Group items tagged

"Madison Avenue has joined forces with Internet companies in a last-ditch attempt to stop privacy regulations over the $29 billion online-ad industry. The industry is finalizing an ad campaign to educate consumers about how digital advertising works, creating an icon that would appear on Web pages or ads alerting consumers if their activity is being tracked and deploying new technologies to police the Web for illegal activities. At issue is the practice of tracking consumers' Web activities - from the searches they make to the sites they visit and the products they buy - for the purpose of targeting ads. The efforts follow calls from the FTC earlier this year for Web advertisers and Internet companies to do a better job explaining how they track and use information about consumers' Web activities and creating a simple way consumers can opt out of being tracked. Meanwhile, scrutiny in Washington continues to build. Lawmakers and regulators have broadened their scope beyond the Internet and are starting to examine privacy practices for a wider swath of media and technologies, from mobile phones and newfangled interactive TV commercials to telephone pitches and the advertisements consumers receive in their mailboxes."

More consumers are growing comfortable with online behavioral targeting, perhaps as a result of an increase in familiarity, but the majority remain uneasy with the practice. That's according to a new study conducted by TNS on behalf of the privacy group Truste. For the study, consumers were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement: "I am comfortable with advertisers using my browsing history to serve me relevant ads, as long as that information cannot be tied to my name or any other personal information." Twenty-eight percent of respondents agreed, up from 24% who agreed when the same study was conducted last year. At the same time, 51% said they disagreed that they were comfortable with anonymous behavioral targeting. While that figure represents a slim majority, it's down from last year, when 57% of respondents said they disagreed. At the same time, more respondents than in the past now say they delete cookies. Almost half--48% of survey respondents--said they erase cookies at least weekly, up from 42% last year. It's not clear how much overlap there is between the respondents that regularly delete cookies and those who say they're uncomfortable with behavioral targeting. Colin O'Malley, vice president of strategic business at Truste, attributed the increase in the proportion of consumers who said they were comfortable with behavioral targeting to increased publicity over the issue. He said the recent attention to the issue in the mainstream media has helped to increase transparency. He added that the increased cookie erasures showed that consumers want to be able to manage their experience. "Cookie deletion is just one more indication that consumers are seeking tools to increase their level of control," he said.

Last week, the government took another step toward closing a legal loophole in federal privacy and security rules for emerging Health 2.0 information technology applications by issuing proposed rules aimed at covering an estimated 900 companies and organizations offering personal health records and electronic systems connected to them. The Federal Trade Commission was careful to point out its new interim proposed rule on federal breach notification requirements for the developers of electronic PHR systems did not apply to covered organizations or their business associates as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, heretofore the key federal privacy and security regulation. The FTC, operating under new authority given it by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, noted that its new rule seeks to cover previously unregulated entities that are part of a Health 2.0 product mix. FTC staff estimates that about 200 PHR vendors, another 500 related entities and 200 third-party service providers will be subject to the new breach notification rule. The staffers estimate that the 900 affected companies and organizations, on average, will experience 11 breaches each per year at a total cost of about $1 million per group, per year. Costs include investigating the breach, notifying consumers and establishing toll-free numbers for explaining the breaches and providing additional information to consumers. Pam Dixon, founder and executive director of the World Privacy Forum, said that this isn't the first involvement of the FTC in healthcare-related regulation, noting the consumer protection agency joined with the Food and Drug Administration in a joint statement on the marketing of direct-to-consumer genetic tests. The FTC also has worked in the field of healthcare competition. She noted the compliance deadline with the FTC's "red flag rules" on provider organizations that provide consumer credit to patients for installment payment

To help parents better understand their childrens' online privacy rights, the Federal Trade Commission has developed a new article, Protecting Kids' Privacy. The article is posted at OnGuardOnline.gov, a Web site sponsored by the federal government and the technology industry to help users stay on guard against Internet fraud, secure their computers, and protect their personal information. Parents can learn what Web sites must do to protect the privacy of kids younger than 13 under the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). For example, with very few exceptions, sites must get parents' permission if they want to collect or share their kids' personal information. Parents also will find tips for talking to their kids about online privacy, knowing what their kids are doing online, reporting a Web site that may be violating COPPA, and more. To learn more about online privacy for kids, view this article on OnGuardOnline.gov at www.OnGuardOnline.gov/topics/kids-privacy.aspx or view it as an FTC Facts for Consumers publication at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/tech/tec08.shtm. The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC's online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,500 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC's Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

