Delete Your Computer Cookies

Who Owns The Privacy?

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:45:00 +0000

Online privacy has become an issue that finally has bled outside of the realm of behavioral targeting and it is quite rightly taking its place in discussions of ad spending, publishing and targeting of all kinds. We have been weaving it ever more deeply into the coverage at MediaPost's own OnlineMediaDaily (courtesy of specialist Wendy Davis) and the programming of the OMMA shows themselves.

At last month's OMMA Behavioral, the Interactive Advertising's Bureau's point man on public policy, Mike Zaneis, walked us through the new effort to create standardized iconography and messaging around disclosure about data collection and tracking, opt-outs, etc. Zaneis says that the IAB and its partners in the cross-industry consortium working on the project will run over 1 billion ad impressions this year to get the word out.

While some may say that the campaign is too little too late, he argues that the regulatory and legislative groups he lobbies in Washington are appreciating the effort. According to the analytics on the ad campaign, 10% of the ads being delivered get moused over, which in many cases expands the ad to offer information about ad targeting. The next wave of the effort will involve standard icons and labels that will run with ads and on publisher Web sites. For the full presentation, you can access the video/audio of Zaneis' talk here.

While the industry initiative to implement and enforce self-regulation may be slower to market than many expected, it is dovetailing with rising concern that privacy matters to everyone's bottom line. Next week in San Francisco at OMMA Global, we are taking the privacy issue that usually sits in a track about ad nets or behavioral targeting, and instead moving it into the track for publishers. The panel on Wednesday -- "Can Publishers Take Ownership of Privacy?" -- will address the critical problem of how the privacy issue ultimately will have to be taken up by the place where consumers have a direct relationship, the publisher.

I think publishers are going to have to take a good deal of the ownership of privacy and be much more aware of the policies of the partners they use. For the last several weeks I have been using the latest iteration of the Ghostery plug-in for Firefox. This tool tracks the trackers. It shows the user which ad nets and other analytics programs are using unique identifiers with your browser.

What I find really interesting here is the new pop-up window that superimposes the identities of the trackers on every page on which you land. From Google Analytics to ad exchanges and data providers, the full list gets daunting quickly at some sites. Now a part of the experience of landing on any site is seeing very clearly from the outset which cookies and beacons are at play.The net effect of this process is fascinating, because it gives the user a peek at a publisher's business model and the aggressiveness of their data strategy.

Does such knowledge change my browsing habits? No, not yet. Does it change my relationship with the publisher? To a degree. I now have a stronger sense of how the publisher is leveraging and placing value on my presence. In an indirect way, greater transparency about user tracking reinforces the notion that consumer behaviors have a cash value in the media economy. In making the case that targeting is critical to the survival of online media, publishers and advertisers are also making the case with consumers that their attention has value and that the user herself may be able to barter some of this value more effectively. As a consumer, the publishers appears to own my privacy protection, because they are the ones most obviously profiting from my data.

I was speaking with a senior ad agency executive the other day about the trends in digital advertising this year. He was among the first on the buy side to make the strong case to me that spending and privacy are going to be linked. As agencies develop demand-side platforms that aggregate audiences and inventory on behalf of clients, then the now-familiar question "who owns the data" becomes more insistent among publishers, third-party data providers and ad networks.

"Privacy and who owns the data are opposite sides of the same coin," he told me. "Until we get to the solution of both those issues, it renders the value of online media as specious." In other words, until the advertisers (or even the publishers, for that matter) know what they can extract from the data they collect and how it can be used, then it is difficult to price advertising. "Resolving the privacy issue in turn informs who owns the data, which informs how online display media is priced," he argued.

Now privacy is inextricably entwined with the publisher's and advertiser's bottom line.

FCC Commissioner Calls For Examination Of Broadband Price Hikes

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:40:00 +0000

Federal Communications Commission member Mignon Clyburn said Wednesday that recent broadband price hikes "should raise a red flag" for the commission. "When prices rise across the industry, and where there are only a limited number of players in the game, we have to ask ourselves whether there is any meaningful competition in the marketplace," she said.

Clyburn didn't mention any broadband companies by name, but her statement obviously referred to recent reports that Comcast and AT&T are rolling out rate hikes.

This week, it emerged that Comcast will raise rates for some services by $2 a month in the New Jersey area. Subscribers who purchase "economy" 1 Mbps downstream service, and don't bundle it with other features, will see prices increase to $40.95; subscribers to 12 Mbps "performance" will see unbundled rates rise to $59.95. News of Comcast's rate increases came shortly after a report that AT&T also is raising the price of broadband for some customers.

The reports also come days before the FCC is slated to present Congress with a national broadband plan aimed at improving high-speed Web service in the country. Among other factors, the FCC has already identified the cost of broadband as one impediment to wider adoption.

Earlier this year, the FCC released a study showing that 35% of Americans lack home broadband lines. A big chunk of that group -- 36% -- said that broadband cost too much. (That group includes people who find monthly subscription fees and installation prices too high, as well as those who say a computer itself is too costly.)

Clyburn's comments were cheered by broadband advocacy group Free Press, which earlier this week called on the FCC to "do something bold and decisive to promote meaningful competition."

"For too long, the FCC has avoided confronting the competition problem, leaving American consumers and business at the mercy of the phone and cable companies," Free Press policy director Ben Scott said in a statement. "Congress wants a plan for universal, affordable and robust broadband, and a meaningful competition policy is the key to achieving those goals."

Scott also stated that goals for increased broadband adoption "cannot be met with hope that wireless broadband might someday discipline prices."

That remark appeared to be directed at an FCC announcement earlier this week indicating that the national broadband plan would include plans to consider using spectrum for free or low-cast wirelss broadband service.

Leaked intelligence documents: Here's what Facebook and Comcast will tell the police about you

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 18:09:00 +0000

Wonder what information Facebook and Comcast will turn over to police and intelligence agencies about you? Cryptome, the site that last week posted the leaked Microsoft "spy" manual, has posted company documents that purport to describe what those companies will reveal about you. As with the Microsoft document, the information is eye-opening.

Keep in mind that what the companies turn over to police and intelligence agencies is not illegal. The companies are all, in their own ways, following the law. Still, it's disconcerting to see all that's available about you, if the documents are real and to be trusted. Here's the rundown on each.

Facebook

The "Facebook Subpoena/Search Warrant Guidelines" from the Cryptome site are dated 2008, so there's a chance they've been superseded. The document spells out how law enforcement and intelligence agenices should go about requesting information about Facebook users, and details what information is turned over.

Following is what Facebook will turn over about you, taken verbatim from the guide:

Types of Information Available

User Neoprint

The Neoprint is an expanded view of a given user profile. A request should specify that they are requesting a “Neoprint of used Id XXXXXX”.

User Photoprint

The Photoprint is a compilation of all photos uploaded by the user that have not been deleted, along with all photos uploaded by any user which have the requested user tagged in them. A request should specify that they are requesting a “Photoprint of user Id XXXXXX”.

User Contact Info

All user contact information input by the user and not subsequently deleted by the user is available, regardless of whether it is visible in their profile. This information may include the following:
Name
Birth date
Contact e-mail address(s)
Physical address
City
State
Zip
Phone
Cell
Work phone
Screen name (usually for AOL Messenger/iChat)
Website

With the exception of contact e-mail and activated mobile numbers, Facebook validates none of this information. A request should specify that they are requesting "Contact information of user specified by [some other piece of contact information]". No historical data is retained.

Group Contact Info

Where a group is known, we will provide a list of users currently registered in a group. We will also provide a PDF of the current status of the group profile page.

A request should specify that they are requesting "Contact information for group XXXXXX".

No historical data is retained.

IP Logs

IP logs can be produced for a given user ID or IP address. A request should specify that they are requesting the "IP log of user Id XXXXXX" or "IP log of IP address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx".

The log contains the following information:

* Script – script executed. For instance, a profile view of the URL http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=29445421 would populate script with "profile.php"

* Scriptget – additional information passed to the script. In the above example, scriptget would contain "id=29445421"

* Userid – The Facebook user id of the account active for the request

* View time – date of execution in Pacific Time

* IP – source IP address

IP log data is generally retained for 90 days from present date. However, this data source is under active and major redevelopment and data may be retained for a longer or shorter period.

Special Requests

The Facebook Security Team may be able to retrieve specific information not addressed in the general categories above. Please contact Facebook if you have a specific investigative need prior to issuing a subpoena or warrant.

Comcast

The Comcast document is labeled "Comcast Cable Law Enforcement Handbook," and is dated 2007, so there's a possibility that it, too, has been superseded. As with the other documents, it explains how law enforcement agenices can get information, and details what information is available.

There's a great deal of detail in the 35-page document, which describes what Internet, phone, and television information will be turned over. For example, here's the IP information it will make available:

Comcast currently maintains Internet Protocol address log files for a period of 180 days. If Comcast is asked to respond for information relating to an incident that occurred beyond this period, we will not have responsive information and can not fulfill a legal request. (Comcast can process and respond to preservation requests as outlined below in this Handbook.)

As expected, Comcast will also turn over the emails, including attachments, of those who use Comcast's email service, but "In cases involving another entity’s email service or account, Comcast would not have any access to or ability to access customer email in response to a legal request."

