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.â€Â 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.