Category: Google

IAB Self-Reg Plan Permits Further Data Profiling–Even When You opt-out!

File this under, please send the icon-based scheme back to rewrite! [our emphasis]
Excerpt via clickz.com:  excerpt:  The online ad industry’s self-regulatory program could allow some companies to continue tracking consumers even when they’ve opted out through the system…As it exists currently, the self-regulatory program overseen by the alliance allows consumers to opt out from data collection and use for behavioral advertising, explained Stu Ingis, a partner at Venable, a law firm working with the industry coalition. If data is only being collected for behavioral advertising, it will no longer be collected from those who opt out using the program. However, when companies involved with the program also use data for additional purposes such as analytics, they may continue tracking and collecting data from people who have opted out through the program – even though those who have opted-out will no longer receive behaviorally targeted ads.

Google’s Eric Schmidt on Mobile Marketing [Annals of Why We Need Mobile Privacy and Consumer Protection Safeguards]

Google CEO Eric Schmidt gave the keynote address at the Interactive Advertising Bureau’s “Ecosystem 2.0” conference.  As reported, he explained that [our emphasis]:

“The smartphone is the iconic device of our time,” Schmidt told the record IAB audience of 750 in Palm Springs, California. A year ago, he added, he predicted that mobile use would surpass PCs within two years. “It happened two weeks ago. And the PC is not going to catch up,” Schmidt said, as he labeled the new era, “Mobile First.”…The hyperlocal potential of mobile, Schmidt continued, means that smartphones and tablets bring a practical application to marketing that no other medium can match: A connection that will lead you to the store, open the door, and direct you to a product you need. “A RadioShack ad can tell you where you are and how to get to the nearest store.” And equipped with Near Field Communication chip (NFC), the newest generation of smartphones not only can tell you what to buy, it can enable a tap-and-pay transaction…Think of the offers mechanisms for advertisers,” Schmidt offered. “We’ve spent 20 years trying to get here. And now there’s an explosion in commerce. Particularly for the consumer who says, “I want to buy something and want to buy it right now,” he added, “We can do it.”

And, in large part, that capability means that mobile media consumption “is happening faster than all our internal predictions.”

Some 78% of smartphone internet users already use their smartphones as they shop. And, as consumer comfort with – and acceptance of – new mobile technology continues, Schmidt envisions “a world, in the very near future, where computers remember things and you never need to worry about forgetting anything. You want it to remember something and it will. And you’re never lost. No one is ever lost. You never turn off the [mobile device] and you’ll always know where you are. And where you want to go….”

Leading Health, Privacy, and Consumer Groups Call on FTC to Protect Adolescent Privacy online

For Immediate Release:  Feb. 18, 2011
Child, Health and Consumer Advocates Ask FTC for Teen Privacy Protections, including Do-Not-Track and No Behavioral Targeting

Today a Coalition of Child, Health and Consumer Advocates filed comments on the Federal Trade Commission’s proposed privacy framework asking for increased privacy protections for adolescents.   The coalition includes leading advocates such as the Center for Digital Democracy, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Academy of Pediatrics, Children Now, and the Consumer Federation of America.

Privacy protections are needed as teens are increasingly subjected to privacy invasions online. Teens are using new media technologies for key social interactions and to explore their identities. This increased use of digital media subjects them to wholesale data collection and profiling of even their most intimate interactions with friends, family, and schools. Meanwhile, recent research in psychology and neuroscience reveals that teens are more prone to risky behavior when their anxieties and peer relations are exploited. Privacy protections are needed to keep the online world social and safe.

Companies should not use data to behaviorally profile teens. The framework should also provide enhanced choice for adolescents, including a Do Not Track feature. In implementing “privacy by design,” companies should consider the needs and vulnerabilities of teens.  They should address those vulnerabilities by, for example, minimizing the amount of data collected from teens.  Data that is collected should be retained for only short periods and should be afforded greater security.

“Teens live online today,” said Guilherme Roschke, attorney for CDD. “This time of development and maturation requires privacy protections. Teens cannot go it alone against the vast data collection and profiling infrastructure of new media technologies that not even adults can understand.”

