Category: Uncategorized

Civil Liberties, Consumer & Privacy Groups to FCC: Protect Privacy


The American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Digital Democracy, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Watchdog, Privacy Lives, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, Privacy Times, and U.S. PIRG told the FCC in a filing 22 January 2010 that: “There are significant problems concerning the collection and use of personal data by companies, especially sensitive data and children’s data; (2) The FCC should not rely on industry self-regulatory models because they do not adequately protect consumer privacy; and (3) The principles and standards that should serve as the foundation of consumer privacy protection should be the Fair Information Practices, especially as they are implemented in the OECD Guidelines on data privacy… The FCC should consider all avenues it may use to protect consumers, including exercising its ancillary jurisdiction to address broadband privacy issues, and working with Congress and the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), which has substantial expertise in consumer privacy protection.”


To learn more, click here.


Where Does Google and Microsoft Really Stand–with the IAB and ad lobby or for Consumer Protection?

Both Google and Microsoft serve on the executive committee of the Interactive Ad Bureau, a trade association fighting against consumer privacy proposals in Congress and the FTC.  The IAB just sent a letter signed by other ad and marketing industry lobbyists opposing Obama and congressional proposals to expand the ability of the FTC to better protect consumers.  My CDD just sent emails to officials at both Google and Microsoft asking them to clarify where they stand on the IAB’s letter [see below].  Do our two leading online marketing leaders support financial and regulatory reform, including protecting privacy?  Or does the IAB letter–and Google and Microsoft’s own role helping govern that trade lobby group–really reflect their own position against better consumer protection? Not coincidently, the IAB’s PAC has expanded its PAC contribution giving to congress.

Why does the IAB and other ad groups want to scuttle a more capable FTC?  Think online financial products, including mortgages, pharmaceutical operated social networks, digital ads targeting teens fueling the youth obesity crisis, ads created by brain research to influence our subconscious minds, a mobile marketing system that targets us because it knows our location, interests and behavior.  The IAB is terrified that a responsible consumer protection agency will not only peek under the ‘digital hood,’ as the Obama FTC is currently doing.  But actually propose policies and bring cases that rein in irresponsible and harmful business practices.  So Microsoft and Google:  who are with?  Consumers or the special interest advertising lobby?
*****

letter to Google:  22 January 2010

Dear Pablo, Jane, Peter and Alan:

As you may know, the Interactive Advertising Bureau recently sent a letter  to Congress, along with other ad related groups, opposing the expansion of FTC regulatory authority as proposed in the Consumer Financial Protection Agency bill and related reauthorization [http://www.clickz.com/3636212].

Google serves on the executive committee of the IAB’s board.  For the record, does Google support IAB’s stance that, as news reports say, if the FTC is given additional enforcement and penalty-making authority, “the FTC could essentially act as an unelected legislature governing industries and sectors across the economy.”

If Google disagrees with the IAB’s letter, I ask that it make its position public as soon as possible.  I also respectfully request Google state its position regarding the Consumer Financial Protection Agency proposal, as well as its position on expanding FTC authority.

Regards,

Jeff Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
www.democraticmedia.org

letter to Microsoft:  22 Jan. 2010:

Dear Mike and Frank:

As you may know, the Interactive Advertising Bureau recently sent a letter to Congress, along with other ad related groups, opposing the expansion of FTC regulatory authority as proposed in the Consumer Financial Protection Agency bill and related reauthorization [http://www.clickz.com/3636212].

Microsoft serves on the executive committee of the IAB’s board.  For the record, does Microsoft support IAB’s stance that, as news reports say, if the FTC is given additional enforcement and penalty-making authority, “the FTC could essentially act as an unelected legislature governing industries and sectors across the economy.”

If Microsoft disagrees with the IAB’s letter, I ask that it make its position public as soon as possible.  I also respectfully request Microsoft state its position regarding the Consumer Financial Protection Agency proposal, as well as its position on expanding FTC authority.

Regards,

Jeff Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
www.democraticmedia.org

Facebook Teams with JP Morgan Chase in Campaign Targeting Charities. But what about the bank’s role in the financial scandal?

