Are they a lobbyist to reach out to the GOP or a mere “customer service” representative who can help guide powerful politicians through the Facebook social media marketing maze? Read this excerpt from Clickz.com and decide for yourself:
Facebook has hired a Republican Party insider to beef up its political outreach team. Former digital strategist at the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Katie Harbath…will join the firm’s small Washington, D.C.-based team as associate manager, policy…The company considers the role to be a customer service position, aimed at helping legislators and their staffers, congressional committees and political campaigns make better use of Facebook. Until now, Facebook’s U.S. Politics Page, politics-related media partnerships, and Capitol Hill outreach has been handled primarily by two Facebook public policy execs, Adam Conner Andrew Noyes, the firm’s manager, public policy communications….[and] Twitter also is building out a D.C. staff. In January, Adam Sharp, was set to begin his work as the company’s government and political partnerships manager. He is charged with helping lawmakers, politicians, and government staff take better advantage of the micro-blogging site.
Category: media lobbying
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
Did the Commerce Dep’t Give a Special Deal to the Online Data Collection Lobby?
It sure sounds that way, given what the Interactive Ad Bureau wrote on the new privacy proposal (our emphasis):
“The green paper is another important step in what has been an inclusive, productive process to develop the Administration’s strategy for increasing consumer online privacy, while balancing the realities of our national economy. It provides vital support for industry self regulation. The Department of Commerce’s recognition that these efforts can be an effective means for increasing transparency around data practices and empowering consumers with a comprehensive, easy-to-use opt-out mechanism is key, given other recent reports. Increasing consumer confidence in the Internet is a common goal. We agree that supporting these industry codes in a timely fashion is critical, and our cross-industry coalition looks forward to working with the Administration to ensure our program is both robust and enforceable.”
The Commerce Department met with our coalition of consumer and privacy groups only once–after we had written to the White House asking for a meeting with officials there. There was no formal briefing for the country’s leading consumer and privacy groups prior to the report’s release. Yet we understand Commerce did one for industry. As the Obama White House proceeds with its plans for the forthcoming “multi-stakeholder” deliberations, they must be structured in a manner that ensures significant consumer and privacy participation (which means that groups funded by the online ad industry have to be dealt with in different fashion).
IAB Gets a new Chance to Play Constructive Role as Randall Rothenberg Goes to Time Inc.
The departure of Randall Rothenberg, the head of the Interactive Advertising Bureau, provides a critical opportunity for the IAB to revisit its position on protecting consumer online privacy (including Do Not Track). Under Mr. Rothenberg, the IAB lobbied Congress to restrict the FTC’s ability to protect consumers, including on privacy. With new leadership, the IAB could begin playing a more constructive role by working with consumer groups to build a consensus on federal privacy rules. Instead of confrontation and denial, we hope the online ad lobby pursues serious engagement with privacy advocates.  The IAB has become just another inside the Beltway lobbying group–and has lost credibility among many policymakers. A new IAB leader should be someone who can really help the mission of the industry by engaging in the kind of diplomacy and debate that supports the higher purposes of online advertising, digital publishing, and the public interest.
At Time, Mr. Rothenberg will now be in charge of its online ad network, which uses behavioral targeting and other interactive data techniques. How Time responds to the growing call for better consumer privacy will be one of Mr. Rothenberg’s new challenges.
Behavioral Targeting is About Tracking an “Individual,” Explains Online Marketer
The online ad industry and lobby better stop saying that cookies and other forms of data collection aren’t personally identifiable–so-called PII [personally identifiable information]. As we know, behavioral targeting (BT) identifies, profiles, tracks and targets an individual. Here’s just one example of how online marketers discuss what BT really is when they are talking among themselves and to clients (our emphasis):
What is behavioral targeting?
Behavioral targeting is a technique used by online advertisers to improve the effectiveness of their campaigns by increasing the relevance of product offers and promotions on a visitor-by-visitor basis.
