Category: privacy

New York Times Co. & Behavioral Targeting: When will the paper really cover the privacy and related threats?

The New York Times Co. has long been a leader in the online advertising field. But it has consistently failed to cover/meaningfully report on the implications of what it has been doing and intends to now do. The emergence of online advertising is one of the most important stories affecting our society, in my opinion. More than privacy is at stake, although that issue should be at the forefront of our concerns. We have spoken to reporters and others at the Times about the lack of coverage. We believe that there is a major problem at the paper seriously examining this issue (which, frankly, the paper shares with other major news organizations that also use behavioral targeting technologies, including USA Today and the Wall Street Journal). As we have stated before, the Times Co. is also on the executive committee of the board running the key online advertising issue trade lobbying group working to protect the industry from criticism and policy safeguards.

Yesterday, the New York Times Co. announced a partnership with behavioral targeting firm Revenue Science. The release from Revenue Science explained that: “Revenue Science, Inc., offering the most widely adopted, powerful, and flexible targeting platform for digital media, today announced that The New York Times Company (NYSE: NYT) has selected the company to provide its best-in-class behavioral targeting capabilities for NYTimes.com, About.com and IHT.com.

The addition of The New York Times Company increases Revenue Science’s roster of leading media brands, which includes the Wall Street Journal Online, FT.com, Nikkei Net and Reuters. Revenue Science’s ability to reach high-value audiences makes it the industry’s premier targeting provider.”

Here’s what Revenue Science says it provides its clients. Tell me, after reading it and other information on its website. Don’t you think it cries out for a very serious story, with continued follow-up? There also must be consistent disclosure from the Times and its news outlets as it covers the online ad industry that they are both politically and financially involved with the issue.
From Behavorial Science (excerpt): As a Revenue Science advertiser, you can take advantage of our Revenue Science Targeting Marketplaceâ„¢ with our Audience Connectâ„¢ solution. Audience Connect enables you to find key audiences for your message across thousands of sites in the Revenue Science Targeting Marketplace, using any of these proprietary targeting techniques:

  • Search Re-Targeting™—You spend a large part of your budget driving search traffic to your site. Once they get there, are they staying? How valuable would it be to reach them again? Now you can find out.
  • Re-Targeting™—Use sophisticated re-targeting technology to move your prospects through the buying cycle.
  • Reach—Segment and qualify people based on interests, behaviors, workplace attributes, geography, and results.
  • Behavioral Segments—
    • Revenue Science Behavioral Segments
      Revenue Science Segments enable advertisers to reach high-quality audiences across the Revenue Science network. Revenue Science provides marketers with access to hundreds of distinct behaviors within each segment. Our industry-leading targeting platform identifies the specific behaviors that best achieve your campaign goals and optimizes your campaigns to use only the strongest-performing behaviors. We offer segments in automotive, travel, technology and finance to name a few.”

Google & Doubleclick: Merging the No 1. Video Platforms

It’s important to follow the online ad marketplace for video-based advertising. Note what a Doubleclick top exec said in a ClickZ interview: ” We claim we do the most video on the Internet.” The same exec also said that “[A]ccording to all the figures, as far as we can tell, we’re the second largest rich media vendor.”

Of course, Google’s YouTube is the number one online video brand as well [a Google rep. is quoted saying that it’s now the eight largest website]. As YouTube explains, it is “the world’s largest online video community allowing millions of people to discover, watch and share originally created videos. YouTube… acts as a distribution platform for original content creators and advertisers large and small.”

In other words, the merging of Google with Doubleclick will create an online video and search advertising and marketing powerhouse–one which threatens both competition and privacy (among other issues).

excerpt:
A Multi-Party System or a Monopoly

While Google looks at spending potentially $4.6 billion on the wireless auction, it has another multi-billion dollar matter it would like to have settled. That, of course, is its acquisition of DoubleClick. Announced in April, the deal has been met with significant backlash and questioning from all corners. Currently the deal awaits Federal Trade Commission approval. At stake is potential control of the Web advertising ecosystem. A marriage of Google & DoubleClick creates a clear pecking order for all advertising online — an order that would once again put Yahoo and Microsoft in a trailing position…To date, Google employees have out-contributed Microsoft employees toward the 2008 presidential candidates — a stark contrast to the 10:1 contribution margin that existed in 2006…As Google tries to rewrite the rules on how advertising is done and expands its reach into all spectrums of communications, the importance of Washington will only grow. Over the past two years Google has grown its Washington lobbyists base from 0 to 12 (a sizable number for a technology company), hosted four 2008 presidential candidates on its campus (three Dems, one Republican) and established its own political action committee that has already out-raised its 2006 total.”

from: “The Next President: Sponsored by Google.” Chris Copeland. Search Insider. August 10, 2007.

goo movies german girlsediting software moviemovies college sexfree titty fuck moviesmovie star porn12 dbz moviesoftware movie editingmovies fucking wedding Map

CDT’s Privacy “Report”—Full Disclosure is Missing

CDT has long been an ally of the various data collection companies it purports to oversee on behalf of consumers. It’s funded by a number of them. In fact Microsoft’s Bill Gates helped raise money for the group just last March.

