Category: hypocrisy

Ad Lobby Research Says Vast Majority of Online Ads Involve Behavioral Profiling & Targeting

The online ad industry lobbying group–the Interactive Advertising Bureau [IAB]–has revealed results from its own research that show the widespread use of behavioral targeting.  In a post on its criticisms of privacy legislation introduced by Chairman Bobby Rush, the IAB explains that:

“In an IAB survey of ad agencies conducted earlier this year, we found that 80% or more of digital advertising campaigns were touched by behavioral targeting in some way.”

That means the majority of what consumers do online–including when they deal with sensitive transactions involving their finance, health or other family matters–are being closely tracked and profiled.  In addition, the IAB attacks the important civil rights provisions in both the Boucher/Stearns and Rush bills.  That provision would ensure that data collection about a consumers racial, ethnic or sexual orientation would be better under the control of the individual.   You would think that the IAB leadership, including Google, NBC, CBS, and Disney, would support a policy that would restrict the potential use of online racial profiling.  But the IAB claims these provisions protecting multicultural and other consumers “could constrain multicultural marketing and media…These types of services provide great benefits to their audiences and the proposed restrictions would actually harm the very group of people they seek to protect.”  That’s an irresponsible position.  We should be able to protect civil rights and promote diverse online publishing.
The IAB’s claims that behavioral targeting is anonymous doesn’t hold up to the facts, as well.  The time for action by both the FTC and Congress has arrived.

Teens and Online Privacy: Empowering Adolescents to Control How Online Marketers Can Stealithily Target Them and Collect Data

Some commentators–and groups funded by online marketers that target teens–are worried that proposals to the FTC and Congress that adolescent privacy be protected will somehow create a system that requires forms of age verification online.  The coalition of leading consumer, child advocacy, health and privacy organizations filing comments at the FTC last week aren’t calling for the parental permission paradigm used by the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act [COPPA] be extended to teens.  But there are many online commercial services specifically targeting adolescents–that’s their target market.  It’s those sites and services specifically focused on adolescents that we want to have better privacy safeguards.   We want those sites to be governed by an opt-in regime that gives teen users meaningful control of how their information is collected and utilized.  Those sites should be required to engage in the Fair Information Principles known as  “data use minimization.”  Commercial sites targeting adolescents should make its data collection practices fully transparent and under the control by the teen (including a truly accessible privacy policy).  In another words, a privacy safeguard regime that really should be available for everyone.  Teens are ‘ground zero’ for much of digital marketing–for examples see our site: www.digitalads.org [especially the update section].  If you look at the reports on that site, you will see that the most recent scholarly thinking is that brain development in adolescents occurs much later than what was once thought.  They don’t have the ability to effectively understand the intent of highly sophisticated interactive marketing and the corresponding data collection which underlies contemporary digital advertising. That’s why empowering them so they can protect their privacy strengthens their rights.

Harvard’s Berkman Center, its online marketing industry connections, and the need to prominently disclose

The Berkman Center is well-known for its work on digital media issues.  But it has often failed to address–in its research and public work–the negative consequences of online marketing and interactive advertising.  Berkman is partially funded by leading online marketers–including Google and Microsoft.  When Berkman conducts research on such issues as children’s online marketing and privacy [an issue I am involved with], it should always prominently disclose on the first publication page its funding conflicts–including whether Berkman staff work with online marketers.  Berkman should tell Congress and the FTC about such conflicts when it submits research and testimony.

For example, Berkman’s faculty co-director John Palfrey works for a venture investing firm that financially backs behavioral targeting and other online marketing companies.  Professor Palfrey does disclose on his blog that in addition to his Harvard duties, he is also a “Venture Executive” at Highland Capital Partners.  Highland’s “Internet and Digital Team,” which Prof. Palfrey serves on, has one current investment in Affine Systems, a video targeting company. Affine’s Video Platform explains it enables marketers to engage in behavioral targeting:  “Affine integrates behavioral data from exchanges and exclusive third-party partnerships. This data is used to audit and optimize campaigns as they run. Detailed analytics are collected, and valuable retargeting data is generated with every campaign.”  [“What makes the Video Targeting Platform special is the amount of insight it provides…by taking advantage of the data provided by Affine’s data partners, you can even target specific demographic or psychographic groups, and reduce the waste that is currently expected from online video buys.”].  Highland also invests in search engine and interactive TV companies serving the China market and many others. [Given the investments in China’s online market by Mr. Palfrey’s company, it also raises questions about Berkman’s Global Network Initiative role evaluating how companies like Google and Yahoo operating in China and elsewhere address human rights].  Previous online marketing (and behavioral targeted related) investments made by Highland included the youth online targeting company Bolt, Coremetrics, and mobile ad targeting company Quattro.

