Delete Your Cookies

Google, Yahoo Revise Key Data Strategy, Privacy Rules

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:55:00 +0000

Google and Yahoo issued separate announcements about visitor data and the plans for use at each respective company.

Google said it will revise its privacy policies and terms of service, effective March 1, making them shorter and easier to understand. The new privacy policy makes it clear that Google can use information shared on one service in other Google services.

"If you’re signed in, we may combine information you've provided from one service with information from other services," explains Alma Whitten, director of privacy, product and engineering at Google. "In short, we’ll treat you as a single user across all our products, which will mean a simpler, more intuitive Google experience."

Today, Google has about 70 documents governing policies, but the company will introduce a new main privacy policy that covers the majority of its products and explains the information it collects and how it intends to use it.

Users will start receiving an email to alert them of the changes, according to Whitten, who wrote in a blog post that the company had to keep a handful of separate privacy notices for legal and other reasons, but intends to consolidate more than 60 into one main Privacy Policy.

Data owned by search companies and publishers has become the big ticket for ad targeting and support.

During the Q4 2011 earnings call, Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson and other company execs said data will become the key component for driving innovation at the company that holds bits and bytes from more than 702 million unique visitors and users of its products and services.

"We can use data to render the experience exactly the way you want it to create uniquely relevant experiences in everything from content to the layout of the page to the flow between pages and, of course, the advertising," Thompson said.

Thompson called Yahoo's data the "single most underrated, underappreciated and underused asset."

By Lauren Sullivan

Yes, the Feds Are Spying on Social Media

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 13:34:00 +0000

Just in case anyone still harbors illusions on this score, the answer is “Yes, the federal government is definitely spying on social media.” In the latest development, a group of online privacy advocates is suing the Department of Homeland Security for failing to release records of its online spying -- which isn’t terribly surprising, considering that it’s not really spying anymore if everyone knows what you’re doing.

The DHS has admitted in a public statement that it creates profiles to monitor “publicly available online forums, blogs, public websites, and message boards,” including social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, in what is known as the “Publicly Available Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness Initiative.” The aim is to “to provide situational awareness” for the federal, state, and local governments; the DHS “may also share this de-identified information with international partners and the private sector where necessary and appropriate for coordination.” Crucially, the DHS statement also reveals that participating agencies may reveal personally identifying information about Internet users in emergency, life-and-death situations.

The list of search and monitoring tools used by the DHS includes Collecta, RSSOwl, Social Mention, Spy, Who’s Talkin, and Shrook RSS Reader, while public content and media sharing sites monitored by DHS include Hulu, iReport.com, Live Leak, Magma, Time Tube, Vimeo, YouTube, and MySpace Video. Twitter alone is monitored through a score of Twitter-specific search engines and trend monitoring services.

The array of search terms used by DHS to keep tabs on social media includes “Secret Service,” “Border Patrol,” “Agent,” “Task Force,” “Air Marshal,” “Assassination,” “Attack,” “Drill,” “Exercise,” “Cops,” “Dirty Bomb,” “Militia,” “Shooting,” “Shots fired,” “Deaths,” “Explosion,” “Gangs,” “Breach,” and “Lockdown,” as well as -- surprise -- the names of agencies like the CIA, the FBI, and of course the DHS itself.

Back in April 2011 an organization called the Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a Freedom of Information Act request for records pertaining to the DHS use of social media monitoring -- a request that EPIC says the DHS has failed to respond to. Thus on December 20 EPIC filed an FOIA lawsuit against DHS for these records, which EPIC director Marc Rotenberg told ABC News will supply more information about when, where, and how social media monitoring is used.

ABC News quotes Rotenberg: “We want to know how they're collecting information online, what they're collecting online and if there's legal basis to do this… We are trying to understand what the circumstances are when the DHS is engaged in tracking to social media sites.”

In an earlier post I wrote about the fact that the DHS is using social networks to ferret out fake "green card" marriages between U.S. citizens and immigrants for the purpose of obtaining residency or citizenship for the latter. According to awesomely frank internal DHS records obtained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation under a Freedom of Information Act request, “Narcissistic tendencies in many people fuels a need to have a large group of ‘friends’ link to their pages and many of these people accept cyber-friends that they don't even know. This provides an excellent vantage point for [the Office of Fraud Detection and National Security] to observe the daily life of beneficiaries and petitioners who are suspected of fraudulent activities.”

Read more: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/164961/yes-the-feds-are-spying-on-social-media.html?print#ixzz1i7RR7pE7

FTC, Facebook Reach Privacy Settlement

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 17:56:00 +0000

Facebook has agreed to settle a Federal Trade Commission complaint by promising to obtain users' express consent before sharing their information with a wider audience than in the past.

The social networking service also promised to prevent anyone from accessing deleted accounts within 30 days of deletion. Plus, Facebook agreed to institute a comprehensive privacy policy and to submit to audits for 20 years.

The proposed settlement, announced Tuesday, would resolve an FTC complaint alleging that Facebook deceived users by repeatedly sharing information that users believed would be private when uploaded. The FTC's 19-page complaint, unveiled on Tuesday along with the proposed settlement, spells out a variety of ways that Facebook allegedly deceived users.

Among others, in December of 2009 Facebook reclassified a host of data about users as “public” -- including people's names, photos and friend lists. “They didn't warn users that this change was coming, or get their approval in advance,” the FTC said in a statement. That Facebook shift also prompted the Electronic Privacy Information Center and other groups -- including the American Library Association, Center for Digital Democracy and Consumer Federation of America -- to file a complaint against the company.

The FTC also said that Facebook broke promises to users by allowing app developers to access profile information they didn't need. “A platform application with a narrow purpose, such as a quiz regarding a television show, in many instances could access a user’s relationship status, as well as the URL for every photo and video that the user had uploaded to Facebook’s Web site, despite the lack of relevance of this information to the application,” the FTC said in its complaint.

The authorities also alleged that Facebook shared some users' names with advertisers via referrer headers. (Facebook recently prevailed in a lawsuit stemming from that same issue. A judge in that case ruled that the users weren't harmed by any disclosures and, therefore, couldn't pursue their claim in court.)

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a blog post that the company had made “a bunch of mistakes.” He added: “I think that a small number of high-profile mistakes, like Beacon four years ago and poor execution as we transitioned our privacy model two years ago, have often overshadowed much of the good work we've done.”

Zuckerberg also noted that Facebook had already fixed some of the issues noted by the FTC.

In the last two years, Facebook revised its privacy controls to give users more say over who can access their data. But the social networking service hadn't promised prior to Tuesday to seek users' opt-in consent to future privacy-related changes.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who introduced an online privacy bill earlier this year, praised the deal.

“This settlement will help ensure that companies keep their promises to consumers and give those consumers a real voice in how their information is used, distributed, and managed,” Kerry stated. “These priorities are consistent with what Senator McCain and I had in mind when we introduced our Internet Privacy Bill of Rights.”

The terms of the Facebook settlement, which were first rumored earlier this month, are in line with the FTC's settlement with Google over its launch of Buzz. That deal requires Google to create a comprehensive privacy program and submit to independent privacy audits for the next 20 years. Google also promised that it will obtain people's express consent before sharing their information more broadly than its privacy policy allowed at the time of collection.

Buzz created social networks out of people's Gmail contacts. At launch, the service revealed information about the names of users' email contacts, if users activated Buzz without changing the defaults. That design meant that a host of confidential information could inadvertently become known, including the names of Gmail users' doctors, lawyers or coworkers.

