Category: health privacy

AT&T Positions itself for its (hoped for) Digital Ad & Data Collection-driven Era [Attention: Future of Privacy Forum group]

AT&T, like other companies, understands that online advertising is an intrinsic part of the broadband era business model (along with subscriber charges, transaction fees, etc.). A number of reporters, charming cynics as they may be, are convinced that AT&T’s recent calls for some type of opt-in is merely a form of Google bashing (it’s really Google envy!). But, as this trade story describes below, AT&T wants to better cash in on online ad revenues). It underscores why Congress must enact opt-in rules and other safeguards to govern ISP data collection, profiling, and targeting–especially across platforms. It also suggests a flaw in how the new AT&T supported Future of Privacy Forum envisions safeguards. They are quoted in The New York Times saying they want “to move the debate beyond opt-in versus opt-out,”–meaning self-regulation would rule–or ruin–the data driven day. Here’s an excerpt from CED magazine on AT&T’s new restructuring plan so Internet ads can play a more prominent role:

“AT&T’s Advertising & Publishing business unit has been renamed AT&T Advertising Solutions and is responsible for all of AT&T’s advertising sales, according to the company, to take advantage of advertising opportunities that cut across print, Internet, TV and wireless. Meanwhile, AT&T’s Yellowpages.com business unit has been renamed AT&T Interactive. That operation gets expanded responsibility for the development, management and delivery of online and mobile advertising products across all of AT&T’s media platforms. AT&T Interactive is responsible for online and mobile advertising inventory and offerings.”

source: “AT&T realigns ad operations.” Brian Santo. CEDMagazine.com November 20, 2008.

Why Google Can’t Say a Word that Starts With “P”—Privacy

The senior execs and DC lobbying team at Google really have a major problem addressing one of the company’s gravest problems–its lack of leadership protecting consumer/citizen privacy. While Google claims to reporters and others it’s been proactively strengthening its privacy policies, most of the changes have come as a result of pressure from policymakers and privacy advocates.

This week, Google released a booklet which “spelled out…2009 policy priorities” for the new Administration and Congress, including several Internet related issues. The booklet’s release coincided with a speech Google CEO Eric Schmidt gave at the New America Foundation in Washington, D.C. Missing from the booklet’s agenda was any discussion of privacy or the role and structure of online advertising (You would never know, for example, that Google was just forced by the Department of Justice’s antitrust division to drop its proposed deal with leading rival Yahoo!).

Google should be playing a leadership role supporting the enactment of serious privacy rights for the public–including “opt-in,” real transparency, user control, limits on retention, etc. If Google believes its golden digital goose will be baked once consumers better understand and control how they are being profiled and targeted, they should examine how it defines corporate social responsibility. But Google’s current approach—we can’t admit we are collecting your data for interactive marketing and cannot even say the word privacy in public-– will ultimately have consequences for Google’s future–including its share price.

New AT&T-funded “Future of Privacy” Group: Will it Support Real Privacy Protection or Serve as a Surrogate for Self-regulation and Data Collection?

A new group co-directed by former DoubleClick and AOL chief privacy officer Jules Polonetsky, called the “Future of Privacy Forum,” has been announced. It is connected to the law firm representing AT&T–Proskauer Rose–which has a considerable practice in the online marketing and data collection area. Other backers include Intel, General Electric, IBM and Wal-Mart.

We are concerned, however, that the role of the Forum is to help discourage Congress from enacting an opt-in regime for data collection. Both ISPs–such as AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner–as well as online advertising companies such as Google/DoubleClick, Yahoo, and Microsoft must be governed by privacy laws which empower and protect consumers. The role of ISPs in any data collection for targeted online marketing, in particular, requires serious analysis and stringent safeguards. AT&T, Google, Microsoft, Comcast, the online ad networks, and social media marketers (to name a few) must be required to provide meaningful disclosure, transparency, accountability and user control (with special rules governing health, financial and data involving children and youth). Self-regulation has failed. If the Future of Privacy group is to have any legitimacy, it will work to support serious federal rules. But if it trots out some sort of voluntary code of conduct as a way to undermine the growing call for real privacy safeguards, this new group may soon be viewed as beholden to its funders and backers.

