One of my favourite books from last year was the superb “Spychips” by Katherine Albrecht and Liz McIntyre (they have a blog), examing the RFID industry and its threat to privacy. What I found to be of particular interest was the strategy developed by the Auto-ID Centre - the primary research group behind the Internet of Things concept, backed by some major corporations like Procter & Gamble and Gillette, and also the Department of Defense - to overcome the privacy concerns of consumers.

The Auto-ID Centre hired the pricey public relations firm Fleishman-Hillard and set out to “develop best messages to pacify” consumers. Yes, pacify. They came up with a plan to “identify potential consumer road blocks/fears, construct a proactive message framework to minimize negatives arising [and] assess consumer reaction if [the] press develop scare stories.”

[…]

The Auto-ID Centre’s advisers knew it would be tough [but] they hoped consumers would feel hopeless and too “apathetic” to react (their exact quote was “on balance they are negative by apathetic”). […] “The best communication strategy appears to be positioning the technology simply as an improved barcode,” the advised, noting that, ” … discussing any benefits or using rational argument is largely ineffective and is perceived as ’spin’. Once consumers are concerned, they remain concerned, no matter what we tell them.” (Spychips, pg 156-7)

So, next time you hear it’s an improved barcode, or someone refers to a “radio barcode” (Tesco), “intelligent label” (Marks & Spencer), an “electronic product code” (Wal-Mart), or “green tag” (Auto-ID Centre), remember that someone is trying to “pacify” you.

I wonder how long before we’ll be told that arphids enable and enhance who you really are?

The Institute for Ethics and Emerging technologies linked through to an interesting bit of research that looked at “Preferences for Psychological Enhancements”, and reluctance by test subjects to allow enhancements. Specifically, they point out that “Ad taglines that framed enhancements as enabling … the fundamental self increased people’s interest in a fundamental enhancement, and eliminated the preference for non-fundamental over fundamental enhancements.”

With that in mind, I came across an article in Wired discussing Darpa’s latest forays into human enhancement, and I couldn’t but help notice the wording of Tony Tether, head of Darpa, the US’s Advanced Research Projects Agency: “[The Defense Sciences Office] isn�??t trying to create posthuman troops, Tether says. �??You know the old Army saying, �??Be all that you can be�??? Well, that�??s really what we�??re doing.�?� In training, soldiers �??become extraordinary in strength and endurance. But it�??s not any better than their body can be. And what we try to do is come up with techniques that allow them to maintain that level.�?�

The Wired article also showed that, in order to avoid scrutiny and accusations “of funding a Frankenstein army”, the names of various programs “were changed to dull their mad-scientist edge”. For example, “Metabolic Dominance became Peak Soldier Performance”.

So there really is a lot in a name. Hey, it’s all in the branding.