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  According to a new report, “[O]nline advertising trade body the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) has withdrawn a code of practice which recommended that behavioural advertising retargeting cookies should expire after 48 hours.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ads for that site on other people’s websites, using cookies to track their movements and activities…That code has been withdrawn and will be reworked after further industry consultation, though, the IAB said.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.

Google’s Ad Targeting on Finance & Health via its Exchange: Do you know this?

Google tells users, policymakers and reporters that its “ad preference manager” is an effective consumer tool that addresses behavioral marketing.  But on its Doubleclick Ad Exchange, advertisers can use Google provided tools to target online consumers based on a wide range of product and issue “vertical” categories, including health and finance.  Here’s what Google says advertisers can target in the health and financial area.  Ask yourself.  Did you know this and shouldn’t all this be truly transparent, under full user control, with real safeguards about how such information can be obtained and used?  We do. Google isn’t the only one doing this, of course:
Doubleclick Category Targeting Codes:
category::Finance
category::Finance>Accounting & Auditing
category::Finance>Accounting & Auditing>Tax Preparation & Planning
category::Finance>Banking
category::Finance>Credit & Lending
category::Finance>Credit & Lending>Auto Financing
category::Finance>Credit & Lending>College Financing
category::Finance>Credit & Lending>Credit Cards
category::Finance>Credit & Lending>Debt Management
category::Finance>Credit & Lending>Home Financing
category::Finance>Currencies & Foreign Exchange
category::Finance>Financial Planning
category::Finance>Grants & Financial Assistance
category::Finance>Insurance
category::Finance>Insurance>Auto Insurance
category::Finance>Insurance>Health Insurance
category::Finance>Insurance>Home Insurance
category::Finance>Investing
category::Finance>Investing>Commodities & Futures Trading
category::Finance>Retirement & Pension

Health
category::Health
category::Health>Aging & Geriatrics
category::Health>Aging & Geriatrics>Alzheimer’s Disease
category::Health>Alternative & Natural Medicine
category::Health>Alternative & Natural Medicine>Acupuncture & Chinese Medicine
category::Health>Alternative & Natural Medicine>Cleansing & Detoxification
category::Health>Health Conditions
category::Health>Health Conditions>AIDS & HIV
category::Health>Health Conditions>Allergies
category::Health>Health Conditions>Arthritis
category::Health>Health Conditions>Cancer
category::Health>Health Conditions>Cold & Flu
category::Health>Health Conditions>Diabetes
category::Health>Health Conditions>Ear Nose & Throat
category::Health>Health Conditions>Eating Disorders
category::Health>Health Conditions>GERD & Digestive Disorders
category::Health>Health Conditions>Genetic Disorders
category::Health>Health Conditions>Heart & Hypertension
category::Health>Health Conditions>Infectious Diseases
category::Health>Health Conditions>Infectious Diseases>Parasites & Parasitic Diseases
category::Health>Health Conditions>Infectious Diseases>Vaccines & Immunizations
category::Health>Health Conditions>Injury
category::Health>Health Conditions>Neurological Disorders
category::Health>Health Conditions>Obesity
category::Health>Health Conditions>Pain Management
category::Health>Health Conditions>Pain Management>Headaches & Migraines
category::Health>Health Conditions>Respiratory Conditions
category::Health>Health Conditions>Respiratory Conditions>Asthma
category::Health>Health Conditions>Skin Conditions
category::Health>Health Conditions>Sleep Disorders
category::Health>Health Education & Medical Training
category::Health>Health Foundations & Medical Research
category::Health>Medical Devices & Equipment
category::Health>Medical Facilities & Services
category::Health>Medical Facilities & Services>Doctors’ Offices
category::Health>Medical Facilities & Services>Hospitals & Treatment Centers
category::Health>Medical Facilities & Services>Medical Procedures
category::Health>Medical Facilities & Services>Medical Procedures>Medical Tests & Exams
category::Health>Medical Facilities & Services>Medical Procedures>Surgery
category::Health>Medical Facilities & Services>Physical Therapy
category::Health>Medical Literature & Resources
category::Health>Medical Literature & Resources>Medical Photos & Illustration
category::Health>Men’s Health
category::Health>Mental Health
category::Health>Mental Health>Anxiety & Stress
category::Health>Mental Health>Depression
category::Health>Mental Health>Learning & Developmental Disabilities
category::Health>Mental Health>Learning & Developmental Disabilities>ADD & ADHD
category::Health>Nursing
category::Health>Nursing>Assisted Living & Long Term Care
category::Health>Nutrition
category::Health>Nutrition>Special & Restricted Diets
category::Health>Nutrition>Special & Restricted Diets>Cholesterol Issues
category::Health>Nutrition>Vitamins & Supplements
category::Health>Oral & Dental Care
category::Health>Pediatrics
category::Health>Pharmacy
category::Health>Pharmacy>Drugs & Medications
category::Health>Public Health
category::Health>Public Health>Health Policy
category::Health>Public Health>Occupational Health & Safety
category::Health>Public Health>Poisons & Overdoses
category::Health>Reproductive Health
category::Health>Reproductive Health>Birth Control
category::Health>Reproductive Health>Erectile Dysfunction
category::Health>Reproductive Health>Infertility
category::Health>Reproductive Health>OBGYN
category::Health>Reproductive Health>Sex Education & Counseling
category::Health>Reproductive Health>Sexual Enhancement
category::Health>Reproductive Health>Sexually Transmitted Diseases
category::Health>Substance Abuse
category::Health>Substance Abuse>Smoking & Smoking Cessation
category::Health>Substance Abuse>Steroids & Performance-Enhancing Drugs
category::Health>Vision Care
category::Health>Vision Care>Eyeglasses & Contacts
category::Health>Women’s Health