Network Advertising Initiative Continues to Protect Online Marketers Interests Instead of Consumer Privacy

The Network Advertising Initiative’s (NAI) real role is to protect the ability of its members (Google, Yahoo!, AOL, etc.) to collect huge amounts of profiling and targeting data from each of us. NAI claims it’s promoting self-regulation on data privacy through its principles and guidelines. But NAI has long been a toothless group, and is basically a public relations vehicle helping to cover the data crime and more-than-misdemeanors of the industry.

So it’s not surprising that last week, the NAI announced that while it supported an “opt-in” for the kind of behavioral targeting planned by the phone and cable companies, it didn’t believe such a safeguard was required for its data-collected membership. In a statement, NAI Executive Director Trevor Hughes said that his group “believes that opt-out continues to be an appropriate choice mechanism for traditional web-based behavioral advertising and this is part of our sliding scale framework.” That’s the political position taken, of course, by his members. They are the biggest behavioral targeters on the planet.

The NAI is a weak group which reflects the cynical view of the online ad industry.  NAI members hope that they can fool policymakers into believing consumer privacy can be safeguarded by the data wolves running the privacy hen house. The battle lines for the next Congress, the FTC and FCC are being drawn. Opt-out is a feckless approach to digital ad privacy. Responsible companies should be in the lead calling for meaningful opt-in. Note to NAI members:  Deregulation and industry self-governance–how shall I put it–doesn’t seem to have worked that well so far!

Behavioral Targeters Use Our Online Data to Track Our Actions and, They Say, to “Automate Serendipity.” Attention: FTC, Congress, EU, State AG’s, and Everyone Else Who Cares About Consumer Welfare (let alone issues related to public health and ethics!)

NPR’s On the Media co-host and Ad Age columnist Bob Garfield provides policymakers and advocates with an arsenal of new material that support the passage of digital age consumer protection laws. In his Ad Age essay [“Your Data With Destiny.” sub required], Garfield has this incredibly revealing–and disturbing–quote from behavioral targeting industry leader Dave Morgan (Tacoda) [our emphasis]:

“Now we have the ability to automate serendipity,” says Dave Morgan, founder of Tacoda, the behavioral-marketing firm sold to AOL in 2007 for a reported $275 million. “Consumers may know things they think they want, but they don’t know for sure what they might want.”

Garfield writes that “In 2006 Tacoda did a project for Panasonic in which it scrutinized the online behavior of millions of internet users — not a sample of 1,200 subjects to project a result against the whole population within a statistical margin of error; this was actual millions. Then it broke down that population’s surfing behavior according to 400-some criteria: media choices, last site visited, search terms, etc. It then ranked all of those behaviors according to correlation with flat-screen-TV purchase…“We no longer have to rely on old cultural prophecies as to who is the right consumer for the right message,” Morgan says. “It no longer has to be microsample-based [à la Nielsen or Simmons]. We now have [total-population] data, and that changes everything. With [those] data, you can know essentially everything. You can find out all the things that are nonintuitive or counterintuitive that are excellent predictors. … There’s a lot of power in that.”

There’s more in the piece, including what eBay is doing. As the annual Advertising Week fest begins in New York, we hope the leaders of the ad industry will take time to reflect on what they are creating. You cannot have a largely invisible system which tracks and analyzes our online and interactive behaviors and relationships, and then engages in all manner of stealth efforts to get individuals (including adolescents and kids) to act, think or feel in some desired way. Such a system requires rules which make the transaction entirely transparent and controlled by the individual. The ad industry must show some responsibility here.