Up to 21,000 Floridians may have been affected by a data breach at Wyndham Hotels & Resorts last year, prompting Attorney General Bill McCollum to ask consumers to keep a close eye on their credit statements. According to a statement released today, Wyndham reported to the Attorney General's Office that it contacted affected consumers in December and notified them that unauthorized access to Wyndham systems had potentially compromised their personal data on their debit and credit cards. The data breach has since been disabled. McCollum encouraged consumers to report any suspicious activity on their accounts to law enforcement. Affected consumers are encouraged to take precautionary steps, including obtaining a free fraud alert from one of the credit reporting agencies. Anyone who believes they may be a victim of identity theft should also request that the national credit bureaus place a fraud alert on their credit reports. Consumers should notify banks and creditors involved of questionable charges or accounts, keep records of all telephone calls and follow up in writing with credit bureaus, banks and creditors.

A coalition of privacy groups today urged the Obama Administration to defend California's landmark financial privacy law against the banking industry's legal efforts to overturn it. The US Supreme Court is currently considering taking up the banks' appeal of a 2008 decision by the 9th Circuit Court upholding almost all provisions of the Financial Information Privacy Act of 2003 (SB 1 - Speier). On March 9th, the Supreme Court invited the Obama Administration to voice its opinion on the California privacy law. The case is American Bankers Association v. Brown, Supreme Court Docket Number 08-730. Letters to President Obama and Solicitor General Elena Kagan were signed by The Consumer Federation of California, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, CALPIRG, Consumers Union, Consumer Action, The Older Women's League, The California Alliance for Retired Americans, and Chris Larsen, Propser Marketplace, and founder of Californians for Privacy Now, the organization that spearheaded a 2003 ballot initiative campaign that turned fierce banking industry opposition into acquiescence with SB 1. "This represents a defining moment for privacy rights" the letter states. We ask you to stand with consumers by telling the Supreme Court to reject the banks' appeal in Brown." Privacy advocates support the State of California's position in this legal matter, which is that there is no merit to the appeal filed by the American Bankers Association. At issue is whether federal laws preempt portions of California law that regulate the sharing of private consumer information within a financial institution's family of affiliates.

Privacy has been so poorly defined by opponents and proponents alike, that people have yet to realize its value.

While concerns about Internet privacy grab headlines, not everyone is bothered, or even aware, of how their online activities are being tracked. "On one extreme, there are Web cams in bedrooms, and the other extreme are people who won't wear a nametag at a conference," said Anne Toth, Yahoo's chief privacy officer. "Most people are in the middle. What's interesting is that consumers need to better understand how [privacy options] operate and where they can exercise their choices." Toth spoke at a consumer privacy panel here yesterday at the Tech Policy Summit. In general terms, she said "clear notice and robust choice is the right standard" for consumer privacy. But others in the audience and on the panel took issue with whether things like opt-in choices to receive information from e-tailers provide enough information or easily convey to consumers what they're agreeing to.

Free Social Media Screening Ever wondered if you actually have customers on social networks? Try Rapleaf's free social media screening. We'll take a look at your customer base and tell you some basic information about whether or not you have customers on social networks. The Rapleaf Social Media Screening will tell you the following: * Percentages of your consumers that are active on sites * Gender breakdown of your consumers * Friend counts of your consumers Rapleaf's social media screening is a great way to get your feet wet in social media. It's also an easy tool to help you understand whether or not to conduct deeper research on your consumers across the social web by acquiring a full Rapleaf Report To get started, fill out the form to the right and submit a few test consumer emails to our system.

ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) has concerned many consumer rights organizations for some time now. Given that it could easily affect criminal laws in many countries around the world, it's not hard to see why there is demand for public disclosure and allow public debate in the matters. Still, to this day, ACTA is being negotiated behind closed doors by many countries around the world and now consumer groups want to, at least, have the negotiations disclosed to them. When it comes to the privacy and surveillance debates, which are in various stages in different countries right now, many say that for national security concerns, further surveillance measures should be taken in the law books. Many policy makers want to know every detail of day-to-day communications of millions of people including who you talk to, when, how, where, and, with a warrant, what the contents of those messages are. Unsurprisingly, consumer rights groups have a problem with that. Meanwhile, when it comes to the highly secretive negotiations happening with ACTA, many consumer rights organizations want a clear indication on how the new international standard is forming and the contents of the legislation and to have such things disclosed to the public. Ironically, policy makers seem to have a problem with that.

