Category: privacy

International Privacy Day: Privacy Policy Also Means Protecting Consumers [Think Financial Products/Mortgages, Health Products, the Marketing of Obesity-linked Foods, etc]

My group the Center for Digital Democracy joins with our colleagues throughout the world to acknowledge International Privacy Day.  The day is to help mark what is a growing debate about the role that data collection on citizens and consumers plays in our lives.  Both governments and many corporations are harvesting a tremendous amount of information on us, to monitor our activities and influence our behavior.

But protecting our privacy is more than just data protection and the Big Brother/Sister-like surveillance system now available.  It’s also about linking the use of data collection to the vast interactive marketing apparatus which is designed to help direct our thinking about products, brands, and ideas (including political leaders).  Protecting privacy is just one part of the problem; the other half relates to ensuring protection for consumers.  Interactive marketing has created a range of unfair, deceptive and potentially harmful practices across a broad range of product categories.  These practices are fueled by the data collection, analysis and targeting system which has been put in place.  So here’s to those who care about privacy; to those who also care about the public welfare; and to the public whose future will be affected by the outcomes of these debates and policies.

Digital Marketing of Toys to Children Reflects Seamless Merging of Online & Online, inc. Play

Here’s a telling comment via a senior Disney executive:

“Disney says it sees online as a vital part of its strategy to turn its very well-known brand name into greater market share by making itself more relevant than ever to both children and parents…”That’s why [says Edward Catchpole, senior European VP for toys, Disney] all the sites we operate for our brands are not extensions, they’re seamless integrations, part of owning that toy, part of the play pattern. A young girl will run around pretending to be a fairy, then play with a toy and then go online and immerse themselves in a virtual world at one of our communities, like Pixie Hollow or Club Penguin. We also have a social network based around [Disney/Pixar movie] Cars in the US, which tends to be used more by boys,” Catchpole adds.”

source:  Vertical Focus: Toy retailing.  Sean Hargrave.  New Media Age [UK].  November 27, 2008 [sub required]

Commercial Domestic Surveillance: The new White House Website, YouTube & Privacy

In a post for CNET yesterday, privacy expert Chris Soghoian revealed that President Obama’s White House “has quietly exempted YouTube from strict rules relating to the use of cookies on federal agency Web sites.”   Federal rules prohibit the use of what are called “persistent cookies,” that can track an online users activities and behavior.  Soghoian cites the new White House privacy policy that states, “A waiver has been issued by the White House Counsel’s office to allow for the use of this persistent cookie.”  Google’s YouTube received this exemption, notes the White House site, “to help maintain the integrity of video statistics.”

Now the White House has made a quick change, according to a post written today by Soghoian.  “Obama’s web team rolled out a technical fix that severely limits YouTube’s ability to track most visitors to the White House website,” he writes. “By late Thursday evening, each embedded YouTube video had been replaced with an image of a video player, which a user must click on before the real YouTube player will be loaded. The result of this change is that YouTube is now only able to use cookies to track users who click on the “play” button on an embedded YouTube video — the majority of people who scroll through a page without clicking play will not be tracked.”  But he also describes the new approach as a “band-aid. Those users who do click the play button will be secretly tracked as they navigate the White House website — and if those users have visited YouTube or any other Google run website in the past, the fact that they watched an Obama video will be added to the existing massive pile of data the company has compiled on each web surfer.”

But for those White House web site visitors who do click on the YouTube videos, they will likely become part of the data analysis which could be generated via Google’s YouTube Insight.  That’s a video analytics tool providing “detailed statistics” on video use.  One Google executive offered a commercial example of the tools’ features: “YouTube’s geographical insights could help marketers determine ad effectiveness and campaign optimization. For instance, he said, different versions of a movie trailer might perform better in different regions.”  Other YouTube analytical data available  includes a “demographics tab that displays view count information broken down by age group (such as ages 18-24), gender, or a combination of the two, to help you get a better understanding of the makeup of your YouTube audience. We show you general information about your viewers in anonymous and aggregate form, based on the birth date and gender information that users share with us when they create YouTube accounts.”  (Google says “individual users can’t be personally identified.”  But the company has embraced a narrow definition of what privacy protections users should expect, the so-called APEC standard).

