Category: privacy

FTC, You Better Turn-on (then Quickly Shut-off) Your TiVo

As the FTC readies a review of online commerce, including privacy, it should examine TiVo’s new plan to turn over “second-by-second” viewer data to major advertisers. The TiVo-Omnicom deal, as reported yesterday by Ad Age and others, will also include “behavioral data” derived from our personal video recorder (PVR) viewing. That data will form the basis of an “engagement” study that TiVo and Omnicom will do together. (Engagement is a relatively new ad industry initiative that is attempting to design, deliver and measure more effective ways of branding.) Omnicom, of course, is an advertising and marketing octopus, operating such agencies as BBDO Worldwide, DDB Worldwide, and TWBA/Worldwide. The TiVo deal is with the Omnicom Media Group, which includes OMD (which is interested in new media), PHD Network, Icon International and others.

Almost from the start, TiVo has positioned itself as an ad-friendly technology (to help allay fears from the media and ad industry it brought in many investors from those fields, such as Time Warner, CBS and NBC). Last month, TiVo announced “the creation of a new line of business, TiVo Audience Research and Measurement (ARM), offering advertisers, marketers, networks and advertising agencies second-by-second data and analysis on DVR viewing. With this unique data, advertisers will have key insights into the viewership and effectiveness of their TV advertising by network, genre, day-part, time-slot, day of week and pod position. The initial research product, Commercial Viewership Report, provides a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of the creative and media planning strategies that are most effective to reach a fast forwarding consumer.”

This should sound alarm bells. No matter what they (or others) claim are sufficient privacy policies, analytical data about unique habits are being turned over to marketers. The FTC and state attorneys-general should demand that TiVo stop any such “second by second” collection and behavioral analysis until they have submitted detailed information so its plans can be evaluated. TiVo’s subscribers must be given full-disclosure and the ability to opt-in to any new data analysis arrangement. All of this, of course, is part of the ever-growing system of personalized data collection and targeting that is shaping all media delivery platforms. Our privacy and more is at risk. But, we have to admit. Does the FTC really care about growing threats to privacy via our broadband world?

This is an issue will be writing about (and actively working on) in the months ahead. And an issue that is the focus of our new book—out in January (apologies for the marketing here!).

Hey, Big Spender: Telco’s and Cable Buy Favor on the Hill

The National Journal’s excellent David Hatch has kept his journalistic eye on all the telecom/cable lobbying money flowing in to Congress. Millions are being spent to keep lawmakers favorably disposed against net neutrality and other broadband safeguards. The majority of AT&T’s giving (67%) has gone to the GOP. Other big spenders include Comcast, BellSouth, Verizon and Time Warner (the latter should spend less on lobbying and more on privacy. But, of course, they really don’t want to).

Read David’s article. See how Speaker Hastert, House Commerce chair Joe Barton and many others have done well for themselves. And then follow the money when the voting on network neutrality comes this fall.

abendlich rauscht mp3 wald der schonwald mp3 abendlich rauscht schon derrauscht wald mp3 schon abendlich dercupid 112 mp3112 cupid mp3cupid 112 mp3112 cupid mp3fair advance wav mp3 australia Map

Why are Conservative Leaders, such as Grover Norquist, Fearful about Individual Freedom Online?

We are astonished at the reaction of all the so-called conservative/”free market” groups that have rushed to side with the telephone and cable monopoly in the network neutrality fight. This is battle between those who want to ensure our individual freedom to travel online wherever we wish to go, versus those who wish to create a private Internet toll-road. The Internet should not be a gated community. It’s the public square—with plenty of convenient shopping nearby.

So why oh why are the groups backing AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast—such as the Heritage Foundation, Americans for Tax Reform, CATO, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the National Taxpayers Union—doing this? They claim that network neutrality supporters are either liberals desiring to “regulate” the web or that companies such as Google and eBay are looking for competitive advantages. But—they are simply wrong. And the public will pay dearly for their foolhardy bad judgement.

The phone and cable companies have plans to dramatically change the wide, open spaces of online into their private property. They want a digital monopoly—like they have had either in the phone or cable TV business.
It’s a land grab of the Internet in the U.S.—with restrictions on our freedom to travel online, new threats to our privacy, and lack of consumer choice. These so-called conservative groups have been badly misinformed—or are on the financial dole from the phone and cable lobby. Whatever the reason, it’s evident that they’re not well serving their members by selling out the Internet to a tiny handful of monopolists. (They should all identify whether they have taken money from the communications lobby and how much).