Google & Microsoft Tout their Mobile Targeting Clout, inc. Behavioral, Location, Gender, etc.

My CDD and USPIRG asked the FTC in January 2009 to investigate mobile marketing and its threat to both privacy and consumer protection issues (Ringleader Digital, now the subject of lawsuits and stories in the WSJ and NYT, was included in the complaint, btw).  Online mobile marketers, including Microsoft and Google, illustrate how regulators in the U.S. and abroad should require safeguards to protect the public from unfair and deceptive practices–including those that involve their privacy.  In Ad Age, both Google and Microsoft loudly proclaim what their mobile marketing services can do for brands, ads and marketers.  Here are some choice excerpts:

Microsoft:  “Microsoft Advertising’s industry-leading mobile display and search advertising solutions engage more than 43 million on-the-go U.S. consumers each month—regardless of a user’s mobile phone or wireless carrier. Its innovative ad placements and ad formats include display, rich media, search, video and custom in-app ad units…

Advanced Targeting Options
  • Profile targeting: age, gender, household income, location, time of day
  • Behavioral targeting: more than 120 custom segments (e.g., “movie watchers” and “business travelers”)
  • Device: make and model
  • Wireless carriers: on-deck inventory
  • Keyword targeting: exact or broad match…Complete mobile ad solutions for automotive, CPG, entertainment, financial services, retail, technology, telecommunications, travel and other sectors…
  • More than 43 million, or 55 percent of active mobile web users in U.S.
  • More than 80 million active mobile users globally in 32 countries.”

Google: “Today’s consumers are on the move. More than ever before, audiences are searching and browsing the web on their mobile devices. How do advertisers connect with the on-the-go consumer…As customers go mobile, advertisers need smart mobile advertising strategies. With Google, they can easily target and tailor messages according to location and automatically show their customers relevant local business information or phone numbers to enable them to take immediate action. Once a campaign is up and running, marketers can measure their results via detailed reports. Additionally, integrated mobile reporting in Google Analytics allows them to track and optimize conversion, e-commerce and engagement metrics on mobile devices. They can take advantage of Google’s mobile-specific ad formats. Click-to-call text ads, animated mobile banner ads, click-to-download ads and other display ad formats are examples of how Google is innovating for the small screen.  Google closed its acquisition of AdMob, one of the world’s leading mobile advertising networks, in May. AdMob’s innovative rich media ad units—including full-screen expandable, animated banner and interactive video—create opportunities for advertisers to engage with a relevant audience on their mobile devices. Now the Google and AdMob teams are working to create new ways to deliver engaging and innovative advertising experiences that will help marketers drive their businesses forward…

CASE STUDY

CHALLENGE: Esurance, a direct-to-consumer personal car insurance company, wanted to ensure that customers could do business with it on their own terms and at their own convenience… To make the connection between mobile users and Esurance agents, Esurance used Google mobile ads with integrated click-to-call functionality. The CTC ads gave mobile users the option of clicking through to Esurance’s mobile-optimized landing page or initiating a phone call with a licensed insurance agent…Results…

  • Boosted conversion rates: Click-to-call mobile ads drove a 30 percent to 35 percent higher response.”