"The last quarter of 2009 should be partly remembered in the advertising community as a juncture when big agencies -- namely Omnicom Media Group, The Nielsen Company, and WPP -- announced consumer data mergers. The deals entailed the marriages of offline and online data and appeared to reveal a potentially major stepping stone in the evolution of "hyper-targeting." Some of the agencies have trumpeted their newfound ability to create consumer segments related to behavioral elements such as "passion points" (e.g., shown interest in electronics, photography, fantasy football, etc.), as well as geographic location, beverage preferences, favorite social media sites, activity levels at the sites, and so on. Augustine Fou, group chief digital officer for Omnicom's Healthcare Consultancy Group and a ClickZ columnist, said that while increased hyper-targeting would likely result from the data marriages, unresolved issues remain before the use of combined online/offline data is widely adopted by brands. "For example, as diverse data sets begin to be integrated, it will become painfully apparent what data can be integrated -- or not -- and specific tradeoffs will have to be made to move forward," he explained. "In particular, privacy policies of sites and ad networks will need to be revisited." The growing ability for marketers to target online ads using data gathered offline has generally raised concern among consumer privacy advocates. To that end, Fou suggested that brands are cautiously optimistic about hyper-targeting and slightly wary of public/consumer perception. "

Marriage of offline and online data sources to target advertising may make tracking more interesting for consumers and advertisers alike.

A consumer reporting agency that failed to properly screen prospective customers and, as a result, sold at least 318 credit reports to identity thieves, has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it violated federal law. Under the settlement, the company and its principal must ensure that they provide credit reports only to legitimate businesses for lawful purposes, use a comprehensive information security program, and obtain independent audits every other year for 20 years. The settlement also imposes a $500,000 penalty but suspends payment due to the defendants' inability to pay. According to the FTC, the defendants use sensitive financial data from other consumer reporting agencies to create reports that landlords use to assess potential renters. These reports contain consumers' names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, bank and credit card account numbers, credit histories, and other personal information. The Commission alleges that the company failed to properly screen new customers. The company allegedly requested only publicly-available information from applicants seeking credit reports, and it did not request supporting documentation to establish that an applicant was actually a landlord renting property. As a result, identity thieves posing as property owners were given an account with unlimited online access to credit reports, and the account was used to access at least 318 reports containing sensitive personal information. The FTC charged the defendants with violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by furnishing credit reports to persons who did not have a permissible purpose to obtain them, and by failing to maintain reasonable procedures to prevent such impermissible disclosures and to verify their customers' identities and how they intended to use the information. The agency also charged them with violating the FTC Act by failing to employ reasonable and appropriate security measures to protect sensitive consumer inform

Top attorneys for Microsoft and Google today reiterated their companies' support for tougher government rules to protect consumer privacy. But when it comes to the details, some watchdog groups say they are concerned that Web firms will continue to fight against specific provisions that would limit the ways they can collect and use people's information to serve more targeted ads. Today's panel discussion, held here at the Computers, Freedom and Privacy conference, revisited a longstanding policy debate over the government's role in online privacy. The talk ran along some familiar plotlines, with Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy thundering about the detailed personal profiles being assembled by advertising companies who are using neuroscience to manipulate consumer behavior, while industry representatives assured the audience that their data-collection practices are benign, not to mention essential to providing free content and services on the Internet. But this wasn't just an idle debate. Rep. Rick Boucher, the Virginia Democrat who chairs a House subcommittee on the Internet, is developing legislation that could seek to impose sweeping restrictions on behavioral targeting. A few blocks up Pennsylvania Avenue at the Federal Trade Commission, the principal regulatory agency with authority over online advertising, newly minted Chairman Jon Leibowitz has spoken often about the need for industry to get serious about privacy. "The FTC's central concern here is transparency, consumer control," said Jessica Rich, assistant director of the agency's privacy and identity protection division. "We don't think consumers really know what's happening with their data."

Advertisers are your friend, and the government is here to help. If consumers don't take responsibility for their data, then all the regulation in the World won't matter.