The well-known online analyst and commentator Dana Boyd is a Fellow at Berkman, and has made it clear she also works for Microsoft Research.  But given Microsoft Advertising global efforts to extend the power of online marketing and personalized data collection, including its online ad research lab in Beijing, its support for neuromarketing in digital ads, and its extensive behavioral and online targeting apparatus–including for junk food targeting youth in its gaming divisions, we hope Ms. Boyd will more closely examine her employers work in the area.

Online Ad Lobby and Chamber Celebrate Victory over Consumer Protection & FTC

Yesterday, the online ad lobby [IAB, ANA, DMA]–working with Chamber of Commerce–scored a major political victory by forcing the Financial reform bill conference committee to drop proposed provisions that would have strengthened the FTC.  Under the House bill, the FTC would have been given the same kind of regulatory authority most federal agencies have [APA rulemaking].  Marketers and advertisers are celebrating their win, because it keeps the FTC on a weakened and short political leash.  While consumer protection is significantly expanded because of the CFPB and new financial rules, the FTC is to remain largely hamstrung.  The online marketing and advertising lobby [including ANA, DMA–see below] were afraid that the newly invigorated FTC under Pres. Obama would require the industry to protect privacy online and also become more accountable to consumers engaged in e-commerce.   I heard IAB and Chamber are dancing in the streets! Congressmen Barney Frank, Henry Waxman and Sen. Rockefeller deserve praise for working hard to protect consumers, including their proposal on the FTC.

Here’s what two of the ad groups placed on their sites about the FTC issue:

Progress on FTC Enforcement Provisions in Wall Street Reform Conference

June 23, 2010

The marketing and media community has made substantial progress on defeating the broad expansion of FTC powers that is included in the House version of the Wall Street reform bill.  But we still need your assistance to keep these provisions out of the final bill.

Yesterday the Senate conferees presented an offer on the bill that rejected the new FTC powers that are in the House version.  Chairman Dodd indicated that while he may support changes in the Magnuson Moss rulemaking process, there is no Senate provision and these issues are too complex and important to be resolved in the context of the Wall Street reform bill.  Conferees hope to finish the conference this week so the final bill can be cleared for the President’s signature next month.

The House conferees may still continue to push for these provisions, so it is very important that marketers contact the Senate conferees to express our appreciation for their support and to urge them to remain strongly opposed to these new powers for the FTC in this bill.  Contact information for the Senate conferees is located here and our letter to Senate conferees is available here.  Please let the Senators know if you have plants or operations in their states.

ANA took part in a very important meeting yesterday with Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller on these issues.  We argued that these issues are very important to the entire marketing community and deserve careful consideration outside of the context of the Wall Street reform bill.  The Chairman strongly indicated that he will continue to push for changes in the Magnuson Moss rulemaking procedures this year.

If you have any questions about this matter, please contact Dan Jaffe (djaffe@ana.net) or Keith Scarborough (kscarborough@ana.net) in ANA’s Washington, DC office at (202) 296-1883.

http://www.ana.net/advocacy/content/2418

DMA Asks Financial Reform Conferees to Keep FTC Expansion Out of ‘Restoring American Financial Stability Act’

June 10, 2010 — The Direct Marketing Association (DMA) today was joined by 47 other trade associations and business coalitions in sending a letter to each of the conferees on H.R. 4173, the “Restoring American Financial Stability Act” (RAFSA), urging them to keep language that would dramatically expand the powers of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) out of the final bill.

As the House and Senate conferees work to reconcile their versions of the financial regulatory legislation, the associations — which represent hundreds of thousands of US companies from a wide array of industry segments — expressed strong opposition to provisions in the House version of the bill that would expand the FTC’s rulemaking and enforcement authority over virtually every sector of the American economy.

“The balance struck in the Senate bill is the right one,” said Linda Woolley, DMA’s executive vice president, government affairs.  “That bill makes the most sense in the context of financial reform legislation, maintaining the FTC’s existing jurisdiction without expanding its rulemaking and enforcement authority over industries and sectors that had nothing to do with the financial crisis.  Issues of FTC expansion deserve their own due consideration and debate in the more appropriate context of an FTC reauthorization, as has been done in the past.”