The FTC will accept comment on the proposed Facebook settlement until Dec. 30.

by Wendy Davis

FTC Accuses Video Ad Network Of Using Flash Cookies For Tracking

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 17:09:00 +0000

In a first, the Federal Trade Commission has charged an ad network with engaging in a deceptive business practice by allegedly using Flash cookies to track Web users.

The regulators' complaint, unveiled on Tuesday, alleges that video ad network ScanScout violated its privacy policy by using Flash cookies from 2007 to 2009 in order to track users' online activity to serve them targeted ads.

Flash cookies were originally designed to remember users' preferences for online video players and other applications, but some companies use such cookies to store the same type of information that is normally found on HTTP cookies. Flash cookies are stored in a different place in people's browsers than HTTP cookies and, until recently, couldn't be deleted or blocked through browser controls.

ScanScout, which was acquired last year by Tremor Media, allegedly said in its privacy policy that users could opt out of receiving cookies by changing their browser settings. That statement was deceptive, the FTC says in the complaint.

“ScanScout represented, expressly or by implication, that consumers could prevent ScanScout from collecting data about their online activities by changing their browser settings to prevent the receipt of cookies,” the FTC alleges. “Consumers could not prevent ScanScout from collecting data about their online activities by changing their browser settings to prevent the receipt of cookies. Therefore, the representation ... was false or misleading.”

The case comes almost two years after consumer protection head David Vladeck expressed concern that companies were thwarting users' privacy settings with Flash cookies. Since then, several other companies have been accused of tracking people with Flash cookies and three companies -- Quantcast, Clearspring and Say Media's VideoEgg -- agreed to pay a total of $3.4 million to settle civil lawsuits.

The FTC hasn't publicly accused any companies other than ScanScout of using Flash cookies deceptively.

The same day that the FTC announced the complaint, it also announced that Tremor had agreed to settle the charges by promising to notify Web users about tracking and allow them to opt out. The company specifically said it will allow users to opt out of the collection of most data containing unique identifiers, including an IP addresses. The proposed settlement allows Tremor to continue collecting data from opted-out users for some purposes, including frequency capping, fraud prevention and age verification.

Tremor said two months ago that it planned to roll out the you-are-being-targeted icons developed by the umbrella group Digital Advertising Alliance on video ads. The company isn't admitting wrongdoing as part of the proposed settlement.

Tremor also is facing a lawsuit in federal court in Boston by consumers over ScanScout's alleged use of Flash cookies. Defendants in that case include AOL and Brightcove. All recently filed court papers asking for the matter to be dismissed. ScanScout said in its court papers in that matter that it “never used Flash or any other technology to respawn deleted cookies.”

by Wendy Davis

Google Introduces New Encryption Process for Organic Search Queries: Results May Vary

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 11:47:00 +0000

Google announced that starting October 18, 2011 a new privacy protection process for organic search analytics. Organic search queries executed by those consumers logged into Google products will no longer be available to web analytics systems (including Google Analytics, Adobe SiteCatalyst, WebTrends, Coremetrics, etc.) or other Google products (Keyword Tool, Trends, etc.). Note: this does NOT impact paid search analytics, even if a searcher is logged in to a Google property. Google’s view is that advertisers pay for this information in order to optimize their programs. Google will continue to provide total search volume on the platform, and it will continue to serve query level data for those organic search queries executed on the system that are from consumers not-logged into its web products. The purpose of this note is to discuss why they are doing this, and what search marketers should expect and do.

Why is Google implementing this? The answer is simple. Privacy. Searchers logged into Google through any of its products (Gmail, Google+, YouTube) receive search results that are customized to their search history—they are personalized. Even though the data that is passed on to web analytics products is, in most cases, impossible to reconcile to an individual searcher – this is a proactive move by Google to reduce privacy concerns (both in the US as well as the EU) by saying “no search queries that have been personalized will be available to any third party.”

What is the impact of this on search marketers? Google reported that less than 10% of search queries that are executed are done by consumers logged into Google products. We have no reason to dispute this statistic, so we recommend that advertisers assume that 5 – 10% of search queries are from personalized results. So any keyword level organic analysis reporting that advertisers use from their web analytics systems will start to show 5 – 10% lower referral volumes starting immediately. We do believe that this percentage will continue to increase over time, so this statistic will require on-going adjustments as additional benchmark statistics on personalization use come available. On a technical level, the process by which Google reports referential data is still unclear. For example, in Organic Search Insight™, we get data that is unique to the data, search engine, entry URL and search query. Google is saying they will continue to provide all of this data except the search query. We are in the process of testing how this is formatted through analysis of weblogs for our own site and will report on results when they come available.

It is our understanding that this encryption process is being rolled out globally. To understand the impact, we recommend that our customers do a benchmark for their top 25 organic search queries by analyzing daily variations over a 2 – 3 week period within each geography, as personalization percentages will be different by country. The purpose should be to see if there is a substantial fall off in daily keyword level referential volume—on Google only—for a particular geography. If the results for the post effective data (October 18, 2011) query volume are lower, this should be determined using 25 days prior and post the change date and this can be used as the best proxy for how to adjust query level volumes upward.

This will impact the ability of systems to look at paid and organic synergy as these types of analytics require query level granularity to see how individual searches interact between the paid and organic listing. Search advertisers may get more traffic from organic search than is reported. They may erroneously conclude that they need to purchase additional PPC volume for particular keywords when in fact their shortfalls on organic are the results of this encryption process. No changes should be made to process until the benchmarking process above is completed – again, by geography.

by Jeff MacGurn

How The White House Blogged Nothing About The New Piracy Agreement

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 12:19:00 +0000

The White House decided a new voluntary agreement between ISPs and Hollywood on internet privacy was important enough to blog about. Unfortunately, the blog post pretty much said nothing. Since I already wasted time reading that White House post, I decided I should waste more time deconstructing what a waste of time it was.

The Administration is committed to reducing infringement of American intellectual property as part of our ongoing commitment to support jobs, increase exports and maintain our global competitiveness.

Well, I assume you’re committed to reducing anything that’s against the law, right? I mean, that’s why we have laws. But if you want to give me the this is all about jobs spiel, I suppose an election year is coming up.
The joining of Internet service providers and entertainment companies…

I’m sorry. Was there a merger of some sort? Is the FTC involved? Don’t some of the entertainment companies already own ISPs? But go on, I’m sure you’ll explain more.

…in a cooperative effort to combat online infringement can further this goal and we commend them for reaching this agreement. We believe it will have a significant impact on reducing online piracy.

Say what? What effort? What are they doing? Got a link or anything about this? Sounds pretty important. If I wanted to understand more about it, um, you want to point me to anything in particular?

We believe that this agreement is a positive step and consistent with our strategy of encouraging voluntary efforts to strengthen online intellectual property enforcement and with our broader Internet policy principles, emphasizing privacy, free speech, competition and due process.

Again, what agreement? You’re telling me this is all wonderful, but you can’t explain what’s going on? I mean, I know it’s all voluntary or whatever, and you’ve got nothing apparently to do with it other than saying you support it. But if you are so supportive of it to do a blog post, maybe you could explain it?

As such, we will follow the implementation and outcomes of this arrangement with great interest. Our expectation is that the new organization created by it will have ongoing consultations with privacy and freedom of expression advocacy groups to assure that its practices are fully consistent with the democratic values that have helped the Internet to flourish.

There’s a new organization? What’s it called? Does it have a web site? A Twitter account? Throw me a bone here. Maybe tell me some of the organizations behind it?