Persistent cookies, explains U.S. Military Academy computer science professor Greg Conti, “can exist for many years…repeatedly identifying the user to the issuing web site…persistent cookies are specifically designed to uniquely identify users on return visits to web sites…In terms of anonymity, this is bad.  Advertisers have found innovative ways to exploit cookies to track users as they visit web sites that contain ads or other content.”  [source is Professor Conti’s terrific book, Googling Security:  How Much Does Google Know About You?  Addison-Wesley.  2009.  Page 73]

Of course, Google/YouTube’s cookie placed via a White House visit sets the stage for the company to further track and analyze citizens/ users.  Given YouTube’s ever-growing expansion as a commercial video advertising service, its ability to harness the White House data cookie will undoubtedly prove useful for the company.

The revised White House privacy policy does offer users a way to view the videos “without the use of persistent cookies” through the extra step of clicking the “link to download the video file… provided just below the video.” But we think opt-out is the incorrect approach.

The Obama White House should set the standard for protecting privacy in the digital era.  They should maintain the prohibition on persistent tracking cookies.  Nor should they permit any commercial operator, including Google’s YouTube, to engage in federally-sanctioned data collection.  We know the new Obama Administration has many important issues to address.  But they also need to develop a sophisticated critique of the online advertising industry, ensuring privacy and consumer protection.  The Obama Administration should be able to articulate a balanced perspective– that can take advantage and foster the democratic potential of digital media, while also meaningfully addressing the harms.

Mobile Privacy Watch: What Mobile Marketers Can Target [Hint, it includes “Race/Ethnicty, Level of education, Socio-economic status”…]

Mobile Marketer, an excellent mobile trade publication, just published a 2009 “Mobile Advertising Essentials” guide.  In the section titled “What to Look For in a Mobile Advertising Partner,” it summarizes the kinds of targeting marketers should expect.  Here’s an excerpt:

“Mobile advertising partners should offer a wide array of targeting capabilities, the most common which include: Age, Gender, Race/ethncity, Level of education, Socio-economic status, Location, Carrier, Handset manufacturer and type, Handset platform or operating system, Handset capabilities (i.e. Web-enabled or vide-enabled), Time of day, Day of week.”

The Interactive Advertising Bureau’s Official Definition of Behavioral Targeting

As the debate on privacy, consumer protection, and online marketing is renewed, it may be useful to see how the interactive ad industry classifies its practices.  Here is the definition of behavioral targeting from the IAB’s own glossary of terms.  My bold:
“Behavioral Targeting-
A technique used by online publishers and advertisers to increase the effectiveness of their campaigns. Behavioral targeting uses information collected on an individual’s web browsing behavior such as the pages they have visited or the searches they have made to select which advertisements to be displayed to that individual. Practitioners believe this helps them deliver their online advertisements to the users who are most likely to be influenced by them.”

Here are a few other terms used by the IAB that illustrate some of the the online ad industry’s data collection and targeting process:

“Click-stream –
1) the electronic path a user takes while navigating from site to site, and from page to page within a site; 2) a comprehensive body of data describing the sequence of activity between a user’s browser and any other Internet resource, such as a Web site or third party ad server.
Heuristic –
a way to measure a user’s unique identity. This measure uses deduction or inference based on a rule or algorithm which is valid for that server. For example, the combination of IP address and user agent can be used to identify a user in some cases. If a server receives a new request from the same client within 30 minutes, it is inferred that a new request comes from the same user and the time since the last page request was spent viewing the last page. Also referred to as an inference.