The report released today fails to address the wide-ranging privacy threat coming from the major search engines and their advertising clients. It fails to acknowledge that it’s only because of policy-related pressure from privacy advocates—including the FTC complaint filed last November by my Center for Digital Democracy and US PIRG—that there have been modest corporate changes. [As well as the work of these two groups and EPIC in the case of Google’s proposed merger with Doubleclick, and the role of European Commission authorities]. CDT’s report also fails to acknowledge that it’s because of the unprecedented series of mergers in the data collection sector over the last few months, including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, AOL [$33.4 billion in the first half of 2007 alone, according to Ad Age. sub may be required.] —and the subsequent US and international regulatory scrutiny—that has created the “pressure” to bring about a few modest changes in data collection and retention practices. Without real advocates pressing—and regulators taking up their demands—we would have no changes at all (as minimal as they are). The marketplace’s approach isn’t protecting consumers.

Most troubling is that CDT fails to acknowledge that the widespread and evolving role of interactive advertising practices by these companies—including behavioral targeting, “rich” immersive media, and virtual reality formats—pose a serious threat to privacy and personal autonomy. It is not just the “bad” actors that require federal legislation, as CDT’s report suggests. If all Americans are to be protected online, the entire industry must be governed by federal policies designed to ensure privacy and consumer protection.

Here is a comment from my colleague Jennifer Harris: “When a group – with as close ties to the industry as CDT has – calls for government oversight, it is necessary to recognize just how much slack the online advertising and marketing industry has been given with our personal information. The main point is that consumers are at risk; updated federal consumer protection policies are essential to an environment that increasingly uses personal data as its commodity.”

FCC Chairmen and the Revolving Industry Door: A Higher Standard is Required

The list of former FCC chairs working in the media and communications business–either as lobbyists, consultants, or investors–is in illustration of why the commission is badly in need of reform. One day a chair is overseeing a media company–or a policy directly affecting it. The next day–after they leave office–they are working for the company or the industry. We really require FCC commissioners who are independent of the media and communications industry–before and after they leave the commission.

Michael Powell took a job as senior advisor at the buy-out firm Providence Equity Partners. Since he joined the firm, they have acquired–in whole or part–TV stations, a spanish language network, other media properties. Take a look at this report from the Los Angeles Times about the Orange County Register and note the role of Powell’s Providence. The deal was made prior to Powell joining the firm, but he’s there now, while these layoffs are happening [my italics]:

“Newsroom staffers described a morose — and tense — newsroom. Dragging out the layoffs for a week, they said, seemed particularly cruel and stressful.

“The way they’re doing this is just horrible,” one longtime staffer said. “It’s like, ‘Thanks for everything. Get out. Here’s some boxes, start packing.’ ”
…In 2004, privately held Freedom Communications Inc., parent of the Register, worked out a $1.3-billion buyout deal that saw more than half of the members of the founding Hoiles clan cash out their holdings and private equity firms Blackstone Group and Providence Equity Partners purchase nearly 40% of the shares. At the time, insiders said the investors borrowed a little less than $1 billion and provided about $400 million more in private capital to finance the deal.”

Then we have former Clinton appointed chair Reed Hundt engaged in his favorite twin occupation of media industry guru/investor. Hundt had been helping lead the effort by his Frontline Wireless company to have the commission approve policies compatible to his interests. Even former Reagan-era FCC chair Mark Fowler is working with Hundt’s Frontline.

FCC reform should be at the top of the public interest policy agenda, esp. with the future of democratic communications at stake.
source for Powell/Provide/OC Register story: “O.C. Register lays off workers: The newspaper will also trim news space to reduce costs as its revenue decline.” Kimi Yoshino. Los Angeles Times. Aug. 7, 2007.

Yesterday, the FTC sent out a release announcing its November town meeting on online advertising and privacy. The hearing is in response to the formal complaint my group Center for Digital Democracy and the USPIRG filed last November.

