Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

As the impact of digital advertising on consumer privacy comes under scrutiny, AT&T is taking a stance in support of stricter standards. Rep. Rick Boucher (D., Va.), chairman of the subcommittee, said in an interview Wednesday that a statute is needed to regulate how companies collect, share and use data on consumers' behavior in targeting online advertising. While ad targeting on the Web has been at the forefront of privacy advocates' concerns, worries are growing about other media, ranging from mobile phones to emerging TV technologies. To sell marketers targeted ads, technology and media companies collect data about customers, ranging from the Web sites they visit to the neighborhoods they live in to the TV shows they watch. Marketers often will pay a premium for this form of advertising because it allows them to show their ads to consumers who are likelier to buy their products or services. "Pitfalls arise because behavioral advertising in its current forms is largely invisible to consumers," says Dorothy Attwood, AT&T's senior vice president of public policy and chief privacy officer, in prepared testimony she is expected to deliver at the hearing of the House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet. Her statement says consumers don't fully understand that their online activity is used to create detailed profiles of them. Internet and other media companies say the data they use to target ads are anonymous and can't be traced to individual consumers. AT&T plans to argue that consumers should have "full and complete" notice of what information is collected about them and how it is used and protected, and should have tools that let them determine whether their Web activities are being tracked. The company says it won't use consumer information for online behavioral advertising unless it first obtains consent from the consumers involved. AT&T's stance contrasts with the position taken by most big Internet companies and industry trade grou

A U.S. appeals court on Friday denied a bid by the cable industry to overrule privacy rules that make it more difficult for them to share subscribers' personal information with other parties. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied a petition by the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, which argued that federal rules on telecom carriers' use of customer data violated free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution, federal law or both. At issue are rules set by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission that mandate telecommunications carriers must get an "opt-in" before disclosing customers' information to a carrier's joint venture business partner or an independent contractor.

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.

Google has moved forward the debate about privacy and Internet advertising, in its typical way, with deceptively simple engineering and a willingness to impose its way on others. On Wednesday, Google became the last of the big advertising companies to start keeping track of where Internet users surf online so ads can be shown to people based on what they might be interested in buying. In its approach to ad targeting, the company is responding to calls by the Federal Trade Commission and others to be more clear with users' information and control over the information it collects. It has created a window into part of its database, so users can see that Google has deduced that they are interested in "Anime & Manga" comics, or "Alternative-Punk-Metal" music or travel to Afghanistan. (Yes, those are on its list of 600 interest categories.) It also built technology to allow your browser to remember that you don't want Google (or its DoubleClick unit) to remember anything about you. It is more robust than the opt-out system used by many companies that rely on cookies in browsers. These are technical feats that other ad companies said would be too hard.

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has responded to the privacy concerns raised in this post by Consumerist. The post pointed out that a change Facebook made to its terms of service left the impression that the social network could keep and use copies of user content (e.g. photos, notes, and personal information) in perpetuity even if users removed the information and closed their accounts. "One of the questions about our new terms of use is whether Facebook can use this information forever," Zuckerberg wrote. But, oddly, he did not answer that question. Instead he opted for a rather roundabout explanation: if you send a friend a message via Facebook's e-mail system, Facebook must create mutliple copies of that message -- one for your "sent" message box and one for your friend's inbox. That way, if you leave Facebook, the copy your friend has would not be deleted. Fair enough. The implication is that, by extension, Facebook also keeps copies of all your other information, too. But the e-mail example has a major hole in it. Copying content makes sense for e-mails, where the medium itself depends on messages being copied. The thing is, Facebook users generally do not 'send' other types of content to one another, including photographs. Rather, they post them on their own profiles for others to stop by and see. There's no obvious reason that Facebook would need to perpetually store multiple copies of photographs -- because, as far as the user is concerned, they appear only in one place. Plus, Zuckerberg seems to underestimate his users' understanding of e-mail. My guess is most Facebook users don't think that if they close an e-mail account that all the e-mails they've ever sent will disappear. Frankly, it's not e-mails that are at issue here; it's this other, more personal category of content -- the stuff that people post within their own digital walls. Zuckerberg goes on to write that despite the presence of "overly formal and protective" language that Facebo

"U.S. marketers and consumer advocates are preparing for battle over the rules governing online advertising tailored to individual browsing habits, often tracked and collected without notice or permission. The U.S. Congress is due to intervene in the issue in the coming weeks, with a bill in the House of Representatives that would oblige websites to state explicitly how they use the information and allow those using the site to opt out. A billion-dollar industry and consumer privacy are at stake."

