the retail sector to do it first is terrible.

The potential is huge

[thrill12]

So let's see my alternative: we could track people much easier using RF-wave detection.

In Europe, many people carry GSM's. You could analyze the number of different RF-waves going around, and based upon the sensed channels and TDMA(GSM)-timeslots (max 8 in 1 GSM channel of 200khz) calculate what the 'cell-density' would be. If it's high, it means many people are calling, having their phones on standby, GPRS'ing or UMTS'ing. The potential is huge.
Based on specific data on the sort of transmission, you could theoretically even sense which type of transmission they are using, and base your screen-based advertisments on that. This way, you can grasp the potential customer even more and increase your net income. The potential is huge.
Imagine people that like to UMTS a lot - you could flash 'Go to http://www..com' in front of their eyes! Heck if - mind that I am not encouraging anything here - we could decode GSM-data we could even listen in and analyze their behaviour upon their conversations. Or grasp their phonenumbers/email-adresses/visited websites in detail. Imagine interactive spamming - the potential is huge.

This was another episode of "preaching to the converted".

Not YET

[houghi]

Does this technology identify who I am yet? No. Does it identify where I go yet? No. Does it identify what I have brought yet? No. Then what's the big deal?

It is very reasuring to know that because it is not possible now, we have nothing to worry about. With this assurence, I can have unprotected sex with anybody I like, because I have no AIDS yet.

Seriously, the danger lies in that small word yet that means that sooner or later it WILL be possibe. I realy must re-read 1984 and see how the people are so willingly hand over any privacy they had for companies and/or governement.

Let us be thankful we have commerce. Buy more. Buy more now. Buy. And be happy.