Category: media industry lobbying

Google, Microsoft, China, Digital Advertising and Human Rights.

It took the equivalent of a Chinese digital Watergate break-in before Google reconsidered its position on China and their anti-democratic and censorious policies.  Google should never agreed to a censored version of itself in the first place.  But China represents what will be the world’s number one online marketing gold mine, irresistible for those in the interactive advertising business.  l hope that Google will actually withdraw from China, until democracy is assured.  But meanwhile, it’s interesting to briefly explore what Google and other online marketing companies are doing in the China market, including Hong Kong.

Google’s research division in China has been investigating “”Large-scale data mining and its applications for information retrieval.”  Google is still, as of today, listing job openings for its China operation. Google’s DoubleClick features its Hong Kong work (as part of its Asia Pacific focus).  [It’s also important to see what kind of data collection might be done by Google’s DoubleClick Ad Exchange in that market].

But policymakers and the public should also focus on Microsoft.  Microsoft has a key research lab on interactive ads based in Beijing; Microsoft Advertising has a major focus on China and online ads. Microsoft and many others research the online behaviors of Asians, including young users.  Yahoo operates in China as well. Finally, U.S. online ad companies focused on data mining are opening up branches in Hong Kong, in order to better position themselves with the Asia-Pacific market.

Google’s withdrawal from China would be a model for other companies–we hope it does it.  But the focus should be on how the online marketing industry at large, including ad giants such as WPP, are facilitating a system that deprives its citizens of their rights.

Facebook and Privacy: Why the FTC and EU Have to Become Our Real “Privacy Wizards”

Facebook is a very valuable tool.  But its effort to harness more of its member data–and cloak it as a “privacy” approach–illustrates how out of touch Facebook is with the fundamental concept of personal privacy.  That’s why the FTC and EU Privacy commissioners have to step in and act as Facebook’s true “privacy wizard.“  Left on its own, with its business interests driving Facebook to make our information available to them and their business partners, the privacy of 100 million US users (and even more globally) are at risk.  Facebook cavalier approach that your “name, gender, current city, networks, Friend List and Pages” is considered by them “publicly available information” illustrates this.  Facebook has framed these changes as beneficial to users, claiming that its “new, simplified privacy settings giver you more control over the information you share.”   Classic PR doublespeak with a Silicon Valley accent.

We have raised concerns about Facebook in the past–especially with Beacon and also with the third party apps (my CDD played a leading role providing information on the data collected by third party applications to the leading Canadian privacy group).   I asked Facebook officials to brief me and other privacy groups on the recent changes: that briefing was on Wednesday.  I wanted Facebook to explain how its new privacy approach allowed its users to control data mined by Facebook and its third party developers used for interactive advertising and marketing. I was so appalled by what Facebook officials said at that meeting that, after some additional research into Facebook’s plans, my Center for Digital Democracy decided to join with EPIC and others in a complaint to the Federal Trade Commission.

I was flabbergasted to hear Facebook officials claim that its new changes actually reflected “Fair Information Principles” for privacy. That in their view the concept of privacy has “evolved,” with users wanting to share all their information via what they call the “social graf.” Facebook officials said that only a few people (implying privacy advocates) wanted to have control over their information. That they didn’t consider allowing users to control the data collected on them for marketing and advertising purposes as part of a privacy regime.  Data used for advertising–even to Minors–is considered outside of what a person should be able to control, in Facebook’s view.   They also suggested that those who didn’t appreciate what they called its privacy “permission” model were out of step.

