Lobbyists like to hire academics in order to give their agenda the patina of scholarly respectability. Many academics are ideologically aligned with the interests of major media and telecom companies–supporting an unregulated environment (and like to reap the bucks as well). Some academics want to schmooze with deep-pocketed special interests. So it’s not a surprise to learn that Time Warner Cable has a “Research Program on Digital Communications.” They have already released a volume of papers on the “Future of Digital Communications: Policy Perspectives.” Time Warner’s so-called research agenda is so self-serving that it would be laughable if the goal wasn’t ultimately to undermine the public interest and consumer protection. Luckily, there are scholars and other policy experts who care more about their integrity and the academic issues and wouldn’t consider taking such funding. Here’s what the first “research question” is for those seeking funding to ultimately help undermine consumer privacy by enabling Time Warner and other digital marketers to expand their behavioral targeting approaches:
Topic One: Advertising, Two-Sided Markets, and the Role of Network Operators (ISPs, MSOs)
The emergence of more precisely targeted (interest-based or so-called “behavioralâ€) advertising offers potential benefits to consumers while at the same time raising possible concerns about privacy. Application providers, network owners, advertisers, content providers, and other interested parties may play a role in allowing these potential benefits to be realized. By facilitating two-sided markets, or platforms that enable two distinct but related groups of customers (such as advertisers and consumers) to obtain value, service providers can expand the scale and scope of their offerings to consumers. Industry groups and the Federal Trade Commission have developed principles for self-regulation online, while some advocacy organizations and members of Congress have pointed to potential harm from more targeted advertising and are calling for new government mandates.
Key questions concern the types of disclosures and the level of consumer consent that should be required.
Questions
• What are the benefits of more precisely targeted advertising, and how prevalent is the practice?
• What technological innovations support the development of more targeted advertising over digital media?
• How are consumers affected by increasingly prevalent forms of targeted advertising, and what is the appro-
priate public policy response?
• What is the role for self-regulation, government intervention, and industry standard-setting?
• What role should network operators play in regulation (voluntary or prescriptive)?
• Describe the future of the advertising marketplace and the role of new and potential entrants, such as
Internet service providers (ISPs), cable operators, and other multichannel video programming distributors
(MVPDs) offering interactive television services.
• How can two-sided markets help encourage the development of new broadband and video services?
• How can regulation of advertising or privacy affect, promote, or retard the development of these new
services?
Category: The Art of the Front
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.
NAI New “Study” on Behavioral Targeting: Self-Defense for Privacy-Threatening Data Collection
The Network Advertising Initiative (NAI), the online ad industry’s toothless self-regulatory scheme–has released a report designed to undermine policy safeguards protecting consumer privacy. The NAI engaged the services of Prof. J. Howard Beales--a former FTC official who largely supported self-regulation of online data collection during his tenure at the agency–to issue a study. Not surprisingly–and something anyone who follows behavioral online advertising knows–is that these practices work. When you track, collect, profile a consumer online and know their interests, background, location, you can make a better ad experience. Privacy is only mentioned once in the report.  The study’s message is really that if it makes money, don’t think of protecting consumer privacy.  The NAI explained in a release that “Behaviorally targeted ads sell for twice the price and offer twice the effectiveness of normal run-of-network ads, significantly enhancing the advertising revenue engine driving the growth of the Internet.â€
The suggestion that we should not be concerned about privacy even if these practices threaten consumer protection is absurd. Anyone who suggests that we should permit a wholesale invasion of privacy (and more) because it helps support online publishing isn’t addressing the critical question. How can we protect consumers and also have a robust online content system? Both can–and must–be done.
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!
Technology Policy Institute Spins the Privacy Debate in D.C.–Group funded by Some of the Biggest Data Collection Companies
Today, the Technology Policy Institute (TPI) is holding a Hill forum on privacy and the Internet. The group’s announcement for the event states that “More privacy, however, would mean less information, less valuable advertising, and thus fewer resources available for producing new low-priced services. It is this tradeoff that Congress needs to take into account as it considers new privacy legislation.”