Information Comcast turns over to law enforcement agencies varies according to the request. For example, a grand jury subpoena will yield more information than a judicial summons, as you can see in the excerpt below. Comcast notes, though, that this is just a sample, and that "Each request is evaluated and reviewed on a case by case basis in light of any special procedural or legal requirements and applicable laws." So the examples "are for illustration only."

Grand Jury, Trial, or Statutorily Authorized Administrative Subpoena

Law enforcement agencies are eligible to receive subscriber identification including items (1)-(6) without notice to the subscriber:

1) Subscriber's name

2) Subscriber's address

3) Length of service including start date

4) Subscriber's telephone number, instrument number or other subscriber number or identity, including a temporarily assigned network address

5) Subscriber's email account names;

6) Means and source of payment for such service (including any credit card or bank account number); and

7) In certain instances, email communications older than 180 days with notice.

For those who worry about privacy, though, all of this information is small potatoes. The real worry is about the use of what are called pen registers or trap-and-trace devices, which essentially capture all of your Internet activity --- the Web sites you visits, the emails you send and receive, IM traffic, downloads, and so on. Here's what the document says about them:

Pen Register / Trap and Trace Device

Title 18 U.S.C. § 3123 provides a mechanism for authorizing and approving the installation and use of a pen register or a trap and trace device pursuant to court order. All orders must be coordinated prior to submission to Comcast. Law enforcement will be asked to agree to reimburse Comcast's reasonable costs incurred to purchase and/or install and monitor necessary equipment. See "Reimbursement," below.

Comcast also details how law enforcement agencies can get details about subscribers on an emergency basis:

Emergency Disclosure

18 U.S.C. § 2702(b)(8) and § 2702(c)(4) contain provisions for the expedited release of subscriber information in situations where there is an immediate danger of death or an immediate risk of serious physical injury. Law enforcement agencies need only to adequately complete Comcast’s Emergency Situation Disclosure Request form (Reference Attachment #1) and they will receive accelerated subscriber identification.

As for your voice calls made via Comcast, here's what the company will turn over:

Call Detail Records

- Comcast maintains two years of historical call detail records (records of local and long distance connections) for our Comcast Digital Voice telephone service. This includes local, local toll, and long distance records. Comcast also currently provides traditional circuit-switched telephone service branded Comcast Digital Phone. Call detail records for this service are collected by AT&T and are available for approximately two years as well. To determine which type of service is involved, contact the Legal Demands Center—Voice and Video at 800-871-6298.

Account Records

- Account records are generally stored for approximately two years after the termination of an account. If the account has an outstanding balance due, records may be retained for a longer period of time.

As with Internet information, what phone information will be turned over depends on the specific kind of legal request, and the examples "are for information only." Here's an excerpt:

Grand Jury, Trial or Administrative Subpoena

Law enforcement agencies can receive subscriber identification including:

1) Subscriber's name

2) Subscriber's address

3) Length of service including start date

4) Subscriber's telephone number, instrument number or other subscriber number or identity, including a temporarily assigned network address

5) Subscriber's social security number (if requested)

6) Means and source of payment for such service (including any credit card or bank account number)

7) Call Detail (records of local and long distance connections)

And, as you would expect, there is the same pen register/trap-and-trace device language as in the section about the Internet.

Oddly enough, it appears that when it comes to information about your television viewing habits, you have more privacy rights than you do when it comes to information about your Internet and voice use, because it can only be turned over in response to a court order, not a subpoena. Here's what the document has to say about TV information:

Subscriber Account Identification and Related Records

For subscribers to our cable television service, the Cable Act requires Comcast as a cable operator to disclose personally identifiable information to a governmental entity solely in response to a court order (and not, for example, a subpoena) or with the subscriber's express written consent. The Cable Act requires that the cable subscriber be afforded the opportunity to appear and contest in a court proceeding relevant to the court order any claims made in support of the court order. At the proceeding, the Cable Act requires the governmental entity to offer clear and convincing evidence that the subject of the information is reasonably suspected of engaging in criminal activity and that the information sought would be material evidence in the case. See 47 U.S.C. § 551(h).

Why does the law give you more privacy protection over your television viewing habits than your Internet or phone use? I haven't a clue --- ask your congressman.

Watchdog Group Alleges Google Violates Own Privacy Policy With Buzz

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 13:22:00 +0000

A watchdog group that recently asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate Google Buzz has supplemented its complaint with an allegation that the new service violates Google's own privacy policy.

"At the time that Google introduced Google Buzz, the personal information section of the Gmail privacy notice promised to its users that the company would only use their contact lists and other related data 'in order to provide the service to you,'" the Electronic Privacy Information Center alleges in new papers.

EPIC alleges that Google violated this policy by using contact lists for a purpose other than its email service. But one potential problem with this argument is that it isn't clear that Buzz is separate from email.

Google itself describes Buzz as "a new feature built into Gmail."

But EPIC attorney Jared Kaprove says that people don't expect email services to include the social networking elements that came with Buzz. "If Google was to make the argument that Buzz is part of Gmail, that would be fairly disingenuous," he says. "Users know what email is."

When Google rolled out Buzz last month, the service automatically transformed users' Gmail contacts into their followers -- and made that group public by default. Like Twitter and Facebook, Buzz enables users to broadcast their posts to a network of followers. Google clearly hoped to get a leg up on competitors by using Gmail data to create social networks, but critics say that the company didn't take into account that users don't necessarily want their email contacts to become publicized.

Google quickly revised Buzz in response to complaints. Among other changes, the company replaced a feature that automatically includes other users as followers with one that merely suggests followers.

But Kaprove says that the service shouldn't even automatically make suggestions unless people have affirmatively instructed Buzz to do so. "It should be an entirely separate service that you have to choose to activate," he says.

Google said in a statement that it intends to make more revisions to Buzz and is also open to suggestions about the service. "We've already made changes based on user feedback, and we have more improvements in the works," the company stated. "We also welcome dialogue with EPIC and appreciate hearing directly from them about their concerns."

AstraZeneca Suggests Message Guidelines To FDA

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 22:44:00 +0000

In response to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's request for comments on new rules for online marketing and communications, AstraZeneca has outlined some ways that pharma company interactions with customers and potential customers might be governed.

The Wilmington, Del.-based drug maker suggests that certain online communications -- such as Facebook and Twitter posts -- should be judged not one by one, but as a group of individual comments. That would enable pharma companies to participate in those sorts of social-media sites without having to balance benefits and risks at every 140-character turn.

AstraZeneca also calls attention to the differences between content on Web sites a drug maker owns and controls, compared to sites where it provides content for sponsors to use as they see fit. Also figuring prominently in the discussion are social media sites, which would include real-time company communications. Different rules should apply in different contexts, the drug maker suggests.

The proposal is in response to the FDA's September 2009 Call for Comments on their public notice: Promotion of Food and Drug Administration-Regulated Medical Products Using the Internet and Social Media Tools.

"AstraZeneca understands the value of social media to engage key stakeholders in today's technology-driven world," says Bob Perkins, vice president, public policy and promotional affairs, in a statement. "While we have developed a corporate presence in the digital space, we believe it is increasingly important to participate in online channels to provide accurate and regulated information about our branded products in conversations with patients, caregivers, and health care providers."

AstraZeneca believes that five principles should be followed by any pharma company engaging in social media. First, companies should only present content that is accurate, balanced and not misleading. Second, companies must be respectful and encourage product sponsor participation that respects the interests of patients, caregivers and health care providers -- especially related to matters of privacy and the primacy of the patient/physician relationship.

Third, companies have a responsibility to protect and advance patient health by facilitating patient access to quality information for use with their physician to improve their health and protect patients through encouraging accurate and timely reporting on medicine safety. Fourth, companies should be transparent, meaning that any product sponsor participation should be accomplished in a manner that, at all times, is entirely transparent to other participants as to the role of product sponsors as participants in online discussion.

Finally, companies need to respect the views of others. They should acknowledge that patients, caregivers, clinicians and others who participate in social media have their own opinions and that when they differ from those of the product sponsor, it is not the role of a product sponsor to censor or limit these views, but to add the product sponsor's own views to the discussion.

In its comments to the FDA, AstraZeneca proposed a regulatory framework that is consistent with these principles and defines, distinguishes, and distinctly regulates three types of communications on the Internet and in social media that are company-controlled, hosted online communications; company-controlled communications and real-time, social media participation communications.

"Without guidance, our activities are limited in a manner that we believe is not in the best interests of informed health care decision making," the company told the FDA. "In our absence, consumers will turn to information sources that are not regulated and not always well informed."

FDA Asked To Probe Drug Companies' Use Of Behavioral Targeting

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:15:00 +0000

The watchdog group Center for Digital Democracy has asked the Food and Drug Administration to investigate whether pharmaceutical companies are unfairly using behavioral targeting techniques to market drugs online.

"Digital marketing applications for selling cars, food, and financial products have already raised privacy and related concerns at the FTC. When applied to digital pharmaceutical and health marketing, such practices call for an even higher level of scrutiny and policy intervention," the advocacy group says in a new FDA filing.

The privacy organization is asking the FDA to take a host of steps, including examining data collection practices by pharmaceutical advertisers, reviewing privacy policies of such marketers as well as publishers, and requiring companies that use behavioral targeting to spell out their methods. "Consumers need to know whether and how they are being tracked and targeted -- including via 'condition-specific' channels," the filing states.