Behavioral targeting uses information collected on an individual’s web-browsing behavior, such as the pages they have visited or the searches they have made, to select and deliver online ads to the users who are most likely to be interested…As the effective mixing and mining of audience data has become increasingly important to online advertisers, the role of behavioral targeting and retargeting have grown more central…The typical approach to behavioral targeting starts by using web analytics to group visitors into discrete channels. Each channel is analyzed and a virtual profile is created to for each channel…
Most platforms identify visitors by assigning a unique id cookie to each and every visitor to the site, allowing them to be tracked throughout their web journey. An example is a user who visits content about auto insurance, clicks on an insurance advertiser button or banner, and then searches for “auto insurance.†This user would be assigned to the insurance prospect channel and the next time that user goes to Yahoo they will see ad for insurance…
ITIF’s psuedo and self-serving analysis of Info Politics. Note they like Federal funding
The idea that ITIF places itself as a “moderate” in its newly released “taxonomy” of Internet policy is laughable. The group is part of the elite and mostly corporate funded lobbying apparatus.  It classifies many public interest groups and academics as “social engineers,” in order to disparage their legitimacy (talk about a tactic designed to protect their own narrow interests!). But what they ignore is that groups such as my CDD and many others actually know about the workings of the industry and the issues we address. We don’t form baseless and knee-jerk ideological positions that protect the people paying the bills. We stand up for the public and what we believe is right, based on the facts. Groups like ITIF have failed to intellectually engage with the real dynamics of the privacy issue–conveniently ignoring what’s actually going on. Meanwhile, next time ITIF disparages the role of gov’t and regulation, remember how enthusiastic they are taking a $500K federal grant (however worthy the subject matter).
*****
ITIF Consortium Wins Federal Grant to Make Voting More Accessible for Injured Soldiers
October 4, 2010
WASHINGTON – The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) consortium is the winner of the Military Heroes Initiative grant competition, sponsored by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC). The $500,000 grant will help advance efforts to improve voting technology and processes for military service members disabled in combat operations.
“ITIF welcomes the opportunity to pioneer new research that will help ensure that the brave men and women injured in our military are able to exercise their right to vote,” said Daniel Castro, ITIF senior analyst. “This research will ultimately help increase voting accessibility for the approximately 50 million Americans with disabilities.”
EAC is an independent commission created by the Help America Vote Act. Under the terms of grant, ITIF will partner with Georgia Tech Research Institute, a leading research organization with extensive experience working with military institutions and conducting accessibility research, and Operation Bravo Foundation, a pioneer in developing voting alternatives for military and overseas citizens.
ITIF and its partners will undertake a review of current voting access and offer recommendations to improve the voting needs for military personnel with disabilities. The evaluation of current voting practices and emerging technologies to assist with balloting will not only be valuable for military personnel but also for others with disabilities that make it challenging for them to exercise their Constitutional rights. Recommendations will be delivered by early 2012 for potential use in the 2012 federal election.
The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and, more recently, the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act, recognized the necessity for improving the voting process for people with disabilities and military personnel. The Military Heroes Initiative will help further these vital goals. Funding from this grant comes from appropriations made available under the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (P.L. 111-8).
…
The new Self-Reg Online Ad Plan–Digital “Deja-vu” All Over Again! See What they Say about the NAI Now!
In 1999, online marketers promised consumers they would protect their privacy. Leading interactive ad companies created the Network Advertising Initiative (NAI) as a scheme to head-off proposals by the FTC that would help regulate online profiling. Now it turns out, says the online ad industry, the NAI really couldn’t work. So they have developed yet another self-regulatory effort. Here’s what online marketers told Ad Week today: “The move marks the most significant regulation the industry has imposed on companies and goes significantly farther than the Network Advertising Initiative, which held third-party advertisers needed to allow consumers to opt out. Doing so, however, was a cumbersome process.“  So the industry didn’t tell the FTC or consumers that the NAI wasn’t consumer friendly and “cumbersome.” Yet they have used the NAI as a political bulwark to head-off consumer protection rules. Shame on them. Meanwhile, in the same story, it’s revealed that only now–as pressure mounts to protect online consumers—does the industry recognize protecting privacy is important: “The guys that drive the industry have figured out this privacy stuff does matter,” said Scott Meyer, CEO of Better Advertising Project, which will help companies comply with the requirements.
The new “aboutads.info” website established by the industry fails to provide consumers serious information about cookies and behavioral targeting and profiling. It reveals how little the industry is committed to protecting privacy and informing U.S. consumers about the process. To see how this new plan is really designed to protect the data collection business, examine the rules for sensitive information. Beyond the children’s privacy law (COPPA) we got enacted in 1998, this scheme permits full-scale collection and use of financial and health information.  Under the “new” self-reg policies, the narrowest of definitions for respecting your financial and health information has been created: “Entities should not collect and use financial account numbers, Social Security numbers, pharmaceutical prescriptions or medical records about a specific individual for OBA without Consent.”
Shame on them. Online marketers spent some $3 billion last year on online financial marketing and will spend $1 billion for pharma and health related targeting in 2010. Consumer data collected by online financial and health marketers, much of which is sensitive and personal, is ok under the industry’s “new” plan.
