Privacy issues are a factor in determining the growth and development of the personal video recorder (PVR). (Zanthus, 2002) Function of the PVR requires a cable plugged into a phone line in order to receive the electronic program guide (EPG) from the PVR provider. The consumer then utilises the remote control or internet to program their viewing. Upon accessing the electronic program through a diagnostic log file, information is also transmitted to the PVR company’s headquarters through a viewing information file. This creates a two-way relationship and complications can arise because the company has the ability to continually track and monitor all functions. While companies may deny the extraction and selling of any valuable data to external market research firms, it does not necessarily imply the company does not exploit the data.
In the case of TiVo, their Series 1 machines were found guilty by non-for-profit organisation, the Privacy Foundation in March 2001. According to their findings, TiVo:
TiVo denied all allegations, refuting the company took all measures to ensure anonymity upon the collection of data, which was only used to access the aggregation of viewing behaviour. Furthermore, all data was stored and available in the strictest manner and their Version 2 series models would encrypt all files which contained personal data, as mentioned in their latest Privacy Promise. The company did stop collecting data from their users, however a lasting impression was heavily placed upon their credibility, despite previously positive media coverage. (Zanthus, 2002) TiVo did publicly recognise privacy issues were a significant deterrent in the public embracing the PVR in their 2000 Annual Report and would aim to rectify the situation. (http://www.privacyfoundation.org/privacywatch/report.asp?id=62&action=0, Accessed 28 Oct 2004)
In April 26, 2002 the patent-infringement lawsuit against various media giants, ReplayTV were ordered to collect and present data about the consumer’s behaviour when they operated the ReplayTV 4000. The United States District court found the invasion of privacy was required on this occassion in order to prove the consumer was deliberately infringing on copyright of television programs. The District Court ordered SONICBlue to compile the data in 60 days, however on May 31st the order was reversed due to it “impermissibly required defendants to create new data in order to comply.� (http://cs-www.bu.edu/~dm/pubs/replaytv.html, Accessed 26 Oct 2004)
Privacy may also be jeopardised with the potential for spam to invade the users’ PVR. As alliances are formed between some PVR companies and television broadcasters, the broadcaster may want to air a certain program and order the PVR to record a program which will then automatically be promoted to the user. An example of this PVR-spam exists when Britain’s BBC arranged a struggling show, Dossa and Joe to be aired. The amount of promotion the program televised is still enough for some users to watch and perhaps become addicted. As Glidden (2002) notes, this follows in the way targeted SMS spam advertising has become an issue.
REFERENCES
Gliddon, J. (2002) “PVRs: Personal Best,� The Bulletin: eBulletin, retrieved August 8, 2004, from this source.
Martin, D. (2002) “Court orders SONICblue to develop and deploy spyware for Big Media,� retrieved October 26, 2004, fromthis source.
Martin, D (2001) “TiVo's Data Collection and Privacy Practices,� retrieved October 28, 2004, from this source.
Zanthus Reports (2002) “The Personal Video Recorder: Ready for Prime Time?,� retrieved October 28 2004, from
this source.
Back to Personal Video Recorders
Related topics: Growth and Development, Brands, Advertising Industry, Intellectual Property, Hackers
Linda Wong 09:26, 29 Oct 2004 (EST)