Jeff Chester, executive director of the CDD, adds that a "highly targeted, purposely immersive and subconsciously guided digital marketing apparatus" can be unfair to consumers when it comes to health marketing. "We want the FDA to make some policies related to pharmaceutical marketing that reflect the distinct nature of interactive marketing," he says.

Ad executives also say that behavioral targeting -- or serving ads to people who have already demonstrated an interest in particular medical conditions by reading about them -- benefits readers by providing them with relevant information. "Behavioral targeting is used across all verticals online, whether travel, banking or health," says Debrianna Obara, vice president of media at RazorfishHealth. "Pharmaceutical companies, or wellness clients, are not trying to do anything underhanded. They're really just trying to give hand-raisers the information that they're looking for."

Obara adds that pharmaceutical marketers don't use behavioral targeting for products related to "sensitive" categories, including oncology, depression and sexual dysfunction.

The CDD's filing listed several publisher sites that focus on health, including HealthCentral, which says that marketers can advertise on 35 condition-specific categories.

HealthCentral President and Chief Operating Officer Jeremy Shane says the company runs contextually targeted ads on HealthCentral sites -- that is, ads that relate to the content on its pages -- but doesn't directly offer behaviorally targeted ads on its own sites. HealthCentral also runs some Google AdSense ads, which can be targeted based on behavior; users can opt out of that cookie-based behavioral targeting by Google.

In addition, HealthCentral has a deal with Microsoft allowing the company to serve behaviorally targeted ads to some users who go to its sites after previously visiting HealthCentral. Users can opt out of those ads as well. That deal doesn't allow users to be targeted based on anything they have read at HealthCentral relating to mental health or sexual health.

Marketing and publishing executives also say that behavioral targeting doesn't violate people's privacy because such targeting is anonymous. While companies track Web users via cookies on their computers, the companies are not also collecting users' names, email addresses or other so-called personally identifiable information.

But the Federal Trade Commission, which has been investigating behavioral targeting and privacy, said in a recent report that even non-personally identifiable information could be used to identify specific users.

The FDA currently is examining pharmaceutical marketers' use of online marketing and social media. Last year, the agency told more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies that their pay-per-click search ads were misleading because the ad copy touted the benefits of drugs without also informing consumers about risks and contraindications.

Wireless Carriers, Google Respond To FCC on ETFs

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 14:44:00 +0000

The four major U.S. wireless operators and Google Tuesday filed their responses to a Federal Communications Commission inquiry into the fees charged to customers who drop wireless service before their contracts end.

The carriers separately defended early termination fees (ETFs) as a necessary part of being able to offer discounted mobile devices and lower monthly rates while allowing operators to recoup a portion of lost revenue when customers cancel service prematurely. Google defended the "equipment recovery fee" on its Nexus One smartphone launched in January on similar grounds.

The FCC probe was initially sparked when Verizon Wireless doubled the ETF on smartphones and other high-end devices from $175 to $350 in November. The agency asked Verizon about the rationale behind the increase and how the company notifies customers about the ETFs.

The nation's largest wireless carrier in December told the FCC that the higher fee was justified not only by the cost of subsidizing higher-priced smartphones, but also the higher operational expenses required by the devices -- from advertising to running its broadband network. Verizon's reply drew the ire of at least one commissioner -- Mignon Clyburn -- who called Verizon's answers "unsatisfying, and, in some cases, troubling" in a sharply worded public rebuke.

Late last month, the FCC opened a formal inquiry into ETFs, sending letters to Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile Sprint and Google asking about their policies and disclosure practices concerning the fees. For its part, Verizon essentially reiterated its prior response to the agency on the subject, maintaining that the increased ETF was commensurate with increased upfront costs associated with more sophisticated phones.

"In brief, term contracts with ETFs benefit consumers by enabling them to obtain access to devices at a significantly lower up-front cost, while enabling Verizon Wireless to recoup the extraordinarily expensive investment required to support its wireless network and operations and the cost of providing the devices at a substantial discount," stated Verizon's letter to the FCC.

Since its initial response, however, the carrier pointed out that it had removed 10 phones from the list of 46 "Advanced Devices" it sells that carry the $350 ETF. The $175 penalty is charged on other Verizon contract phones.

Other carriers made similar arguments, emphasizing the consumer benefits that ETFs help to make possible, including reduced pricing on high-end devices and product and service innovation. They also reiterated that customers are free to buy phones without contracts at full retail price to avoid ETFs.

"In that regard, despite the "no contract/no ETF" choices available to them, the overwhelming majority of AT&T customers choose a term plan arrangement that enables them to obtain a new handset at a discounted price," stated AT&T's letter. In contrast to Verizon, AT&T charges an ETF of $175 on all phones, while Sprint and T-Mobile impose a $200 fee across all models.

The wireless operators also defended their procedures for informing subscribers about ETFs as transparent and extensive, detailing disclosures made through print and online advertising, checklists for sales reps, contract language and sales receipts, among other ways of providing notification.

Google acknowledged that there had been "some concerns and confusion" in relation to separate early-termination penalties charged by itself and carrier partner T-Mobile in connection with the Nexus One device sold directly online by Google. The tech giant has also made the biggest concession to date on ETFs, dropping what it calls its equipment recovery fee, or ERF, on the Nexus One from $350 to $150 earlier this month.

The tech giant faced a backlash when it was revealed that customers who canceled or downgraded their T-Mobile service plans for the Nexus One within 120 days of purchase (but after the 14-day trial period) would have to pay the $350 fee to Google in addition to the standard $200 penalty owed to T-Mobile.

Google told the FCC the ERF -- albeit lower -- is necessary to help recover the device subsidy it provides when someone buys the Nexus One with a T-Mobile contract. The company said T-Mobile pays it a commission for each new subscriber buying the phone through its online store or existing ones upgrading service plans for the Nexus One.

The commissions are then passed along to consumers in the form of discounted pricing. New T-Mobile customers can buy the Nexus One for $179 instead of the full retail price of $529 for an unlocked version of the phone.

For its part, T-Mobile still imposes its $200 ETF on Nexus One service contracts, but stated that -- as with other phones -- the fee is intended to recoup a portion of lost revenue from early terminations rather than specific equipment costs. T-Mobile's letter also stated that Google and the carrier "have made changes to further enhance disclosures regarding the ERF and T-Mobile's terms and conditions, including the ETF, as part of the Google sales process."

FCC To Propose 'Mobile Future Auction'

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 14:43:00 +0000

As part of a national broadband plan, FCC Commissioner Julius Genachowski Wednesday outlined a new initiative allowing television broadcasters to give up spectrum in exchange for a cut of auction revenue.

Speaking at the New America Foundation think tank, Genachowski said the FCC would propose a "Mobile Future Auction" in which broadcasters and other licensees could trade in spectrum in return for a share of the proceeds of spectrum auctions as a way to help expand mobile broadband.

"The Mobile Future Auction would allow broadcasters to elect to participate in a mechanism that could save costs for broadcasters while also being a major part of the solution to one of our country's most significant challenges," said the FCC Commissioner, who set a goal of freeing up 500 Megahertz of spectrum over the next decade.

He pointed to one study that suggested as much as $50 billion in value could be unlocked if we adopted policies to convert some of the broadcast spectrum to mobile broadband. To date, broadcasters have strongly opposed the FCC possibly taking back some of the national airwaves from TV stations to help meet growing demand for wireless broadband services.

TV executives say they want to use their broadcast spectrum to be able to offer more digital channels, HD and programming for mobile devices. The Mobile Future Auction would potentially provide a market-based incentive for broadcasters to free up spectrum for mobile broadband.

But Genachowski argued that spectrum allotted for broadcast TV isn't being used efficiently. "About 300 megahertz of spectrum have been set aside for broadcast TV," he said. "Even in our very largest cities, at most only about 150 megahertz out of 300 megahertz are used." That's true even with the recent reallocation of spectrum in the digital TV transition, he noted.

The National Association of Broadcasters fired back Wednesday in a statement defending its spectrum use: "As a one-to-many transmission medium, broadcasters are ready to make the case that we are far and away the most efficient users of spectrum in today's communications marketplace," read the NAB release.

"We look forward to working with policymakers to help expand the roll-out of broadband without threatening the future of free and local television, mindful of the fact that local TV stations just returned more than a quarter of our spectrum following our transition to digital."

But Genachowski suggested the future auction could be beneficial for all parties. "For broadcasters, who win more flexibility to pursue business models to serve their local communities; and for the public, which wins more innovation in mobile broadband services, continued free, over-the-air television, and the benefits of the proceeds of new and substantial auction revenues," he said.

To help increase broadband adoption, Genachowski also proposed a "Mobility Fund" as part of wider reforms to the Universal Service Fund. Without increasing the size of the USF, it would seek to provide one-time funding to build infrastructure enabling "robust mobile broadband networks, to bring all states to a minimum level of mobile availability."

For its part, the CTIA expressed support for the chairman's remarks. "By proposing to free up 500 MHz of new spectrum for mobile broadband use, Chairman Genachowski has taken a tremendous step toward maintaining our worldwide mobile ecosystem leadership," said CTIA head Steve Largent, in a statement.

Genachowski's speech Wednesday was the latest in a series of talks he has given on the national broadband plan which the FCC is scheduled to submit to Congress March 17.