“Because of their avid use of new media, adolescents are primary targets for digital marketing,” explained co-signer Kathryn C. Montgomery, Ph.D. “The unprecedented ability of digital technologies to track and profile individuals across the media landscape, and to engage in sophisticated forms of targeting, puts these young people at special risk of compromising their privacy.”

The full coalition includes:

Center for Digital Democracy, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Academy of Pediatrics, Berkeley Media Studies Group, a project of the Public Health Institute, Children Now, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Watchdog, David VB Britt, Retired CEO, Sesame Workshop, Ellen Wartella, Kathryn Montgomery, National Policy & Legal Analysis Network to Prevent Childhood Obesity, a project of Public Health Law & Policy, The Praxis Project, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, Public Good, Public Health Institute, Tamara R. Piety, and World Privacy Forum

Guilherme Roschke
Staff Attorney / Fellow
Institute for Public Representation
First Amendment and Media Center
Georgetown University Law Center
T:(202) 662-9543
F:(202) 662-9634
gcr22@law.georgetown.edu
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/clinics/ipr/
**********

NTIA’s Strickling on Privacy: He Forgets Consumers!

Here’s an excerpt via Politico from their interview with Department of Commerce NTIA Chief–and potential privacy policy maven–Lawrence Strickling.  Note the absence of consumers in his description of the problem and issues.  The Commerce Department, which is jockeying to have a greater role in the privacy debate (which the largest data collectors like because they are afraid of the consumer watchdog-minded FTC), better start making consumer needs come first–if they are to have any credibility here in the U.S. and with the EU.   It appears from the interview the Commerce Department has largely made up its mind to rely on “voluntary enforceable codes of conduct.”   Here’s what Larry said in a Q & A:

NTIA is also getting into the privacy discussions.

It’s part of the larger Internet Policy Task Force that’s underway here at Commerce where our agency — along with other agencies — is looking at a number of Internet policy issues. Privacy is first and foremost on the list, but we’re also looking at the protection of intellectual property, cybersecurity, and we’ll be looking at the free flow of information. For Commerce, our theme links all these topics around the notion of innovation, preserving the job creation and business expansion aspects of the Internet and trying to protect that going forward. So in the area of privacy, the task force did issue the green paper late last year. Comments just came in on that, so people are starting to work their way through them, with the goal that we’ll take the green paper and turn it into a more final pronouncement of the Department of Commerce or perhaps even the administration’s policy on privacy later this spring.

Do you think there should be a government office specifically dedicated to privacy?

We certainly believe that if we’re going to move forward with these voluntary enforceable codes of conduct with the industry that the function of convening and organizing that process should sit [in the government]. Our believe is that the Department of Commerce, and in particular NTIA, is the appropriate place for that function to reside. When we start talking about offices that sounds more bureaucratic and maybe requires departmental administrative orders. But on the issue of making sure that function is done, yes, based on what we see in the comments, we think that’s an appropriate idea. We think it’s a necessary idea in terms of working with industry and we’ll see how this all plays out over the course of the spring.

What is NTIA doing internationally on the privacy front?

Privacy has big international implications because the Council of Europe is looking at redoing what they’ve done in privacy. The European Union is looking at this issue. OECD is looking at the issue. So we’re very cognizant of the need to make sure our policy, whatever it is, is designed in a way to best harmonize with what’s happening in the rest of the world, and in particularly Europe.

U.S. Online Marketers Want Obama Adm. to Press for Weaker Privacy Safeguards for EU, Asia-Pacific & Other Global Citizens & Consumers

The U.S.’s larger marketing, advertising and media lobbying organizations want the Obama Administration to help them continue to engage in behavioral data profiling and other digital marketing techniques without meaningful safeguards.  Trade groups–including the Direct Marketing Association, Interactive Ad Bureau, and the 4A’s–  told the Obama Commerce Department it wants it to negotiate a trade deal with the EU and elsewhere that would give U.S. online ad companies, in essence, a free pass on data collection and tracking.  Can you believe they want U.S. self-regulation (ineffective and a cover to permit the expansion of consumer data collection) to be the global standard.  File this under digital Chutzpah!  They wrote in a [my emphasis]  filing:

We support the Department’s recommendation that the U.S. government continue to develop a framework for mutual recognition of an international data privacy framework. The Department has an important role in representing and advocating for the interests of American businesses.  We believe that the Department has the experience and expertise needed not only to represent the interests of U.S. industry, but to lead the global privacy policy debate.  We recommend that the Department advocate for a global framework consistent with U.S. privacy standards, including the Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising, which have allowed U.S. companies to lead the world in innovation and to remain economically competitive.  In addition to decreasing regulatory barriers to trade and commerce, global interoperability should promote—or at a minimum not impede—economic competition and innovation.  We believe the U.S. approach to privacy policy meets these goals.