"Sherry Natoli is followed everywhere she goes while shopping online, but she doesn't mind at all. Natoli, who owns a seashell business in Tampa, does all but her grocery shopping on the Internet and even opts in whenever she's asked whether she's willing to have her online movements tracked by websites." Companies have been monitoring our online behavior for almost as long as there's been an Internet, often using our online footsteps (cookies) whenever we search, browse or buy online. Tracking technology has advanced so much that everything from how long we linger over a product description to whether we are searching for sexual-dysfunction drugs can be collected and stored on individual profiles. Our profiles are numeric descriptions, not our real names, but in some cases, it's not hard to determine personal information behind the numbers. Privacy concerns abound, and several privacy and consumer groups are urging Congress to enact laws on what can and can't be collected and for how long.

"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."

Richard Acton-Maher of San Francisco was in nearby Berkeley last month and wanted to meet friends for lunch. Instead of making calls to see who was around, he looked at a digital map on his iPhone that plotted their locations. "One of my friends was also there," said Acton-Maher, 24, who used a service from a startup company called Loopt Inc. "I gave him a call and met him for lunch. It just enhances the communications tools that I already have." Google Inc., encouraged by people's willingness to share their personal lives on sites like Facebook, is betting more people like Acton-Maher will post their whereabouts online. The owner of the most popular search engine started a program this month called Latitude, seeking to compete with mobile networking services such as Loopt, Match2Blue, Whrrl and Limbo. Besides competition, Google's effort to turn mobile phones into tracking devices faces criticism from privacy advocates. Useful for friends and family, location data would also be valuable to the government, said Kevin Bankston, an attorney with the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, a not-for-profit organization focused on civil-liberties. "This is certainly valuable information to investigators and potentially to civil litigants," Bankston said. "This type of location information presents a very new sensitive data flow." Google says its privacy settings address such concerns. People using Google's mobile maps can opt not to use Latitude and choose whom they share their information with. The program also only stores the user's last known location, not a full history of their travels, said Steve Lee, a Google product manager. 'Ephemeral Data' While Google doesn't plan to store the data, the government could still go to court to ask for the company's help in tracking someone during an investigation, Bankston said.

I have an open question for the people who complain about the potential of advertising networks to track your behavior on the Internet: What is a better way? Some might say that all behavioral targeting should simply be banned. But if you don't think that showing Chevy ads to people looking for cars is equivalent to poisoning the peanut butter, we need a middle ground that explains to people what's going on and lets them decide what is acceptable. This is much harder than it sounds: Any one Web page you visit can have a dozen advertisements and invisible bits of code that each send information about you to different companies, each with different ways of using that data. The privacy policy of the site you are looking at - not that anyone reads privacy policies - can't even try to explain this to you, because the site owner doesn't even know what all of its advertisers are doing. I'm coming to the conclusion that each advertisement on a page has to speak for itself. That's implicit in the approach Google is taking for its new behavioral targeting system. It puts the phrase "Ads by Google" on all its advertisements. Click that link and you'll get some limited information about Google's targeting system and an ability to adjust some of the interests that Google is tracking. But Google's approach is presented in a way that glosses over what they are doing and discourages people from reading the disclosure and exercising control, says Joseph Turow, a marketing professor at the Annenberg School for Communication of the University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Turow has developed a plan that is simpler and more comprehensive: Put an icon on each ad that signifies that the ad collects or uses information about users. If you click the icon, you will go to what he calls a "privacy dashboard" that will let you understand exactly what information was used to choose that ad for you. And you'll have the opportunity to edit the information or opt out o