PS:  Attention Music Lovers.  In the same Ad Age piece, the online music service Pandora exclaims that it can provide:“Through powerful hypertargeting, reach the right person, at the right time, without waste. Target based on age, day, gender, location, mobile platform, time and type of music…Pandora offers a broad array of formats and rich media functions to create an immersive mobile experience, including:

  • Tap to video
  • Drag and drop
  • Tap to app
  • Tap to call
  • Tap to e-mail
  • Tap to expand
  • Tap to find a location
  • Tap to iTunes
  • Tap to mobile webpage
  • Standard banners”

Retargeting 3.0–It tracks and observes a consumer, adds new data–and changes its sales pitch

Yesterday, the New York Times ran a front-page story on retargeting--the practice of stealthily tracking an individual user online in order to keep delivering sales pitches–including for health and financial products.  We gave the NYT lots of information, including how so-called “smart” ads technologies are now melded with retargeting–for so-called “Retargeting 3.0.“  [My CDD and USPIRG, btw, asked the FTC to investigate retargeting back in 2007 and to protect consumers].  Here’s some of what we sent to the Times.

From Criteo:“Retargeting allows you to find your previous website visitors across the Internet and display relevant banners to lead them back to your website to complete their transaction. Bringing ready-to-buy users back to your website after they have left should be a key part of your customer acquisition and conversion strategy. Criteo provides a breakthrough dynamic personalised retargeting solution…Criteo has revolutionised retargeting with the most sophisticated form of dynamic personalised retargeting. Over the past decade there has been a slow evolution of retargeting. This third generation of retargeting enables an advertiser to show each lost visitor a unique banner based on his/her very specific past interactions on the advertiser’s website. This new form of retargeting involves on-the-fly, real-time personalised banner creation and has a dramatic impact on campaign performance.”

Retargeting data now incorporates user information from outside demand side platform sources, and can the rights to retargeting you can be sold to the highest bidder via online ad exchanges, such as the one run by Google.

A recent MediaPost panel sums up how retargeting has evolved:
Re-Thinking Re-Targeting 
Re-targeting continues to be the tried and true workhorse of behavioral targeting. Tagging and retrieving someone who has already shown an interest in your business is about as simple a use of the BT model as it gets. But it is not so simple any more, and like everything else in this complex ad economy, re-targeting too is in for a upgrade. Dynamic ad creation driven by recommendation engines offers new opportunities to marketers to be even more effective. Demands for greater accountability, control over placement and clearer attribution press the ad networks and tech providers to provide new levels of transparency. And just like everyone else in the ad economy, re-targeting is working its way through questions about metrics and pricing, do marketers optimize and pay according to clicks, conversions, purchase? And what role does retargeting now play in this larger field of audience creation and the age of the DSP?

Retargeting illustrates how online marketers have deployed armies of digital private detectives to shadow us online.  They watch us closely, take notes, even learn about us, and then appear when we don’t expect it.  Consumers shouldn’t have to confront such digital surveillance.  Retargeting is “Exhibit A” in making the case to lawmakers that consumer privacy online should be protected.

Questions should also be raised about retargeting and consumer protection.  Should I get a better discount because the data collected about me indicates I spend more or live in an expensive neighborhood? Or that because they believe I am a certain ethnicity, I might spend more on certain products.  Retargeting is a non-transparent marketing technique that raises important consumer protection issues about the use of digital advertising.  Consumers require a fair deal online.

PS:  Here’s how Google explains its retargeting service–which in typical Silicon Valley meets George Orwell fashion, it calls “remarketing’ [for the Google Content Network]: “Remarketing is extremely effective because it targets a highly-relevant audience. With it, you can target users who:

  • have visited your website or viewed specific product categories on your site
  • didn’t convert or who abandoned their shopping cart
  • have converted (in order to up- or cross-sell to them)

If you’re already driving traffic to your site through other means, like contextual targeting or your search ads, remarketing is a great complement to those efforts to increase your return-on-investment (ROI).