PS: The folks at Better Advertising need to take a course in online marketing–and change its new website so it really informs consumers about the process. What it has now would get a C-minus in any class on online marketing. They can start with 360 degree targeting, online and offline profiling, rich media, a serious description of online auctions, the tracking process, work on “engagement” and neuromarketing,” social media marketing, etc. Consumers deserve better.
The new “Digital Advertising Alliance” self-reg plan. See if it tells consumers what its sponsor ad groups really say to each other. That they track and target your “digital footprint”
On Monday, the new self-regulation magical “icon” that is designed to make the online ad industry’s privacy problems disappear will be unveiled. A new group called the “Digital Advertising Alliance” will unveil the icon-based plan–all timed to help head-off the kinds of protections and safeguards consumers require. The current financial crisis affecting tens of millions of Americans require that government and big business groups do more than pay digital lip service to consumer protection.
As a kind of litmus test for the new self-regulation effort, see if the icon and the information connected to it really informs you about how data on you is collected and used for profiling, tracking and targeting. For example, last week, the Interactive Advertising Association (IAB), one of the key backers of the new Alliance, released a guide to targeting consumers at the local level. Here’s excerpts of what they say. See if that little icon is being honest when you click it. Of course, we really require rules that eliminate the kind and amount of data that can be collected on you and you family and friends in the first place–as well as honest disclosure on the process. Note as well that all that data on you is expensive–and others are cashing in on information that belongs to you! From the new “Targeting Local Markets” guide:
Explicit profile data Targeting. definition–
Explicit data is “registration quality data†collected either online or offline. For online registration data, the user has certain attributes in his or her registration profile at a particular site or service, and that data is associated with the user’s Web cookie or some sort of audience database when the user next logs in. Offline registration data includes the sorts of data held in the massive offline direct response industry databases built up over the last several decades. These are then matched to a user online when that user logs in somewhere that is a partner of the data company. The site at which the user logs in, usually an online mail or similar site, sends the name/email combination to the data company, which then makes the match and sends back data…pricing–In general, first party data commands a far more variable premium than third party data…Third party data is usually available in much larger quantities, and yet there is often a fee of anywhere between $0.50 to $2.00 or more paid to the data provider by the ad seller – thus increasing the cost of goods sold (COGS) on the ad, and therefore increasing the price…
Behavioral Targeting (Implicit profile data Targeting)-definition-
Behavioral Targeting is the ability to serve online advertising based on profiles that are inferred from an individual user’s technical footprint and viewing behavior…As the medium has grown from a “browsing†experience to interactional so have the levels of information gathered. Newer forms of information include the data collected about influences, social preferences through social networks and an individual user’s content created online…The data is often gathered in real-time and can be used for real-time decision-making so that relevant advertising can be delivered dynamically to an individual user during their online session…Behaviorally targeted advertising commands a higher price because of targeted placement versus general run-of-site (ROS) advertising…Behavioral Targeting can be highly accurate when the user is leaving a digital footprint of their activities as they move through the Web.
Online Marketers, Privacy & Self-Regulation: “Repeatedly Failed Promises Syndrome”
To help undermine the impact of the forthcoming FTC proposal to protect consumer privacy, a coalition of online ad lobby groups will unveil yet another self-regulation plan. According to Mediapost, online consumers will soon see “[I]cons to signify behavioral advertising — or serving ads based on people’s Web activity.” Since 1999, online ad groups have rolled out self-regulatory regimes promising to protect consumers online. Each has failed to do so.  This new effort involves the very same groups and companies that offered self-regulatory promises in the past.  For example, see the World Privacy Forum’s report on the failure of the Network Advertising Initiative’s self-reg schemes; that group is part of the new effort, btw.
This new effort is seriously flawed–and before marketers and advertisers adopt it, it must be independently evaluated by consumer groups, independent academics, and the FTC. We believe that the system will fail to protect consumers–because it will not candidly inform them about how the data is collected and used. Meanwhile, in a revealing flip-flip, the IAB’s UK counterpart deep-sixed its just released safeguard on retargeting. According to a new report, “[O]nline advertising trade body the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) has withdrawn a code of practice which recommended that behavioural advertising retargeting cookies should expire after 48 hours. The IAB’s Affiliate Marketing Council (AMC) published the code last week. It applied to the practice of ‘retargeting’ web users who had visited a site with ads for that site on other people’s websites, using cookies to track their movements and activities…That code has been withdrawn and will be reworked after further industry consultation, though, the IAB said. The code has disappeared from the IAB’s website.”
Consumers and citizens require real safeguards governed by law and regulation–not flimsy digital promises designed to sanction ever-expanding data collection practices.