Simultaneously, the Administration will continue to pursue comprehensive solutions to the problems associated with Internet piracy, including increased law enforcement and educational awareness. To win the future and succeed in the global economy, it is critical to protect the intellectual property of America’s innovators and creators.
Really, that’s it? You called me over to the blog to tell me basically nothing? Thanks. I ended up having to head over to Techmeme, to read what journalists were writing about this new rosy future. Thank goodness they were around, because you told me zilch.

Next time, if you have nothing to say, then say nothing.
Oh, special request. If you’re all for helping Hollywood fight piracy, how about helping those consumers who actually do buy thing legitimately. For one, I never, ever, ever want a DVD to force me to sit through 5 minutes of previews. Can we have a law that if I push Menu, I immediately get the Menu button?

And that FBI warning? Enough. Let them put it on the box. I don’t need to see that logo over and over again. What other industry gets to shove those kind of warnings down the throats of consumers over and over again, outside of maybe the airline industry. And it’s not like we’re getting safety instructions, or anything.

By Danny Sullivan

Ad Groups Granted Extension To Comment On Do-Not-Track

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:20:00 +0000

At the request of a coalition of industry groups, the Federal Trade Commission has extended the deadline for comments to its privacy report until Feb. 18. The original deadline was Jan. 31.

Stuart Ingis, counsel to the umbrella organization Digital Advertising Alliance, asked for an extension in a letter to the FTC sent late last year. He said that business associations needed more time to evaluate the FTC's report -- which called on Web companies to create a universal mechanism for consumers to opt out of online tracking -- as well as a separate report about privacy issued by the Department of Commerce.

"Additional time will allow business to evaluate the potential impact on the proposals to important business operations and critical services to consumers," he wrote. "By allowing members to fully digest the two proposals and provide thoughtful input in the form of additional comments, we believe we can provide the Commission with more meaningful input from a broad spectrum of affected industries."

The American Association of Advertising Agencies, American Advertising Federation, Association of National Advertisers, Direct Marketing Association, Newspaper Association and U.S. Chamber of Commerce were among the groups that requested extra time. They had asked for an extension until March 15.

In a separate letter, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets also asked for a 30-day extension. That organization said the FTC's report "may impact the financial services industry to a significant extent."

In its privacy report, the FTC sought comment on a host of issues, including whether it should recommend legislation requiring do-not-track if the industry doesn't voluntarily implement "an effective uniform choice mechanism."

The separate Commerce Department report called for business groups and consumer advocates to work together to develop self-regulatory privacy policies based on Fair Information Practices principles. That report also called for comments about whether new laws are needed. The deadline for those responses is Jan. 28.

The Senate is expected to conduct a hearing next month about online privacy.

To date, the FTC has received more than 200 comments on its report, primarily from individuals, but also from at least one business organization -- the Management Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors, made up of private firms engaged in remote sensing, spatial data and geographic information systems.

That group takes issue with a section of the report calling for companies to seek consumers' affirmative consent before collecting "precise geolocation data" -- included in the FTC's proposed definition of sensitive information. MAPPS says this restriction could "hamper the ability of firms, agencies and organizations to collect, use, share, or apply geospatial data."

The organization is asking the FTC to either exempt geolocation data from the prior-consent requirement or define the term more precisely. "It would be impractical, if not impossible, for our member firms to obtain prior approval or consent from individual citizens prior to acquiring or applying data such as satellite imagery, aerial photography, or parcel, address, or transportation data," the group writes.

By Wendy Davis

Verizon: FCC Neutrality Regulations An 'Abuse'

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 13:52:00 +0000

Following through on its threat to challenge net neutrality rules in court, Verizon on Thursday filed suit against the Federal Communications Commission. In court papers filed with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Verizon alleges that the FCC exceeded its authority by voting to promulgate open Internet rules. The telecom giant also argues that the new rules are "arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion."

The FCC's controversial open Internet rules prohibit wireline providers from blocking or degrading traffic or otherwise engaging in unreasonable discrimination. The order also prohibits wireless providers from blocking sites or competing applications, but doesn't prohibit wireless carriers from creating fast lanes for companies that pay extra.

The rules -- which the FCC approved by a 3-2 vote in December -- drew criticism from many observers, ranging from consumer advocates, who say the rules don't go far enough to telecoms, who say that regulation will discourage investment and innovation. Verizon immediately vowed to challenge the rules in court.

The telecom giant isn't alone in trying to ax the new rules. The Republican leadership of the House Energy and Commerce Committee also aims to vacate them. An Energy and Commerce Committee memo circulated this week lists nullifying net neutrailty as among this year's priorities. Congress has the power to vacate the FCC's rules, but only if a majority of the House and Senate vote to do so within 60 days of the regulations' official publication. The FCC has not yet published its order in the Federal Register, but is expected to do so soon.

The committee, now under the leadership of Fred Upton (R-Mich.), also intends to hold hearings "on the harm regulation of the Internet will cause to investment, innovation and jobs, as well as the FCC's abuse of authority and process," according to the memo.

Some lawmakers also are gearing up to legislate against neutrality laws. Earlier this month, Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) introduced a bill that would strip the FCC of authority to regulate the Internet. Her measure -- which has garnered support from 60 other Congress members -- would ban the FCC from issuing "any regulations regarding the Internet or IP-enabled services."

By Wendy Davis

IAB Prepares To Take Larger Role In Litigation, Lobbying Efforts

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 13:56:00 +0000

Positioning itself to take a more active role in litigation that could have an impact on online advertisers, the IAB said on Friday that it has elevated Mike Zaneis to senior vice president, general counsel, from his previous position as vice president of public policy.

In his new role, Zaneis, along with Alison Pepper, director of public policy, will deal with routine legal matters -- like reviewing contracts for IAB events -- in addition to lobbying duties. By taking business matters in-house, the IAB will be able to shift resources to matters like filing friend-of-the-court briefs in online privacy cases, or in challenges to laws that restrict advertisers, Zaneis says.

"There are cases that could have broader implications for the industry, where we may want to weigh in," he says. For instance, Zaneis says, the IAB might consider getting involved in litigation about the use of cookies and Flash cookies to track people online. "We wouldn't want a bad precedent set in any one case," he says.

Zaneis also says the IAB aims to broaden its lobbying and regulatory operations. "We'll look to expand in the coming year," he says. "Certainly we're going to continue to devote resources to public policy. The challenges there are only increasing."

The IAB's move comes amid a flurry of new privacy lawsuits against companies involved in online advertising. In the most recent case, filed this week, a New York resident alleged that the behavioral targeting network Interclick violated federal computer fraud laws and wiretap laws by using "history sniffing" technology to determine what other sites she had visited, and also using Flash cookies to recreate deleted HTP cookies.

In addition, Congress is considering legislation that could affect how online ad networks track Web users, the Commerce Department is expected to propose baseline privacy laws, and the Federal Trade Commission recently recommended that online ad companies implement a universal do-not-track mechanism.

In addition to promoting Zaneis, the IAB also said on Friday that it elevated Patrick Dolan to chief operating officer and David Doty to chief marketing officer.

By Wendy Davis

Lawsuit Alleges Interclick 'History Sniffing' Violates Fed Computer Fraud And Wiretap Laws

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:33:00 +0000

A New York resident sued behavioral targeting network Interclick for allegedly using Flash cookies and history-sniffing techniques to thwart her attempts to prevent online tracking.

