Category: consumer protection

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

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

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

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

Facebook teams with McDonald’s–location targeting for fast food giant part of a “bigger media buy”

Facebook is becoming a leading marketer for fast-food companies.  When one thinks about Facebook working to weaken privacy, keep in mind they want to better harvest user data to help sell ads and other marketing services to McDonald’s and others.  According to Ad Age [excerpt, sub. may be required]:

Facebook is preparing to launch location-based status updates for its users. But the social network is also planning to offer it to marketers, including McDonald’s. As early as this month, the social-networking site will give users the ability to post their location within a status update. McDonald’s, through digital agency Tribal DDB, Chicago, is building an app with Facebook would allow users to check in at one of its restaurants and have a featured product appear in the post, such as an Angus Quarter Pounder, say executives close to the deal.  Facebook is not directly charging McDonald’s to build the app; Facebook generally does not charge developers to build on its platform. But executives with knowledge say it was negotiated as part of a bigger media buy on Facebook, and McDonald’s will be the first marketer to take advantage of the service.

The fast feeder won’t be alone for long. While McDonald’s is expected to be involved in the rollout in the next few weeks, execs at other digital shops have begun to spec out location-based campaigns in anticipation of Facebook’s impending functionality, which will allow users to include their location in a status update.

…Kevin Colleran, director-national sales at Facebook…noted that Facebook has the world’s largest mobile application, with more than 100 million users each day.
source:  McDonald’s to Use Facebook’s Upcoming Location Feature:  Brands Eager to Build Apps Once Massive Social Network Launches Its Own Foursquare Competitor.  Emily Bryson York. Ad Age.  May 06, 2010

Boucher/Stearns Privacy Bill: Fails to Ensure Data Collection Minimization and Forces Consumers to rely on Digital ‘fine’ Print

Yesterday, Reps. Rich Boucher and Clifford Stearns released a “discussion” draft for what they intend to become a new law addressing privacy online.  Mr. Boucher, whom I and a number of consumer and privacy representatives met with in March, is sincere in his desire to address online privacy.  But the bill’s overall orientation maintain (and really nurtures) the intense and pervasive data collection, online profiling, and targeting status quo.  Instead of focusing the goal of the bill on data minimization, a important Fair Information Principle, it really enables the maximization of information collection on consumers.

The bill does make several important contributions, including acknowledging that racial/ethnic and sexual orientation must be considered  “sensitive” information requiring higher safeguards [I played a role in urging Congressional leaders to include racial/ethnic data in the sensitive category].  By acknowledging that a “unique persistent identifier” should be classified as personal information, the draft bill follows what policymakers in the EU have crafted (and the FTC staff has already largely suggested).

But by primarily relying on so-called “notice and choice”–namely privacy policies–the bill fails to protect online users.  There is a growing consensus, backed by research, that privacy policies are inadequate.  The reliance by Mr. Boucher on Google’s ad preference manager system, which allows users to opt-out of more specific ad targeting categories, doesn’t address the key question:  how can we ensure less information is collected and used about each of us.  Nor does the bill protect sensitive information involving health and finance, where it permits a huge loophole that will continue online data practices involving our interactions online with financial and health related sites and services].  Adolescents are left unprotected in the bill–one of its most glaring omissions.

The bill doesn’t really empower the FTC to act effectively in this area, in our opinion.  Under the Boucher/Stearns bill, consumers will still have to rely on digital fine print–written in invisible ink–to protect privacy.  This is not a debate on ensuring online ad revenues for free content–we all support that.  It’s about defining reasonable rules of the online road that balances citizen and consumer rights with the interests of those who collect our data–whether they be commercial or government.

Interactive Ad lobby Gives $ to Lawmakers to head-off consumer privacy safeguards….The Google connection

The ever intrepid reporter Kate Kaye from Clickz has reported the following [excerpt]:

The Interactive Advertising Bureau is putting its PAC money where its mouth is – again. As part of its ongoing efforts to influence key lawmakers, the lobbying arm of the online ad industry’s largest membership organization gave Congressman John Dingell, an influential member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, $1,000 last month. Among the messages the IAB hopes to get across to legislators: behavioral targeting is so pervasive, even their own election campaigns probably use it….