Nothing was said by Facebook officials about the company’s real motivations for expanding its access to its user data (as if business reasons had nothing to do with Facebook’s approach to member privacy!).  As InsideFacebook recently explained, “Last week, Facebook launched a major initiative geared towards getting users to share more information more openly…However, while many people don’t want to share much information publicly online today, some do. For those people, Facebook’s historical default privacy settings did not make it the right product for them. As a result, Facebook recognized that its default-private model made it vulnerable to other services with default-public models, like Twitter…Facebook’s decision to make the recommended privacy options for profile data like “Family and Relationships” and “Posts I Create” be set to “Everyone” – as well as its move to remove privacy controls for Gender, Current City, and Friends – were pretty aggressive by almost anyone’s standards. In particular, its decision to present users with a binary choice between “Everyone” and “Old Settings” for some privacy preferences was especially confusingly executed…Facebook isn’t satisfied with a mostly-private platform: it wants to be the single place where both sensitive personal information is shared and public memes spread…Facebook has shown, as recently as a few months ago with its launch of the “real-time” stream as the default News Feed, followed by its decision a few months later to go back to the algorithmic News Feed, that it is capable of making suboptimal product decisions due to intense feelings about services like Twitter…”

Relevant too are Facebook’s plans to enable its third party developers to gain access to more of its member data, including their email addresses.  As Facebook explains on its “Roadmap” for developers, “We’re excited to announce that you will soon have the ability to ask users for their primary Facebook email addresses, providing you with a direct channel to communicate with your users.” At our briefing, Facebook officials said they were soon addressing third party apps and their access to data.  But given Facebook’s failure to protect basic user privacy, we have serious doubts it will deal with data access by its developers.

CDD will be working to educate the FTC, EU privacy officials and others.  Facebook is consciously devaluing the notion of privacy for its own interests.  How Facebook deals with user data–including what is used for advertising–will be on the policy agenda.  The complaint from EPIC, Consumer Federation of America, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, CDD and others opens the door for a serious examination of Facebook’s data collection practices.

Progress & Freedom Foundation Comes to Aid of Comcast/NBCU Deal [But Doesn’t Say it’s Funded by both Comcast and NBCU!]

Progress and Freedom Foundation’s Ken Ferree issued a press release today that, amazingly, claimed “the deal raises no general antitrust or diversity issue.”  But there was not a word or mea culpa that his salary is partly paid for by PFF’s supporters Comcast, NBCU and the cable industry.  Beyond the conflict question, there is also Mr. Ferree’s peculiar history with media consolidation.  He was Michael Powell’s chief staffer when the FCC tried to end all the media ownership safeguards.  Powell and his allies failed then to understand the complexities of the issue, which resulted in a huge public and political backlash.  It appears it’s rerun time!

Comcast’s Pathetic “Public Interest” Commitments to Regulators for its NBCU Deal

Comcast released a memo this morning summarizing what it will promise regulators in order to win approval of its NBCU mega-deal with GE.   It’s a laughable document that demonstrates a cable monopolist mentality.  As the country’s most powerful cable and residential broadband company, they likely feel that they don’t have to really  provide a serious array of public interest commitments.   Even though the broadcasting business is in transition, and film distribution is changing, the sale of NBCU to what is arguably the dominant TV giant isn’t on its own a meaningful public interest benefit.  Indeed, the recent history of media consolidation in the U.S. is one that has actually harmed the public–through cutbacks in news and public affairs, more tabloid programming and higher cable TV rates, for example.

Comcast’s memo today [available via here] says nothing on the key (and crucial) issue of network neutrality and online programming access.  Nor are there any  safeguards for privacy and interactive ads, meaningful concrete funding commitments for local and national news,  and support for truly diverse (non-Comcast/NBCU owned) minority programming.   Today, Comcast demonstrated it’s only fit to perhaps be allowed to operate Comedy Central.

“Cookie Wars, Real-Time Targeting, and Proprietary Self Learning Algorithms: Why the FTC Must Act Swiftly to Protect Consumer Privacy”

That’s the title of comments filed at the U.S. Federal Trade Commission by my Center for Digital Democracy and U.S. PIRG.  I also just gave a presentation with the same name at last week’s meeting of data protection commissioners in Madrid, Spain.   It’s available here.