and we believe in fair play.  Here’s what Microsoft says its “remessaging” service can do:   “After consumers visit your site, see one of your campaigns or click through on an ad, remessaging offers several ways to continue the conversation and ensure that your message is seen by the people to whom it matters most.  With site remessaging, you can re-engage a consumer to complete a purchase or further engage with your brand. Creative remessaging drives brand perception, awareness, and favorability, and enables advertisers to re-engage audiences who have seen or clicked on an existing campaign. Email remessaging complements email assets such as newsletters by placing tags and accessing the same email recipients to reinforce your message to a loyal audience.

and Yahoo!:  “Enhanced Retargeting, which combines standard site retargeting with dynamic ad generation. For example, users who visit an airline website to check offers for flights from SFO-JFK can be served a personalized offer for that specific flight when they visit a page within the Yahoo! Network. In a recent trial, a market-leading online travel company saw a 230% increase in total bookings and a 651% increase in click-through rate when comparing Enhanced Retargeting to their traditional retargeting campaign.  Recognizing the need for more focused audience segmentation and improved control, Yahoo! Search Marketing will offer advertisers Enhanced Targeting capabilities for Sponsored Search and Content Match programs. New features are designed to extend the advertiser’s control over where and when an ad is shown at both the campaign and ad group level, including what time of day and day of the week an advertiser would like campaigns to run (ad scheduling) and what age and gender they’d like to reach (demographic). Advertisers will be able to vary their bids for different segments in order to increase their ability to reach the desired audience.”

Online Ad Lobby and Chamber Celebrate Victory over Consumer Protection & FTC

Yesterday, the online ad lobby [IAB, ANA, DMA]–working with Chamber of Commerce–scored a major political victory by forcing the Financial reform bill conference committee to drop proposed provisions that would have strengthened the FTC.  Under the House bill, the FTC would have been given the same kind of regulatory authority most federal agencies have [APA rulemaking].  Marketers and advertisers are celebrating their win, because it keeps the FTC on a weakened and short political leash.  While consumer protection is significantly expanded because of the CFPB and new financial rules, the FTC is to remain largely hamstrung.  The online marketing and advertising lobby [including ANA, DMA–see below] were afraid that the newly invigorated FTC under Pres. Obama would require the industry to protect privacy online and also become more accountable to consumers engaged in e-commerce.   I heard IAB and Chamber are dancing in the streets! Congressmen Barney Frank, Henry Waxman and Sen. Rockefeller deserve praise for working hard to protect consumers, including their proposal on the FTC.

Here’s what two of the ad groups placed on their sites about the FTC issue:

Progress on FTC Enforcement Provisions in Wall Street Reform Conference

June 23, 2010

The marketing and media community has made substantial progress on defeating the broad expansion of FTC powers that is included in the House version of the Wall Street reform bill.  But we still need your assistance to keep these provisions out of the final bill.

Yesterday the Senate conferees presented an offer on the bill that rejected the new FTC powers that are in the House version.  Chairman Dodd indicated that while he may support changes in the Magnuson Moss rulemaking process, there is no Senate provision and these issues are too complex and important to be resolved in the context of the Wall Street reform bill.  Conferees hope to finish the conference this week so the final bill can be cleared for the President’s signature next month.

The House conferees may still continue to push for these provisions, so it is very important that marketers contact the Senate conferees to express our appreciation for their support and to urge them to remain strongly opposed to these new powers for the FTC in this bill.  Contact information for the Senate conferees is located here and our letter to Senate conferees is available here.  Please let the Senators know if you have plants or operations in their states.

ANA took part in a very important meeting yesterday with Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller on these issues.  We argued that these issues are very important to the entire marketing community and deserve careful consideration outside of the context of the Wall Street reform bill.  The Chairman strongly indicated that he will continue to push for changes in the Magnuson Moss rulemaking procedures this year.

If you have any questions about this matter, please contact Dan Jaffe (djaffe@ana.net) or Keith Scarborough (kscarborough@ana.net) in ANA’s Washington, DC office at (202) 296-1883.

http://www.ana.net/advocacy/content/2418

DMA Asks Financial Reform Conferees to Keep FTC Expansion Out of ‘Restoring American Financial Stability Act’

June 10, 2010 — The Direct Marketing Association (DMA) today was joined by 47 other trade associations and business coalitions in sending a letter to each of the conferees on H.R. 4173, the “Restoring American Financial Stability Act” (RAFSA), urging them to keep language that would dramatically expand the powers of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) out of the final bill.