Google Pushes Junk Food via Burger King Online “Branded Content” ‘Toon Deal [Do a Search for Obesity Crisis and Search Engines]

Google will launch tomorrow a new online series sponsored by Burger King that features “animated webisodes” created by Seth MacFarlane (of Fox’s “The Family Guy”). Google will be promoting the series via its YouTube service as well as on its Adsense Content Network. Burger King gets its logo and mascot in a spot. Google says, notes one online publication, that its Adsense network will only target “18 to 34” year old men. The same report explained that “Burger King gets a direct line into its consumers, who find these nuggets of entertainment where Google might otherwise post ads. Google says this is its biggest-ever deal using the Google Ad Network to distribute and monetize content. I spoke to Alexandra Levy, the director of Google’s relatively new Branded Entertainment division. The idea is that Google has all this inventory and access and branded entertainment may prove a more compelling way to communicate an advertiser’s message.”

For the folks at Google to empower Burger King ads during the current youth obesity crisis is poor judgement on its part. Google isn’t alone, however. Microsoft, Yahoo and others are also backing the digital targeting of young people with unhealthy food and beverage products. Google should think more carefully about the consequences to the nation’s health from the products it promotes (and also consider what will eventually happen to its brand reputation).

Behavioral Targeting Lawsuit Illuminates How Data is Collected From You

Look for a moment at an excerpt from a legal tangle between behavioral targeting companies Valueclick and Tacoda (the latter now owned by Time Warner). Valueclick filed suit on July 15 claiming patent infringements, including for one entitled “Method and Apparatus for Determining Behavioral Profile of a User.” Read the “Abstract” and part of the “Summary of the Invention” for this patent and think about your privacy (and that this is based on 1998 technology!):“Abstract: Computer network method and apparatus provides targeting of appropriate audience based on psychographic or behavioral profiles of end users. The psychographic profile is formed by recording computer activity and viewing habits of the end user. Content of categories of interest and display format in each category are revealed by the psychographic profile, based on user viewing of agate information. Using the profile (with or without additional user demographics), advertisements are displayed to appropriately selected users. Based on regression analysis of recorded responses of a first set of users viewing the advertisements, the target user profile is refined. Viewing by and regression analysis of recorded responses of subsequent sets of users continually auto-target and customizes ads for the optimal end user audience.”

Summary Of The Invention: …Over time, the tracking and profiling member holds a history and/or pattern of user activity which in turn is interpreted as a users habits and/or preferences. To that end, a psychographic profile is inferred from the recorded activities in the tracking and profiling member. Further, the tracking and profiling member records presentation (formal) preferences of the users based on user viewing activity. Preferences with respect to color schemes, text size, shapes, and the like are recorded as part of the psychographic profile of a user…The tracking and profiling member also records demographics of each user. As a result, the data assembly is able to transmit advertisements for display to users based on psychographic and demographic profiles of the user to provide targeted marketing.”
source: Complaint for Patent Infringement: Jury Trial Demanded. Valueclick, Inc. v, Tacoda, Inc. Case No. CV08-04619 DSF. U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Western Division.

Yahoo! fails to address privacy concerns about its behavioral targeting apparatus. Letter to Hill not candid

The spinmeisters who wrote Yahoo!’s letter to House leaders didn’t do a real service for the troubled online company. They weaved and dodged the issue. Yahoo! took a trick from George Orwell by trying to reframe the privacy-threatening interactive data collection & targeting system by calling it “customized advertising.” Yahoo! also tried to hide behind the First Amendment by suggesting, as others have done, that without online ad revenues we would lose what “has made Internet content and services available to millions of people in the United States and around the world(3) – for free.”

Hold it Yahoo! No one is saying there shouldn’t be online advertising and targeting. But what is needed is full control by individual users who can decide what can be collected and how it should be used. That’s called opt-in, and it’s the approach Yahoo should have announced–instead it is trying to protect itself by resorting to an “opt-out” process that it knows won’t really safeguard users.