"Interclick invaded Plaintiff's privacy, misappropriated her personal information, and interfered with the operability of her computer," Sonal Bose alleges in a complaint filed in U.S. District Court in New York on Wednesday. Bose alleges that Interclick violated federal computer fraud laws as well as wiretap laws. She is seeking class-action status.

Her lawsuit -- the latest in a series of recent court cases alleging privacy violations -- comes one week after Federal Trade Commission consumer protection head David Vladeck criticized ad networks for "history sniffing" by exploiting a vulnerability in browsers to discover the Web sites users previously visited.

Researchers from the University of California, San Diego recently brought the history-sniffing technique to light when they published a paper explaining the technique and naming 46 Web sites where history-sniffing technology was being deployed. In at least some cases, ad company Interclick reportedly used the technology without the publishers' knowledge. Late last week, two other Web users brought the first history-sniffing lawsuit -- a case against YouPorn.

Bose says in her complaint that she believes she was subject to history-sniffing by Interclick based on reports about Interclick's activities, its role as "a major online ad network," and the existence on her computer of an Interclick.com Flash cookie.

Bose also alleges that Interclick "monitored her web browsing in ways she would not expect or detect" by recreating HTTP cookies with Flash cookies -- which are stored in a different place in the browser, and therefore, require additional effort to control. Interclick did so in order to "track, profile, and serve targeted advertisements to consumers without being subject to the controls consumers reasonably expected to have over such third-party interactions on the Internet," she alleges.

Measurement company Quantcast and widget maker Clearspring recently agreed to pay $2.4 million to settle two class-action lawsuits alleging that they violated people's online privacy by using Flash cookies for tracking.

The use of Flash cookies to track users who delete HTTP cookies appears to date to 2005, when ad technology company United Virtualities publicly said it could track Web users through a "pie," or persistent identification element," that would remain on people's computers regardless of whether they shed HTTP cookies.

But the technique didn't draw much public notice until last year, researchers at the University of California, Berkeley and other schools published a report outlining the practice. Shortly afterward, some Federal Trade Commission officials said they were concerned about the use of Flash for tracking purposes.

Bose's lawyers include Dallas-based lawyer Joseph Malley and New York-based attorney Scott Kamber, both of whom have filed other high-profile privacy lawsuits against a variety of Web companies.

By Wendy Davis

Regulators May Enact New Internet Service Rules Next Month, Analyst Says

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 16:38:00 +0000

U.S. regulators next month may write rules governing how companies led by AT&T Inc. and Comcast Corp. provide Internet service, deciding on an issue that has divided the technology and telecommunications industries and provoked political debate.

The Federal Communications Commission may vote on the policy, known as net neutrality, at a Dec. 15 meeting, Paul Gallant, a Washington-based analyst with MF Global, said today in a note to clients.

Net-neutrality rules, which would bar telecommunications companies from interfering with subscribers’ Internet service, are backed by President Barack Obama and technology companies led by Google Inc., EBay Inc. and IAC/InterActiveCorp. Telephone providers have said rules aren’t needed and might damp investment.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski may not have reached a final decision to seek a commission vote, “but right now it appears to be the most likely scenario,” said Gallant, a former FCC staffer. He didn’t identify sources for his information.

Republicans who won a House majority in the Nov. 2 election have opposed the rules. Representative Cliff Stearns, a Florida Republican, today in an e-mailed statement reiterated warnings about a “job killing and investment freezing net neutrality proposal.”

All Options Considered

Genachowski has been advocating for rules that would prevent Internet-service providers from selectively blocking or slowing content delivered to subscribers while favoring their own offerings and those of business partners.

The agency is considering “all the options” as it seeks “the right rules to write down to preserve Internet freedom and openness,” Genachowski said at a conference in San Francisco on Nov. 17.

The proposal being considered would be “positive” for AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and Cablevision Systems Corp. because the possible rules don’t include a previous Genachowski plan to pull high speed- Internet service into the regulatory regime used for telephone service, Gallant wrote. Companies said telephone rules might lead to regulation of rates.

Jen Howard, an FCC spokeswoman, said in an e-mail the agency hasn’t circulated the agenda for its December meeting.

“These rumors from outside, uninformed sources are pure speculation at best,” Howard said.

‘Legal Anchor’

Genachowski in May proposed using the telephone rules as the “legal anchor” for reclaiming authority undermined by a U.S. court. Judges on a federal appeals court in April ruled the agency lacked authority to punish Comcast for interfering with subscribers’ Web traffic.

Now Genachowski “is leaning toward” relying on the same section of the law the court attacked, Gallant wrote.

The agency is trying to find authority for goals including subsidizing high-speed Internet service, or broadband, Gigi Sohn, president of the Washington-based advocacy group Public Knowledge, said in an interview.

“The Comcast decision left open a tiny little hole in the needle that the FCC can try to thread,” she said. “I believe they may try to do that.”

Stearns, the top Republican on the House subcommittee on communications, technology and the Internet, said Genachowski’s proposal would “further impede economic growth and job creation.”

“Ramming through Internet regulations would ignore the will of a bipartisan majority of Congress and the American public,” he said.

House members, including 171 Republicans and 74 Democrats, have written to Genachowski to express concern over his proposed Web policies.

To contact the reporter on this story: Todd Shields in Washington at tshields3@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Allan Holmes at aholmes25@bloomberg.net .

Report: Click Fraud Reaching New Heights

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 20:56:00 +0000

Advertisers waste millions of dollars on fake ad clicks, eroding the credibility of brands and throwing away budget dollars for invalid ads on Google, Microsoft and Yahoo. Click fraud for online advertisements rose to 22.3% in the third quarter, ending Sept. 30 -- up from 14.1% during the year-ago quarter, according to a report released by Click Forensics Wednesday.

The countries outside North America with significant CPC traffic producing the greatest volume of click fraud in the third quarter were Japan, the Netherlands, the Philippines and China, respectively, Click Forensics reports. But startups like Irvine-based BlueCava have begun to develop technology to identify click fraud by identifying the devices that cause the fraudulent action.

The technology begins by validating the type of device that clicks on the ad, as well as the number of times to detect click fraud. In fact, BlueCava plans to make public a test running with one client that will demonstrate how many invalid ads run on Google and on its affiliate network. "It will offer proof for advertisers that click fraud occurs," says David Norris, CEO at BlueCava, a credit bureau for devices conducting business online. "Most advertisers waste between 20% and 30% of their budget, so they should go get their money back from Google."

The idea of identifying devices is not unique, especially for enterprise-related platforms. It's a little like remotely downloading updated software to a set-top box, or a Hewlett-Packard printer that when plugged into a Sony laptop can sign on through an open Internet connection and find and download the correct printer driver.

BlueCava has begun to provide original equipment manufacturers with the device identification technology to integrate it into consumer products. This means the device would come out of the box with the ability to identify itself. The services might include security and identity protection, but it would also include the ability to match the device owner with online ads.

Rather than the device relying on a browser cookie to identify a specific audience segment, it now appears it will have a specific demographic profile of its own that Norris believes is "99.9999% accurate." If a billion devices, not people, visited a specific Web site, he says the technology would accurately identify more than 90% of them. The profile of the device could accurately serve up the appropriate ad.

Not only can BlueCava's technology identify the device, but the company has put together a data exchange where businesses can contribute information they know about a device that should make targeting ads more accurate. BlueCava plans to market the data to advertising agencies, brand marketers, ad exchanges, and media-buying companies.

And if that's not enough, the technology can identify fraudulent actions such as child predators. Sites like Disney, which shut down accounts once they find them, tend to be a Mecca for child predators. But companies like Disney must do it manually. There's a way to limit people who are not welcome on Web sites, from sites catering to children to online dating sites like Match.com.