As the House and Senate conferees work to reconcile their versions of the financial regulatory legislation, the associations — which represent hundreds of thousands of US companies from a wide array of industry segments — expressed strong opposition to provisions in the House version of the bill that would expand the FTC’s rulemaking and enforcement authority over virtually every sector of the American economy.

“The balance struck in the Senate bill is the right one,” said Linda Woolley, DMA’s executive vice president, government affairs.  “That bill makes the most sense in the context of financial reform legislation, maintaining the FTC’s existing jurisdiction without expanding its rulemaking and enforcement authority over industries and sectors that had nothing to do with the financial crisis.  Issues of FTC expansion deserve their own due consideration and debate in the more appropriate context of an FTC reauthorization, as has been done in the past.”

DMA and the other associations strongly believe that granting the FTC broad new authority is not a necessary or relevant response to the causes of the recent recession and, therefore, asked the conferees to oppose the inclusion of any provisions that would expand FTC authority, rather than making changes to the Commission that would have a fundamental impact on the entire business community and the broader American economy.

For more information please visit www.dmaaction.org.
http://www.the-dma.org/cgi/dispannouncements?article=1449

What the new online ad industry-sponsored plan to identify Behavioral-Targeted Ads and Data Collection with the letter “i” really stands for: ineffective [And should be relabeled “ID”—Ineffective and Disingenuous]

Statement of Jeff Chester, executive director, Center for Digital Democracy, Washington, D.C. www.democraticmedia.org

A new self-regulatory scheme designed to head-off meaningful consumer privacy rules by Congress and the Federal Trade Commission is to be released today, according to several reports.  In addition, the Council of Better Business Bureaus has issued a RFP asking for technology solutions to bolster its online advertising self-regulatory approach.

These efforts are trying to place a flimsy band-aid over a gushing consumer data privacy wound.  Disclosure and more opportunities to opt-out is an online ad industry copout. Interactive marketers have created a data collection monster.  What’s needed are Fair Information Principles for the digital age, enforced by regulators, which dramatically minimize how much data is collected, stored, sold and resold–and limit how it can be used.   Instead we get fancy package relabeling fashioned by Madison Avenue.

Consumers face a bewildering, far-reaching, and complex system created by the online ad business that collects and harvests their information—including financial, health, and other personal details—that is non-transparent and unaccountable.  These new self-regulatory initiatives are disingenuous, because they don’t address the real problem:  that through a range of largely stealth online marketing techniques, digital media has been designed to ensure that consumers provide reams of their personal data.

As the FTC holds its second privacy hearing this Thursday, and as the House Commerce Committee finalizes its proposed legislation, policymakers must ask themselves:  how can we do a better job protecting consumers–instead of enabling the same kind of self-regulatory approach that helped bring our economy to the brink of disaster.  Consumers and lawmakers should especially be concerned that the approach backed by Truste and Future of Privacy Forum will permit monopolistic broadband Internet Service Providers, such as Comcast and AT&T,  to gather even more personal information on their subscribers.

Where Does Google and Microsoft Really Stand–with the IAB and ad lobby or for Consumer Protection?

Both Google and Microsoft serve on the executive committee of the Interactive Ad Bureau, a trade association fighting against consumer privacy proposals in Congress and the FTC.  The IAB just sent a letter signed by other ad and marketing industry lobbyists opposing Obama and congressional proposals to expand the ability of the FTC to better protect consumers.  My CDD just sent emails to officials at both Google and Microsoft asking them to clarify where they stand on the IAB’s letter [see below].  Do our two leading online marketing leaders support financial and regulatory reform, including protecting privacy?  Or does the IAB letter–and Google and Microsoft’s own role helping govern that trade lobby group–really reflect their own position against better consumer protection? Not coincidently, the IAB’s PAC has expanded its PAC contribution giving to congress.

Why does the IAB and other ad groups want to scuttle a more capable FTC?  Think online financial products, including mortgages, pharmaceutical operated social networks, digital ads targeting teens fueling the youth obesity crisis, ads created by brain research to influence our subconscious minds, a mobile marketing system that targets us because it knows our location, interests and behavior.  The IAB is terrified that a responsible consumer protection agency will not only peek under the ‘digital hood,’ as the Obama FTC is currently doing.  But actually propose policies and bring cases that rein in irresponsible and harmful business practices.  So Microsoft and Google:  who are with?  Consumers or the special interest advertising lobby?
*****

letter to Google:  22 January 2010

Dear Pablo, Jane, Peter and Alan:

As you may know, the Interactive Advertising Bureau recently sent a letter  to Congress, along with other ad related groups, opposing the expansion of FTC regulatory authority as proposed in the Consumer Financial Protection Agency bill and related reauthorization [http://www.clickz.com/3636212].