Companies that track consumer behavior on the Web for targeted advertising without proper consent are near their "last chance" to self-regulate, the head of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission said on Monday. Privacy advocates say regulations on big phone and Internet companies, such as AT&T Inc and Google Inc, are too lax, giving the firms excessive control over consumers' personal information. "From my perspective, the industry is pretty close to its last clear chance to demonstrate" that it can police itself, FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz told the Reuters Global Financial Regulation Summit in Washington. Earlier this year, the FTC issued new guidance urging websites to tell consumers that data is being collected during their searches and to allow them to opt out. If companies fail to do a better job of making their privacy policies understandable to the average person, momentum will keep building for greater regulation, Leibowitz said. "It's really up to industry."

The Internet Advertising Bureau U.K. has today launched a good practice principles guide for firms that collect and use data for online advertising. The goal is to promote self-regulation of the practice and quell privacy concerns surrounding it. Companies that support the principles include Google, Microsoft Advertising, Platform-A, Yahoo, Specific Media, Audience Science, NebuAd, and Phorm, all of which have been involved in the formation of the principles as members of the IAB's behavioral advertising task force. To complement the guide, the IAB has also launched a consumer-facing site, youronlinechoices.co.uk, designed to educate consumers on how and why their data is being used, and to provide information on how they can opt out of the process if they wish.

Do you know what your data did last night? Almost none of more than 27 million people who took the RealAge quiz realized that their personal health data was sold to drug companies, who in turned used that information for targeted e-mail marketing campaigns. There's a basic consumer protection principle at work here, and it's the concept of "unfair and deceptive" trade practices. Basically, a company shouldn't be able to say one thing and do another: sell used goods as new, lie on ingredients lists, advertise prices that aren't generally available, claim features that don't exist, and so on. RealAge's privacy policy doesn't mention anything about selling data to drug companies, but buried in its 2,400 words, it does say that "we will share your personal data with third parties to fulfill the services that you have asked us to provide to you." They maintain that when you join the website, you consent to receiving pharmaceutical company spam. But since that isn't spelled out, it's not really informed consent. That's deceptive. Cloud computing is another technology where users entrust their data to service providers. Salesforce.com, Gmail, and Google Docs are examples; your data isn't on your computer -- it's out in the "cloud" somewhere -- and you access it from your web browser. Cloud computing has significant benefits for customers and huge profit potential for providers. It's one of the fastest growing IT market segments -- 69% of Americans now use some sort of cloud computing services -- but the business is rife with shady, if not outright deceptive, advertising.

As arguments swirl over online privacy, a new survey indicates the issue is a dominant concern for Americans. More than 90 percent of respondents called online privacy a "really" or "somewhat" important issue, according to the survey of more than 1,000 Americans conducted by TRUSTe, an organization that monitors the privacy practices of Web sites of companies like I.B.M., Yahoo and WebMD for a fee. When asked if they were comfortable with behavioral targeting - when advertisers use a person's browsing history or search history to decide which ad to show them - only 28 percent said they were. More than half said they were not. And more than 75 percent of respondents agreed with the statement, "The Internet is not well regulated, and naïve users can easily be taken advantage of." The survey arrives at a fractious time. Debate over behavioral advertising has intensified, with industry groups trying to avoid government intervention by creating their own regulatory standards. Still, some Congressional representatives and the Federal Trade Commission are questioning whether there are enough safeguards around the practice. Last month, the F.T.C. revised its suggestions for behavioral advertising rules for the industry, proposing, among other measures, that sites disclose when they are participating in behavioral advertising and obtain consumers' permission to do so. One F.T.C. commissioner, Jon Leibowitz, warned that if the industry did not respond, intervention would be next. "Put simply, this could be the last clear chance to show that self-regulation can - and will - effectively protect consumers' privacy," Mr. Leibowitz said, or else "it will certainly invite legislation by Congress and a more regulatory approach by our commission." Some technology companies are making changes on their own. Yahoo recently shortened the amount of time it keeps data derived from searches. It is also including a link in some ads that explains how