They are also unaware of the phone and cable plans for the Internet. When the Heritage Foundation’s James Gattuso says network neutrality would prevent “network owners…[from using] scare Internet capacity more efficiently” he ignores there plans to impose a pay as you go Internet toll road. That would mean that a phone or cable company could make it harder for us to access the website of our choice because they have given themselves priority. In other words—the public gets to stand or lumped into cramped digital economy class, while the phone or cable company puts itself in first class (paying for that service with the money they get from our bills each month).

Shame, shame on “Americans for Tax Reform” and the other groups. Why are they putting hard-working families last and the Internet `super size us’ media companies first?

cummins pornpics porn cumshotcumshots porn galleriesporn cumswallowingporn fuck cunt freeporn cup cakescurcumcise pornvideos cure pornstar Map

Not-So Smart Mobs: The Wireless Industry War Against Net Neutrality

It’s not just the biggest phone and cable companies opposing a open Internet (net neutrality). It’s also the wireless industry—including companies providing cellular and mobile communications. One of the principal characteristics of our expanding ubiquitous digital media environment will be its reach—on the street, in transport, and everyplace else. New forms of political action and cultural expression could evolve if the U.S. can have a non-discriminatory mobile environment.

But that’s not what the CTIA-The Wireless Association wants. They are opposing network neutrality safeguards. In testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee earlier this month, CTIA’s chief Steve Largent warned of “many of the unintended consequences that would flow from some of the Net Neutrality regulations being considered [that] would have a particularly negative impact on wireless consumers.” What Largent really meant was that the wireless industry hopes to impose the same kind of toll booth regime for mobile communications. In their vision, ads and content supported by a McDonalds, P&G soap, Fox News or Disney will have preferential access. CTIA’s board includes T-Mobile, Cingular (AT&T), Sprint Nextel, Verizon Wireless and most of the key manufacturers. As we mentioned in yesterday’s entry, CTIA is also a member of the anti-open Internet group called netcompetition.org. (It’s time, by the way, we had a real anti-trust investigation of the mobile industry).

The united front of cable, wireless phone and wireless/mobile companies fighting against network neutrality is a good example of why we need serious policy safeguards (going beyond network neutrality) to protect freedom of communications in the U.S. Without such rules, the civic potential of Howard Rheingold’s Smart Mobs will be thwarted by powerful commercial forces.

NetCompetition.org: Distortions and Cable/Telco Flackery

We are disappointed that Scott Cleland would act as “chair” and chief advocate for this anti-open Internet group. Its “members” (really its financial backers) are a rogue’s gallery of some of the most powerful and avaricious big media companies: Verizon, Time Warner, Comcast, Advance Newhouse, and AT&T. This front-group also includes industry lobbying heavyweights NCTA, CTIA, USTA, and ACA. In other words, it’s a cable and Telco joint lobbying venture. The role that the cellular lobby (CTIA) plays here illustrates how both the wireline and wireless industries wish to jointly create a cash and carriage broadband distribution system.

But the “research” and information on netcompetition.org is shoddy and reflects a vision promoting monopoly power and greed. Mr. Cleland and his allies should know better. Net Neutrality is about democracy—removing barriers to the distribution of content essential for a civil society to function. That’s why nearly all the consumer and good government groups support network neutrality. It’s not about the corporate welfare of a Google or Microsoft. It’s about ensuring there are as few gatekeepers as possible for content promoting such applications as political speech, civic engagement, non-profit arts and culture, education, life-long learning and everything else we require in a digital society. I don’t have time here to rebut all their assertions (they all all shamefully misleading). This is a mean-spirited, propagandistic website. Mr. Cleland should have the group change its name to more honestly reflect what they are about: netmonopoly.con

NSA, the FCC and White House Martin’s, and Sen. Stevens: Beyond Cover-up

It’s not surprising that FCC chair Kevin Martin refused to investigate how the phone companies he oversees have turned over our personal records to the National Security Agency. Martin—who is supposed to be running a so-called “independent agency”—said he was obeying “the representations” of Director of National Intelligence (DNI) John Negroponte and NSA chief Keith Alexander. In a letter to Rep. Ed Markey (who has been doing a terrific job all around on communications issues), Kevin Martin said that the DNI and NSA had warned him that such a study would require the FCC to examine “highly sensitive classified information.” Kevin Martin, of course, is part of the Bush White House conservative cabal that is behind the violation of all our privacy. Martin’s wife Catherine is an assistant to President Bush. Before that, she was an assistant to Vice President Cheney. Her relationships with Texas allies of Pres. Bush go back a number of years as well.