BlueCava also has begun to develop a service that allows devices to identify malware or possibly when someone downloads a piece of software onto a machine and begins siphoning information. During the next 12 to 24 months, Norris says the company will introduce the technology in a variety of places that will "revolutionize" the industry. Norris says BlueCava plans to provide educational material that explains behavioral targeting and the opt-out and opt-in process -- and that if a consumer opts out, it doesn't mean they won't get advertising, it just means they won't get advertising that is relevant to them. The information will launch on a Web site within the next 60 days.

BlueCava continues to attract attention with this focus. The company closed a $5 million first funding round this week led by billionaire Mark Cuban and entrepreneur Tim Headington.

FEC Rules Paid-Search Political Ads Partially Exempt From Disclosure

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 14:32:00 +0000

Handing Google a partial victory, the Federal Elections Commission said that political candidates can, in some circumstances, run pay-per-click ads without including disclaimers in the copy.

But the FEC didn't completely grant Google's request, which was for a ruling that search ads are exempt from any disclosure rules the same as bumper stickers, pens or other small items.

In an opinion issued on Thursday, the FEC said it couldn't agree on whether to completely exempt search ads from disclosure rules, but that pay-per-click ad copy need not include all required information "where the text ad displays the URL of the committee sponsor's website ... and the landing page contains a full disclaimer."

FEC regulations typically require that political ads include information about who paid for the ad and whether it is authorized by the candidate. But those rules don't apply when the ads are on items too small for the disclaimers.

Google in August asked the FEC to rule that search ads are exempt from disclaimer rules because of the ad copy's 95-character limit. "As a result of this severe space limitation, a text ad is fundamentally different from a television or newspaper advertisement," Google wrote in its request. "Both Google and the advertiser view the landing page as the primary forum in which advertiser-to-customer communications take place."

The FEC's decision regarding search ads stands in contrast to actions by another federal agency, the Food and Drug Administration, which last year rebuked 14 pharmaceutical companies that had advertised on search engines.

The FDA warned that the pay-per-click ads were misleading because the ad copy touted the benefits of drugs without also informing consumers about risks and contraindications. Critics of that move said that the character limits make it virtually impossible to convey in a search ad that a particular drug is a potential treatment while also alerting users to its drawbacks.

Ringleader Adds 'Mobile Cookie' Certification For Publishers

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 15:01:00 +0000

Mobile ad firm Ringleader Digital has launched a certification program for publishers to use the company's Media Stamp, its mobile equivalent of a Web cookie for tracking usage. Ringleader's new Certification Center will allow agencies to access the complete list of participating publishers along with key site demographics and contact information to help them run more targeted mobile campaigns.

"This gives advertisers the ability to come in and see the value of the Media Stamp across multiple publishers and who's participating," said Brad Blanken, chief revenue officer at Ringleader. He added that the move would help pave the way for marketers to make direct buys with mobile publishers, hundreds of whom have already signed up for certification.

The new vetting process is also ensuring that publishers are sharing information about Ringleader's privacy and opt-out policies with their visitors, according to the company.

Its Media Stamp technology has raised privacy concerns over its ability to create and store profiles about cell users based on the sites they visit. By collecting data based on more than 100 device characteristics, the company says it can gather enough information this way to create unique, "anonymous" stamps for each mobile phone user.

A class action suit filed last month against Ringleader alleged that the company is violating consumers' privacy by tracing their mobile activity for ad purposes without their permission. The action, which also named publishing partners including CNN and WhitePages.com, further claimed that Ringleader makes it impossible to delete tracking databases in the iPhone and other devices using HTML5 software.

Blanken said the company's privacy policy provides "a very clear, conspicuous way to be notified on what's happening and to opt out if that's their choice. When a consumer opts out, we're taking them out of any type of targeting or contextually relevant ad-serving." The company's privacy policy provides an opt-out link that allows users to refrain from receiving targeted ads.

As demand for mobile audience measurement increases, more companies are offering tracking tools for mobile publishers. Earlier this week, comScore announced a new service with analytics firm Bango to let users tag mobile sites and applications to track engagement metrics.

Click Fraud to Play Fraud

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:50:00 +0000

Interesting discussions lately in ReelSEO and IndustryPace on an issue we can call ‘Play Fraud’. Think of click fraud, but with video plays instead of clicks.

It shouldn’t surprise any of us that this issue has come up. Many video platforms are paid by the play, regardless of whether the viewer watches for any period of time and despite declining CDN costs to deliver content. Ad networks delivering video are paid by the play, so they have a vested interested in defining ‘play’ as liberally as possible to increase plays and revenue. It’s increasingly common to see video ads that auto-play below the fold on a page, communicating nothing to the audience and creating no value for the advertiser…while counting as a video view.

My unscientific, hard-to-quantify definition of a video view is:

A user engages with the content. Someone clicks ‘Play’ on purpose, not accidentally. They normally do so in order to see a given piece of content. Do pre-roll ads count? Maybe. But they have to be relevant and targeted to meet the ‘engages’ criterion. Students sit through lectures. They’re engaged by great instructors. Pre-roll can be either. Do I simply tolerate the Marriot pre-roll ad as if it were a lecture, do I cut class by clicking away, or do I take away the desired message?

A user stays engaged with the content for a period of time long enough to have a reasonable probability of affecting their post-viewing behavior. With eCommerce video, that means watching a video on a product or category page long enough to have the video assist in the buying decision. Other advertising may work higher up in the funnel and hence may have different goals, but the user still has to watch for long enough to affect those goals. Do I watch the Marriot ad long enough to consider staying there on my next business trip?

Yeah…I know you can’t quantify that as easily as initiation of a play. But that’s what a view is from a publisher’s perspective. And the further a billing definition of ‘view’ is from a publisher’s definition, the more friction there will be in the ad-supported and view-driven areas of the industry. Which is why non-view-based monetization models may have a very bright future.

A Browser Cookie That Won't Go Away?

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 12:46:00 +0000

"Evercookie" is the browser cookie that just won't go away. If you're concerned about having your Web browsing history tracked, you, like most people, will probably delete your cookies and clear your browsers' caches. However, evercookie, written in JavaScript, produces "extremely persistent cookies" that can identify a client even after you've removed standard or Flash cookies.

By Alessondra Springmann

Legal update: What email marketers need to know

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:53:00 +0000

By now, every email marketer should be very familiar with the CAN-SPAM Act, using it to create guidelines and best practices for marketing emails. In the coming 12 to 36 months, however, there will be several more regulations coming into effect that could necessitate some tweaks to your program, said Dennis Dayman, chief privacy and deliverability officer at Eloqua, a provider of marketing automation solutions.

“The U.S. is looking at some draft bills that will change the use of personal data and opt-in mechanisms,” Dayman said. “There are also other things going on in the European Union and Canada that will potentially create fundamental changes.” Because of the global nature of business today, these changes should have just as much impact on U.S. marketers, he said. “Transactions move across the world. There’s a very good chance that at some point during your day you’re touching data from someone that lives in the E.U.,” Dayman said.

The draft bill in the U.S.—H.R. 5777 also known as the Best Practices Act, sponsored by Rick Boucher (D-Va.) and Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.)—could change the way email marketers use behavioral data because the bill calls for opt-out consent for “collection and use of covered information by a covered entity.” The bill would require websites to tell visitors how their information is being collected, how it will be used, how long it will be kept and whether or not it will be shared with others.