What an absurd, reductionistic, and intellectually-dishonest claim. First, this group is funded by some of the largest companies engaged in behavioral data collection and also fighting meaningful privacy policies.  That includes Google and Time Warner. TPI’s other funders involved in some form of data collection and targeted interactive marketing include AT&T, Cisco, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association and Verizon. Rep. Cliff Stearns, the ranking member of the House Subcommittee on the Communications, Technology, and the Internet is speaking at the event: that committee is currently drafting privacy legislation to protect consumers. Panel speakers include TPI supporters Google and Comcast. The lone privacy group on the panel, CDT, is funded by Google and others. One academic on the panel also works for a high-tech consulting company. The other panel academic has done fine work on social networks and privacy.
What makes TPI’s posturing absurd, beyond its funding conflicts, is the current economic crisis. Consumer privacy laws are required to ensure that our financial, health and other personal transactions online are conducted in a responsible manner. Anyone–or group–who believes that we can’t have both privacy and a robust online marketplace is out of touch.
Progress & Freedom Foundation Comes to Aid of its Data-Collecting Backers (Using a `save the newspapers’ as a ploy to permit violations of consumer privacy protection!)
This report from Internetnews.com on the Progress and Freedom Foundation’s “Congressional” briefing illustrates how desperate some online marketers are that a growing number of bi-partisan congressional leaders want to protect consumer privacy. So it’s not surprising that some groups that are actually financially supported by the biggest online marketing data collectors in the world would hold a Hill event to help out the friends who pay their bills.
It should have been noted in Ken Corbin’s that Google, Microsoft, Time Warner (AOL), News Corp. (MySpace) financially back the Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF). Other behavioral data targeting `want to be’s’ who monopolize U.S. online and other platforms are also backers: AT&T, Comcast, NBC, Disney/ABC, Viacom/MTV/Nick, etc. For a list, see here.
PFF and some of its allies deliberately distort the critique of consumer and privacy groups. We are not opposed to online marketing and also understand and support its revenue role for online publishing. But many of us do oppose as unfair to consumers a stealth-like data collection, profiling and ubiquitous tracking system that targets people online. One would suppose that as a sort of quasi-libertarian organization, PFF would support individual rights. But given all the financial support PFF gets from the major online data collectors, how the group addresses the consumer privacy issue must be viewed under the `special interests pays the bills’ lens.
PFF and its allies are playing the ‘save the newspaper’ card in their desperate attempt to undermine the call for lawmakers to protect consumer privacy. Newspapers and online publishers should be in the forefront of supporting reader/user privacy; it enhances, not conflicts, with the First Amendment in the digital era. Finally, PFF’s positions on media issues over the years has actually contributed to the present crisis where journalism is on the endangered species list. This is a group that has worked to dismantle the FCC, eliminate rules designed to foster diverse media ownership, and undermine network neutrality.
PS: The article quotes from Prof. Howard Beales of George Washington University (and a fCV,ormer Bush FTC official with oversight on privacy). Prof. Beales was on the PFF panel. Prof. Beales, according to his CV has served as a consultant to AOL and others (including Primerica and the Mortgage Insurance Companies of America). Time Warner, which owns AOL, is a PFF financial backer. All this should have been noted in the press coverage.
Technology Policy Institute’s Funders: An Online Marketing and Data Collection Lobby [Annals of Undermining Privacy Safeguards]
Congressional Internet Caucus and the State of the Mobile Net: Corporate Donors Influence Group’s Agenda, Leaving Public Vulnerable to Loss of Privacy
When will members of the Congressional Internet Caucus wake up and address the role its special interest dominated “Advisory” Committee is playing? The Caucus is holding a “State of the Mobile Net” conference on April 23. It’s doubtful Congress will be receiving the unbiased information they need, given that the sponsors of the event are the leading companies engaged in mobile marketing and data collection. As typical of the “business model” crafted by the Center for Democracy and Technology connected group known as the Internet Education Foundation, the event prominently acknowledges its “Platinum” sponsors: the CTIA lobby group, Google, Microsoft and Verizon. “Gold” sponsors are AT&T, Nokia, T-Mobile. There is also a category called “promotional” sponsors which lists Yahoo and several others.