Meanwhile, Senate Commerce Committee chair Ted Stevens, who termed the call for an FCC investigation “misguided,” revealed once again how out of touch he is. Stevens is quoted in Communications Daily (May 24, 2006) saying that he had been briefed on the NSA phone record collection effort. The newsletter reports that Stevens “believed the information the companies gave the NSA was equivalent to creating a database of the names and phone numbers in a phone book.” And Stevens thinks that fine! Can’t wait until he helps wreck U.S. broadband/digital media with his forthcoming bill.

Meanwhile, Kevin Martin should be asked to resign. He isn’t running an independent agency; it’s now just a creature of the defense intelligence establishment

treo 300 ringtoneagcode aan tramadolcd buner mp3 acusticatramadol wetrack acid indigestion ittip gambling 123haunted gambling 5×5 house arcade machine75 am meter mp3 radioderrer suisse adam credit Map

Earning Digital Dollars and Backing Dictators: Microsoft, Google, Yahoo and Interactive Advertising in China

As Bill Gates prepares to fete the Chinese President at his home—and as last week’s headlines remind us that the “do no evil” motto of Google is meaningless [“Google defends censorship in China”], we thought it would be useful to focus on a little discussed aspect of the “we will do anything to market in China” tech story. It’s the role which interactive advertising is playing driving companies such as Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google to do anything to please the Chinese government; even the censoring of search content and the turning over of personal user data to the police.

Microsoft, in fact, has selected China as its primary location to create the next generation of interactive advertising technologies. adLab, based in Beijing, was launched by Microsoft in January. Its mission is to use its “state-of-the-art” facilities, and “top-notch group of more than 50 researchers” to “incubate advanced technologies …designed to provide advertisers with rich targeting capabilities based on audience intelligence information…” Among the expertise assembled at the Microsoft China lab are researchers expert in “data mining, information retrieval, statistical analysis, artificial intelligence, …and visual computing.” The Beijing facility is working (along with Seattle colleagues) on forty projects or so—including on what they call “social network mining” and “video hyperlink advertising.” These technologies will be used to more precisely target us with personalized advertising. They will give advertisers a rich set of personal information based on the tracking and analyzing of our behavior. Such data in the hands of marketers is bad enough. But it will also be likely turned over to governments, including authoritarian regimes.
By selecting Beijing as the location to help develop the company’s online business future, Microsoft has made a powerful statement about the importance of the China market itself. They—as do Google and Yahoo—see many billions of dollars from the online targeting of billions of Chinese computer users. The three are all competing to dominate the China market. Microsoft even sued Google for stealing one its executives who is setting up its China-based research center.

Bill Gates, Jerry Yang, Eric Schmidt and the other executives should be challenging repressive regimes by refusing to operate in countries where search is censored and information about dissenters has to be turned over to authorities. But these companies see the digital future and it’s about targeted ads—along with new forms of commercial and political surveillance.

Tropos Opposes Net Neutrality; Links with Company that Supports Tiered Internet

Tropos is a company known for its wireless networking technology. Its products are used in many wi-fi deployments. In an example of a self-serving and wrong-thinking display, Tropos president and CEO Ron Sege came out today against a network neutrality safeguard. Sege suggested that we should allow the cable and phone giants to offer “advanced, prioritized services.” The trade-off he proposed would be for Congress to pass legislation creating more opportunities for municipal and other forms of wireless. He might have just asked them to pass the “Tropos Big Bottom Line Act of 2006” instead. Sege’s proposal would do little to ensure that the U.S. has a democratic and diverse broadband communications environment.

Tropos’s anti-net neutrality stance suggests they don’t want to anger powerful communications industry players, such as AT&T. It also appears that Tropos supports a world where “prioritized services” come to wireless. The company announced a deal this week with Allot Communications for its “NetEnforcer” product. “NetEnforcer” is just one of the score of products that enable broadband operators to know what’s in every packet. It’s a technology at the core of plans to turn the broadband Internet into a virtual tollbooth for both users and content providers.