Additionally, the bill allows prospects to opt not to allow their personal data and behaviors to be tracked and stored by websites and ad networks. That would make it impossible for marketers, for example, to send people who have opted in to an email program any additional materials based on where they went on a site after they left the original email.

By next summer, it will be illegal in the E.U. to put a cookie on someone’s computer without explicit permission, Dayman said. That will affect email marketers that send someone to a landing page containing a cookie. “It doesn’t ban cookies outright,” he said. “Marketers don’t realize that, if they are doing cross-border marketing, now they will need a check box for email and Web pages that says, ‘Can I send you something? Can I put a cookie on your PC?’ Those are the types of changes we’re going to have to make to stay compliant.”

The bottom line, Dayman said, is that marketers will need to start doing what they should have been doing all along. “Marketers are going to have to get hypertransparent about telling people how you are collecting their data and what you are going to do with their information once you have it,” he said.

To that end, companies should update their privacy policies, using plain language and bulleted lists to make them easy to read and understand. “There’s no more room for small print or legalese,” he said. “People are more likely to give you their data and keep receiving emails and other marketing messages when you are upfront with them from the start and don’t change things once you’ve gotten them to sign up.”

By Karen J. Bannan

Watchdog Cautions FCC Against Sliding Down Slippery 'Paid Prioritization' Slope

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 12:06:00 +0000

The influential watchdog group Center for Democracy & Technology has told the the Federal Communications Commission that allowing companies to pay Internet service providers for prioritized delivery of content would hurt the Web's openness.

"Ensuring that operators do not engage in paid prioritization is fundamental to ensuring that the Internet continues to operate as an open, interconnected platform for commerce, speech, and innovation," the group said Tuesday in a letter filed with the Federal Communications Commission.

In recent weeks, net neutrality advocates, ISPs and policymakers have increasingly focused on "paid prioritization" -- largely because the concept is central to Google and Verizon's joint proposal for neutrality rules. The two companies proposed that ISPs should be prohibited from degrading or prioritizing traffic that currently travels over the so-called public Internet, but allowed to create fast lanes for managed services like telemedicine, distance learning, and new entertainment offerings.

Neutrality advocates generally oppose that plan, arguing that allowing ISPs to create fast lanes would disadvantage innovators and start-ups that can't afford to pay for prioritized delivery.

Last week, AT&T submitted a report to the FCC arguing that paid prioritization already exists online and that the system is "expressly contemplated" by the Internet Engineering Task Force. AT&T alone has hundreds of third-party customers for such services," the company said, adding that these customers include "healthcare providers, community service organizations, restaurant chains, car dealers, electric utilities, banks, municipalities, security/alarm companies, hotels, labor unions, charities, and video-relay service providers.

The CDT's filing on Tuesday was in response to that claim by AT&T. CDT argues that AT&T "mischaracterized" the intent of the Internet Engineering Task Force, or IETF, and its part in shaping policy. "The IETF and other technical standards bodies play a crucial role in designing the protocols that allow networks and devices to interoperate seamlessly, but it is a mistake to project business and policy decisions, about paid prioritization or any other matter, onto technical standards that make no such claims," the CDT says.

By Wendy Davis

Ten Fallacies About Web Privacy

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 10:12:00 +0000

Privacy on the Web is a constant issue for public discussion—and Congress is always considering more regulations on the use of information about people's habits, interests or preferences on the Internet. Unfortunately, these discussions lead to many misconceptions. Here are 10 of the most important:

1) Privacy is free. Many privacy advocates believe it is a free lunch—that is, consumers can obtain more privacy without giving up anything. Not so. There is a strong trade-off between privacy and information: The more privacy consumers have, the less information is available for use in the economy. Since information helps markets work better, the cost of privacy is less efficient markets.

2) If there are costs of privacy, they are borne by companies. Many who do admit that privacy regulations restricting the use of information about consumers have costs believe they are born entirely by firms. Yet consumers get tremendous benefits from the use of information.

Think of all the free stuff on the Web: newspapers, search engines, stock prices, sports scores, maps and much more. Google alone lists more than 50 free services—all ultimately funded by targeted advertising based on the use of information. If revenues from advertising are reduced or if costs increase, then fewer such services will be provided.

3) If consumers have less control over information, then firms must gain and consumers must lose. When firms have better information, they can target advertising better to consumers—who thereby get better and more useful information more quickly. Likewise, when information is used for other purposes—for example, in credit rating—then the cost of credit for all consumers will decrease.

4) Information use is "all or nothing." Many say that firms such as Google will continue to provide services even if their use of information is curtailed. This is sometimes true, but the services will be lower-quality and less valuable to consumers as information use is more restricted.

For example, search engines can better target searches if they know what searchers are looking for. (Google's "Did you mean . . ." to correct typos is a familiar example.) Keeping a past history of searches provides exactly this information. Shorter retained search histories mean less effective targeting.

5) If consumers have less privacy, then someone will know things about them that they may want to keep secret. Most information is used anonymously. To the extent that things are "known" about consumers, they are known by computers. This notion is counterintuitive; we are not used to the concept that something can be known and at the same time no person knows it. But this is true of much online information.

6) Information can be used for price discrimination (differential pricing), which will harm consumers. For example, it might be possible to use a history of past purchases to tell which consumers might place a higher value on a particular good. The welfare implications of discriminatory pricing in general are ambiguous. But if price discrimination makes it possible for firms to provide goods and services that would otherwise not be available (which is common for virtual goods and services such as software, including cell phone apps) then consumers unambiguously benefit.

7) If consumers knew how information about them was being used, they would be irate. When something (such as tainted food) actually harms consumers, they learn about the sources of the harm. But in spite of warnings by privacy advocates, consumers don't bother to learn about information use on the Web precisely because there is no harm from the way it is used.

8) Increasing privacy leads to greater safety and less risk. The opposite is true. Firms can use information to verify identity and reduce Internet crime and identity theft. Think of being called by a credit-card provider and asked a series of questions when using your card in an unfamiliar location, such as on a vacation. If this information is not available, then less verification can occur and risk may actually increase.

9) Restricting the use of information (such as by mandating consumer "opt-in") will benefit consumers. In fact, since the use of information is generally benign and valuable, policies that lead to less information being used are generally harmful.

10)Targeted advertising leads people to buy stuff they don't want or need. This belief is inconsistent with the basis of a market economy. A market economy exists because buyers and sellers both benefit from voluntary transactions. If this were not true, then a planned economy would be more efficient—and we have all seen how that works.

By PAUL H. RUBIN

Mr. Rubin teaches economics at Emory University.

Suit Distinguishes Facebook's Click-Fraud Liability

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 12:49:00 +0000

Facebook's contract with pay-per-click marketers does not completely protect the social networking service from liability for problematic clicks by outside companies, despite a disclaimer stating that Facebook has no responsibility for click fraud, a federal judge has ruled.

But the judge also ruled that Facebook's disclaimer successfully precludes liability for clicks made by outside companies that are seeking to drive up their competitors' ad costs.

The mixed decision, issued this week by U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel in San Jose, Calif., draws a line between clicks that were "fraudulent" in the sense that the clicker had dubious intentions, and clicks that were improper for other reasons, such as when technical problems prevented users from reaching a landing page.

Fogel ruled that Facebook's disclaimer protects the company only from clicks made by third parties with an intent to defraud, and not clicks that don't go through for more benign reasons.

The ruling left both sides claiming they had scored points in the litigation, which cleared the way for the marketers to obtain evidence from Facebook through the pre-trial discovery process.