As we have reported, banks and other financial institutions are using digital marketing techniques, especially social media, as part of their PR efforts.  Banks want to reposition themselves as our friend, and hope we will forget their role in helping bring us the greatest financial disaster since the Great Depression.  In it’s current voting contest for charities, “Chase Community Giving” will award $1 million to the charity getting the most votes (with $4 million doled out to others).  One of the advisors for this effort is Facebook’s exec in charge of its PR and lobbying Elliot Schrage.

Nothing said, of course, of Chase’s role in the economic crisis, including the bail-out funds it received [click here to see the Facebook/Chase video]. Meanwhile, Chase gets Facebook’s help, likely including lots of data on user behavior.

Facebook’s Ad “Targeting Specs”–including your “Political Views,” whether you are “13” years old, or “Engaged”

We continue to tell both the FTC and EU regulators that the data collected and used by Facebook for its ad targeting system must be under the control of its users.  Facebook is in the process of making its advertising API available to additional marketers (it’s been working with several large global ad agencies in a trial).  Here’s what Facebook says advertisers can target:  countries, cities, regions, genders, college networks, work networks, age minium [“Specify a minimum age to target. If used, this must be 13 or higher.”], age maximum, education status, college years, college majors, political views [“Use 1 for LIBERAL, 2 for MODERATE and 3 for CONSERVATIVE”], relationship status [“Use 1 for SINGLE, 2 for IN_RELATIONSHIP, 3 for MARRIED and 4 for ENGAGED.”], keywords [“Keywords are matched to user profile data to better target ads for example “movies” or “cars” can be used’], interested in, radius, connections [“Connections targeting allows you to target your ads to users who have become a fan of your Page, a member of your Group, RSVP’d to your Event or authorized your Application.”], excluded connections [“Excluded connections targeting allows you to target your ads to users who have not become fans of your Page, members of your Group, RSVP’d to your Event or authorized your Application.”], friends of connections [“An array of Facebook IDs. “Friends of connections” targeting allows you to target friends of your connections. Connections are fans of your Page, users who have RSVP’d Yes or Maybe to your Event, members of your Group, and users who have interacted with your Application.”], user event.

Google, Microsoft, China, Digital Advertising and Human Rights.

It took the equivalent of a Chinese digital Watergate break-in before Google reconsidered its position on China and their anti-democratic and censorious policies.  Google should never agreed to a censored version of itself in the first place.  But China represents what will be the world’s number one online marketing gold mine, irresistible for those in the interactive advertising business.  l hope that Google will actually withdraw from China, until democracy is assured.  But meanwhile, it’s interesting to briefly explore what Google and other online marketing companies are doing in the China market, including Hong Kong.

Google’s research division in China has been investigating “”Large-scale data mining and its applications for information retrieval.”  Google is still, as of today, listing job openings for its China operation. Google’s DoubleClick features its Hong Kong work (as part of its Asia Pacific focus).  [It’s also important to see what kind of data collection might be done by Google’s DoubleClick Ad Exchange in that market].

But policymakers and the public should also focus on Microsoft.  Microsoft has a key research lab on interactive ads based in Beijing; Microsoft Advertising has a major focus on China and online ads. Microsoft and many others research the online behaviors of Asians, including young users.  Yahoo operates in China as well. Finally, U.S. online ad companies focused on data mining are opening up branches in Hong Kong, in order to better position themselves with the Asia-Pacific market.

Google’s withdrawal from China would be a model for other companies–we hope it does it.  But the focus should be on how the online marketing industry at large, including ad giants such as WPP, are facilitating a system that deprives its citizens of their rights.

Facebook Boosts of its Brand Building Power, with Nielsen [“Brand Lift”] Research on the way to help

In a December 2009 interview in New Media Age, Facebook’s director for commercial marketing in the EMEA and UK market explained that [excerpt]:  CPMs on our home page are three or four times those of Yahoo’s. On click-through, the engagement levels we’re getting are 10-15 times that. Not 10% more, 10-15 times Yahoo’s click-through rates. This is where we’re selling to P&G and those big brands.  The other side of our business is performance: those little square boxes, ASUs [Ad Space Units], that appear everywhere except the home page. 80% of our inventory is driven through a self-service auction model. We’re on 50bn of them a month in the UK. That’s scale. And big brands are saying they’re getting more volume and lower cost than Google on Facebook right now…The big thing we’re bringing to the market in early Q1 is Nielsen-branded research, which will reveal what people are doing, using awareness consideration and favourability metrics that are important to branded advertising. We’ll be able to quantify this via Nielsen.“

