Category: media industry lobbying

Canadian Privacy Group Raises Key Concerns on Google, Doubleclick and Threat to our Privacy

We urge everyone to read the CIPPIC petition filed yesterday in Canada asking for a investigation of Google and Doubleclick. Among the key questions raised is whether the two companies are violating Canadian privacy law (Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act-PIPEDA). The full document is on the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic website. But here are some key excerpts raising very important issues. Bravo! (and Merci) CIPPIC.

“37. Google’s servers automatically record information when the user visits Google’s website or uses Google products. Google server logs record the search request, URL, Internet Protocol (IP) address, browser type and language, and the date and time of the request, and one or more cookies that may uniquely identify the user’s browser. Google stores server logs indefinitely, but “anonymizes” them after 18 months.

38. The act of collecting user search queries and IP addresses invokes PIPEDA, requiring Google to provide adequate notice to users of any collection, retention, use, or disclosure of personal information other than that which can be reasonably implied (in this case, collection, retention and use necessary to deliver search results to the individual user). Without such notice, Google cannot be said to be obtaining meaningful consent from users to any other information practices, including retention and use for targeted marketing purposes.

39. The fact that Google’s search service is entirely dependent upon targeted marketing to users is not evident to the ordinary computer user. It cannot therefore be said that users implicitly consent to the use of their data for marketing purposes, even if such use is central to Google’s business model. Indeed, most users likely do not reasonably expect Google to retain their search queries in connection to their IP address for much longer than necessary to deliver the requested search results.

62. Google collects a variety of personal information about its users and uses that information to, among other things, improve its target marketing services. Online advertising services are constantly being improved, sometimes in ways that involve greater collection and use of personal data. This raises the question of what level of data collection and analysis is necessary for the purpose of target marketing; at what point is Google collecting more personal data than necessary for advertising purposes? No doubt Google is limiting its collection of data to that which is relevant for the marketing purposes, but the test in Canada is necessity, not relevance.

63. CIPPIC submits that a determination of what is necessary under Principle 4.4 should be driven not by what is possible or desirable from an advertising perspective, but rather what is actually necessary for Google to provide the service. The same test should be applied to all online advertisers, not just Google.”

clips nude movieof free movies lesbiansmovies asian pornfree movies porn longspears sex britney movieporn trailers movie samplemovies black porn freefuck dog movies Map

Google and Yahoo! Among Largest Donors of Ad Council

In a full-page ad in today’s New York Times “Week in Review” section, the Ad Council lists its `who’s who’ of media and big brand donors. Atop its list is the “President’s Circle,” those select few who donated $150k and up. Google and Yahoo! joined Johnson & Johnson, PepsiCo, Time Warner and the board and staff of the Ad Council itself in that select donor category. In comparison, CBS, Coca-Cola and Microsoft was listed below in the Council’s “Leadership Circle,” donating anywhere from $100K-149K [“Bronze Class” donors, the lowest category of those giving between $1K and $4,999 included media companies Bonneville International, Media General, and the Hallmark Channel].

Google also serves on the Ad Council’s board of directors, working alongside many of the global heavyweights in marketing and media, including Publicis, McDonald’s, DDB Worldwide, and the New York Times. Despite its rhetoric as an organization dedicated to public service, the Ad Council is really part of the marketing industries political support system. While there are many in the ad business who sincerely do care about the public interest, the Council isn’t ultimately about supporting real change. Certainly nothing which would seriously challenge the role marketing and advertising plays in contributing to inequities in our global culture.

mp3 speakers 256mbprice 2best levitracdma qualcomm 3g ringtone64kbps mp3 informationcredit adjudicate opm issuessouthern mp3 403 crosslevitra 171 b b 119law colorado gambling 1972 Map

Knight Foundation and a Grant for Viacom’s MTV: Funding a giant on its Journalism advisory committee

We have long had concerns about foundations funding media conglomerates to provide public service content. So, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation’s recent award of $700,000 to MTV was troubling for us. The grant, part of Knight’s News Challenge awards, was so MTV can create “a Knight Mobile Youth Journalist (Knight “MyJos”) in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia to report weekly – on cell phones, and other media – on key issues including the environment, 2008 presidential election and sexual health.” Viacom’s 2006 revenues were $11.5 billion. Don’t you think there’s enough left over to pay for the mobile journalism program! The idea that MTV should be subsidized for contributing to public service is wrong-headed. Besides, MTV is engaged in such mobile activities to help build up its brand so it can earn more online advertising dollars.

Journalism foundations such as Knight–and J-Schools–should be holding the media industry’s editorial feet to the fire, shaming them to spend more money on serious journalism. Knight should not be funding media conglomerates whose owner resides comfortably in Beverly Hills. Meanwhile, it what raises some interesting questions about “insider funding,” we note that Viacom’s MTV VP Ian Rowe serves on the Knight Foundation advisory committe for journalism. Rowe is quoted in the Knight Foundation press release announcing its News Challenge grants as a grantee spokesperson.

PS: What timing. Broadcasting & Cable just reported that Knight is again teaming with Viacom’s MTV to give away $500,000 to support “young people who have ideas for pushing journalism into the digital age.” It’s called the “Young Creators Award.” We hope all the money has come from Viacom. By the way, Knight and media beat reporters should be asking what MTV is doing with the data it can collect from mobile users. Will it engage in targeting for its other products? In what ways are the Knight supported work designed to build up the commercial role of MTV? How much is such pro-social ad campaigns worth to Viacom’s bottom-line?