Profiling –
the practice of tracking information about consumers’ interests by monitoring their movements online. This can be done without using any personal information, but simply by analyzing the content, URL’s, and other information about a user’s browsing path/click-stream.
Unique user –
unique individual or browser which has either accessed a site (see unique visitor) or which has been served unique content and/or ads such as e-mail, newsletters, interstitials and pop-under ads. Unique users can be identified by user registration or cookies. Reported unique users should filter out bots. See iab.net for ad campaign measurement guidelines
Web beacon –
a line of code which is used by a Web site or third party ad server to track a user’s activity, such as a registration or conversion. A Web beacon is often invisible because it is only 1 x 1 pixel in size with no color. Also known as Web bug, 1 by 1 GIF, invisible GIF and tracker GIF.

Google’s Android: Expanding Mobile Marketing and Data Collection

Just for the record, via New Media Age [excerpt]:

“Google’s ambitions in the mobile space go beyond most other internet companies…Google recognises the value of its ad-funded proposition may outweigh maintaining full ownership of the platform, so it’s handing over the keys to developers in order to maximise creativity and scope of applications while maintaining control over the earning potential of mobile advertising….

Google says it will give 70% of Android revenues to the developer and the remainder, less billing settlement fees, to the service provider — a fantastic prospect for many. But others question the need for all of Google’s own web applications to come preloaded on Android, raising concerns about an attempt to lock in the user rather than directing them to the Android Market store. Google denies this, saying it has created a platform to encourage consumers and developers to embrace the wider internet.”

source:  nma mobile: Google Android. Andrew Darling.  NMA magazine. 04.12.08 [sub required]

Google Supports Greater “Micro-targeting” of Ads on its Content Network

Google is working with online ad company Tumri to facilitate greater ad targeting.  According to Behavioral Insider [excerpt]:
“What we’re doing with Google is that for the first time they’re opening up the interface on their contextual network. So as an ad is being served they pass us keyword information and we adjust the ad subcomponents in real time, based on the context of the page the reader is looking at on a keyword level. Examining the contextual information and marrying that with past search and behavioral patterns, elevates the level of targeting.

… With Tumri, Google is opening their interface and architecture to allow Tumri to access keywords for pages. When an ad is served, the Google content network will pass through Tumri with recommendation of content, and Tumri will refine that further.”

In Tumri’s January 6, 2009 release announcing the Google deal, it noted that:  “Tumri’s participation in context-aware ads on the Google content network benefits advertisers by allowing Google to feed its contextual page information about web page content into Tumri’s dynamic ad generation engine. Tumri’s AdPod seamlessly generates highly-targeted marketing messages in real time through its dynamic, intelligent ad optimization and presentation layer based upon the advanced contextual information from Google…

The Tumri solution – the AdPod – enables advertisers to craft highly targeted marketing messages to consumers on-the-fly. The Tumri platform seamlessly deconstructs ad creatives into core sub-components, then enables advertisers to adjust each sub-component by targeting parameters or optimize by performance metrics… Tumri’s patent-pending platform optimizes performance at a sub-ad component level and delivers unparalleled consumer insights through its proprietary reporting.”

Google Lobbying: Why Congress Should Not Use the new YouTube Senate and House Video Hubs

Google is taking a lobbying tactic developed in part by CSPAN years ago–offer members of Congress a free service so they can be seen by the public.  That kind of electronic or digital campaign contribution helps insure that Congress will think twice about biting (or regulating) the video hand that feeds.  Google’s new YouTube Senate and House Hub channels raise a number of concerns and policy questions.

For example, what happens to the user data as people click on the Congressional YouTube channels?  Does Google get to collect, analyze and use such data for its growing political online advertising business?  Beyond privacy, should Congress be endorsing a private for-profit venture as the principal access point voters and constituents need to use?  Does the use of YouTube create a potential conflict of interest for members of Congress who will need to regulate Google–on such things as competition (the DoJ recently described Google as a monopoly); privacy, consumer protection, etc (remember, Google sells all kinds of ads for mortgages, credit cards, junk food, health remedies, etc.).