It’s clear that the FTC is fearful of really tackling the privacy and consumer-manipulation problems intrinsic to the online ad field. Behavioral targeting, which we also address in our complaint, is just the tip of the proverbial data collection and target marketing iceberg. Policymakers at the FTC, the Congress, and state A-G’s must do a better job in addressing this problem. Chapter seven of my book covers the topic, along with recommendations. As we noted in our statement yesterday, CDD has given the staff at the FTC a ton of material since November, further making the case for immediate federal safeguards. There is so much at stake regarding the future of our (global) democratic culture and its relationship to online marketing. We hope others will join with us and raise the larger societal issues, in addition to the specific online ad marketplace concerns.

porn dominican shootsxxx dominican porn picschico donavan phillips porndonita dunes pornlist porn donkeyshow porn donkeydonky clip porn punchdonna star porn bella Map

Google Exec. Helps Define Online Ad Market

excerpt: “Google gets nearly all of its revenue from selling text-based
ads that appear near search results. But about half the market is made up
of graphical display ads, also known as banner or branding ads. The
display ad market is too big for Google to ignore, said Susan Wojcicki, a
Google product manager, during the meeting.

“We are focused on the branding market,” she said.

The online ad market is “search and display — and there isn’t a lot after
that,” she said.”
from: Video, Cell, Display Ads Get More Google Focus. Investor’s Business Daily. Aug. 2, 2007.

Google Expands its Behavioral Targeting for Interactive Advertising

excerpt via ClickZ, July 31, 2007:

“Many have expected the behavioral targeting shoe would eventually drop at Google, and now it has. Technically, anyway, though a new behavior-based ad system enhancement from the company’s ad quality group doesn’t resemble the segmentation-based approach to behavioral targeting most marketers are familiar with.

A few weeks ago, Google began delivering ads based not only on the current search, but also on the searches immediately preceding it, and sometimes a combination of more than one recent query, according to Nick Fox, Google’s group business product manager for ads quality. Fox told ClickZ this week that the feature, which has no official name, aims to capture a more robust understanding of user intent and thereby deliver a better ad.

“The current query the user is issuing is pretty useful, but in some cases it misses the context of what the user is doing,” said Fox. By studying the larger context of queries relating to a consumer’s “overall task,” he said, Google can boost relevance…

Fox doesn’t like the term “behavioral targeting,” partly because it’s a loaded phrase in marketing and privacy circles. Additionally, he said, Google’s intent-based approach doesn’t employ the audience segmentation favored by Tacoda, Revenue Science and other behavioral targeting tech firms, not to mention BT-friendly media sites like Yahoo, that serve ads based on recent Web pages seen…

Google introduced the feature without fanfare, and most if not all marketers whose ads are affected by it have no idea the targeting is taking place. That’s true to form for Google and potentially irritating to advertisers, according to Anna Papadopoulos, interactive media director for Euro RSCG 4D…

Papadopoulos also finds it remarkable that Google has changed its tune with regard to behavior-based ad serving.

“I think it’s a total turning point for them,” she said. “Now I’m curious how they’re going to handle this for AdSense. They were pretty steadfast about not wanting to play in the behavioral targeting space.”

Google didn’t immediately respond to questions about where else on the Google network the company might consider delivering ads based on consumers’ prior search or surfing behavior. But it’s something the company opened the door to some time ago, according to Dave Morgan, founder and chairman of Tacoda.

“As an observer in the market, certainly Google’s move into behavioral targeting appears to have been happening incrementally over the past couple years,” he said. “Certainly they’ve modified their privacy policy over time to permit it.”…

Google’s new ad quality feature uses referrer information rather than cookies to track user queries at this time, Google’s Fox said. In most cases the ads will only appear to users for searches performed back-to-back or “within seconds or minutes of each other.” He added the company is looking at other possible tracking and targeting methods to capture “full intent,” including, perhaps, cookies.”

source: “Google Targets Search Ads on Prior Queries, à la Behavioral.” Zachary Rogers. ClickkZ.

The 700 MHz Auction: It’s about Online Advertising, Mobile Targeting, Commercialism and Threats to Privacy

We are glad Google is pushing a more open system for wireless. Cable and the phone monopoly want to run a closed shop. But we also believe that Google ultimately has the same business model in mind for wireless. Google wants access to more mobile spectrum so it can advance online advertising via data collection, profiling and one-to-one targeting. Missing in most of the debate about wireless is how can we ensure the U.S. public has access to non-commercial and community-oriented (and privacy-respectful) applications and services. There should be well-developed plans simultaneously advanced with the auction that will ensure the spectrum really serves the public interest (we see some have made such proposals). Such spectrum should be community-run and help stimulate a new generation of broadband public interest content and network services. But we fear that all that will happen is that Google and others will further transform what should be public property into a crazy maze of interactive [pdf] advertising-based content. This will further fuel a culture where personal consumption takes further precedence over the needs of civil society.