Widespread Data Breaches Uncovered by FTC Probe

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:27:00 +0000

FTC Warns of Improper Release of Sensitive Consumer Data on P2P File-Sharing Networks

The Federal Trade Commission has notified almost 100 organizations that personal information, including sensitive data about customers and/or employees, has been shared from the organizations’ computer networks and is available on peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing networks to any users of those networks, who could use it to commit identity theft or fraud. The agency also has opened non-public investigations of other companies whose customer or employee information has been exposed on P2P networks. To help businesses manage the security risks presented by file-sharing software, the FTC is releasing new education materials that present the risks and recommend ways to manage them.

Peer-to-peer technology can be used in many ways, such as to play games, make online telephone calls, and, through P2P file-sharing software, share music, video, and documents. But when P2P file-sharing software is not configured properly, files not intended for sharing may be accessible to anyone on the P2P network.

“Unfortunately, companies and institutions of all sizes are vulnerable to serious P2P-related breaches, placing consumers’ sensitive information at risk. For example, we found health-related information, financial records, and drivers’ license and social security numbers--the kind of information that could lead to identity theft,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. “Companies should take a hard look at their systems to ensure that there are no unauthorized P2P file-sharing programs and that authorized programs are properly configured and secure. Just as important, companies that distribute P2P programs, for their part, should ensure that their software design does not contribute to inadvertent file sharing.”

As the nation’s consumer protection agency, the FTC enforces laws that require companies in various industries to take reasonable and appropriate security measures to protect sensitive personal information, including the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act. Failure to prevent such information from being shared to a P2P network may violate such laws. Information about the FTC’s privacy and data security enforcement actions can be found at http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/privacyinitiatives/%20promises_enf.html

The notices went to both private and public entities, including schools and local governments, and the entities contacted ranged in size from businesses with as few as eight employees to publicly held corporations employing tens of thousands. In the notification letters, the FTC urged the entities to review their security practices and, if appropriate, the practices of contractors and vendors, to ensure that they are reasonable, appropriate, and in compliance with the law. The letters state, “It is your responsibility to protect such information from unauthorized access, including taking steps to control the use of P2P software on your own networks and those of your service providers.”

The FTC also recommended that the entities identify affected customers and employees and consider whether to notify them that their information is available on P2P networks. Many states and federal regulatory agencies have laws or guidelines about businesses’ notification responsibilities in these circumstances.

Samples of the notification letters can be found at:

The fact that a company received a letter does not mean that the company necessarily violated any law enforced by the Commission. Letters went to companies under FTC jurisdiction, as well as entities such as banks and public agencies over which the agency does not have jurisdiction.

The FTC appreciates the assistance of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Office of Comptroller of the Currency.

The new business education brochure – titled Peer-to-Peer File Sharing: A Guide for Business – is designed to assist businesses and others as they consider whether to allow file-sharing technologies on their networks, and explain how to safeguard sensitive information on their systems, and other security recommendations.

This information is available at www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/idtheft/bus46.shtm.

Tips for consumers about computer security and P2P can be found at www.onguardonline.gov/topics/p2p-security.aspx.

The Federal Trade Commission works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive,
and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid
them.

To file a complaint in English or Spanish, click http://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/
or call 1-877-382-4357. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other
fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to
more than 1,700 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.

For free information on a variety of consumer topics, click http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm.

MEDIA CONTACT:
Claudia Bourne Farrell,
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2181
STAFF CONTACT:
Alain Sheer,
Bureau of Consumer Protection
202-326-3321

FTC, Disclosure And Your Blog

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:16:00 +0000

In December of 2009, the new FTC policy on blog disclosure went into effect. Here we are well into 2010, and nothing much has changed. In fact, even the FTC has said it is unsure how it will actually enforce the new policy. Is this something publishers, bloggers, or social media consultants need to worry about, or will this turn out to be a paper tiger without any bite?

While the FTC doesn’t have a game plan yet, that doesn’t mean it’s something you can ignore, it’s something you are going to have to address sooner or later. First you should read and try and understand the original FTC document (PDF link) and not rely just on summaries from the web. One of the main complaints in the document, had to do with unsubstantiated claims, or claims that were not typical (IE lose 30 pounds in 5 days with XYZ herbal supplement).

If you publish a website that sells products that make claims like this, or are an affiliate who runs ads with claims like this, you will probably need to make some adjustments. Check your content and any user generated content to make sure you are in compliance.

The second part of the FTC guidelines, which deals with advertising in “non traditional contexts,” and is much more problematic. An example of a non traditional context would be blogging a statement like “I had a great time on my Caribbean Cruise last week” with any part of the sentence containing an affiliate, or otherwise incentivized link. There are several types of arrangements that would be affected by these guidelines:

Paid

The simplest and easiest to understand is where a person or organization pays you directly with cash for making a post, putting up a link, making a tweet, Facebook post or other social media engagement.

Cash in kind

A cash in kind arrangement can be a significantly less clear situation. Basically, a company or person will give you something that has a cash value in exchange for you making a post, putting up a link, making a tweet, Facebook post or other social media engagement. This can be something like a free hotel visit, free spa treatments, or free cell phone.*

Incentive

This type of arrangement constitutes a cash or cash in kind payment at a later date for hitting traffic milestones, generating leads, generating sales, for making a post, putting up a link, making a tweet, Facebook post or other social media engagement.

The context of the action is what’s really important, accepting payment for a sidebar banner isn’t what the FTC is concerned with as they are almost always labeled as advertisements. It’s the links or tweets that are in areas that generally aren’t used for advertising and aren’t labeled as advertising, that will be most likely to cause problems.

If you are publisher or an affiliate, it’s probably a good idea to disclose anywhere you think there might be confusion. If this happens with any regularity on your website, you should also look into incorporating a disclosure policy into your website or creating a page that deals specifically with disclosure.

If you’re looking for an extremely in-depth example of a disclosure statement, you should look at Kara Swisher’s or Walt Mossberg’s from AllThingsD.com. If you are looking for an example of something more appropriate for an affiliate website, look at the disclosure policy for Shawn Collins on AffiliateTip.com.

At this point in the game, the rules are a bit fuzzy and enforcement is almost non-existent. However, that doesn’t mean should throw caution to the wind, and proceed ahead at full speed. Take this opportunity to get ahead of the curve and figure out how you are going to disclose. Don’t think approach disclosure from a negative position, look for ways you can turn disclosure into a selling point.

Google Revisits Privacy Controls On Buzz, Again

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:21:00 +0000

Google engineers have been working on three updates to Buzz during the weekend that address privacy concerns. The changes will become the second set that the Mountain View, Calif. search engine will implement since launching the social network last week. The first set of changes focused on limiting access to public profiles.

The latest round of changes based on feedback from people using the tool provides better privacy controls, and makes the setting more visible. Google spokesperson Victoria Katsarou says Google engineers have been working overtime to get the features implemented quickly. "The changes should go live within the next couple of days," Katsarou told MediaPost Sunday afternoon. "This is important. Our entire team has been working nonstop to respond as quickly as possible. We want to respond to their complaints and have been listening closely to their feedback."

Katsarou says Google wants to improve the product and remains open to receiving feedback from people using Buzz.

Replacing the auto-follow with an auto-suggest feature is one of three updates in this group. Google decided to make the change after people complained that the feature revealed names of people on private email lists. Todd Jackson explains in a blog post that instead of Buzz automatically setting the follows to the people the person emails and chats with most, the tool makes suggestions and asks the user to click on "Follow selected people and start using Buzz."

Aside from changing auto-follow to auto-request, Buzz will no longer connect a user's public Picasa Web album and Google Research shared items automatically. The change, also based on feedback shared with Google by users, replaces an auto-connect feature that shared already public content. Jackson explains that "if you had previously shared photos in an unlisted album or set the Google Reader shared items as 'Protected,' no one except the people you'd explicitly allowed to see your stuff has been able to see it."

Google also will add a Buzz tab to Gmail settings. In the tab, users can hide Buzz from Gmail or disable it completely. A link to these settings will become available from the initial start-up page to easily decide from the start to turn it off if you don't want to use Buzz.

Katsarou says the addition of Buzz tab under "Settings" not only makes it easier to hide Buzz from Gmail or disable it completely, but it gives people another easy way to decide if you want your followers -- the people you follow -- to remain public or private. "Another way to change this is by editing your profile," she adds.

Aside from privacy concerns, a host of posts on the Buzz social network describe requests for upgrade and improvements. Buzz user wish lists include everything from increasing search options to translating foreign languages within the network and rebuzz tools similar to the retweet tool in Twitter.

Google Buzz users have also begun to develop tricks, such as a "@" before the person's name or Gmail address helps to locate all the posts from the person (For instance, @Janek Mann or @Laurie Sullivan). Searching in the "Search Buzz" tool allows people to find user-posted tips on everything from sending direct messages, to saving searches.

Google Buzz Publicly Airs Privacy Confusion

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:20:00 +0000

Mixing an email tool with a social network may lead people to confuse the type of conversations that people can read across Google's Buzz social network. Some don't realize that all public posts are open for anyone using Gmail to search, read and join in the conversation.

No need to follow anyone on Google Buzz. Simply open the Buzz tab, type in a few keywords in the search keyword box and hit return on the computer keyboard. The tool returns all public posts across the Gmail network related to the keyword search.

Google does give Buzz users a way to make posts private or public. But some don't realize that making a profile public means any Gmail user can see the post. They can find it by searching on a related keyword in the Buzz search box.