Other recent fundraising events for the congressman include an annual pheasant shoot held in Boonsboro, MD.

“It doesn’t hurt that Google also has a major office in his congressional district,” added Zaneis. Dingell represents Michigan’s 15th district, home to Google’s Ann Arbor office, which coincidentally houses Google’s political ad sales team…The IAB PAC contributed to Boucher’s reelection campaign in 2009, and to other House Internet Subcommittee members including Mike Rogers and John Shimkus.

IAB Lobby Gives to Lawmaker to Influence Behavioral Ad Policy.  Kate Kaye, ClickZ, Apr 22, 2010

Facebook Tells Big Advertisers: We’re not “a pure social media site”

That’s what Facebook’s “Chief Revenue Officer” Mike Murphy told big brands like Coca Cola and Pepsi  at an invitation only event focused on better targeting teens and young adults.  The “PTTOW! Youth Media Summit is an annual, invite-only conference focused on the trillion dollar young adult market.  Bringing together the top marketers from the world’s most innovative companies, the event serves as a high-level forum for discussing youth media, marketing and culture across every major industry category.”

Facebook was there pitching its wares, helping big brands better target its users.  Mr. Murphy is quoted as saying that its Fan pages have become “a sustainable asset even after the campaign ends.” We all know that Facebook needs ads to thrive.  But it has to become honest with its users–and privacy and consumer protection policymakers–about the data it collects and how it’s used.  It’s also useful to know that Facebook doesn’t see itself only as a social media site–because it’s really part of online marketing [including increasingly for food and beverages linked to the global youth obesity crisis].

Rep. Ed Markey: Protect Children’s Privacy Online via COPPA

Rep. Ed Markey has been a longstanding leader in Congress on children’s media issues, and was the original co-sponsor of the Children Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).  Here’s what he released yesterday to coincide with the Senate Commerce committee oversight hearing.


MARKEY: KEEP CHILDREN’S PERSONAL INFORMATION OUT OF THE ONLINE COMMERCIAL ‘COOKIE JAR’

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Representative Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and co-Chairman of the Bi-Partisan Congressional Privacy Caucus, issued the following statement on Senate Commerce Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance Subcommittee hearing on the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA):

“More than a decade ago, I joined with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and then Sen. Richard Bryan (D-Nev.) to enact the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act,” said Markey. “COPPA was a landmark piece of legislation that has contributed to the creation of a safer and healthier online environment for children.  It established a clear set of rules for marketers to follow and gave parents tools for overseeing how their children’s information was being collected and used online. It also helped to tame the digital ‘wild west’ of the information superhighway-where personal information was routinely collected from unsuspecting kids on the Internet.

“COPPA faces new challenges today.  The growth of broadband and the proliferation of mobile phones give marketers a new generation of powerful techniques for data collection and behavioral profiling.  I commend the Subcommittee for holding this important hearing on children’s privacy in the digital age.  I urge them to ensure that the Federal Trade Commission, as it reviews COPPA this year, makes necessary changes to its implementation that will permit the law to   remain an effective safeguard.

“We deliberately wrote COPPA to make it a “living” and flexible statute, so it could address new data collection and targeting practices that threatened to undermine children’s privacy as the Internet evolved.  I will work with the Senate and the FTC to ensure that COPPA continues to protect children in the expanding digital marketplace.”

Facebook: Fess Up and Tell Us Who Your Outside Lawyers and Lobbyists Are


There’s an irony that for a company which thinks privacy is passé, they won’t reveal to the press whether they have engaged the services of former FTC Chair Tim Muris.  That’s what we have heard from a number of reporters over the last several days.   It’s no coincidence, in our opinion, that Facebook has allegedly engaged Mr. Muris to represent them at the FTC while he is helping lead the campaign against congressional proposals to strengthen that consumer protection agency.  Facebook’s new data collection system, including its “Like” application, doesn’t face the kind of regulatory scrutiny it requires–given the FTC’s current political fight and regulatory weakness. Bravo to Sen. Schumer and the other Senators who are asking for action.