Facebook to Graduate Students: Come help us data mine, boost online advertising, and we will pay your tuition

Facebook’s new academic Fellowship program places the social network along with other companies, such as Google, that like to tap into the “academy,” especially students.  Facebook says every day it “confronts among the most complex technical problems and we believe that close relationships with the academy will enable us to address many of these problems at a fundamental level and solve them.”   Among the areas Facebook wants inexpensive help with is “Data Mining and Machine Learning: learning algorithms, feature generation, and evaluation methods to produce effective online and offline models of behavioral signals.”  There are several other areas of interest, including “Internet Economics: auction theory and algorithmic game theory relevant to online advertising auctions.”

In exchange, Facebook offers to pay tuition, a $30k stipend, a travel allowance, and a chance for a paid summer internship.  The pitch must be endorsed by a faculty member that “clearly identifies the area of focus and applicability to Facebook.”   Our suggestion:  students should apply with projects which hold Facebook more accountable for its privacy and data collection practices.

CDD & Consumer Watchdog ask FTC to Block Google/AdMob Deal and also Protect Mobile Consumer Privacy

News Release
Monday, Dec. 28, 2009

Two Consumer Groups Ask FTC To Block Google’s $750 million Purchase Of AdMob
Deal to Buy Mobile Advertising Company Is Anti-Competitive And Raises Privacy Concerns

WASHINGTON, DC — Two consumer groups today asked the Federal Trade Commission to block Google’s $750 million deal to buy AdMob, a mobile advertising company, on anti-trust grounds. In addition, the groups said, the proposed acquisition raises privacy concerns that the Commission must address.

In a joint letter to the FTC, Consumer Watchdog and the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD) said Google is simply buying its way to dominance in the mobile advertising market, diminishing competition to the detriment of consumers.

“The mobile sector is the next frontier of the digital revolution. Without vigorous competition and strong privacy guarantees this vital and growing segment of the online economy will be stifled,” wrote  John M. Simpson, consumer advocate at Consumer Watchdog  and CDD Executive Director Jeffery A. Chester. “Consumers will face higher prices, less innovation and fewer choices.  The FTC should conduct the appropriate investigation, block the proposed Google/AdMob deal, and also address the privacy issues.”

Last week Google said the FTC has made a so-called “second request” for additional information about the deal indicating the commission is scrutinizing the proposal in great detail.

Besides the anti-trust issues, the letter from the two non-partisan, non-profit groups said, a combined Google/AdMob raises substantial privacy concerns.  Both AdMob and Google gather tremendous amounts of data about consumers’ online behavior, including their location.  AdMob, for example, targets consumers using a wide range of methods, including behavioral, ethnicity, age and gender, and education. In addition to its extensive mobile ad apparatus, Google also provides mobile advertising and data driven analytical services through its DoubleClick subsidiary.  The consolidation of AdMob into Google would provide significant amounts of data for tracking, profiling and targeting U.S. mobile consumers.

Read the letter here: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/LtrFTCfinal.pdf

“Permitting the expansion of mobile advertising through the combination of these two market leaders without requiring privacy guarantees poses a serious threat to consumers,” the letter said.  It noted that earlier this year several consumer groups, including CDD, petitioned the FTC to specifically protect consumer privacy on mobile phones, especially involving mobile advertising.

Initially Google was able to obtain its dominance in online search advertising largely because of innovative efforts.  It then moved into display advertising through the acquisition of DoubleClick. When the FTC approved that acquisition, the Commission said it would watch developments in Internet advertising closely. Since that deal was approved, the online and mobile ad markets have evolved substantially, with Google becoming more dominant in the Internet ad market.

“The proposed Google/AdMob deal offers the FTC an opportunity to check Google’s increasingly anticompetitive behavior,” Simpson said. “This deal is yet one more example of Google attempting to eliminate a threat to its power.”   “The FTC must protect competition and personal privacy in the key mobile sector,” noted Chester.