"Plaintiffs view it as a significant victory because the judge rejected Facebook's argument that a click fraud disclaimer immunized it against liability for any type of improper third party click," said Jonathan Shub, who represents the marketers. "We believe that the evidence will show that Facebook has immature systems resulting in improper billing of a wide range of clicks for which advertisers should not have been charged."

For its part, Facebook said it was "pleased a number of claims have been dismissed for good." The company added: "We believe the remaining, much narrower, claims are also without merit and will fight them vigorously."

The case dates to last summer, when sports site RootZoo and several other online marketers sued the social networking service, alleging discrepancies between their internal data and the number of clicks they were charged for by Facebook. RootZoo's original complaint alleged that its analytics showed that 300 clicks were generated by Facebook on June 2, 2008, but that Facebook charged the company for 804 clicks.

Facebook asserted that its contract with marketers precluded liability for click fraud because it included the following language: "Facebook shall have no responsibility or liability to me in connection with any third-party click fraud or other improper actions that may occur."

But RootZoo and the other marketers successfully argued that "improper actions" means only clicks made with a harmful intent, and not clicks that are "non-fraudulent but otherwise invalid." Such an invalid click could occur when the same user inadvertently clicks on an ad twice in rapid succession, or clicks on an ad but doesn't actually reach the marketer's site.

Fogel's ruling this week revisited an earlier decision dismissing claims against Facebook stemming from improper clicks by third-party companies. After that decision, the marketers filed amended papers spelling out why they sought to hold Facebook liable for invalid third-party clicks.

Specific Media Sued Over Flash Cookie Use

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:14:00 +0000

Online ad network Specific Media has been hit with a lawsuit for allegedly violating Web users' privacy by using Flash cookies for tracking purposes.

In a complaint filed in U.S. District Court in the Central District of California, six Web users allege that Specific Media failed to provide adequate notice about its online data collection techniques, including Flash cookies. The lawsuit also alleges that Specific Media used Flash cookies -- which are stored in a separate location from HTML cookies -- to recreate HTML cookies that users had deleted so it could "obtain personal identifying information, monitor users, and to sell users' data."

The company's "privacy documents require college-level reading skills for comprehension and include substantial legalese, ambiguous and obfuscated language designed to confuse, disenfranchise, and mislead the users," the lawsuit asserts.

In addition, the use of Flash cookies to recreate deleted HTML cookies "unfairly wrests control from users," the lawsuit alleges.

Specific Media has not yet responded to Online Media Daily's request for comment.

Flash cookies were originally designed to remember users' preferences for Flash-based applications like online video players, but some companies also use such cookies to store the same type of information that is normally found on HTTP cookies. With this type of data, Flash cookies can be used to reconstruct HTTP cookies, even when consumers have deliberately deleted their HTTP cookies to avoid tracking. Because Flash cookies are stored in a different place from HTTP cookies, users who delete the latter don't also shed the former. People can trash Flash cookies via Adobe's online controls, but many users don't appear to be aware of the cookies.

The complaint refers extensively to a report about Flash cookies published last year by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley and other schools. That paper outlined how Flash can be used to circumvent consumers' settings.

After the report was published, some Federal Trade Commission officials said they were concerned about the use of Flash for tracking purposes.

The Web users argue that Specific Media's alleged tracking techniques violate federal and state wiretap laws. They are seeking a class-action lawsuit.

This lawsuit marks the third time this summer that companies have been sued over Flash cookies. Defendants named in the prior two lawsuits include Quantcast, Clearspring, Walt Disney and NBC Universal.

All of the Flash-cookie suits were filed by lawyers David Parisi and Joseph Malley, both of whom are among the attorneys suing defunct behavioral targeting company NebuAd for allegedly violating users' privacy.

Legislators Question Web Companies' Privacy Practices

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 19:19:00 +0000

Two senior lawmakers are questioning AOL, Yahoo, MSN and other Web companies about their practice of allowing third-party ad companies to install cookies and other tracking mechanisms on visitors' computers.

In letters to the companies, Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Joe Barton (R-Texas) said they were troubled by the notion "that the price of consumers' daily use of the Internet increasingly is surrender of their personal information." The legislators' move comes in response to a recent Wall Street Journal report that the top 50 U.S. Web sites installed an average of 64 pieces of tracking technology -- like cookies or beacons -- onto users' computers.

Web companies often say that such tracking is anonymous, but privacy advocates worry that individuals can be identified if the information that's gathered is sufficiently detailed. Markey and Barton said in their letter that the online data collection now underway "permits web-based enterprises to develop digital dossiers on consumers for a range of purposes, including highly targeted marketing."

They asked the Web sites a host of questions, including how information about users is collected, whether such information is monetized, and if so, how much revenue was associated with that information in the last 12 months.

The letter also asked the sites to provide the names of all ad and analytics companies that have access to visitors' data. The lawmakers also questioned the Web sites about their privacy policies, asking whether consumers are notified about the array of companies that collect data.

The 15 sites to receive letters were Dictionary.com, MSN.com, Comcast.net, AOL.com, Merriam-Webster.com, Photobucket.com, Answers.com; Careerbuilder.com; MSNBC.com, Live.com, Myspace.com, Yahoo.com, Verizonwireless.com, Yp.com, and About.com.

A Verizon Wireless spokesperson said the company was reviewing the request and would get back to Congress.

A Microsoft spokesperson said in a statement that the company "takes seriously our responsibility to protect people's privacy when they are using Microsoft's products and services." The spokesperson added: "We look forward to reviewing the letter and continuing to work with Representatives Markey and Barton on this important issue."

A third company said it had not yet received the letter.

Separately, a coalition of privacy advocates including the Center for Digital Democracy and U.S. Public Interest Research Group asked lawmakers to investigate a report in The Wall Street Journal stating that Microsoft lessened privacy protections in the latest version of its browser in response to concerns raised by the ad industry. The original plan reportedly was to have a setting that automatically rejected tracking technology. Instead, while the browser allows consumers to reject tracking technology, people must activate that setting anew each time they launch the software.

"Microsoft's self-serving action is emblematic of the ad industry's failure to enact meaningful self-regulation," the advocates state in letters sent to Reps. Barton and Waxman (D-Calif.) as well as Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas).

Lawmakers currently are mulling two proposals for privacy legislation -- a bill introduced last month by Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) and a draft proposal floated earlier this year by Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.).

By Wendy Davis

Intel to change practices in FTC settlement

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 17:09:00 +0000

By Jia Lynn Yang
The Federal Trade Commission is banning tech giant Intel from a slew of practices deemed unfair and deceptive as part of an antitrust settlement over charges the firm exploited its dominance in the chip market to elbow out competitors.

The FTC doesn't have the authority to fine the company — unless it violates the terms of the settlement — but the agency outlined a deal on Wednesday checking Intel's business practices. Officials said the deal would immediately benefit consumers purchasing computers by increasing competition in the chip-making business.

“This is an exceptionally important case,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. “And the commission was deeply troubled by Intel's actions.”

The agency investigated Intel's practices going back at least 10 years and found the company “stepped well over the line.” The FTC said Intel told customers it would not sell products to them unless they agreed to stop doing business with Intel's rivals. The agency also says that Intel redesigned its central processing units, or CPUs, to throw off competitors by making it harder for their chips to work with Intel's.

Intel said in a statement Wednesday that the company does not admit to breaking the law as part of the settlement and that the agency's allegations are all false.