Google serves on the executive committee of the IAB’s board.  For the record, does Google support IAB’s stance that, as news reports say, if the FTC is given additional enforcement and penalty-making authority, “the FTC could essentially act as an unelected legislature governing industries and sectors across the economy.”

If Google disagrees with the IAB’s letter, I ask that it make its position public as soon as possible.  I also respectfully request Google state its position regarding the Consumer Financial Protection Agency proposal, as well as its position on expanding FTC authority.

Regards,

Jeff Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
www.democraticmedia.org

letter to Microsoft:  22 Jan. 2010:

Dear Mike and Frank:

As you may know, the Interactive Advertising Bureau recently sent a letter to Congress, along with other ad related groups, opposing the expansion of FTC regulatory authority as proposed in the Consumer Financial Protection Agency bill and related reauthorization [http://www.clickz.com/3636212].

Microsoft serves on the executive committee of the IAB’s board.  For the record, does Microsoft support IAB’s stance that, as news reports say, if the FTC is given additional enforcement and penalty-making authority, “the FTC could essentially act as an unelected legislature governing industries and sectors across the economy.”

If Microsoft disagrees with the IAB’s letter, I ask that it make its position public as soon as possible.  I also respectfully request Microsoft state its position regarding the Consumer Financial Protection Agency proposal, as well as its position on expanding FTC authority.

Regards,

Jeff Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
www.democraticmedia.org

Consumer and Privacy Groups at FTC Roundtable to Call for Decisive Agency Action

Washington, DC, December 6, 2009 – On Monday December 7, 2009, consumer representatives and privacy experts speaking at the first of three Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Exploring Privacy Roundtable Series will call on the agency to adopt new policies to protect consumer privacy in today’s digitized world. Consumer and privacy groups, as well as academics and policymakers, have increasingly looked to the FTC to ensure that Americans have control over how their information is collected and used.

The groups have asked the Commission to issue a comprehensive set of Fair Information Principles for the digital era, and to abandon its previous notice and choice model, which is not effective for consumer privacy protection.

Specifically, at the Roundtable on Monday, consumer panelists and privacy experts will call on the FTC to stop relying on industry privacy self-regulation because of its long history of failure. Last September, a number of consumer groups provided Congressional leaders and the FTC a detailed blueprint of pro-active measures designed to protect privacy, available at: http://www.democraticmedia.org/release/privacy-release-20090901.

These measures include giving individuals the right to see, have a copy of, and delete any information about them; ensuring that the use of consumer data for any credit, employment, insurance, or governmental purpose or for redlining is prohibited; and ensuring that websites should only initially collect and use data from consumers for a 24-hour period, with the exception of information categorized as sensitive, which should not be collected at all. The groups have also requested that the FTC establish a Do Not Track registry.

Quotes from Monday’s panelists:

Marc Rotenberg, EPIC: “There is an urgent need for the Federal Trade Commission to address the growing threat to consumer privacy.  The Commission must hold accountable those companies that collect and use personal information. Self-regulation has clearly failed.”

Jeff Chester, Center for Digital Democracy: “Consumers increasingly confront a sophisticated and pervasive data collection apparatus that can profile, track and target them online. The Obama FTC must quickly act to protect the privacy of Americans,including information related to their finances, health, and ethnicity.”

Susan Grant, Consumer Federation of America: “It’s time to recognize privacy as a fundamental human right and create a public policy framework that requires that right to be respected,” said Susan Grant, Director of Consumer Protection at Consumer Federation of America. “Rather than stifling innovation, this will spur innovative ways to make the marketplace work better for consumers and businesses.”

Pam Dixon, World Privacy Forum: “Self-regulation of commercial data brokers has been utterly ineffective to protect consumers. It’s not just bad actors who sell personal information ranging from mental health information, medical status, income, religious and ethnic status, and the like. The sale of personal information is a routine business model for many in corporate America, and neither consumers nor policymakers are aware of the amount of trafficking in personal information. It’s time to tame the wild west with laws that incorporate the principles of the Fair Credit Reporting Act to ensure transparency, accountability, and consumer control.”