– 30 –

Facebook and Privacy: Why the FTC and EU Have to Become Our Real “Privacy Wizards”

Facebook is a very valuable tool.  But its effort to harness more of its member data–and cloak it as a “privacy” approach–illustrates how out of touch Facebook is with the fundamental concept of personal privacy.  That’s why the FTC and EU Privacy commissioners have to step in and act as Facebook’s true “privacy wizard.“  Left on its own, with its business interests driving Facebook to make our information available to them and their business partners, the privacy of 100 million US users (and even more globally) are at risk.  Facebook cavalier approach that your “name, gender, current city, networks, Friend List and Pages” is considered by them “publicly available information” illustrates this.  Facebook has framed these changes as beneficial to users, claiming that its “new, simplified privacy settings giver you more control over the information you share.”   Classic PR doublespeak with a Silicon Valley accent.

We have raised concerns about Facebook in the past–especially with Beacon and also with the third party apps (my CDD played a leading role providing information on the data collected by third party applications to the leading Canadian privacy group).   I asked Facebook officials to brief me and other privacy groups on the recent changes: that briefing was on Wednesday.  I wanted Facebook to explain how its new privacy approach allowed its users to control data mined by Facebook and its third party developers used for interactive advertising and marketing. I was so appalled by what Facebook officials said at that meeting that, after some additional research into Facebook’s plans, my Center for Digital Democracy decided to join with EPIC and others in a complaint to the Federal Trade Commission.

I was flabbergasted to hear Facebook officials claim that its new changes actually reflected “Fair Information Principles” for privacy. That in their view the concept of privacy has “evolved,” with users wanting to share all their information via what they call the “social graf.” Facebook officials said that only a few people (implying privacy advocates) wanted to have control over their information. That they didn’t consider allowing users to control the data collected on them for marketing and advertising purposes as part of a privacy regime.  Data used for advertising–even to Minors–is considered outside of what a person should be able to control, in Facebook’s view.   They also suggested that those who didn’t appreciate what they called its privacy “permission” model were out of step.

Nothing was said by Facebook officials about the company’s real motivations for expanding its access to its user data (as if business reasons had nothing to do with Facebook’s approach to member privacy!).  As InsideFacebook recently explained, “Last week, Facebook launched a major initiative geared towards getting users to share more information more openly…However, while many people don’t want to share much information publicly online today, some do. For those people, Facebook’s historical default privacy settings did not make it the right product for them. As a result, Facebook recognized that its default-private model made it vulnerable to other services with default-public models, like Twitter…Facebook’s decision to make the recommended privacy options for profile data like “Family and Relationships” and “Posts I Create” be set to “Everyone” – as well as its move to remove privacy controls for Gender, Current City, and Friends – were pretty aggressive by almost anyone’s standards. In particular, its decision to present users with a binary choice between “Everyone” and “Old Settings” for some privacy preferences was especially confusingly executed…Facebook isn’t satisfied with a mostly-private platform: it wants to be the single place where both sensitive personal information is shared and public memes spread…Facebook has shown, as recently as a few months ago with its launch of the “real-time” stream as the default News Feed, followed by its decision a few months later to go back to the algorithmic News Feed, that it is capable of making suboptimal product decisions due to intense feelings about services like Twitter…”

Relevant too are Facebook’s plans to enable its third party developers to gain access to more of its member data, including their email addresses.  As Facebook explains on its “Roadmap” for developers, “We’re excited to announce that you will soon have the ability to ask users for their primary Facebook email addresses, providing you with a direct channel to communicate with your users.” At our briefing, Facebook officials said they were soon addressing third party apps and their access to data.  But given Facebook’s failure to protect basic user privacy, we have serious doubts it will deal with data access by its developers.

CDD will be working to educate the FTC, EU privacy officials and others.  Facebook is consciously devaluing the notion of privacy for its own interests.  How Facebook deals with user data–including what is used for advertising–will be on the policy agenda.  The complaint from EPIC, Consumer Federation of America, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, CDD and others opens the door for a serious examination of Facebook’s data collection practices.

CDD Joins Facebook FTC Complaint

“Facebook’s new policy has seriously eroded the privacy rights of its members,” explained Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD).  “The leading social network has not acted responsibly.  It cannot be permitted to deliberately weaken the control its users have over their information,  just because it may boost its bottom line.  We call on the FTC to swiftly act on this complaint to protect the more than 100 million U.S. members of Facebook.”