Here’s who signed the filing.  Attention EU–watch out.  And a question for the Obama Administration.  Which side of the keeping the online medium a real reflection of democratic potential will you be on?

American Advertising Federation
American Association of Advertising Agencies
ASAE
Association of National Advertisers
Coalition for Healthcare Communications
Direct Marketing Association
Electronic Retailing Association
Interactive Advertising Bureau
MPA — The Association of Magazine Media
National Business Coalition on E-Commerce and Privacy
Newspaper Association of America
Performance Marketing Association
TechAmerica

Pandora to Investors: We are Afraid of “Do-Not-Track” Privacy Rules and also Google’s Clout

From Pandora’s recent S-1 IPO filing at the SEC [our bold]:
excerpt:  Existing privacy-related laws and regulations are evolving and subject to potentially differing interpretations, and various federal and state legislative and regulatory bodies may expand current or enact new laws regarding privacy and data security-related matters. We may find it necessary or desirable to join self-regulatory bodies or other privacy-related organizations that require compliance with their rules pertaining to privacy and data security. We also may be bound by contractual obligations that limit our ability to collect, use, disclose, and leverage listener data and to derive economic value from it. New laws, amendments to or re-interpretations of existing laws, rules of self-regulatory bodies, industry standards and contractual obligations, as well as changes in our listeners’ expectations and demands regarding privacy and data security, may limit our ability to collect, use, and disclose, and to leverage and derive economic value from listener data. We may also be required to expend significant resources to adapt to these changes and to develop new ways to deliver relevant advertising or otherwise provide value to our advertisers. In particular, government regulators have proposed “do not track” mechanisms, and requirements that users affirmatively “opt-in” to certain types of data collection that, if enacted into law or adopted by self-regulatory bodies or as part of industry standards, could significantly hinder our ability to collect and use data relating to listeners. Restrictions on our ability to collect, access and harness listener data, or to use or disclose listener data or any profiles that we develop using such data, would in turn limit our ability to stream personalized music content to our listeners and offer targeted advertising opportunities to our advertising customers, each of which are critical to the success of our business...


We use DoubleClick’s ad-serving platform to deliver and monitor ads for our service. There can be no assurance that our agreement with DoubleClick, which is owned by Google, will be extended or renewed upon expiration, that we will be able to extend or renew our agreement with DoubleClick on terms and conditions favorable to us or that we could identify another alternative vendor to take its place. Our agreement with DoubleClick also allows DoubleClick to terminate our relationship before the expiration of the agreement on the occurrence of certain events, including if DoubleClick determines that our use of its service could damage or cause injury to DoubleClick or reflect unfavorably on DoubleClick’s reputation….In fiscal 2010 and the nine months ended October 31, 2010, advertising revenue accounted for 90.9% and 86.4%, respectively, of our total revenue, and we expect that advertising will comprise a substantial majority of revenue for the foreseeable future. In fiscal 2010 and the nine months ended October 31, 2010, Google accounted for 11.4% and 7.4%, respectively, of our total revenue. We deliver online ads provided by Google through our service, and Google sources us with advertising customers through ad exchanges.

Innovation, Digital Marketing & Privacy: Debunking the Google, Facebook and online ad lobby myths