When Do Google, Washington Post, Time Warner, Disney, Microsoft, Cox et al. work together lobbying? As they help IAB make the U.S safe for Internet Advertising practices

The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) has stepped up its efforts as a lobbying force in D.C. The group wants to make sure we don’t have laws and regulations which would meaningfully protect the public, including consumers. Here’s how the IAB describes its “Public Policy Council” (one of the groups many standing councils and committees):

“Proactively lobby Congress and Federal Administrative agencies on privacy issues, with a focus on educating key decision-makers on the importance of the interactive advertising industry. 2. Help craft meaningful legislative proposals that protect consumers’ privacy interests without unduly burdening legitimate interactive advertising practices. 3. Engage the Federal Trade Commission to influence future enforcement proceedings, potential rulemakings, and public workshops on issues central to the interactive advertising industry.”

Here is their mission statement and a list of the policy council members:

Mission

Lead the advocacy efforts of IAB’s membership as they engage all levels of government on key policy issues in order to ensure continued growth of the industry.

Committee Leadership
  • Dave Morgan, Tacoda, Chair
Committee Participants
  • Alan Davidson, Google, Inc.
  • Alan Roth, Zango
  • Alexandra Wilson, Cox Newspapers, Inc.
  • Alissa Kaplan, 24/7 Real Media, Inc.
  • Andrew Moskowitz, Vizi Media
  • Anne Lucey, CBS Digital Media
  • Bennet Kelley, ValueClick Media
  • Bennett Zucker, Right Media Inc.
  • Bill Bailey, Walt Disney Internet Group
  • Bob Filice, Blue Lithium
  • Brad Aaron, Q Interactive
  • Brent Thompson, IAC Media & Advertising
  • Brooks Dobbs, DoubleClick, Inc.
  • Bryce Harlow, CBS Digital Media
  • Caroline Little, Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive
  • Charles Curran, AOL
  • Chris Kelly, Facebook
  • Chris Lin, comScore
  • Cliff Harris, Cablevision Advanced Systems
  • Colin Johnson, Motive Interactive Inc
  • Craig Spiezle, MSN (Microsoft Digital Advertising Solutions)
  • Dan O’Connell, WeatherBug
  • Danny Choriki, ADTECH US, Inc.
  • David Cancel, Compete, Inc.
  • David Green, NBC Universal Digital Media
  • David Payne, CNN.com
  • Diane McDade, MSN (Microsoft Digital Advertising Solutions)
  • Don Mathis, Azoogle Ads, Inc.
  • Erin Miranda, Weather Channel Interactive (Weather.com)
  • Frank Torres, MSN (Microsoft Digital Advertising Solutions)
  • George Pappachen, Dynamic Logic
  • Greg Berretta, Zango
  • Gregg Pendola, Walt Disney Internet Group
  • Henry Goldstein, CNET Networks, Inc.
  • Hillary Smith, Right Media Inc.
  • Ho Shin, Advertising.com
  • Jeff Long, Revolution Health Group
  • Joey Lesesne, Cox Newspapers, Inc.
  • John Barabino, Google, Inc.
  • John Hopkins, WebMD
  • John Orlando, CBS Digital Media
  • John Wilk, WorldNow
  • Jonathan Meyers, Forbes.com
  • Josh Brown, CBS Digital Media
  • Jules Polonetsky, AOL
  • Karl Gallant, ValueClick, Inc.
  • Ken Levin, Edmunds.com
  • Ken McGraw, Zango
  • Laura O’Daly, iVillage, Inc
  • Lesley Grossblatt, I/PRO
  • Leslie Dunlap, Yahoo!, Inc.
  • Linda Chan, SourceForge Inc.
  • Linda Schoemaker, aQuantive, Inc.
  • Lisa Anderson, AOL
  • Louis Hengen, Tacoda
  • Marilyn Cade, AT&T
  • Mary Berk, MSN (Microsoft Digital Advertising Solutions)
  • Matt Kaminer, WebMD
  • Matthew Stern, Musicloads
  • Melissa DeVita, MediaFLO USA, Inc.
  • Michael Drobac, Ask, Inc
  • Pablo Chavez, Google, Inc.
  • Pesach Lattin, Vizi Media
  • Phil Stelter, Range Online Media, Inc.
  • Richard Bates, Walt Disney Internet Group
  • Rick Lane, News. Corp
  • Robert Gratchner, Atlas Solutions
  • Sarah Deutsch, Idearc Media Corp.’s SuperPages.com
  • Shayne Bryant, Idearc Media Corp.’s SuperPages.com
  • Shayne Wiley, Yahoo!, Inc.
  • Sheri McGaughy, Weather Channel Interactive (Weather.com)
  • Sherrese Smith, Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive
  • Steve Emmert, LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell
  • Susan Fox, Walt Disney Internet Group
  • Tom Bartel, Return Path
  • Tom Beck, Enlighten

5500 loans 72p requirements deemedreceivable system ac management creditaccept payments credit 123 onlinecardc credit aceptcasino 18dice 3 casinocredit solutions advanced5 casino diamonds Map

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.