Category: multicultural marketing

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.

Arianna Huffington’s AOL Privacy Problem–Will She Be a “Progressive” and Limit Behavioral Targeting?

Ms. Huffington’s HuffPost used behavioral targeting and other forms of interactive marketing to help make the news site successful.  At HuffPost, the privacy issues involved with such practices were never seriously addressed.  But now Ms. Huffington has a new role as the editorial executive for AOL’s content service.   But AOL is engaged in extensive and manipulative forms of behavioral targeting–including the pervasive online targeting of teens, African Americans, health and medical consumers and patients, for financial service products, etc.  Like other online marketers, AOL claims such online tracking, profiling and targeting isn’t really personally identifiable–which is both inaccurate and deceptive.  We challenge Ms. Huffington to engage in a serious journalistic investigation of AOL’s privacy practices and redress them.  There should be absolutely no targeting of adolescents.  Behavioral targeting of African-Americans, financial and health products should be by prior opt-in consent only.  Ms. Huffington should be held responsible for AOL’s privacy and online marketing practices–and we expect her to address them as she increasingly plays a greater leadership role in the online ad industry.  Meanwhile, here’s what AOL says it does using behavioral targeting focused on African-Americans:

Behavioral. Target consumers based on their interests:

  • Black Voices. People who visit Black Voices for the latest in news, entertainment, sports, lifestyle, careers, money and more.
  • You can target the following subsections of the Black Voices audience:
  • Auto Intenders. In-market car, truck or motorcycle shoppers who are looking for specific makes and models. They read reviews, look at pricing and features, and research financing options.
  • Die Hard Sports Fans. Dedicated fans who follow professional and collegiate sports, stay on top of player rankings, and shop for sports memorabilia.
  • Entertainment Buffs. People who follow the latest news about celebrities, movies, music and soaps. They purchase DVDs, music and video games online and also take an active interest in memorabilia.
  • Money Minders. Affluent, older individuals who are seeking online financial advice, checking the performance of their investments, getting tax advice, planning their retirement and researching insurance options.
  • Moviegoers. Movie buffs who read the latest reviews, follow celebrity gossip and purchase tickets/DVDs online.
  • Travelers. Personal and business travelers who are interested in travel advice and deals. They use the internet to purchase airline tickets, book accommodations, make car reservations and research financing options.

Accurate. Pinpoint your customers with other powerful targeting solutions:

  • Develop a custom audience segment modeled after visitors to your site (Look-Alike Modeling).
  • Find African American households that have the greatest propensity to purchase specific products or brands (MRI Lifestyle Clusters).
  • If you’re sponsoring an AOL page, retarget consumers who have visited it (Sponsorship LeadBack).
  • Find your ideal African American audiences on the sites they are most likely to visit (Subnet Targeting).
  • Find AOL members who have selected the AOL Black Voices Welcome Screen as their homepage option, or who have indicated (through third party data) that someone in their household is of African American ethnicity (Audience Rosters).

and its behavioral targeting of consumers looking for mortgages and other financial products:

Behavioral. Target consumers based on their interests:

  • Business Decision Maker. Individuals with an active interest in business news and strategy.
  • Money Minders. Affluent, older individuals who are seeking online financial advice, checking the performance of their investments, getting tax advice, planning their retirement and researching insurance options.
  • Real Estate Intender. In-market individuals looking to buy, sell or rent property.
  • Small Business Owner. Small business professionals shopping for real estate, health care and office and computer equipment.
  • Investors. Affluent individuals who read business news, evaluate stocks, seek financial advice and conduct trades online.
  • Insurance Intender. Individuals seeking information about life, auto, home or health insurance.
  • Mortgage Intender. Individuals seeking information about mortgage rates and/or home loans.

and AOL’s adolescent targeting [for shame!]:
Behavioral. Target consumers based on their interests:

  • Active Gamers. Teens and adults looking for online and console game strategies, tracking game release dates and purchasing video games.
  • Television Watchers. Individuals who keep up with their favorite television shows via TV network sites and online communities.
  • Style Mavens. Trend-focused women interested in the latest fashion, jewelry, and health and beauty items. They like to feel as good as they look by also paying attention to diet and fitness. 
  • AIM Audience. Individuals who have visited AIM properties.