As was done during the 1990’s by the online marketing industry to oppose consumer privacy rules at the FTC and eleswhere, once again digital advertising companies disingenuously claim that enacting appropriate privacy safeguards will [as Google puts it]: “thwart the ability of companies to develop new services and tools, and in turn make U.S. Internet companies less competitive globally and make the Internet a less robust medium….an anti-innovation framework would counterproductively choke off the development of new tools and services to protect personal privacy.”  Facebook similarly told the industry-friendly Commerce Department that “imposing burden privacy restrictions could limit Facebook’s ability to innovate, making it harder for Facebook to compete...”  The facts—as Google, Facebook and the other companies undoubtedly know—show this to not be the case. First, online marketers, including Google, did not build-in serious privacy and consumer protection safeguards into their online marketing products.  All the innovation has and is focused on expanding the data collection, profiling and targeting of each user, across multiple platforms and applications.   Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Facebook, ad agencies and digital marketing companies have significantly invested in creating new forms of digital data collection and new ways to measure it.  That point is something that the industry doesn’t volunteer and that regulators and policymakers should recognize.  It has taken a global public uproar and governmental pressure that has forced Google, Facebook and the entire online ad industry to more seriously acknowledge and respond to concerns on privacy practices.  (In fact, it was only due to the pressure brought by CDD, EPIC and colleagues opposing Google’s acquisition of DoubleClick that forced the FTC to issue new staff proposals for behavioral advertising and privacy.  Pressure from NGOs has been a key factor on industry and policymakers).

The U.S. is the global leader in developing and deploying online advertising applications and data targeting technologies.  It sets the standard in the E.U, Asia Pacific, South America and elsewhere.  Once the FTC establishes its new Framework, and as the EU revises its own to reflect contemporary online commercial data collection techniques, U.S. online marketers can engage in the same spirit of innovation that will make their online products and practices truly privacy friendly.  The FTC, the White House and Congress should not permit Google and other digital marketers to invoke the term “innovation” as it was some magic political talisman that automatically will choke-off reasonable consumer privacy policy safeguards.  Its time to set aside the self-serving claims that privacy safeguards will undermine innovation.  Indeed, it is common sense to also admit that once consumers know that their privacy is respected, there will be greater confidence in e-commerce and online marketing generally.  But many in the online ad lobby are afraid that if a consumer is honestly told about the digital marketing process, including the tactics used to harvest their data, an aware public will be wary of the online system.  They will undoubtedly be concerned–but it’s an excellent reason to work together and enact new serious public policies that ensure consumers are fairly treated in the digital marketplace.

PS:  In Facebook’s privacy filing it cites President Obama’s State of the Union speech where he singled out Facebook and Google as examples of innovation in the U.S.  We doubt the President intended Facebook to use his speech as a political tool arguing against protecting consumers online through privacy regulation.  Everyone should read Facebook’s submission–especially Facebook users.  It is one of the most self-serving and narrow-minded policy screeds I have read recently.  They invoke the concept of the “social web” as if it should automatically permit Facebook to be a consumer protection free- zone.  Note in the document how Facebook urges the FTC (which is likely investigating it as we speak) to “continue to pursue a retrained approach to enforcement.”  How wonder it just hired another lobbyist--a former Bush White House top staffer.

Google & WPP Showcases their Academics–Helping Erode Privacy and Expand Data Mining of Consumers [video]

Take a look at this Google Business Channel YouTube video showcasing some of the academics who received funding and access to proprietary data for work designed to expand interactive marketing. [you may need to subscribe to the Business Channel.  Look for 2010 WPP-Google Marketing Research Awards]  Google and WPP have a “scholars” program designed to help these two online marketing giants and the field better data mine consumers.  One project is even being used to undermine the need for consumer privacy policies.  An academic in the video discusses the funding he received from Google/WPP for “Unpuzzling the Synergy of Display and Search Advertising: insights from Data Mining of Chinese Internet Users.” [Let’s discuss the human rights related issues later!]  Profs. Avi Goldfarb and Catherine Tucker, whose work has been cited by the online ad lobby in their attempts to stave off consumer protection–and who filed their own Comment in the Commerce privacy proceeding suggesting that somehow protecting privacy could undermine the economic vitality of the industry–are also in the video.

Scholars who take industry money to support research and policies must, of course, always significantly acknowledge such a special interest funding relationship (to the press and policymakers, esp).  There are serious conflicts of interests taking such funding, which should raise questions about the objectivity of the research.  Academics should also recognize, and accept personal responsibility, that their research is likely being used to advance an agenda that often places consumers and citizens at a disadvantage and at risk. For example, Google has not played a serious proactive role protecting privacy online and addressing the consumer protection related issues accompanying much of digital marketing.  Instead of scholars who act as public intellectuals, too often we have researchers who become political pawns used by the marketing and media industry lobby.