It’s highly unlikely that the meeting will discuss the real issues challenging consumer privacy and welfare on the mobile Internet (including, we expect, the recent CDD/USPIRG complaint filed at the FTC– which has helped launch an investigation into that market).  The Advisory Caucus is run by the Internet Education Foundation, whose board members include representatives from Google, Verizon, Comcast, Microsoft, Recording Industry of America, and the Consumer Electronics Association. So the line-up of speakers is crafted to make sure that corporate donor feathers–and their willingness to continue to financially contribute–aren’t ruffled. On the privacy panel for the event we have, of course, a representative from CDT.  There are also mobile marketers–including Yahoo and loopt. There is the DLA Piper law firm that advocates for industry and a lone academic. Consumers and citizens deserve better from Congress.
PS: As an example of how incredibly biased the Advisory Committee to the Congressional Net Caucus is, look at the description and speaker line-up of its recent briefing on online advertising. A supposed “unbiased” event, it featured industry lobbyists and several groups funded by online marketers! Incredibly shameful!
Advisory Committee to the Congressional Internet Caucus
Anatomy of Online Advertising: Understanding the Privacy Debate
March 30, 2009…The purpose of the briefing is to provide an unbiased foundation for understanding the various privacy issues that Congress will debate in the context of online advertising.
Panelists:
* Paula Bruening, Hunton & Williams
* Maureen Cooney, TRUSTe
* Michael Engelhardt, Adobe Systems
* Tim Lordan, Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory Committee
* Jules Polonetsky, Future of Privacy
* Heather West, Center for Democracy & Technology
* Mike Zaneis, Interactive Advertising Bureau
Center for Democracy & Technology Goes for the “Gold” as it Raises $ for its “Gala” from AT&T, eBay, Microsoft, Google (and many other corporations)
CDT is having a “Gala Celebration” next month, supported by “Gold, Silver, and Bronze” sponsors. AT&T, eBay, Microsoft and Google are listed at the $15,000 “Gold” level [“Two tables in Premium Location-Two tickets to the VIP Reception”]; Among the “Silver” sponsors [“One table-One ticket to the VIP Reception”] at the $7,500 tab include Time Warner (AOL), Dow Lohnes, Qorvis Communications (repping Sun, Cisco, etc), American Express, Verizon, Intel, US Chamber of Commerce, ID Analytics, Yahoo!, Arnold & Porter, IAC/Interactive Corp, Thompson LexisNexis, Hogan & Hartson (reps News Corp’s MySpace, among others), Comcast, and Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, LLP.  There are also a number of “Bronze” sponsor at the $1000 level [“One seat at a table”]. (CDT has a Facebook page on the event.)
CDT’s 2007 Gala, which honored Bill Gates, had “more than 900″ supporters” in attendance.
Progress & Freedom Foundation & Online Privacy: Looking at PFF’s Online Ad Industry [& Data Collecting] Funders
Two staffers from the Progress and Freedom Foundation (Adam Thierer and Berin Szoka) issued a quick response to the new FTC online marketing privacy principles. In a press release announcing the short paper, PFF explains that:
Tighter regulation of the online advertising market in the form of privacy mandates, the authors warn, “would severely curtail the overall quantity of content and services offered—and greatly limit the ability of new providers to enter the market with innovative offerings.”
It’s interesting to consider what such “tighter regulation” of the online marketing might mean for the companies that fund the Progress and Freedom Foundation. The list includes heavyweights of online data collection, such as Google, Microsoft, News Corp (MySpace and other Fox Interactive properties) and Time Warner. PFF funders include monopoly ISPs which want to get into interactive data collection and online ad targeting big-time, such as Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon (other PFF supporters include a number of companies engaged in online ad targeting, such as Cox, CBS, NBC, etc).
Perhaps a good research project for PFF would be to examine the online data collection, analysis, and ad targeting work being done by its funders (including all the technologies being used). We’d like to see the press release on that one!