Statement of Jeff Chester on the Department of Commerce’s Internet Policy Task Force Privacy and E-Commerce: a Bill of Behavioral Targeting “Rights” for Online Marketers?

The Obama Administration asks some important questions about protecting the privacy of U.S. consumers.  But given the growth of online data collection that threatens our privacy, including when consumers are engaged in financial, health, and other personal transactions (including involving their families), this new report offers us a digital déjà vu.   The time for questions has long passed.

Instead of real laws protecting consumers, we are offered a vague “multi-stakeholder” process to help develop “enforceable codes of conduct.”  If the Commerce Department really placed the interests of consumers first, it would have been able to better articulate in the report how the current system threatens privacy.    They should have been able to clearly say what practices are right and wrong—such as the extensive system of online behavioral tracking that stealthily shadows consumers—whether on their personal computer or a mobile phone.   The paper should have firmly articulated what the safeguards should be for financial, health and other sensitive data.  The report should have rejected outright any role for self-regulation, given its failures in the online data collection marketplace.  While the report supports a FIPPS framework, these principles can be written in a way that ultimately endorses existing business practices for online data collection and targeting.

This illustrates one of the basic problems with the Administration’s approach to protecting consumer privacy online.  The Commerce Department is focused on promoting the interests of industry and business—not consumers.  It cannot play the role of an independent, honest broker; consequently it should not be empowered to create a new Privacy Policy Office.   Having the Commerce Department play a role in protecting privacy will enable the data collection foxes to run the consumer privacy henhouse.  We call on the Administration and Congress to address this issue.  A new Privacy Policy Office should be independent and operate under the Administrative Procedures Act—ensuring there are safeguards for meaningful public participation and transparency.

The Commerce paper’s real goal is to help U.S. Internet data collection companies operate in the EU, Asia/Pacific and other markets as “privacy-free” zones.  Under the cover of promoting “innovation” and trade, I fear the U.S. will craft a crazy-quilt code of conduct regimes that they will claim should pass muster in the EU (which has a more comprehensive framework to protect privacy).  The Obama Administration appears to be promoting a kind of “separate, but equal” framework, where it will argue that no matter how weak U.S. privacy rules are, other countries should accept them as the equivalent of a stronger approach.  The new paper should have acknowledged the U.S. has to play catch-up with the EU when it comes to protecting consumer privacy.

We have been promised meetings with the new White House subcommittee on privacy, where consumer and privacy groups will raise these and other concerns.

What AOL Should Have Told Reps. Barton & Markey


AOL also describes to Reps. Barton and Markey the way they use cookies that doesn’t reflect what they say to clients--such as “Target users based on attributes from user registration or third-party data (e.g. age, gender, income, kids)… Retarget users who visit your website… Target users within households using Experian’s statistical modeling based on hundreds of offline data elements that are most predictive for defining the specific audience of consumers.” For question 1, they refer to their privacy policy—something few consumers would read or understand.  Nor does the privacy policy spell out how AOL collects and targets users, as they do for potential clients.  See and compare to privacy policy. See how they offer targeting based on political information.

Question 2:  They didn’t answer completely.  They should have included information from here. And what their partners collect.

Question 3.  They should have said they urge advertisers to use pixels, beacons and other tracking tools:   “Place pixels on all high-traffic pages… Target broadly… Most networks, including Advertising.com, look at IP or cookie data to determine if a user is part of a specific demographic or has demonstrated a particular online behavior, such as shopping for a car, browsing cooking sites, and so on. With user targeting, you reach those consumers directly, regardless of the sites they happen to be visiting.”

And they say that the third party cookies don’t identify the “specific user.”  But that’s what AOL says it can target:  “Target users within households… Retarget users who visit your website… Target users within households that demonstrate the highest propensity to buy certain products…”

Question 7.  They don’t say what they do.  It’s monetizing all the data:  “We monetize nearly 1.5 billion impressions per day on average.”

10.  They should have said how they target based on financial and health info.  They didn’t.  See its targeting for health, finance, teens, Hispanics, African-Americans.


14.   Users don’t have enough information on the process to really determine whether they should opt-out.  Nor is AOL’s opt-out really visible.

Online Ad Biz to Reps. Markey/Barton: We Really Don’t Have to Tell You the Facts! The case of Yahoo!