Here’s a list of the academics who took Google/WPP funds in 2010 to help these two online ad giants better understand “how online media influences consumer behavior, attitudes and decision making.expand the impact of online advertising.”

2010 Google & WPP Award participants:

  1. Michael Smith and Rahul Telang, Carnegie Mellon: Channels and Conflict: Efficient Marketing Strategies for Internet Digital Distribution Channels.
  2. Chrysanthos Dellarocas, Boston University and William Rand, University of Maryland: Media, Aggregators and the Link Economy: An Analytical and Empirical Examination of the Future of Content.
  3. Anita Elberse, Harvard University and Kenneth Wilbur, Duke University: What Is The Right Mix Between Offline And Online Advertising? A Study Of The Entertainment Industry.
  4. Arun Sundararajan, NYU and Gal Oestreicher-Singer, Tel Aviv University: The Breadth Of Contagion Of The Oprah Effect: Measuring The Impact Of Offline Media Events On Online Sales.
  5. Yakov Bart, Miklos Sarvary, Andrew Stephen, INSEAD: Consumer Responses To Mobile Location-Based Advertising.
  6. V Kumar, Vikram Bhaskaran and Rohan Mirchandani, Georgia State University: Measuring the Total Value of a Customer through Own Purchases and Word of Mouth Referrals: A Field Study in India.
  7. Alan Montgomery and Kinshuk Jerath, Carnegie Mellon: Predicting Purchase Conversion From Keyword Search Using Associative Networks.
  8. Shawndra Hill, University of Pennsylvania and Anand Venkataraman, 33Across: Collective Inference For Social Network-Based Online Advertising.
  9. Anindya Ghose, NYU: Modeling The Dynamics Of Consumer Behavior In Mobile Advertising And Mobile Social Networks.
  10. Jane Raymond, Bangor University: The Importance Of Relevance: Cognitive Science Research On Distraction By Advertisement On The Internet.
  11. Koen Pauwels, Dartmouth, Oliver Rutz, Yale, Shuba Srinivasan, Boston University and Randolph Bucklin, UCLA: Are Audience-Based Online Metrics Leading Indicators Of Brand Performance?

Microsoft on Privacy Regs vs its business model: “to monetize human attention”

As we prepare for a vigorous debate on protecting consumers and citizens, it’s useful to reflect how online marketing companies view the process.  This excerpt from a Politico story last month notes, that:

Representatives from Google and Microsoft agreed it is the companies’ jobs to make sure consumers can trust them with personal information by giving them more control over how that data is shared. But regulation is a slippery slope. “Our business model is to monetize human attention,” said Marc Davis of Microsoft’s Online Services Division. “Regulation does potentially threaten the value of that.” Added Google’s Betsy Masiello: “Those business models also rely entirely on user trust.” They agreed there’s no legal clarity over who owns what data, and whether online information is owned by the person who entered it online or the company who runs the platform that stores it. “We’ve created this new business class without any clarity,” Davis said.

As Google Expands Digital Food Marketing Clout, How Will it Protect Children and Adolescents from Online Junk Food Ads?

Google just announced plans to “to build its advertising and marketing business in the food and beverage industries,” including “establishing a food-and-beverage team in Chicago to link with advertisers and marketers.”   The online ad market leader hired a former Frito Lay and beer marketing executive who explained that the company intended to harness the “untapped potential in the digital world for food and beverage advertisers, and Google’s ability to work with them, based on proprietary analytics that map out consumer behavior.”   The exec–Karen Sauder–said that Google intended to use its clout with online media to generate a deep connection to users, including taking advantage of “some of the new location-based services and mobile technology that’s really untapped at this point.”

As our companion site digitalads.org documents, food and beverage companies, along with online ad companies such as Google, Yahoo and Microsoft, are targeting young people with digital ads for products linked to the youth obesity crisis (they are doing this in the U.S. and globally).  Google should play a leadership role and adopt new safeguards to ensure that no one under 18 is targeted by digital junk food ads–and that it undertakes a thoughtful analysis to address problems raised when targeting vulnerable groups.  We hope Microsoft, Yahoo and others will also do so.  We call on Google to embrace a “healthy” digital diet for its food and beverage marketing. This is an issue that will be on the policy radar in 2011.