DMA and the other associations strongly believe that granting the FTC broad new authority is not a necessary or relevant response to the causes of the recent recession and, therefore, asked the conferees to oppose the inclusion of any provisions that would expand FTC authority, rather than making changes to the Commission that would have a fundamental impact on the entire business community and the broader American economy.

For more information please visit www.dmaaction.org.
http://www.the-dma.org/cgi/dispannouncements?article=1449

Google to Host Online Ad Lobby as it Campaigns Against Privacy bill

Google is going to help the interactive ad lobby in its campaign to undermine privacy legislation.  The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) plans a DC lobbying blitz on June 14-15, bringing in its cadre of small publishers.   As the IAB explains, “our day of advocacy gets underway as you divide up into teams for individual meetings with members of Congress and their staffs. Each team will be assigned a “chaperone” to help you make your way around the Hill, as well as answer any questions you might have.”

The message the IAB reps will make will undoubtedly be that the Internet way of life as we know it will end if Rep. Boucher’s proposal–or most any other bill protecting privacy–is enacted.  Sort of the Internet meets the film 2012:  all that will be left, if the data stops flowing for targeting, will be a handful of digital survivors.  Google, which serves on the executive committee of the IAB board [along with Microsoft, NBCU, Disney, CBS], plays a key role in the lobbying plans.  The small publisher/lobbyists are to be “guests of honor at a special networking reception and dinner at the Google offices in Washington, D.C.”  Presumably, at the “Cocktail Reception & Dinner – Courtesy of Google,” the troops will be rallied to the `defeat the privacy bill’ cause.  A guest speaker at Google HQ for the event is the IAB CEO Randall Rothenberg.

I know Google uses its facilities to host many meetings;  I have had lunch there and a dinner once at events where Google was discussing its data collection practices.  But Google claims to want to see meaningful national privacy legislation.  Yet they are aiding and abetting the anti-online privacy lobby (which is also leading the effort to undermine the FTC’s role in consumer protection).  The irony here is that Google appears to have successfully convinced Mr. Boucher that its ad preference manager system should be the basis for a safe harbor in the bill.  But Google likely wants to facilitate weakening even Mr. Boucher’s proposal–hence the dinner, drinks and cheer leading that will no doubt be heard across to Capital Hill next month.

Online Advertisers Side with Kids Junk Food Marketers: Opposing Consumer Protection by FTC, Even to Address Childhood Obesity Epidemic

The Interactive Ad Bureau [whose board members include Google, Fox, NBC, Comcast] is working with the marketing and data collection lobby to oppose proposed Obama Administration legislation that would enable the FTC to protect consumers.  It’s clear from the comments below in Reuters, that the IAB is siding with those that don’t want to really address the youth obesity crisis.  If the FTC is allowed to conduct the same rulemaking procedures that the FCC and other agencies already do, it might actually be able to better protect consumers, including kids.  Shame on the IAB and its lobbyist colleagues for being on the side of those against the public health of our nation’s children.  By preventing the FTC to engage in consumer protection, the IAB, ANA and others are supporting the same deregulatory scheme which led to the current financial disaster for so many Americans and our economy.  Here’s the Reuters excerpt:

“A more powerful FTC could boost its oversight of advertising of sugary and salty snacks to children, the online collection of personal data by advertisers and green advertising, said Dan Jaffe of the Association of National Advertisers…This (financial reform/CFPA bill) is a fast moving train,” said Zaneis. “The FTC provisions that are likely to be added onto the CFPA bill really are industry’s no. 1 legislative priority.”

What the new online ad industry-sponsored plan to identify Behavioral-Targeted Ads and Data Collection with the letter “i” really stands for: ineffective [And should be relabeled “ID”—Ineffective and Disingenuous]

Statement of Jeff Chester, executive director, Center for Digital Democracy, Washington, D.C. www.democraticmedia.org

A new self-regulatory scheme designed to head-off meaningful consumer privacy rules by Congress and the Federal Trade Commission is to be released today, according to several reports.  In addition, the Council of Better Business Bureaus has issued a RFP asking for technology solutions to bolster its online advertising self-regulatory approach.