If George Orwell were writing today, 1984’s Winston Smith would be working as a “Doublespeak” specialist crafting privacy policies and creating self-regulatory regimes for the online ad industry.  None of the replies provided to Reps. Markey and Barton answered the basic charge posed by the WSJ in its series and previously raised by privacy advocates:  that “[O]ne of the fastest-growing businesses on the Internet is the business of spying on Internet users.”   All the companies hide behind `it’s a business as we created it and good for everyone’ facade.  Many use a scare tactic claiming that the data collection model they developed is responsible for funding online content/publishing and without it much/if not all of the Internet would vanish (as if you can’t have both robust e-commerce and privacy!).  Many of the answers to Congress also say that their privacy policies and membership in self-regulatory groups (such as the NAI) reflect best practices (as if they automatically vanish the problems!).  The companies don’t take responsibility for the problem or acknowledge that there are privacy concerns outstanding. 

The responses reflect the Orwellian recasting of industry terms on the data collection practices it created and operates.  Behavioral targeting (with $1.13 billion this year in spending for this type of ad) has been transformed into “preference,” “relevant,” or “interest” targeting.  Online profiling and targeting is now called “customization.”  The industry is running away from the precise definitions they created and use because they are honest terms showing consumers are being tracked, profiled and targeted based on our behaviors and actions.  Finally, several of the companies submitted their privacy policies.   In order to full understand them, a consumer (in between taking their children to school or a soccer game, working, shopping, cooking) would simultaneously also have to be a technologist, lawyer, and investigator, to understand and control all the cookies, etc.

Also, the companies resort to a now out-of-date definition of what’s considered so-called personally identifiable information (PII).  Cookies, IP addresses, pixels and web bugs, they claim, are “non-PII” and hence fail to raise privacy concerns.  Yet both the EU and FTC have said that in today’s online data collection world, the old definition of what’s identifiable no longer really works.  The FTC explained last year that “[S]taff believes that, in the context of online behavioral advertising, the traditional notion of what constitutes PII versus non-PII is becoming less and less meaningful and should not, by itself, determine the protections provided for consumer data.  Indeed, in this context, the Commission and other stakeholders have long recognized that both PII and non-PII raise privacy issues…

Companies such as Yahoo, AOL, About.com (NYTimes Co), News Corp/MySpace and others are disingenuous in their responses—failing to inform the Congress what they tell their clients and prospective advertisers.  Among the most cynically self-serving is Yahoo. First, Yahoo did not describe all the ways it collects data on users when it answered question 1.  For example, examine Yahoo’s Advertising Blog, where you can find a discussion of far-ranging techniques used in the data collection process.  Most of which are not spelled out or really explained in the privacy policy;  See also, Yahoo’s “smart ad” technology that changes the copy in real time based on the data it collects.  Its privacy policy really doesn’t explain it in the same way it pitches itself to clients.  Yahoo says in its Hill letter that it “may” acquire data from external sources and gives the link to that section of its privacy policy.  Not even a multi-tasking genius could opt-out all of that.  Nor does Yahoo tell you about the tons of data on consumers their partners collect.  Also, they say in question 3 how they collect data, but tell potential clients a more informed story:  “Yahoo! gets to know its visitors to give them what they’re looking for, even when they’re not actively looking. In part, Yahoo! does this by using an industry practice called behavioral targeting (BT)… Yahoo! BT goes beyond common rules-based segmentation or grouping of consumers by the sites they’ve visited. The tool is powered by sophisticated modeling technology based on extensive online interactions that include searches, page views, and ad interactions. With these models, Yahoo! identifies what consumers are interested in and predicts where they are in the buying process, thereby determining which consumers may respond best to your ad placements.”  In question 4-5, Yahoo claims its users have all the information they require via the privacy policy.  But Yahoo’s information for perspective clients tells a more complete and different story:  “With rich media, you benefit from deep reporting that goes way beyond the click. Track time spent watching video, mouse-over interactions, poll results, average number of panels interacted with and much more.  If you design it, we can track it… Partner with Yahoo! to produce unique, immersive consumer experiences that integrate your brand…”Question 9, again, they call it “customized experience” to Congress—and “smart ads” that track and learn about you when they explain it to advertisers.   Question 10.  Health and finance.  Yahoo failed to tell Congress they track and target consumers health and financial info.  And they target teens.  For health; finance.


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.