Here’s an excerpt:   Today, consumers online face the rapid growth and ever-increasing sophistication of the various techniques advertisers employ for data collection, profiling, and targeting across all online platforms. The growth of ad and other optimization services for targeting, involving real-time bidding on ad exchanges; the expansion of data collection capabilities from the largest advertising agencies (with the participation of leading digital media content and marketing companies); the increasing capabilities of mobile marketers to target users via enhanced data collection; and a disturbing growth of social media surveillance practices for targeted marketing are just a few of the developments the commission must address. But despite technical innovation and what may appear to be dramatic changes in the online data collection/profiling/targeting market, the commission must recognize that the underlying paradigm threatening consumer privacy online has been constant since the early 1990’s. So-called “one-to-one marketing,” where advertisers collect as much as possible on individual consumers so they can be targeted online, remains the fundamental approach.

Groups & Scholars Urge Congress to Strengthen FTC’s Ability to Protect Consumers

The advertising lobby has been working to undermine the FTC’s ability to serve the public interest.  Advertisers are fearful that the FTC–finally awakened from a long digital slumber–will actually investigate the numerous problems linked especially to marketing (think prescription drugs, financial marketing of subprime loans, etc.).  They are especially concerned that the FTC will effectively address privacy and consumer protection problems related to privacy, interactive advertising, children and adolescents, and “green” marketing.  Here’s the letter which was sent late yesterday to Chairman Waxman and Ranking Member Barton:


October 28, 2009

Chairman Henry Waxman

Rep. Joe Barton, Ranking Member

Energy and Commerce Committee

(via email)

Dear Chairman Waxman and Rep. Barton:

We write to support the provisions in H.R. 3126, the “Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009” (CFPA Act), designed to ensure that the Federal Trade Commission has the resources and authority to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive practices.

We believe that the FTC must play a more proactive role addressing critical consumer concerns, including privacy, online marketing, and food advertising to young people.  Therefore, we fully support the legislative language in H.R.3126 that would enable the commission to conduct consumer protection rulemaking under the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA); provide it with aiding and abetting liability for violations of the Section 5 of the FTC Act involving unfair or deceptive practices; and enable it to seek civil penalty liability for unfair and deceptive practices found to violate Section 5.  We also support providing the FTC independent litigating authority in civil penalty cases.

As you know, the FTC’s ability to serve consumers has been hamstrung because of its “Magnuson-Moss” rulemaking procedure.  As a result, the FTC has not been able to effectively engage in a timely and effective rulemaking process.  By providing the FTC with the same APA rulemaking authority enjoyed by other federal agencies, it will enable the commission to engage in consumer protection activities in a timely manner.

Respectfully,

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

Campaign for Commercial Free Childhood

Center for Democracy and Technology

Center for Digital Democracy

Center for Science in the Public Interest

Children Now

Consumer Federation of America

Consumer Action

Consumers Union

Consumer Watchdog

Free Press

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Media Access Project

Privacy Rights Clearinghouse

Privacy Times

Public Citizen

Public Knowledge

Public Health Institute

U.S. PIRG

World Privacy Forum

David Britt, CEO (retired) Sesame Workshop

Prof. Kelly Brownell, Yale University

Prof. Robert McChesney, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Prof. Kathryn C. Montgomery, American University

Prof. Joseph Turow, University of Pennsylvania

Prof. Ellen Wartella, UC Riverside

Huffington Post CEO Opposes Consumer Privacy Safeguards [HuffPost CEO Eric Hippeau Doesn’t Get Privacy]

File this under “we aren’t concerned about the public interest when it may affect our bottom line.”  At yesterday’s Web 2.0 Summit conference, a panel on the future of news included representatives from HuffPo, Google, the NYT and others.  When a question was asked from the audience about behavioral targeting, here’s what Huffington Post CEO Eric Hippeau said [according to the WSJ]:

“it’s much ado about nothing. “I’d much rather see an ad I’m interested in,” he says. Efforts at regulation are made by people who “don’t get it.”