Tim Muris, the Facebook Connection, and the FTC: The Need for Disclosure in the debate over Protecting Consumers Online

Former Bush FTC Chair Tim Muris is helping lead the charge against proposals that would ensure the FTC can be an effective consumer protection agency.  His critique of Obama and House-backed proposals in the financial reform bill that gives the FTC the ability to act on behalf of consumers is being cited by some in Congress.  Muris is trotting out the tired refrain that the FTC would not act responsibly if given the same rulemaking authority almost every federal agency has.  He suggests that the FTC would–horror!–actually protect children from junk food ads [1 out of every 3 kids in America is obese–and ads play a role] and also ensure our privacy is protected online.  When you think privacy, think about all the things you do using the Internet–involving your money, health, family/kids–and remember that digital marketers are eavesdropping on what you do–and selling that information to the highest bidder.

But two sources tell us that Mr. Muris is representing Facebook at the FTC–he is a lawyer at O’Melveny and Myers.  Facebook is now the subject of a FTC complaint by privacy groups, as well as the growing focus of data protection commissioners.  When Mr. Muris speaks about the FTC, especially his concerns that if given the ability to enact safeguard rules it would address privacy and online marketing, it is extremely relevant that he has at least one client allegedly involved.  During his tenure at the FTC, Mr. Muris relied primarily on industry self-regulation when it came to protecting privacy online.  That posture has resulted in consumers being victimized by a data collection “wild west,” which even industry now admits.  Facebook’s work with Mr. Muris places the social network service in the company of those working to defeat safeguards to protect America’s kids from ads that promote obesity. Given Facebook’s own growing role as a fast food advertiser, questions need to be raised about their involvement fighting FTC consumer protection proposals.  It is also another area where Mr. Muris needs to acknowledge his own commercial connections.

Do You Want Marketers to Target You via a “SocialDNA platform”?

33 Across is one of the recipients of a Google/WPP ad research reward.  As 33Across explains, it “enables brand and performance marketers to unlock the power of the Social Web. Our SocialDNAâ„¢ platform uses previously untapped social data sources, in combination with advanced social network algorithms, to create unique and scalable audience segments.”   In a job posting, they add that it can “enable advertisers to deliver high-performance media programs by activating the social graph around their brands. Our patent-pending SocialDNATM platform creates custom segments of people who are socially connected to a client’s existing customers, and reveals deep insights into the social network characteristics of a marketer’s brand. Our clients include many of the top online advertisers.”

Google Paper on “Opt-in Dystopias”: Doesn’t Reflect What Google Actually is doing with data

The Google Policy blog promoted a paper by two Google employees on the opt-in/opt-out policy debate.  The paper is worth reading, but its use is limited because it doesn’t reflect the actual online marketing data collection process.  Here’s what I just wrote on the Google site:

The authors need to revise their paper based on the goals and actual practices with online marketing and data collection done by Google and its affiliates. While it’s true that the binary opt-in, opt-out debate is unfortunately narrow, it is used to address far-reaching data collection and targeting strategies implemented by Google and other online marketers. The authors, for example, should examine Google’s use of neuromarketing for its YouTube advertising products; or the role of purposefully developed “immersive” multimedia tied to data collection by DoubleClick. They should analyze Google’s advertising goals, including what it promises to the largest pharmaceutical and financial advertisers, for example. Or examine the growing role of merging offline and online data collection tied to a specific user cookie to be auctioned off that is now routinely used in online ad exchanges (Google owns one such exchange). They should also reflect on how Google–when rushing to catch up with Facebook in the social media marketing business–launched its Buzz product without a careful analysis of its impact on data collection. Google’s researchers on privacy, in other words, would be more credible if they carefully analyzed how their own company uses–and plans to use–data. This issue deserves a robust debate–and we know the authors are sincere in their interest to make an important contribution. But they should also have been candid that Google is fighting off policy proposals from privacy advocates that would empower a user/citizen by allowing them to protect their privacy–including using opt-in.  The failure to have global policies that protect privacy is the high social and political cost the public should not have to bear.