Consumer Watchdog has sent the U.S. Justice Department a Google document presenting the best corporate arguments for why Google should not be viewed as monopolistic, along with a duplicate of the presentation marked up with comments from an expert countering the claims. The nonprofit consumer group received both documents from an anonymous industry insider. In the presentation, Google seeks to deflate increasing criticism that it is too big and powerful by spin meant to minimize the notion its search and advertising businesses are virtual monopolies. Commentary surrounding the presentation in the second document delivered to Consumer Watchdog presents information countering Google's contentions in what is described as a "Charm Offensive." "As the Justice Department examines the Google book deal and other Google enterprises it deserves to see the play book Google has prepared to deflect scrutiny and insider commentary on how many Google myths lack a basis in reality," said Consumer Watchdog President Jamie Court. "Google's charm and spin should not be allowed to deter anti-trust regulators from seeing the real problems with Google's dominance and setting appropriate limits to protect users."

"Today, the Federal Trade Commission opened new areas of a "virtual mall" with content that will help kids learn to protect their privacy, spot frauds and scams, and avoid identity theft. The FTC Web site, www.ftc.gov/YouAreHere, introduces key consumer and business concepts and helps youngsters understand their role in the marketplace. The FTC is the nation's consumer protection agency. "YouAreHere presents practical lessons about money and business in a fun and familiar setting," said David Vladeck, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. "The new content takes kids behind the scenes to raise their awareness of advertising and marketing, pricing and competition, fraud and identity theft. At the FTC's online mall, visitors play games, watch short animated films, and interact with customers and store owners. They can design and print advertisements for a shoe store, investigate suspicious claims in ads and sales pitches, learn to identify the catches behind bogus modeling schemes and vacation offers, and guess the retail prices of various candies based on their supply, demand, and production costs. At the Security Plaza, visitors can build a social networking page and see the unintended consequences of posting personal information. They also get tips on how to keep their computers safe while they're online. In the arcade, visitors can play Info Defender 3 and protect Earthlings from Cyclorian invaders who would steal their identities. The game teaches the importance of protecting personal information, including Social Security numbers. For parents and teachers, the site offers detailed fact sheets with ideas for related activities. Teachers can use the site to complement lessons in consumer economics, government, social studies, language arts, and critical thinking. The National Council for Economic Education has developed a lesson plan that prominently features YouAreHere; it is available on the Parents and Teachers page. "

But what do consumers think about behavioral advertising? Our research uncovered a variety of consumer privacy perspectives on behavioral advertising, some expected, some, surprising. Here are my five, high-level research takeaways: 1. In the absence of education, consumers assume the worst

Lawmakers took aim at privacy practices of cable and Internet providers Thursday at a House subcommittee hearing, laying the groundwork for the introduction of legislation that could restrict companies' ability to target ads at consumers online. The focus of the hearing was on new efforts by Internet providers to collect and share data on consumers' behavior to target online advertising and by cable companies to target ads at subscribers via their set-top boxes. Lawmakers are concerned about consumer privacy as cable, phone and Internet companies experiment with Internet-based technologies that pinpoint advertising to consumers in new and more accurate ways. Legislation to impose tougher privacy rules could be coming later this summer.

Cable operators will sit in the hot seat Thursday as Congress reviews their plans to roll out targeted advertising amid fears that consumer privacy could be infringed if the companies were to track and record viewing habits. The House subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet will hold a hearing that will look at new uses for digital set-top boxes, the devices that control channels and perform other tasks on the TV screen. Cable TV companies plan to use such boxes to collect data and direct ads more targeted to individual preferences. "We have recently called on Congress and the Federal Trade Commission to investigate cable's new interactive targeted TV ad system on both antitrust and privacy grounds," said Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy. He's concerned about Canoe Ventures, a consortium formed by the nation's six largest cable companies to oversee the rollout of targeted and interactive ads nationally. Chester worries that Canoe will track what consumers do in their homes. Currently, cable companies aim their ads based strictly on geography. Now, cable's goal is to take the Internet's success with targeted ads and transfer that to the TV medium. Thus, a household that watches a lot of Nickelodeon and the Disney Channel eventually could be targeted for theme parks promotions. This type of targeting is something broadcast TV can't do. For starters, Canoe plans to offer ads this summer that consider demographic factors such as age and income. Philadelphia-based Comcast Corp. and Cablevision Systems Corp. of Bethpage, N.Y., also have been testing or rolling out targeted ads outside the consortium. But cable operators are wary about being seen as trampling on consumer privacy and reiterate that they don't plan to target based on any personally identifiable information, such as someone's name and address. Canoe said it doesn't have plans this year to use set-top box data for ads. Instead, the first ads it pl