Only posts that Gmail users choose to share publicly are included in Buzz search, according to a Google spokesperson. "Private posts are only shared with the people you choose, and will not appear publicly in search results," she says. "You choose whether to share your posts privately or to the Web at large. You can set your default as private, and you can also choose to make individual posts private or public."

It may come down to confusion on the part of the Buzz user. Privacy policies are confusing. They typically are not well-written for the average person to understand. Jared Kaprove, domestic surveillance council at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, says people may become confused about Buzz privacy policies because they typically think of email as a semi-private correspondence between the sender and the recipient. Mixing a social network with the tons of Gmail users might confuse people even more.

"It's a weird mix," Kaprove says. "The issue might be conceptual -- the blurring of the line between your email and public facing Internet use."

Put simply: When people post on Twitter, they know it's a public activity. When people use Gmail, they think it's a private activity. Buzz blurs the line between presumed public and private activities.

For instance, in response to a Buzz post by Chris Myler asking Google Software Engineer DeWitt Clinton whether followers can see all posts, Adewale Oshineye and Larry Anderson respond by writing that people can only see the posts of those they follow, which is untrue.

The Federal Trade Commission regulates unfair and deceptive trade practices, but these guidelines likely won't come into play here because the company would have to represent the feature to consumers as being private, but later reveal it as public.

Maybe so, but the search box changes that behavior because it allows people to search and find posts based on keywords. Similar to google. com, the search engine will likely collect, store and analyze the search queries, and tie them to contextual advertisements in Gmail, as well as to ads that run across the Google Content Network.

Electronic Frontier spokeswoman Rebecca Jeschke calls Google a "honey pot" of information collected from a variety of tools, such as search and Gmail. "They know who you are and what you're searching for," she says. "They only keep the information for a specific length of time, and then make it anonymous, but make no mistake they have it. And because it's a honey pot, people want it, whether law enforcement or marketers."

The search engine inside Gmail is much more powerful than site search in Twitter. Twitter allows people to search and find tweets across the network, but the posts, or tweets, are limited to 140-characters or less and they are not tied to an email service.

There have been a host of privacy issues surrounding Buzz. The EPIC is reviewing what happens when users first activate the account because it makes the follower list public by default, and the list of who they follow is derived from the most common email contact.

Could Google Buzz Hit Privacy Roadblock On Mobile?

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:03:00 +0000

Will the introduction of Buzz bring Google to another privacy roadblock? Some people aren't ready to trust an application that ties Facebook-like sharing features with email, especially when you consider that Google also added a geographic, location-based feature for the mobile phone.

Buzz pulls your profile from the Google.com profile you posted last year when the Mountain View, Calif., company introduced social features in the search engine.

As with most technology, people will need to take time to become familiar with new applications and features, as well as decide if location-based mobile applications just give away too much information on their whereabouts.

Google already has the built-in Gmail user base. Perhaps adoption rates for Buzz will follow.

Maybe it will attract the audience that Twitter has not been able to capture. College-age adults say their friends are on Facebook, not Twitter. They view Twitter as a creepy tool without privacy controls. And although Google has built privacy controls into Buzz, it's not clear yet whether Gmail users won't have the same thoughts toward the location-based services and sharing features built into Buzz. The only difference is, Google may attract the young adults that Twitter has turned off.

Trip Chowdhry, managing director at Global Equities Research, estimates the demographic profile of those who will use Buzz long-term are single male adults ages 16 to 23, which puts the count at between 2 million and 3 million people. "I doubt the average female will use Buzz, because many are more skeptical than men about these types of services," he says.

Google made three separate mobile announcements Tuesday related to Buzz: the ability to use Buzz from Google.com on iPhone or Android devices, shortcut app, and Buzz Layer on Google Maps.

Buzz for mobile allows you to tag your location with each entry. The nearby view shows all the public buzz nearby - even from those you don't follow.

Google co-founder Sergey Brin told people tuning in to a live presentation and Webcast Tuesday that the company is concerned about privacy and security because the mobile service gives people the ability to share geographic coordinates, but individuals must decide for themselves whether to share and post their location. The Google Buzz privacy policy goes into more details.

Forrester Analyst Augie Ray says some folks will likely keep an eye on privacy issues, but consumers, "in great numbers," have not expressed concerns. In fact, consumers are still willing to give up some of their privacy for free tools. Facebook and Google will have to closely monitor privacy to make sure they meet "expectations."

Go back to the Beacon debacle that Facebook faced. Ray says hundreds of millions of users weren't up in arms about it, but rather just a few key people observing Beacon and the legal concerns it raised.

Amielle Lake, chief executive officer at Tagga Media, which helps marketing and advertising agencies take campaigns mobile, doesn't think consumers will have privacy concerns as long as they have an opt-in option to share location-based information.

Buzz mobile features will increase the accuracy of ad targeting on mobile phones. "The more Google expands its platform capabilities to social via Buzz, while placing importance on making their social tools useful and easy for mobile, you can expect more people to use Google's social tools on the go," Lake says. "The more people use the service, the more targeting data will become available, which in turn will flow through to Google's targeting algorithms, creating better targeting opportunities that leverage behavior data and location information across mobile through social media platforms."

My reaction to the Buzz debut: Goggle seems to have thrown out its focus on simplicity. Not that the look of the Buzz tab appears crowded with information, but there are plenty of choices: to link to mobile applications, and tie the service to Picasa, Twitter, Google Reader, YouTube, Google Chat, Blogspot, and Flickr. And, dear Google, since some of the people you set me up to automatically follow are located in non-English-speaking countries, I need a translation tool to understand what they write without taking the text into another platform.

Is Behavioral Targeting Being Used for Click Fraud?

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 22:42:00 +0000

Spyware was and still is the bane of neophyte PC users. I don't know how many times over the years I have been enlisted to cure the dysfunctional computers of my teen daughter and her friends. In every case, their youthful, shallow-pocketed pursuit of "free" anything online had led them to sites that inevitably clog their systems with spyware, which, once on a system, opens the door to all of its spy friends. It can take less than a month for a new PC to grind to a halt under the weight of all of those competing background processes.
But according to Harvard Business School Assistant Professor Ben Edelman, spyware and its behavioral tracking is also hurting marketers by contributing to click fraud. In research he published to too little notice last month, Edelman found that spyware surreptitiously planted on PCs was deliberately tracking users' browsing habits to see their likely purchase intent. The spyware knows what merchants the user already visits and likely buys from, and then the system "fakes a click" on the Google pay-per-click ad for the same merchant the consumer already uses.

"If the user proceeds to make a purchase - reasonably likely for a user already intentionally requesting the merchant's site - the merchant will naturally credit Google for the sale," Edelman says in his report. "Furthermore, standard optimization strategy will lead the merchant to increase its Google PPC bid for this keyword on the reasonable (albeit mistaken) view that Google is successfully finding new customers. But in fact Google and its partners are merely taking credit for customers the merchant had already reached by other methods."

One of Edelman's correspondents likens the practice to hiring someone to give out street flyers advertising an establishment. But then the rogue plants himself at the entrance to hand incoming patrons the sheet, effectively getting credit for "converting" existing customers.

Edelman says he tested for this problem on a virtual computer in his lab that was running the Trafficsolar spyware software. He used the PC to browse to sports apparel vendor Finishline.com. He was able to detect that Trafficsolar opened an unlabeled pop-up window that eventually redirected back to Finishline.com via a fake Google PPC click. The path between the spyware and Finishline.com is extremely complex, but Edelman says his screenshots and packet logs show the click being generated on the test PC without user interaction, hopping across seven or eight redirects.

If these schemes are widespread, then they undermine the trustworthiness of the PPC model in several critical ways, Edelman argues. First, it makes the advertiser pay for a customer it has already acquired. Then it encourages inflated keyword bidding by giving the advertiser the false impression the campaign is working well. And finally, it is producing an illegitimate click, one that the user never actually made.

Let's say the PPC was valued at $1. Each of the many intermediaries is passing along some share of the original Google fee to the network that redirected the traffic. By the time the original spyware vendor takes a cut, it is likely down to pennies. "The many intermediaries and their many fees, reinforce why this is such a terrible deal for the advertisers," Edelman tells me. "The advertiser agreed to pay a high price for traffic that was supposed to be valuable - worth the full $1 per click. Yet the ultimate seller [the spyware that originated the click path] is willing to sell it for just a penny or two, because the seller is selling something that just isn't worth it. But through the series of intermediaries, the advertiser nonetheless gets charged the high price for the low value placement."

It is hard to say how prevalent or widespread the offending spyware software is, but Edelman's tests suggest a number of intermediaries are happy to participate in this system. In the model he describes, behavioral targeting is turned on its head to work against rather than for advertising efficiency.

In Europe, Challenges for Google

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:47:00 +0000

Google has a problem in China. But it may have bigger headaches in Europe.

On issues as varied as privacy, copyright protection and the dominance of Google’s Internet search engine, the company is clashing with lawmakers, regulators and consumer advocates. And the fights are escalating across Western Europe.

The stakes are high — potentially higher for Google than anything that happens in China — because Google’s operations in Europe are so much larger and more lucrative. In Britain alone, Google has roughly 10 times its estimated sales in China. Across most of the Continent, Google is by far the most popular search engine, with a substantially larger market share over its rivals than it has over those in the United States.

Google’s border-straddling scale and its brash ambitions raise alarms with some European politicians.