Written statements and other materials for the roundtable panelists are available at the following links:

CDD/USPIRG: http://www.democraticmedia.org/node/419

WPF: http://www.worldprivacyforum.org/pdf/WPF_Comments_FTC_110609fs.pdf

CFA: http://www.consumerfed.org/elements/www.consumerfed.org/File/5%20Myths%20about%20Online%20Behavioral%20Advertising%2011_12_09.pdf

EPIC: www.epic.org

“Cookie Wars, Real-Time Targeting, and Proprietary Self Learning Algorithms: Why the FTC Must Act Swiftly to Protect Consumer Privacy”

That’s the title of comments filed at the U.S. Federal Trade Commission by my Center for Digital Democracy and U.S. PIRG.  I also just gave a presentation with the same name at last week’s meeting of data protection commissioners in Madrid, Spain.   It’s available here.

Here’s an excerpt:   Today, consumers online face the rapid growth and ever-increasing sophistication of the various techniques advertisers employ for data collection, profiling, and targeting across all online platforms. The growth of ad and other optimization services for targeting, involving real-time bidding on ad exchanges; the expansion of data collection capabilities from the largest advertising agencies (with the participation of leading digital media content and marketing companies); the increasing capabilities of mobile marketers to target users via enhanced data collection; and a disturbing growth of social media surveillance practices for targeted marketing are just a few of the developments the commission must address. But despite technical innovation and what may appear to be dramatic changes in the online data collection/profiling/targeting market, the commission must recognize that the underlying paradigm threatening consumer privacy online has been constant since the early 1990’s. So-called “one-to-one marketing,” where advertisers collect as much as possible on individual consumers so they can be targeted online, remains the fundamental approach.

Groups & Scholars Urge Congress to Strengthen FTC’s Ability to Protect Consumers

The advertising lobby has been working to undermine the FTC’s ability to serve the public interest.  Advertisers are fearful that the FTC–finally awakened from a long digital slumber–will actually investigate the numerous problems linked especially to marketing (think prescription drugs, financial marketing of subprime loans, etc.).  They are especially concerned that the FTC will effectively address privacy and consumer protection problems related to privacy, interactive advertising, children and adolescents, and “green” marketing.  Here’s the letter which was sent late yesterday to Chairman Waxman and Ranking Member Barton:


October 28, 2009

Chairman Henry Waxman

Rep. Joe Barton, Ranking Member

Energy and Commerce Committee

(via email)

Dear Chairman Waxman and Rep. Barton:

We write to support the provisions in H.R. 3126, the “Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009” (CFPA Act), designed to ensure that the Federal Trade Commission has the resources and authority to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive practices.

We believe that the FTC must play a more proactive role addressing critical consumer concerns, including privacy, online marketing, and food advertising to young people.  Therefore, we fully support the legislative language in H.R.3126 that would enable the commission to conduct consumer protection rulemaking under the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA); provide it with aiding and abetting liability for violations of the Section 5 of the FTC Act involving unfair or deceptive practices; and enable it to seek civil penalty liability for unfair and deceptive practices found to violate Section 5.  We also support providing the FTC independent litigating authority in civil penalty cases.

As you know, the FTC’s ability to serve consumers has been hamstrung because of its “Magnuson-Moss” rulemaking procedure.  As a result, the FTC has not been able to effectively engage in a timely and effective rulemaking process.  By providing the FTC with the same APA rulemaking authority enjoyed by other federal agencies, it will enable the commission to engage in consumer protection activities in a timely manner.

Respectfully,

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

Campaign for Commercial Free Childhood

Center for Democracy and Technology

Center for Digital Democracy

Center for Science in the Public Interest

Children Now

Consumer Federation of America

Consumer Action

Consumers Union

Consumer Watchdog

Free Press

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Media Access Project

Privacy Rights Clearinghouse

Privacy Times

Public Citizen

Public Knowledge

Public Health Institute

U.S. PIRG

World Privacy Forum

David Britt, CEO (retired) Sesame Workshop

Prof. Kelly Brownell, Yale University

Prof. Robert McChesney, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Prof. Kathryn C. Montgomery, American University

Prof. Joseph Turow, University of Pennsylvania

Prof. Ellen Wartella, UC Riverside