Until now, lawsuits seeking to recover significant damages based on the loss of, or unauthorized access to, sensitive personal information have not been especially successful for plaintiffs. Most companies suffering data breaches have escaped by offering affected consumers inexpensive credit monitoring services. But two recent cases show plaintiffs a way to expose many previously safe companies to substantial claims for damages. Any company that thinks there are no risks in employing less than best practices for data privacy and security needs a wake up call. The headlines are all too familiar. Some well known consumer services company (or less known wholesale data processor) announces that millions of individual records containing names, Social Security numbers, account numbers and other sensitive information were left in a dumpster, saved to a stolen, unencrypted laptop, or stored on a misplaced USB drive or backup tape. The press is terrible, the company's stock takes a temporary plunge, and sometimes the Federal Trade Commission enters into a consent decree where the company promises to never do it again. But when affected individuals or groups of consumers tried to sue for damages, they seldom recover significant amounts. These cases have not often succeeded because the plaintiffs have been unable to prove actual pecuniary losses resulting from the security breach. Sure, if identify theft occurs the affected individuals can suffer significant emotional trauma, loss of time, etc. But Courts have been unwilling to award damages for anxiety, fear, and other emotional harm that can result from a data breach, for the risk of future identify theft, or for actual identity theft when the plaintiff could not prove that the theft occurred as a direct result of a data breach at a particular source. Most companies facing claims based on data breaches have been able to settle cheaply by offering to provide credit monitoring services, which most consumers do not use, resu

Educating consumers about what behavioral targeting is and is not up to, deep within the cookies of their browser, seems to be a bit like alternative energy development. Pretty much everyone says the industry should be doing more about it, and yet it is hard to see where and with whom it starts. Most online materials related to BT are pitched to one end of the value chain, marketers. It's not clear to me that most of the companies in this space are even comfortable talking directly to consumers, let alone taking the time to develop an accessible language to describe their process. Specific Media controls the BehavioralTargeting.com domain and uses it to educate marketers about its methods. Even the Wikipedia entry for this field is really an explanation for advertisers. This is understandable, since most people who are familiar with the term likely come from the industry. But it seems to me the industry misses an opportunity to practice more often, and in more places, what it knows ultimately needs to be done. You guys need to find better, clearer, simpler ways to explain what it is you are doing in our browsers -- and why you are doing it. And what are the real benefits and risks a consumer incurs by tacitly agreeing to your presence? Isn't every possible point of contact with a suspicious consumer a teachable moment? In an earlier post, I recounted how I struck some retargeting gold when FetchBack tagged and remarketed me during my travels online. An opt-out option is clearly available at the front page of the FetchBack site. Unfortunately, from there you either opt-out (kick over to the Network Advertising Initiative site) or click into a long scrolling privacy policy that doesn't actually get around to explaining retargeting until a few screens down.

Payment processor Heartland Payment Systems has been sued over a data breach it disclosed publicly on Inauguration Day last week. The lawsuit, filed on Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Trenton, N.J., alleges that Heartland failed to adequately safeguard the compromised consumer data, did not notify consumers about the breach in a timely manner as required by law, and has not offered to compensate consumers for costs they may incur in protecting themselves from identity fraud. In a statement that coincided with President Barack Obama's inauguration events, Heartland said the breach occurred last year but that it found evidence of the intrusion only in the previous week and immediately notified law enforcement and credit card companies. Heartland was alerted in late October to suspicious activity surrounding processed card transactions by Visa and MasterCard and hired forensic auditors who uncovered malicious software that compromised data in the company's network, said Robert H.B. Baldwin Jr., chief financial officer of Heartland, last week. The lawsuit seeks damages and relief for the "inexplicable delay, questionable timing, and inaccuracies concerning the disclosures" with regard to the data breach, which is believed to be the largest in U.S. history. Heartland executives have declined to specify how many consumers or accounts were affected. The company handles 100 million transactions per month for more than 250,000 merchants. The lawsuit, first reported by SearchSecurity news site, also accuses Heartland of negligence in taking more than two months to determine the existence and scope of the breach and criticizes the company for failing to identify which merchants were affected by the breach. The suit was filed on behalf of Woodbury, Minn., resident Alicia Cooper, who was notified last week by her credit union that a card associated with her account was included in the breach. It seeks class action status. A Heartland spokesman said the company could no