Yahoo should have told Congress exactly what it collects and how it does it. For example, they should have told Congress what it said to advertisers in 2007: That “Yahoo’s pinpoint targeting capabilities can zero in on a large concentration of precisely the prospects you want.” They should have added that in the same document they explained that advertisers could use Yahoo to “Motivate consumer behaviors (registration, trial, purchase, store visit, frequency, brand loyalty).” It could have explained the “data collection ad units” it offers to advertisers. Missing too, for example, was any discussion of so-called Yahoo “Smart Ads.” The company should have told Congress that these behavioral ads provide “Ease of micro-targeting and segmentation of campaigns…Using an offer management database and user insights…”

Instead of claiming that it doesn’t really do local targeting, Yahoo should have cited from its “Spot Marketing” materials, telling Congress about its “4 Steps to Local Media Efficiency…Reach!–Use Geo/Demo targeting on a State, DMA or Zip Code Basis; Relevance!–Behavioral Targeting, Yahoo! Maps and Contextually Relevant Properties; Creativity!–Maximize Engagement By Combining The Best of Offline & Online Creative Into A Single Rch Media Ad Unit; Insights!–Measure Campaign Effectiveness With Yahoo’s Analytics Suite Including Rich Media Engagement Metrics.”

Yahoo could also have told Congress what it says to pharmaceutical and health marketers:
“Treat with Surgical Precision.
Utilize purchase data from Yahoo! / AC Nielsen Consumer Direct to target actual buyers of related and competing products – while monitoring offline sales impact.

Find consumers by health condition with Yahoo!’s anonymous Behavioral Targeting – drawn from search, editorial, registration and more.”

Yahoo should have done better, especially at this time of real crisis over its future and management. By the way, we also believe that Yahoo was engaged in doing political damage control. With the Department of Justice currently reviewing the proposed Google/Yahoo joint venture, we think Yahoo is attempting to head off concerns about the merging of two of the world’s largest data sets on user behavior.

The IAB (US) “mobilizes” to Fight Against Consumer Protections for Online Media

Watch this online video of Randall Rothenberg speaking before a June Federated Media Publishing event. In Mr. Rothenberg’s worldview, demon critics of advertising (such as myself) are deliberately trying to undermine democratic digital media. This would be absurd, if it wasn’t so sad. Mr. Rothenberg is using scare tactics to whip up his members into a frenzy-all so they can fight off laws and regulations designed to provide consumers real control over their data and information. Luckily, Mr. Rothenberg will be on the losing side of this battle to protect consumers in the digital era. Regulators on both sides of the Atlantic understand how the digital marketing ecosystem raises serious concerns about privacy and consumer welfare. We have to say we are disappointed in John Battelle, the CEO of Federated (who wrote a very good book entitled The Search: How Google and Its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our Culture). Mr. Battelle should know that the online marketing system requires a series of safeguards which protects citizens and consumers. There is a balance to be struck here. Online advertisers have unleashed some of the most powerful tools designed to track, analyze, and target individuals–whether on social networks, or watching broadband video, or using mobile devices. We have never said there shouldn’t be advertising. We understand the important role it must play, including for the underwriting of online content. But the online ad system should not be designed and controlled solely by ad networks, online publishers, trade groups and online ad lobbying groups. It must be structured in a way which promotes as much freedom for individuals.

IAB’s Lobbying Against Privacy Safeguards: Trade Group Will Add New Members to Help Fight Consumer Protection Legislation

The trade lobbying group Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) plans to add new members to help it generate “grassroots support against proposed legislation in New York and Connecticut that would ban the collection of data about online consumers without a person’s specific consent.” According to ClickZ, the IAB will create a new low-dues membership structure which will enable smaller online advertisers to swell its ranks. What is IAB’s pitch to its prospective members about privacy safeguards offered by state legislators in New York and Connecticut? ClickZ says that “[T]he IAB contends that the proposed measures would have a disproportionate negative impact on small publishers that rely on ad networks to manage advertising sales.”

The IAB’s leadership is off on a irresponsible mission to persuade online marketers and the public that privacy rules would “kill the web.” Such an self-serving view of why privacy rules are required in the age of online marketing will only further diminish the credibility of the IAB.