“This agreement provides a framework that will allow us to continue to compete and to provide our customer the best possible products at the best prices,” said Doug Melamed, Intel senior vice president and general counsel. “The settlement enables us to put an end to the expense and distraction of the FTC litigation.”

Intel has faced antitrust charges before from rival chipmaker Advanced Micro Devices. Last November the two firms agreed to a $1.25 billion settlement. The European Union has also accused Intel of anticompetitive behavior. In May 2009, the EU fined Intel $1.45 billion and told the company to stop offering customer rebates that the EU thought were coercive.

Judge Rules Site Alleging Copyright Infringement Did Not Send Takedown Notices To Google Properly

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 14:55:00 +0000

A federal judge in Los Angeles has handed Google a significant victory in a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by adult entertainment company Perfect 10.

In a ruling issued earlier this week, U.S. District Court Judge A. Howard Matz largely cleared Google for allegedly displaying links in search results to sites that infringe Perfect 10's copyright. Matz found that in many cases, Perfect 10 had not provided the search company with detailed enough information to be able to easily remove the pirated material.

In general, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act protects search engines from liability for returning copyright images in their results, provided the search engines remove pirated material upon request. Matz said in his ruling that Perfect 10 made at least 83 such takedown requests to Google since 2001, but that most of them were deficient.

Matz elaborated that some of the takedown notices were sent to the wrong address -- webmaster@google.com -- instead of the address that Google had designated. Other takedown notices referred to "dozens or even hundreds of alleged infringing links," but many of those didn't contain enough details about the URLs for Google to be able to determine what material to remove.

Matz said that in other instances, Perfect 10 merely provided Google with a package of a cover letter, spreadsheet and DVDs with electronic files -- and then expected Google to "comb through hundreds of nested electronic folders containing over 70,000 distinct files, including raw image files such as JPEG files and screen shots of Google search results, in order to find which link was allegedly infringing."

While Matz didn't dismiss all of Perfect 10's claims, the ruling seems to put a big dent in the company's case, which has been pending since 2004.

Santa Clara University law professor Eric Goldman says on his blog that the ruling shows that content owners "should not get creative or lazy" with their takedown requests. "Over and over again, we've seen that the big service providers will respond quickly to properly drafted takedown notices; and we've seen judges become increasingly less tolerant of plaintiffs who couldn't bother to follow the statutory roadmap," he writes.

The ruling marks at least the second major recent defeat for Perfect 10. In May, a different federal judge denied Perfect 10's request for an injunction shutting down RapidShare for allegedly contributing to copyright infringement.

Congress Doesn't Push To Involve FCC In Retrans

noreply@blogger.com (Lazworld.com) — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:11:00 +0000

By Sara Jerome

Good morning!

Exclusive: Push to get FCC involved with TV negotiation generates little enthusiasm

The push to get the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to change "retransmission consent" rules has been slow to gain ground on Capitol Hill so far.

Reps. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) and Pete King (R-N.Y.) circulated a "Dear Colleague" letter this month promoting changes to retransmission consent rules, a contentious set of regulations governing negotiations between broadcasters and paid distributors such as cable and satellite operators.

The result? Enthusiasm is not exactly spreading like wildfire.

A copy of the final letter obtained by The Hill shows only 13 members of Congress signed on. King is the only Republican on the letter.

Broadcasters would prefer to leave the rules as they are, but cable and satellite distributors want an overhaul. They say television broadcast stations have too much power in the talks because they can pull their content. Broadcasters, meanwhile, argue cable and satellite's dependence on their programming means broadcasters deserve muscle to negotiate their compensation.

Facebook returns to the Hill

For the second day in a row, Facebook is on the Hill to talk about online privacy, this time before the House Judiciary Crime Subcommittee.

The witness is the company's chief security officer Joe Sullivan, a former federal prosecutor and founding member Justice Department’s computer hacking unit.

"We wanted to be part of this hearing because Facebook’s industry-leading safety and security practices can be a model for other companies and can inform policymakers as they examine this important issue," Facebook's Andrew Noyes told the Hill.

(2 p.m., 2141 Rayburn House Office Building).

DHS hesitant to back FCC's D-block auction

At a hearing Tuesday, Greg Shaffer, assistant secretary of the Office of Cybersecurity and Communications at DHS, said DHS is not ready to support the D-block auction until the FCC's plan is better evaluated.

The plan would fund a nationwide broadband network for first responders by auctioning off a chunk of spectrum rather than giving it straight to public safety groups.

"It's not absolutely clear what it's capable of," he said of the technology used on the network.

Today: Talking about earmarks

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will debate and mark up the Earmark Transparency Act on Wednesday. The bill would create a searchable database on a public website for all congressional earmarks. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) has expressed criticism of the bill, saying it'd be impractical and difficult for the site to list every single earmark. Bill co-sponsor Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) has argued the bill meets President Obama’s call in the State of the Union for Congress to create a single, searchable database of all congressional earmark requests. -P.K.

(10 a.m., 342 Dirksen Senate Office Building).

Can't miss news.

Hill notes

Kerry to draft online privacy bill. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) announced Tuesday he will pursue online privacy legislation to complement efforts in the House. Reps. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.) have each drafted privacy legislation to rein in what companies can do with users' personal information.

Executive notes

Conservative ethics group claims new evidence against White House for ties to Google. A conservative group claims it has obtained new evidence that White House deputy chief technology officer Andrew McLaughlin had improper contact with Google, his former employer. The White House has said McLaughlin’s e-mails with Google employees had no effect on policy decisions, but The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) on Thursday said it has obtained new evidence that complicates that assertion.

Industry notes

Google develops a Facebook rival. The WSJ reports that Google is in talks with "several makers of popular online games as it seeks to develop a broader social networking service that could compete with Facebook Inc., according to people familiar with the matter." The company is already talking to developers about running their games on the new social networking service.

LG posts record loss from handsets due to iPhone. "LG Electronics Inc. , the world’s third-biggest mobile-phone maker, reported a record loss at its handset business after lagging behind Apple Inc. and smartphone makers in selling models that send e-mails and surf the Internet," Bloomberg reports.

Microsoft: Yahoo, Google partnership plan would 'eliminate' search competition in Japan. Yahoo's plan to partner with Google in Japan will "eliminate" search competition in the country, Microsoft's Dave Heiner, vice president and deputy general counsel, charged in a blog post Tuesday. "Today, Google accounts for about 51 percent of paid search advertising in Japan. Yahoo Japan accounts for 47 percent. Their combined share of natural search results is almost as high," he said. Heiner warned that "if Google is permitted to proceed with its plan … Google alone would decide what consumers in Japan will find, or not find, on the Web."

Schedule.

10 a.m…Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs markup for a bill to require Congress to establish a unified and searchable database on a public website for congressional earmarks. 342 Dirksen Senate Office Building.

2 p.m...House Armed Services Terrorism Subcommittee hearing on harnessing small-business innovation for national security cyber needs. 2118 Rayburn House Office Building.

2 p.m....House Judiciary Crime Subcommittee hearing on online privacy. 2141 Rayburn House Office Building.

SAID.

"I know you're pulling a pretty heavy load down there."

-Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski at a hearing on Tuesday. He added that he supports what the FCC is doing. He appeared to be referencing broadband reclassification, noting the "controversy" around the proceeding.

WATERCOOLER.

OLD SPICE…The guy in the Old Spice commercials received millions of viral video views "quicker than past hits like Susan Boyle and U.S. President Barack Obama’s election victory speech," Mashable reported on Tuesday. The article argues sales may have even doubled thanks to the campaign.