These efforts are trying to place a flimsy band-aid over a gushing consumer data privacy wound.  Disclosure and more opportunities to opt-out is an online ad industry copout. Interactive marketers have created a data collection monster.  What’s needed are Fair Information Principles for the digital age, enforced by regulators, which dramatically minimize how much data is collected, stored, sold and resold–and limit how it can be used.   Instead we get fancy package relabeling fashioned by Madison Avenue.

Consumers face a bewildering, far-reaching, and complex system created by the online ad business that collects and harvests their information—including financial, health, and other personal details—that is non-transparent and unaccountable.  These new self-regulatory initiatives are disingenuous, because they don’t address the real problem:  that through a range of largely stealth online marketing techniques, digital media has been designed to ensure that consumers provide reams of their personal data.

As the FTC holds its second privacy hearing this Thursday, and as the House Commerce Committee finalizes its proposed legislation, policymakers must ask themselves:  how can we do a better job protecting consumers–instead of enabling the same kind of self-regulatory approach that helped bring our economy to the brink of disaster.  Consumers and lawmakers should especially be concerned that the approach backed by Truste and Future of Privacy Forum will permit monopolistic broadband Internet Service Providers, such as Comcast and AT&T,  to gather even more personal information on their subscribers.

Where Does Google and Microsoft Really Stand–with the IAB and ad lobby or for Consumer Protection?

Both Google and Microsoft serve on the executive committee of the Interactive Ad Bureau, a trade association fighting against consumer privacy proposals in Congress and the FTC.  The IAB just sent a letter signed by other ad and marketing industry lobbyists opposing Obama and congressional proposals to expand the ability of the FTC to better protect consumers.  My CDD just sent emails to officials at both Google and Microsoft asking them to clarify where they stand on the IAB’s letter [see below].  Do our two leading online marketing leaders support financial and regulatory reform, including protecting privacy?  Or does the IAB letter–and Google and Microsoft’s own role helping govern that trade lobby group–really reflect their own position against better consumer protection? Not coincidently, the IAB’s PAC has expanded its PAC contribution giving to congress.

Why does the IAB and other ad groups want to scuttle a more capable FTC?  Think online financial products, including mortgages, pharmaceutical operated social networks, digital ads targeting teens fueling the youth obesity crisis, ads created by brain research to influence our subconscious minds, a mobile marketing system that targets us because it knows our location, interests and behavior.  The IAB is terrified that a responsible consumer protection agency will not only peek under the ‘digital hood,’ as the Obama FTC is currently doing.  But actually propose policies and bring cases that rein in irresponsible and harmful business practices.  So Microsoft and Google:  who are with?  Consumers or the special interest advertising lobby?
*****

letter to Google:  22 January 2010

Dear Pablo, Jane, Peter and Alan:

As you may know, the Interactive Advertising Bureau recently sent a letter  to Congress, along with other ad related groups, opposing the expansion of FTC regulatory authority as proposed in the Consumer Financial Protection Agency bill and related reauthorization [http://www.clickz.com/3636212].

Google serves on the executive committee of the IAB’s board.  For the record, does Google support IAB’s stance that, as news reports say, if the FTC is given additional enforcement and penalty-making authority, “the FTC could essentially act as an unelected legislature governing industries and sectors across the economy.”

If Google disagrees with the IAB’s letter, I ask that it make its position public as soon as possible.  I also respectfully request Google state its position regarding the Consumer Financial Protection Agency proposal, as well as its position on expanding FTC authority.

Regards,

Jeff Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
www.democraticmedia.org

letter to Microsoft:  22 Jan. 2010:

Dear Mike and Frank:

As you may know, the Interactive Advertising Bureau recently sent a letter to Congress, along with other ad related groups, opposing the expansion of FTC regulatory authority as proposed in the Consumer Financial Protection Agency bill and related reauthorization [http://www.clickz.com/3636212].

Microsoft serves on the executive committee of the IAB’s board.  For the record, does Microsoft support IAB’s stance that, as news reports say, if the FTC is given additional enforcement and penalty-making authority, “the FTC could essentially act as an unelected legislature governing industries and sectors across the economy.”

If Microsoft disagrees with the IAB’s letter, I ask that it make its position public as soon as possible.  I also respectfully request Microsoft state its position regarding the Consumer Financial Protection Agency proposal, as well as its position on expanding FTC authority.

Regards,

Jeff Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
www.democraticmedia.org

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.