The government of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy has proposed a law making online video services like YouTube liable for invasions of privacy, violations of copyright and other transgressions that occur in user-generated content. Meanwhile Google is contesting a copyright lawsuit from Mediaset, Mr. Berlusconi’s family company, which is the largest commercial television broadcaster in the country.

“It’s a full-scale battle against Google in Italy,” said Paolo Brini, a spokesman based in Perugia for ScambioEtico, a group that campaigns for civil liberties online.

In Germany, the minister of justice, Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, complained recently about Google’s instinct for “pressing ahead” and its “megalomania.” She said the company was tearing down privacy protections.

“On the whole, I see a giant monopoly developing, largely unnoticed, similar to Microsoft,” she said in an interview with the magazine Der Spiegel. A spokesman later clarified that she had not meant to express an opinion on antitrust matters, which are outside her jurisdiction.

Google says that ordinary Europeans do not have similar fears. It says the complaints are from competitors like Microsoft and media companies whose longtime business models are threatened by technological change.

“We love being in Europe, and we have many users across many countries who enjoy our products,” the company, which threatened last month to withdraw from China in response to an attack on its computer systems, said in a statement. “Our popularity means some people will complain. The important thing for us is to do the right thing, and that means not locking our users into our products and working well with our partners.”

Google’s most immediate challenges may be in Italy. This month, a decision is expected in a trial in Milan, where four Google executives were charged with defamation and privacy violations in a case involving videos posted on a Google Web site that showed the bullying of a boy with autism.

The company says a guilty verdict might require it to edit content on YouTube before it is posted, which it says, would be incompatible with the open spirit of the Internet, as well as European Union guidelines.

Prosecutors say Google was too slow to remove the video.

On another front, Italian authorities last summer raided the company’s offices in Milan, opening an investigation of Google News, which displays excerpts from online news articles. Italian publishers contend that Google News violates their copyrights, but say they cannot remove their articles from the service without slipping in Google’s search rankings, which would cost them ad revenue. Google says there is no such link between Google News and the search engine.

German newspaper and magazine publishers have complained to their government, saying that all of their Web sites together earn only about 100 million euros a year from advertising, while Google generates an estimated 1.2 billion euros from search advertising in Germany.

The federal anticartel agency is gathering information, but has not yet decided whether to open a formal investigation.

German publishers have persuaded the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel to support a new kind of copyright protecting journalistic content on the Web. Analysts say the measure, which has not yet been introduced, could require Web companies like Google to buy special licenses to cite content published elsewhere.

Attitudes toward Google in Germany have been colored by a heated debate over privacy. Several German towns and cities have moved to block Google from taking pictures of storefronts and homes for its Street View service, which links street-level pictures to maps — though not yet in Germany.

While Street View has been popular in some European countries, Swiss data protection authorities recently sued Google to try to press it to increase privacy protections.

The European Commission in Brussels has pushed Google and other American Internet companies to shorten the period for which they retain consumer data.

But Google has largely avoided run-ins with the commission’s powerful competition arm, which has struck fear in American boardrooms because of its dogged pursuit of antitrust cases against Microsoft, Intel and other American multinational companies.

With a new commission set to take office, rivals of Google, including Microsoft, are stepping up their lobbying efforts, highlighting the strength of Google’s position in Europe.

“Whenever you have a company that has more than a 90 percent market share in a key market, it is inevitable that people will have questions to ask,” Brad Smith, Microsoft’s general counsel, told reporters in Brussels last week. “We say that with some experience.”

According to comScore, a research firm, Google handles 80 percent of European Web searches — compared with 65 percent in the United States.

Yahoo with 17 percent, and Bing, from Microsoft, with 11 percent, offer modest competition in the United States, but they are nearly nonexistent in Europe, with less then 2 percent each, according to comScore.

Commission officials have said that a dominant market share is insufficient cause for an antitrust case; there must be evidence that a company is abusing this position to stifle competition. Analysts say the dearth of homegrown rivals to Google could also undermine any move to take regulatory action against the company.

“Brussels may not want to pick a fight with Google,” said C. Evan Stewart, an antitrust expert at the law firm of Zuckerman Spaeder, “because there is no one to reward if they win.”

FTC's Focus Re Privacy Issues Emerging

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 03:12:00 +0000

Based on the comments of Federal Trade Commission officials and panelists at Jan. 28's FTC roundtable on privacy issues, the commission's core focus lies in identifying and addressing disparities between consumer expectations and marketer practices.

That is the assessment of Reed Freeman, partner in the Washington, D.C.-based legal firm Morrison & Foerster, who represents clients in FTC and state consumer protection investigations and negotiations.

The agenda for this second of three FTC roundtables on privacy was designed to explore both how evolving technology can be used to compromise consumers' privacy and how it can be used to enhance privacy. This seems to indicate that the current commission does not view technology itself as being either "good or bad," but instead recognizes that "it's how it's used that can be good or bad," observes Freeman.

The remarks and discussions also appeared to confirm that the current commission is seeking a more "holistic" privacy framework that allows for addressing areas where businesses' consumer data practices diverge from what consumers would reasonably expect. David Vladeck, director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, indicated that the commission believes that while consumers care deeply about privacy, they have little understanding of commercial data collection, sharing and distribution practices, Freeman points out.

FTC leadership in place during the last two administrations focused, respectively, on "notice and choice" and "harms-based" approaches, Freeman explains. The "notice and choice" concept resulted in the FTC strongly encouraging businesses to create privacy policies that clearly inform consumers about their data practices and to then ensure that they adhered to their policies. The "harms-based" concept resulted in the FTC focusing its resources on addressing practices deemed to present the most potential harm to the greatest number of consumers -- a focus that led to the creation of trade regulation rules such as the "Do Not Call" list and the CAN-SPAM Act.

The current commission "may not throw the babies out with the bath water," but is looking for a more complete solution for consumer privacy -- hence its emphasis on identifying and addressing consumer expectations/practices gaps, says Freeman.

Freeman offers examples of the types of areas where such gaps might be deemed to exist, such as an online retailer sharing data supplied for a purchase transaction with other marketers, who then send commercial emails to the consumer without notice.

A company that does not comply when a consumer opts out of receiving its emails is both violating the law and failing to meet consumer expectations, Freeman adds. And the first FTC privacy roundtable focused to a large degree on exploring the implications of "behavioral" advertising, indicating that this is one of the areas being assessed, he notes.

During last week's roundtable, commission officials also made it clear that in addition to using these forums and other means to gather the information needed to issue its report on privacy issues (due out in June or July), it will be actively investigating and taking enforcement actions in more privacy cases.

For marketers, the core questions about the FTC's report include what form it will take, as well as the specific recommendations or directives made, says Freeman. The commission could opt to issue either a staff report or an FTC report detailing what actions it believes it can take under the scope of its existing authority and spell out which practices require no consumer notice (because consumers expect them), which require notice and an opt-out, and which are flatly prohibited (even with notice/consent).

Or the FTC could send a report to Congress asking that Congress pass the FTC Improvements Act, perhaps also asking that the Act be amended to instruct the FTC to create a new privacy trade regulation rule.

The commission has the authority to create such rules (which carry the force of law), but might seek Congressional backing to "have the wind at its back," says Freeman -- particularly if it decided to address an area such as use of behavioral data for marketing/ advertising purposes, which could have significant and possibly unintended consequences for Web content providers, as well as advertisers.

The FTC Improvements Act -- which was passed by the House and is now pending consideration by the Senate Commerce Committee -- would give the FTC substantially more authority, including the ability to seek civil penalties from the courts in Section 5 (unfair/deceptive practices) privacy cases, Freeman says.

Currently, the FTC can ask courts to order companies to cease illegal privacy practices and require them to compensate victims for harm caused by privacy violations -- but quantifying the harm created by privacy violations is problematic, he explains. The ability to seek civil penalties would provide the FTC with a more practical, forceful deterrent.

FTC To Silicon Valley: Tech Companies Should Protect Consumer Data

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 22:36:00 +0000

Washington wants to know: Why can't technology protect consumers' privacy instead of violating it?

The Federal Trade Commission met today in Berkeley, Calif., with corporate technology leaders and privacy advocates, challenging them to create ways to protect consumer privacy online. The FTC is encouraging technology companies such as Facebook and Apple to come up with self-regulatory tactics that will protect consumers without squashing corporate innovation.

Technology companies should be doing more to protect people, says Pamela Jones Harbour, the FTC's commissioner. "Apple requires all developers to submit potential apps for review," Harbour says. "Through that process, the company could do more to regulate privacy disclosures." Similarly, she says other companies should be taking more steps to protect consumer privacy.

The brainstorming session was the second of three the FTC has held before planning to draft new laws this summer that will control how consumer information is collected and used on the Web. Scrutiny of consumer privacy violation on the Internet has grown over the past several years, as technology advancements arm marketers with new ways to target potential buyers. Companies are buying consumer data from sources such as consumer surveys, loyalty programs and Web and mobile applications to identify potential consumers who are then tracked online and off to deliver more relevant advertising.

Silicon Valley, like Madison Avenue, would be severely affected if the FTC were to impose new privacy restrictions. The advertising industry is making attempts to thwart federal regulation. Just yesterday, the Future of Privacy Forum, a watchdog group based in Washington, D.C., and a coalition of advertising groups, unveiled a symbol (similar to the "@" sign with an "i" inside) they will attach to online ads. When clicked, the symbol will link to a page explaining how the advertiser is using Web habits and demographic data to target consumers. Late last year, the Network Advertising Initiative, an ad industry group, launched downloadable software to prevent cookies from loading on Web browsers.