Shame on Mr. Hippeau.   Perhaps he opposes protecting consumer privacy because it would be inconvenient while his company expands its online ad targeting business.  HuffPost uses a range of online data collection and targeting tools, including Pubmatic for ad optimization, and Admeld. It uses Time Warner’s behavioral targeting subsidiary Tacoda [advertising.com] and also Google’s DoubleClick service.  Here’s an excerpt from HuffPost’s privacy policy:

“The more we know about you, the better we are able to customize our web site to suit your personal preferences and interests… We may also from time to time send you messages about our marketing partners’ products. To maintain a site that is free of charge and does not require registration, we display advertisements on our web site. We also use the information you give us to help our advertisers target the audience they want to reach…the ads appearing on HuffingtonPost.com are delivered to you by DoubleClick, our Web advertising serving partner. Information about your visit to this site, such as number of times you have viewed an ad (but not your name, address, or other personal information), is used to serve ads to you on this site. And, in the course of serving advertisements to this site, third party advertisers may place or recognize a unique cookie on your browser.”
As we have said, we can both protect privacy and also foster the growth of the online ad market.  Mr. Hippeau revealed a starkly uninformed–and crass–dimension to the HuffPo’s corporate leadership.



AAAA Letter to DoJ on Microsoft/Yahoo Deal: `Mad’ Merger Men & Women Missing Some Truth in Advertising

The 4A’S advertising trade and lobby organization sent a letter to the Department of Justice yesterday supporting the Microsoft/Yahoo search merger deal.  Among the five signatories from some of the biggest and most powerful ad companies was the head of the Publicis Groupe. But missing from the `approve this deal’ letter was any acknowledgment that Publicis is a partner of Microsoft–something we and other consumer groups have asked the DoJ to investigate as part of its review.

The recent deal between Microsoft and Publicis includes the sale of Razorfish, combined online ad activities and also data sharing.   In addition, Microsoft is expected to own 3% of Publicis after the deal closes, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The letter to the DoJ should have disclosed this and other conflicts of interest.

“Behavioral Targeting provides realtime visibility into actions of indviduals” says marketer

Excerpt from EMC.com’s Fast Facts on behavioral targeting:

Unprecedented Opportunity

Behavioral targeting provides realtime visibility into actions of individuals…Firms that specialize in audience segmentation have refined the use of behavioral targeting…Ten years ago, it would have been impossible for a marketer to reach an individual who lived in Seattle, enjoyed tennis, and tended to surf on a high-speed connection at 10 A.M. on Tuesday’s.  Today, it is not only possible to identify the target, but it is also possible to reach the target with highly customized messaging.  Behavioral targeting variables, or targeted schemas, are limited by only two factors: a marketer’s imagination and the advertising network offering visibility into web-wide behavior.

Behavioral advertising networks…provide a piece of tracking code to be placed on one or more pages of the market’s website.  The code is used to identify a visitor to the site as a person eligible to receive a targeted message elsewhere on the web…some large portal websites such as Yahoo! do not need a “network” to define behavioral segments across their thousands of content categories.

Microsoft’s “Sweeping Vision” for Online Ads: “unlocking the Holy Grail of marketing” by “mining user intent”

The digital data collection arms race is unleashing powerful forces focused on data collection and consumer targeting across much of the online world.  As advertisers meet to discuss and celebrate their accomplishment and plans, as part of Advertising Week, Microsoft is playing a leading role.  As you read about their plans from this excerpt in Adweek, keep in mind that they hope to bundle their search marketing platform with Yahoo!

Microsoft is heading into Advertising Week looking to capture the ad industry’s attention by laying out a sweeping vision for the online advertising market and the integral part it plans to play in its the future…At the heart of that undertaking is the plan to build a product that can determine exactly what ads Web users want to see and when. “At the core, the most important thing to us is mining user intent,” Howe [Scott Howe, corporate vp, Microsoft’s advertiser and publisher solutions group], said. “What does a user really want to see in the way of advertising.”

That’s easy in search. But intent is not so clear on content sites or social networks. “If Bing is step one [for Microsoft Advertising], step two is extending that engine to power the ads that someone sees across all display ad formats and multiple devices,” Howe said.

…”When people talk about behavioral targeting, often they’re talking about flat display formats on a PC — and we’re talking about across all digital devices,” he said. “And so, by having this engine power all the different things holistically, we’re actually in some respects unlocking the Holy Grail of marketing.”