blog: Don Marti


taxing surveillance marketing

04 November 2021

Putting a tax on surveillance marketing is sometimes suggested as a solution to a classic externalities problem—firms benefit from surveillance marketing, but the costs and risks are paid for by the people surveilled. A Pigovian tax is the go-to fix for this situation.

Where to put the tax is the problem. Taxing specific marketing practices probably creates more overhead and risk than it's worth. Too easy for surveillance marketers to work around. So it seems like the best approach would be to expand the existing "data broker" registration laws to put scaled reporting and tax requirements on any database containing PII. From an economic POV, personal information is digital hazmat, with both potential harms and possible future benefits that a regulator is not in a position to evaluate but the users are.

Just like RCRA resulted in some marginal uses of hazardous materials being phased out, a Pigovian tax would likely cause companies to get rid of some high cost/benefit surveillance marketing data on their own to avoid reporting and taxation.

In general, it is important to tie the tax to the data (and therefore risks) and not to specific practices. Users of the data are best able to decide how to balance the risks and rewards.

The Enormous Hole That Whaling Left Behind

Poison in the Air

Measure A: tell it goodbye?

An Unexpected Victory: Container Stacking at the Port of Long Beach

The Unceasing Cessna Hacienda

How California plans to turn the screws on NIMBY cities

The worker-owned Defector, at a year old, has over 40,000 paying subscribers and $3.2M in revenue

Collections: No Man’s Land, Part I: The Trench Stalemate

The Pandemic-Induced Rise of the Secret Workday Power Nap

Foo Fighters And The Art Of Survival

Colleges Have a Guy Problem

In defense of the “gentrification building”

How luxury apartment buildings help low-income renters