Google and Yahoo! representatives say they have already established more privacy controls that consumers themselves can oversee. "We'll continue to let people know how to manage their privacy online," says Anne Toth, Yahoo!'s vice president of policy and head of privacy. "But there's already more control online than there is in the offline world."

Some say self-regulation has its limits. Web browsers, such as Microsoft Explorer or Google's Chrome, let consumers erase cookies (except Flash cookies described in "Marketers Have A Fresh Way To Follow You Online"), but they can only let consumers control so much, says Peter Eckersley, a technologist at digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "At the end of the day, even browsers will risk shutting out advertisers."

A few tech companies are urging the FTC to take action. Those that deal directly with customers do what they can to protect them, says Scott Taylor, Hewlett-Packard's chief privacy officer. Third-party vendors and developers tend to be the problem, and they trigger the need for regulation. "The fact is that that tech isn't bad," says Taylor. "But we need all organizations to be held accountable."

Even Facebook, which recently changed its privacy policies in favor of opening more private information to the public, urged the FTC to step in. "The federal government will have to take a role," says Tim Sparapani, Facebook's director of public policy. "We have to have an open system but we need to have some regulation."

Another eBay Pirate Heads to Prison

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 22:30:00 +0000

A software pirate responsible for ripping off nearly 8,000 online customers and a handful of leading software vendors was sentenced Monday to 21 months in prison after pleading guilty to conspiracy, mail fraud and criminal copyright infringement charges.

Matthew Thomas Purse, 32, of Gilbert, Ariz. also received three years probation from a federal judge in Phoenix, and was hit with $12,000 in fines and restitution for his role in the elaborate software piracy scam.

Purse, along with Christopher Loring Walters, 29, of Newport Beach, Calif., created multiple eBay (NASDAQ: EBAY) merchant accounts between September 2004 and February 2006 from which they sold counterfeit copies of software developed by Apple, Corel, McAfee, Symantec and other vendors.

Walters remains a fugitive, according to a statement released by the Software & Information Industry Association, a trade association for the software and digital content industry that assisted the U.S. Department of Justice in the investigation.

The duo used online sites including SoftwareDiner.com, Thesoftwareyard.com, Argyleeequity.com, Eagletronics.com and Tekdealer.com among others to advertise themselves on eBay as authorized distributors of the counterfeit applications.

According to the SIIA, the top-tier software vendors lost more than $500,000 in sales through the illicit operation.

"Matthew Purse duped nearly 8,000 unsuspecting consumers out of hundreds of thousands of dollars," Keith Kupferschmid, SIIA's senior vice president for intellectual property and enforcement, said in a statement. "He and Christopher Walters cheated software companies such as Adobe, Symantec, Apple, Corel, Intuit and many others out of millions of dollars in revenue."

"Like so many others who sell pirated software online or make illegal copies in the workplace, at least Matthew Purse is now finding out that the justice system takes this crime seriously," he added.

The SIIA along with state and federal law enforcement agencies have racheted up their efforts in recent years to stem the illegal trafficking of counterfeit and stolen software applications at online sites including eBay.

In 2008 alone, IDC estimated that software vendors lost more than $53 billion to software piracy -- an especially galling figure considering worldwide sales of legitimate software applications totaled just over $88 billion that year.

In October, Gregory William Fair of Falls Church, Va. was sentenced to 41 months in te+Gets+41+Months+in+prison for selling bogus copies of various Adobe Systems (NASDAQ: ADBE) applications on eBay from 2001 through 2007 -- software worth more than $1.4 million.

"Anyone who thinks software piracy isn't taken seriously should pay close attention to the Matthew Purse case," Kupferschmid said. "When SIIA uncovers software piracy, the offenders often end up paying thousands of dollars in damages. And as Mathew Purse found out, SIIA's investigations can also lead to jail time for these software pirates."

SIIA originally uncovered the pair's massive software piracy scheme and began an investigation that eventually led to the indictment and conviction of Purse. SIIA investigators forwarded the results of its investigation to the DOJ and other government agencies, and then worked closely with them to pursue Purse and others involved in the piracy schemes.

Those efforts led to Purse's guilty plea in February of last year to a series of conspiracy, mail fraud and criminal copyright infringement charges.

Social Networks Balk Over Privacy

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 22:29:00 +0000

Representatives of some of the leading social sites on the Web today urged federal regulators to resist calls to establish heavy-handed rules that would set limits on the use of consumer data on social networks, warning that far-reaching regulations would threaten to choke off a fast-growing sector of the digital economy.

The Federal Trade Commission continued its inquiry into the privacy implications of online marketing and data collection at a day-long forum at the University of California, Berkeley, hearing from privacy advocates and members of industry as it mulls new regulations.

"Regulation that's a one-size-fits-all will fail," said Erika Rottenberg, general counsel at LinkedIn. "There is self-regulation that is going on."

Each of the industry representatives agreed that in the increasingly cluttered social Web, there are bad actors who endeavor to trick consumers into sharing more information than they realize. However, they called for regulatory restraint, arguing that in most cases those sites or applications fail on their own because word gets around.

FCC Opens Inquiry Into ETFs, Questions Carriers, Google

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:41:00 +0000

Expanding its probe into cell phone early termination fees, the Federal Communications Commission Tuesday sent letters to the four major U.S wireless carriers and Google asking about their ETF policies.

The opening of a formal inquiry follows the FCC's probe into Verizon Wireless' doubling of its ETF on smartphones from $175 to $350 in November. It also comes on the heels of last week's launch of the agency's Consumer Task Force, created to help safeguard the rights of wireless consumers.

In the letter sent [PDF], to AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint-Nextel, T-Mobile and Google, the FCC asked the companies to explain the reasoning behind their ETFs as well as how consumers are notified about the fees.

"We recognize that wireless carriers may have various rationales for ETFs. At the same time, these fees are substantial (and in some cases are increasing) and have an important impact on consumers' ability to switch carriers," stated the joint letter sent by FCC Consumer Bureau Chief Joel Guerin and Wireless Bureau Chief Ruth Milkman.

"We therefore believe it is essential that consumers fully understand what they are signing up for -- both in the short term and over the life of the contract when they accept a service plan with an early termination fee."

The companies have until Feb. 23 to respond. In response to a prior letter from the FCC following its ETF hike on high-end phones, Verizon last month told the agency the increased charge covered not only the cost of subsidizing sophisticated handsets, but related operating and marketing expenses as well.

That reply was not well received. FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn issued with a withering public statement, calling Verizon's answers "unsatisfying, and in some cases, troubling."

The carrier said it would take a hard look at Clyburn's statement and respond appropriately. Verizon last week limited the number of advanced devices it sells that carry the $350 ETF.

The letters sent to Google and wireless partner T-Mobile Tuesday were also pointed in questioning their ETF policies. Anyone who buys Google's recently launched Nexus One phone with a two-year contract from T-Mobile is required to pay a $350 ETF to Google and a separate $200 fee to the carrier if they drop the service within the first 120 days (but after the 14-day trial period). That's a total of $550 --more than the unsubsidized $530 cost of the phone.

"The combination of ETFs from Google and T-Mobile for the Nexus One is also unique among the four major national carriers," stated the letters to Google and T-Mobile. "Consumers have been surprised by this policy and by its financial impact. Please let us know your rationale(s) for these combined fees, and whether you have coordinated or will coordinate on these fees and on the disclosure of their combined effect."

Responding to he FCC's inquiry on ETFs, wireless trade group CTIA issued a statement defending the legitimacy of the charges. "While we understand that the FCC's Consumer Task Force is only looking into the issue of early termination fees, we hope that there is a recognition by the FCC that these fees are part of the rate and rate structure that allows wireless carriers to, among other things, subsidize phone purchases," it read.

DMA Revises Guidelines To Comply With FTC 'Blogger' Rules

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 21:26:00 +0000

The Direct Marketing Association has revised its ethics guidelines to incorporate the Federal Trade Commission's new guides to endorsements and testimonials.

The new DMA principles require marketers who use testimonials or endorsements on social networking sites, blogs and other types of social media to "clearly and conspicuously disclose any material connections between the endorser and marketer, which the consumer would not expect."

In addition, marketers should ensure that any celebrity endorsers disclose their relationships with marketers when touting products on talk shows or in social media, according to the DMA's revised ethics guides.

The trade group's new ethics rules largely track the FTC's recent revisions to its endorsements guidelines. That update stirred considerable controversy, with critics arguing that the new guidelines make arbitrary distinctions between traditional and newer forms of media. For instance, the FTC said that bloggers should disclose the receipt of free review copies, but didn't make that same recommendation for critics who write for mainstream media.

An FTC official later fueled even more debate by reportedly saying that celebrity endorsers might not have to disclose relationships to marketers because many consumers understand that celebrities often get swag. This issue came up recently when the actress Gwyneth Paltrow touted La Mamounia Hotel in Marrakesh, Morocco on her blog Goop.

For now, the DMA isn't addressing some of the thornier questions, including what constitutes a "material connection" and what types of marketer-blogger connections would consumers expect. But Senny Boone, senior vice president for corporate and social responsibility at the organization, says the group intends to issue case studies and examples within the next few months.

