Home Data-Driven Thinking Ethical AI: Protecting Data Privacy And User Consent In The Age of Innovation

Ethical AI: Protecting Data Privacy And User Consent In The Age of Innovation

SHARE:
Lucas Long, Head of Global Privacy Strategy, InfoTrust

Doing more with less is the name of the advertising game these days. Strict compliance and privacy laws combined with ever-changing technical restrictions limit the data companies can collect and process for marketing and advertising. 

This isn’t a bad thing. Respecting customer privacy is good business, especially as younger generations take action to protect themselves. But it doesn’t make an advertiser’s job easier.

Artificial intelligence can help to fill the gaps. Platforms are introducing AI capabilities that promise greater utility with less data through features like user profiling and segmentation, identification of similar audiences for targeting, bid optimization and automated creative optimization. AI for marketing and advertising technologies is meant to help advance use cases by making connections within a data set that would be difficult or time-consuming for humans to spot on their own.

As AI eases one process, however, it creates new concerns around compliance risk and data privacy. And with more regulations like California’s recently passed AI safety bill surely coming soon, marketers need to stay on top of their ethics game.

Understanding regulations

AI systems, by their nature, are profiling consumers and conducting automated decision-making with consumer data. Consumers have the right to protect that data. Therefore, when implementing AI for marketing and advertising, companies have to consider the current privacy laws, even as regulators work to craft new AI-specific regulations, such as the recently published EU AI Act.

AI requires data to train and execute, but just because you have the data on hand doesn’t mean it’s compliant or ethical to use it for all applications. We have to consider if the purposes disclosed to consumers when the data was initially collected are sufficient to cover the use cases for which AI is being applied today.

Consider privacy laws in the United States. Many comprehensive state privacy laws include the requirement to conduct a Data Privacy Impact Assessment when processing personal data for purposes such as targeted advertising and profiling. These assessments must be conducted for any AI technologies that organizations adopt: What data is necessary? What is the outcome for consumers? What protections can we put in place to mitigate risk?

California’s AI bill – which was recently passed by state legislators and awaits Governor Gavin Newsom’s signature – adds a new layer of regulation, requiring transparency in AI-driven decisions and adherence to strict privacy standards. For marketers and advertisers, this means AI tools must not only comply with existing data laws but also meet these new requirements, or risk penalties and loss of consumer trust.

Disclosure is also particularly important. Global laws require consumers to be informed of the types of personal information an organization is collecting and what it may do with that information. Requirements for such disclosure dictate this must happen before or at the time of data collection. If AI usage was not identified in disclosures, it cannot be retroactively applied without additional notification and consent.

It’s also important to acknowledge AI is rapidly and regularly changing. The best use cases today may change tomorrow. This is in part why consumers are wary of AI, the personal data it requires and how it is used. 

Subscribe

AdExchanger Daily

Get our editors’ roundup delivered to your inbox every weekday.

Putting consumers first

AI has the opportunity to revolutionize marketing and advertising by bringing efficiencies to advertisers and more personalized experiences to consumers. However, it must be done ethically. 

When gauging new AI technologies in your marketing and advertising, put yourself in the consumer’s shoes. Ask yourself: “If I were the consumer, based on what has been provided to me, would I expect and be comfortable with my data being used in this way?”

The guiding principle for all marketing and advertising activities – regardless of AI use, but especially when this nascent technology is deployed – is to respect the privacy rights and expectations of consumers. 

We can’t expect everyone to fully understand the nuances and legal requirements for the usage of personal data, but it is critical for everyone to be compliance-conscious.

Data-Driven Thinking” is written by members of the media community and contains fresh ideas on the digital revolution in media.

Follow InfoTrust and AdExchanger on LinkedIn.

Must Read

Comic: Alphabet Soup

Buried DOJ Evidence Reveals How Google Dealt With The Trade Desk

In the process of the investigation into Google, the Department of Justice unearthed a vast trove of separate evidence. Some of these findings paint a whole new picture of how Google interacts and competes with its main DSP rival, The Trade Desk.

Comic: The Unified Auction

DOJ vs. Google, Day Four: Behind The Scenes On The Fraught Rollout Of Unified Pricing Rules

On Thursday, the US district court in Alexandria, Virginia boarded a time machine back to April 18, 2019 – the day of a tense meeting between Google and publishers.

Google Ads Will Now Use A Trusted Execution Environment By Default

Confidential matching – which uses a TEE built on Google Cloud infrastructure – will now be the default setting for all uses of advertiser first-party data in Customer Match.

Privacy! Commerce! Connected TV! Read all about it. Subscribe to AdExchanger Newsletters
In 2019, Google moved to a first-price auction and also ceded its last look advantage in AdX, in part because it had to. Most exchanges had already moved to first price.

Unraveling The Mystery Of PubMatic’s $5 Million Loss From A “First-Price Auction Switch”

PubMatic’s $5 million loss from DV360’s bidding algorithm fix earlier this year suggests second-price auctions aren’t completely a thing of the past.

A comic version of former News Corp executive Stephanie Layser in the courtroom for the DOJ's ad tech-focused trial against Google in Virginia.

The DOJ vs. Google, Day Two: Tales From The Underbelly Of Ad Tech

Day Two of the Google antitrust trial in Alexandria, Virginia on Tuesday was just as intensely focused on the intricacies of ad tech as on Day One.

A comic depicting Judge Leonie Brinkema's view of the her courtroom where the DOJ vs. Google ad tech antitrust trial is about to begin. (Comic: Court Is In Session)

Your Day One Recap: DOJ vs. Google Goes Deep Into The Ad Tech Weeds

It’s not often one gets to hear sworn witnesses in federal court explain the intricacies of header bidding under oath. But that’s what happened during the first day of the Google ad tech-focused antitrust case in Virginia on Monday.