There are good and bad reasons to track people's movements, but the best way to scream to users that you are spying on them is to lie or not reveal what you are doing. Business Developers, if you are not guilty of bad behavior, why are you trying so hard to hide it?
This will think after two independent news pages have happened this week.
Associated Press reported that Google kept tracking consumers after they had chosen a privacy option that apparently blocked tracking. Just days after the AP report, Google changed its help page, claiming "Location History, Places You Go, No Longer Storage" to "This setting does not affect other location services on your device" and "Some placement data can be stored as part of Your activity on other services, such as Search and Maps. "
The Second Story, from The New York Times is about some major banks that use behavioral analysis to identify customers. In that case, the accused is not that they are misleading customers as much as choosing not to tell them something that the customers probably will not appreciate. The better approach would have been to say in advance that behavioral analyzes are being used, but only for approval, and to commit to never using it for anything other than authentication. And that's spark: Banks will not limit how they use this data, and therefore they choose to be quiet. [1
Let's start with the Google event. The key questions are: Who approved the first help page and what did they know at that time? Have any Google words written "The places you go are no longer saved" knowing that it was not true – something that is known in marketing circles like "lies" – or was it written and approved by people who did not understand how Google's systems worked?
Google has not explained its behavior. It just changed the help page without comment. Although both scenarios are credible, I'm more inclined to believe that anyone involved in a help page from Google understands the systems well and wants to know that what they said was fake.
There is another possibility. under the heading "Come on. You knew what I meant." This possibility is that Google understood the reality, but it took a write shortcut. This will indicate that it is obvious and necessary for Google Maps to still track location since it is a basic element in its "How to get from point A to point B." Good enough. But it was not just Google Maps that was still being tracked. "Search" also tracked. If you turn off in Google, it does not matter the search engine, what does it look like it affects? It's a question that Google needs to address, if it wants the remaining 11 people in the world who still trust Google to continue doing it.  The bank's situation is still less explicit. At least the banks, as far as I can tell, did not say they did not track people. They said nothing about each other. But bank developers must remember that banks are in a much more uncertain position than Google, and at least they need to pretend to be credible in a much more public way.
Why? Google is still the most effective and comprehensive search engine on the planet. I'd like to say that DuckDuckGo or other proprietary engines are as good or better, but based on daily testing, Google still goes far beyond. Bing, Yahoo and others long ago lost the lawsuit to Google.
This means that an annoying Google user can not leave Google without losing any serious search functionality. And on an Android phone, trust is even deeper and better integrated. But banker? Not even nearby. Unhappy customers can easily take their money and data and move to rival banks across the street, and they probably will not like disturbances or deterioration of services.
Part of that explanation is the bank's terrible reasonableness – large and small – to truly embrace technology. That's why Fintech is so good space right now. Most banks need the technical features of fintech partners to remain even more competitive.
Secondly, trust is a much greater factor for consumers choosing a bank than the same consumer chooses a search engine or mobile map service. Consumers literally speak a lot of money to that bank. It involves a lot of confidence. Why risk all this just so that the bank has the opportunity to use customer identities for different marketing arrangements later? If this effort is so good why not share it with customers and let the consumers make it clear which banks will use?
So far, this column has focused on being honest with visitors for trust issues. There are also other reasons. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission is known to keep companies responsible for any air between what they sell the audience about their practices and what they really do. And EU regulators that enforce GDPR also investigate privacy policies and compare those companies actually do, not to mention how sensitive PII is handled.
For many reasons, Google and the banks take great opportunities. Developers, this is a position you will be wise to challenge, provided you have become fond of your regular paycheck.