FCC Urged To Steer Clear Of Online Privacy Issues

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:44:00 +0000

The Interactive Advertising Bureau is urging the Federal Communications Commission to refrain from addressing privacy issues in the national broadband plan.

"IAB believes that regulation by the commission, or potentially conflicting regulations from multiple government agencies, could stifle the Internet," the trade group said in a letter to the FCC. "Existing robust self-regulatory principles provide consumers with strong protections in a manner that has allowed the Internet to thrive, thereby benefiting the U.S. economy."

The group's filing came in response to a request for comments about privacy issues raised by the Center for Democracy & Technology. Earlier this month, that organization asked the FCC to solicit input on how to meet consumers' expectations of privacy online and build privacy protections into new technology.

The FCC made the inquiry as part of its efforts to formulate a national broadband plan, mandated by Congress last year when it passed the broadband stimulus bill.

The IAB said in its filing that the FCC should not consider online privacy issues because the broadband stimulus bill "makes no mention of privacy" and was aimed at "furthering the build out of a high-speed broadband infrastructure across the country."

The group reiterated its stance that Web companies can protect consumers' privacy by complying with self-regulatory principles. "Unlike formal regulations, which can become quickly outdated in the face of evolving technologies, self-regulation provides industry with a nimble way of responding to new challenges presented by the evolving Internet ecosystem," states the letter, which was signed by IAB Vice President for Public Policy Mike Zaneis.

Last year, the FTC issued self-regulatory guidelines generally recommending that online ad companies notify consumers about online behavioral advertising -- or tracking consumers across the Web in order to serve them ads -- and allow people to decline to participate.

Privacy advocates have been pressing for new laws to require companies to obtain consumers' consent before tracking them online for ad purposes. A coalition of nine consumer groups -- including the ACLU, Center for Digital Democracy, Consumer Federation of America, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group -- filed their own papers with the FCC Friday arguing that self-regulation by the online ad industry will not protect users' privacy. The advocacy organizations asked the commission to "consider all avenues it may use to protect consumers, including exercising its ancillary jurisdiction to address broadband privacy issues."

The privacy advocates are asking the FCC to base online privacy protections on the Fair Information Practices standards set out in 1973 by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

They argue in their comments that online behavioral advertising can compromise Web users' privacy even when companies don't collect people's names, but instead identify them based on "anonymous" markers like cookies. "Often, data that is believed to have been rendered anonymous can easily be "de-anonymized," and sensitive data would be linked back with the affected individual," the groups argue.

FTC Probes Facebook's EPIC Privacy Fail

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:44:00 +0000

A privacy watchdog's criticisms of Facebook appear to have captured the attention of the Federal Trade Commission.

In a letter dated Jan. 14, David Vladeck, head of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, told the Electronic Privacy Information Center that its complaint about recent privacy changes at Facebook "raises issues of particular interest for us at this time."

Vladeck added that he has asked an official to arrange a followup meeting with EPIC, but also said he can't currently confirm or deny whether the FTC has opened an investigation. FTC investigations are not public until the agency either issues a complaint or closes the matter.

The FTC's consumer protection chief also said in his letter to EPIC that the commission plans to focus on privacy issues raised by social networks at the next roundtable, scheduled to be held in Berkeley, Calif. on Jan. 28.

"As the amount of personal information shared on social networking sites grows, and the number of third parties and advertising networks with access to such information grows, it is important that consumers understand how their data is being shared and what privacy rules apply," Vladeck wrote. "The Commission staff believes it is critical that companies provide transparency about how this data is being handled, maintained, shared, and protected, and what steps consumers may take to control the use of their information."

Last month, EPIC and nine other groups filed a complaint alleging that Facebook's new privacy settings constitute an unfair and deceptive change in terms. The groups say that Facebook's decision to institute the new controls violates users' expectations and diminishes their privacy. The new settings classify a host of data as "publicly available information" -- including users' names, profile pictures, cities, networks, lists of friends and pages that people are fans of.

EPIC late last week filed a supplemental complaint that mentions Vladeck's letter. The new papers also highlight recent statements made by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and an anonymous employee.

In an interview earlier this month, Zuckerberg said that new social norms justified the company's decision to change its privacy settings. "People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people," he said. "We view it as our role in the system to constantly be innovating and be updating what our system is to reflect what the current social norms are."

In addition, a Facebook employee allegedly said recently that users' messages are stored in a database regardless of whether users attempt to delete them. "We track everything. Every photo you view, every person you're tagged with, every wall-post you make, and so forth," the employee allegedly added.

EPIC alleges that these public statements demonstrate that Facebook engages in unfair and deceptive trade practices.

The new filing also questions a new iPhone synching feature that transfers users' iPhone contacts to Facebook, even when the phone contacts are not Facebook friends with the users. "Some Facebook users and non-Facebook users have consciously chosen not to provide Facebook with their contact information. This choice is rendered meaningless with the sync function of the application, because information from all phone contacts will be transferred to Facebook if the sync function is enabled on an iPhone," EPIC alleges. "There is no privacy setting on Facebook that allows Facebook users to prevent having their information shared in this way."

Facebook spokesperson Andrew Noyes said that EPIC's latest filing "offers little or no new information to substantiate the claims they make."

Secretary of State criticized .. 'Internet Freedom' Speech ..

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:23:00 +0000

Consumer advocates say that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's sweeping call Thursday for global Internet freedom lends support to their calls for new domestic laws about matters like text messaging, net neutrality and privacy.

In her broad remarks, Clinton criticized repressive regimes for censorship of all types of new media, including text messages. "Blogs, emails, social networks, and text messages have opened up new forums for exchanging ideas, and created new targets for censorship," she said.

Clinton also broadly touted the Internet's role in enabling free speech. "The internet is a network that magnifies the power and potential of all others. And that's why we believe it's critical that its users are assured certain basic freedoms. Freedom of expression is first among them," she said.

She also spoke of the "freedom to connect" -- calling it a "final freedom" that was inherent in Franklin Roosevelt's famous "four freedoms" speech of 1941. "It allows individuals to get online, come together, and hopefully cooperate," Clinton said of the freedom to connect. "Once you're on the internet, you don't need to be a tycoon or a rock star to have a huge impact on society."

The neutrality advocacy group Open Internet Coalition seized on those remarks to support the need for net neutrality laws in the U.S. that would require Internet service providers to let consumers access all lawful content.

"We must also protect the rights of individual free expression on the Internet at home as well as abroad because neither government nor network provider should be able to interfere with this freedom," the Open Internet Coalition said after Clinton's speech. "The current effort at the FCC to enact common-sense rules to ensure the Internet remains a platform for free expression at home is critical to making sure that the freedom of choice for our own citizens is protected."

Advocacy group Public Knowledge added that Clinton's remarks about texting highlighted the need for laws banning censorship of SMS. "While Secretary Clinton commented on the benefits of text messaging as a means of expression abroad, there are no legal protections for text messaging here," Public Knowledge president and co-founder Gigi Sohn said in a statement.

She then urged the FCC to act on the petition filed by Public Knowledge and other groups in late 2007 seeking to have the commission prohibit wireless carriers from blocking text messages based on content. That request was largely sparked by Verizon's brief refusal earlier that year to issue a short code to the abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Microsoft: Privacy, Data, Ad Targeting Hit Crossroads In 2010

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:44:00 +0000

This year advertisers and consumers will get answers on privacy, data and ad targeting. So says Jeff Lanctot, who joined Microsoft Advertising from Razorfish in late 2009 after the Redmond, Wash., company sold off the agency to Publicis Groupe.

Privacy discussions among industry members and government regulators will come to a head either by a "clash of ideology" or "confluence of good thinking," says Lanctot. The discussions will focus on ways to determine self-regulation and/or pending FTC or congressional legislation, Lanctot tells me. "The industry needs to reach an agreement on the definition of 'free content' between advertisers, content providers, and consumers," he says.

When I ask Lanctot if consumers really believe they have privacy on the Internet, he responds, "Do they have it, or do they care?" So, as we hash out the difference between consumer privacy and protecting data, he makes sure I understand that Microsoft believes consumers deserve as much data protection as the company can provide.

Think about privacy when targeting ads, which typically doesn't rely on personally identifiable information (PII). It's not like the protection required by private data, such as social security card numbers.

Still, the advertising industry needs to demonstrate to consumers it understands the value that comes from using the non-PII data. You've heard it before: yes, that means serving up the correct message to a specific person at the perfect time.

Microsoft realizes consumers need to see a benefit when agreeing to share data, but the company also must take the responsibility of helping people understand how the process works, and that it doesn't have to be scary. "Some view targeted advertising as a bad thing that we should repress, while others in Congress and the FTC know self-regulation can work," he says. "My sense it that those who know more about the ad businesses understand how to put those self-regulation tools in place."

On another privacy-related note, Tuesday Microsoft reported it would reduce the time it retains IP addresses tied to search queries from 18 months to six months. Microsoft's Chief Privacy Strategist Peter Cullen wrote in a blog post that the "change is the result of several factors, including a continuing evaluation of our business needs, the current competitive landscape and our ongoing dialogue with privacy advocates, consumer groups, and regulators...

"Under our current policy, as soon as Microsoft receives a Bing search query we take steps to de-identify the data by separating it from account information that could identify the person who performed the search," Cullen writes. The new policy will take between 12 and 18 months to implement.