It’s not a coincidence perhaps that Google’s YouTube congressional channel announcement comes at the same time the company is expanding its online ad business for politics.  As Ad Age reports this week,“The end of an election season usually means dismantling the campaign apparatus until the next cycle. But not at Google; not this year…Rather than packing it all away until 2010, it’s hoping to build a year-round political-advertising business one House seat and hot-button issue at a time.  “There are 500,000 elected officials in the U.S. With the advances we’ve made in geo-targeting, we think this will be part of every political campaign in the country, as well as issue campaigns,” said Peter Greenberger, Google’s director of election and issue advocacy…Google doesn’t yet offer targeting based on congressional districts, but with ZIP code and city targeting, politicians and advocacy groups can cobble together a reasonable approximation of a congressional district.”

The in-coming Obama Administration has had the support of Google’s CEO, and company officials have played a role in the transition.  But the new administration should develop a digital outreach approach to the public which is public–and non-commercial–in nature.  It shouldn’t show any favoritism, even if Google is the leading search and video service.  It should be a change.org--not a government via dot com.

see: “Election  is Over, but Google Still Chasing Political Spending.”  Michael Learmonth.  Advertising Age.  January 12, 2009.

Ad agency has “profiled more than one-third of the world’s online population”

Developments in advertising, data collection, consumer analysis and targeting must be transparent and accountable to the public.  In a profile of Havas Digital, OMMA Magazine notes that [our emphasis]:

“Havas has created a dynamic online ad trading system that separates audiences from publishing content, and it makes user profile and unique cookie data king, rather than the inventory a publisher serves.  The core of Havas Digital’s virtual brand network is its Artemis database management and reporting system, which has already profiled more than one-third of the world’s online population. That and the agency’s Adnetik system help deliver customized roi analytics for media buying.”  “Artemis is the central piece of our media buying offering,” Kasper [Adam Kaspar, a senior VP] says. “Its importance has only grown as the technology has improved.”Coupled with proprietary algorithms, that database has allowed the agency to develop systems that draw on data from third parties, including clients, publishers and networks, that helps it understand which audiences command the most value at a particular time for specific brands.”

Artemis is a “marketing data warehouse.”  Yahoo is using the service, including for its already data-enabled Right Media Exchange.  Havas describes Artemis as “our proprietary marketing decision support system – a secure warehouse for all your marketing data, plus reporting tools that help make sense of it all.  Unlike some of the less sophisticated reports advertisers may receive from ad-servers, for instance, Artemis® provides detailed reporting right down to the user level.”

The FTC, EU, Congress and others will need to need to investigate the growing role consumer data plays in targeting us on and offline.  We don’t need private ministries of information tracking the global public.

Get Set, Ready, Regulate!: Online Marketing and Data Collection in 2009-2010 [see how everyone “owns” your data except you!]

New Year, new Administration and Congress.  Plus a growing global concern from policymakers, advocates and citizens about data collection online.  Even the relatively feckless Federal Trade Commission will do more on the issue this year. Here’s a toast to hope for a honest discussion about the data collection and targeting system which embodies the online marketing apparatus.  Look at this excerpt from a story on behavioral targeting and online publishing from this week’s Advertising Age.  Note that everyone believes that can collect and use the data collected from observing an individuals’ behavior–and don’t even have to get permission from the actual person.  Such online marketing practices, of course, raise important civil liberties issues, as far as I’m concerned.

Here’s the excerpt:  “…Who created the customer and who owns the data generated by a visit or a sale? “Data is key; everybody wants to own it, everybody wants to use it. It’s not just ad networks — its portals, publishers and holding companies,” said Mike Cassidy, CEO of Undertone Networks. “The question to be answered is who owns the data, if anybody.” In the offline world, publishers market their own subscriber lists. But online that data is harvested by a host of third parties such as Google’s DoubleClick, Microsoft’s Atlas and vast ad networks such as Platform A’s Advertising.com. “People are stealing from the media companies who have lost control of their data,” said Operative CEO Mike Leo….Here’s how it works: A publisher decides to allow an ad network to sell some of its inventory. That network places a cookie on the publisher’s site. Now, when a user leaves that site, and goes somewhere else, the network can track that user.”

source:  “As Tracking Proliferates, Web Publishers are Left Out: Behavioral Targeting Punishes Producers of Original Content.”  Michael Learmouth.  Advertising Age.  January 5, 2009 [sub may be required].