Op-Ed in Roll Call: Behavioral Advertisers Need to Change Their Behavior
Jules had an op-ed published in Roll Call today, let us know your thoughts.
Behavioral Advertisers Need to Change Their Behavior – Roll Call.
Jules had an op-ed published in Roll Call today, let us know your thoughts.
Behavioral Advertisers Need to Change Their Behavior – Roll Call.
Behavioral Advertisers Need to Change Their Behavior
Roll Call
By Jules Polonetsky
June 22, 2009
On Thursday, two House Energy and Commerce subcommittees held a joint hearing to discuss something called “behavioral advertising,” the tracking of users’ Web site visits and searches in order to deliver tailored online advertisements. Almost a decade ago to the day, I testified before the Senate Commerce Committee on the very same topic as the chief privacy officer of DoubleClick. At the time, I said:
“Consumers have the right to know what kind of data net advertisers are using, and they have the right to have control over that use. There are significant steps that industry can and should take to give consumers more confidence in and more control over their Web experience. Primary among them are notice and choice. Consumers need and deserve real choice. They need to know the type of data that is being collected about them and they need to have the ability to opt out, to choose not to participate if they want to.”
Today, I would admit to being less confident that old-fashioned notice and choice is still the right model. After years of working more directly with consumers at AOL, I am convinced that companies need to be more honest and open with users about how they collect and use their data.
Click here to view the full article.
A few articles covering remarks by new FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Director Dave Vladeck have described some of the latest thinking at the Commission. Here is a synopsis from the law firm of Perkins Coie.
–Over the past ten years the agency has followed two approaches. Neither has worked well. The first was notice and consent. But consumers don’t know what they are consenting so, especially regarding secondary uses of their data. The second was a “harm” approach like GLB. Certain data collection practices pose privacy risks so great that we protect consumers by banning or imposing defined obligations on the practices, regardless of what the collecting firm has disclosed to consumers or asked them to consent to. But the “harm” model doesn’t address “non-quantifiable” harms (he didn’t define those harms). So we need a new approach.—
This could indicate a major turning point and is – IMHO – big news.
Bozeman city officials are requiring certain applicants to hand over social media passwords for background checks.
From the Lori Drew case, we know that violating a social network site’s Terms of Service could be charged as a crime. Here is the relevant language in the Facebook Terms of Service.
“You will not share your password, let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account.”
So are the applicants violating the law? Or perhaps the Bozeman officials are for inducing this violation?
Should Facebook spell out in its that systematic access to users profile for the purpose of an employment background check is not a permitted use of the service?
The folks at the Electronic Frontier Foundation tell Ars Technica it may be illegal for many other reasons as well.
“I think its indefensibly invasive and likely illegal as a violation of the First Amendment rights of job applicants,” said Kevin Bankston, an EFF attorney. “Essentially they’re conditioning your application for employment on your waiving your First Amendment rights…and risking the security of your information by requiring you to share your password with them…Where does it stop? How about a photocopy of your diary?”
Please join us for a
Privacy Update from France
Featuring
Florence Raynal
Head of International & European Affairs,
Albine Vincent
Legal Expert, Inspection Department,
Commission Nationale de L’informatique et des Libertés
Cocktails, Brie, and Brief Remarks
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
5:30pm
Future of Privacy Forum’s New Offices
919 18th Street NW
Suite 925
Washington, DC 20006
Please RSVP to [email protected]
The Future of Privacy Forum (FPF) is a Washington, DC based think tank that promotes transparency in data practices that are practical for businesses and ensure personal autonomy for consumers. The forum is led by Internet privacy experts Jules Polonetsky and Christopher Wolf and includes advisory board comprised of leading figures from industry, academia, law and advocacy groups. FPF was launched in November 2008, and is supported by AOL, AT&T, Deloitte, eBay, Facebook, Intel, Microsoft, The Nielsen Company, Verizon and Yahoo.
Today, the Commission sent the Energy and Commerce Subcommittees holding a joint hearing examining behavioral ads a letter, noting that the FTC is closely monitoring industry efforts to step up privacy efforts. Within the letter, they also reference the FPF research project underway. After members gave opening statements, the hearing was interrupted by a series of floor votes, leaving witnesses from Google, Yahoo, Facebook and the NAI waiting to see if they would get a chance to speak. A little after 6:00 PM, the hearing finally resumed…
The Commission today sent the Energy and Commerce Subcommittees holding a joint hearing looking in to behavioral ads a letter , noting that it is closely monitoring industry efforts to step up privacy efforts. They also reference the FPF research project underway. After members gave opening statements, the hearing was interrupted by a series of floor votes, leaving witnesses from Google, Yahoo, Facebook and the NAI waiting to see if they would get a chance to speak. Stay tuned.
Today, two House Energy and Commerce Subcommittees are holding a joint hearing to discuss behavioral advertising. Clearly, Congressional leaders continue to have concerns about the technologies used to track users Web activity and are dissatisfied with current practices. The FTC has repeatedly expressed its dissatisfaction with the status quo. And significant numbers of consumers themselves make their discomfort clear by deleting cookies. In response, privacy legislation could be on the way.
How are companies responding? Some argue that stricter standards will disrupt the economic model of internet advertising supporting free content. Some claim that self-regulation is working. Some support national privacy legislation. And others are beginning to explore opportunities to improve current practices. We think that regardless of whether legislation or better self-regulation is the right answer, companies need to be focused on maintaining the trust and confidence of their users if they hope to be able to succeed in the long run.
In order to encourage companies advance trust by finding innovative ways to engage and communicate with users about data use, FPF has decided to create a “Leading Practices Gallery”. Our goal is to highlight the companies that are going a bit farther to provide transparency and control to their customers with the hope that other industry players will follow in their footsteps. We recognize that not all the practices highlighted will be the best solution for every business. We appreciate that some of these examples are only baby steps in the right direction. But, all too often, privacy progress by businesses is stalled by critics who deride any minor progress because it isn’t the perfect solution or because the advances are perceived to be an ingenuous attempt to deter the holy grail of legislation. We take a different view. We think that by recognizing some of the positive methods that some businesses are taking, we can inspire other companies looking to increase transparency and control and support those who are trying to get it right. Soon, we will be consumer testing some of these efforts and will be trying to design some of our own.
So take a look at the Leading Practices Gallery to see which companies and practices are working to improve consumer trust.
In order to encourage companies to further develop innovative means of communicating with its users about data use and behavioral advertising, The Future of Privacy Forum highlights the following companies for taking the lead in providing transparency and control to its customers. If you are aware of other companies that deserve a “cheer”, please let us know by commenting or emailing us at [email protected]. Easy to view if you enlarge the presentation to full screen.
Relying on your privacy policy to give user’s notice and choice? Watch this video where 50 people in Times Square were asked “What is a browser?” It’s not exactly a scientific study, but you get the point about the communication challenges involved if reading a page about browsers, cookies and IP addresses is supposed to ensure that users understand behavioral advertising. We also have to keep in mind that you and I and our Beltway, Silicon Alley and Silicon Valley friends are not representative of the mass Web audience. Heck – some of us are even befuddled when challenged to go beyond email, browsing or signing up for Facebook.
That brings us to tomorrow, when two House Energy and Commerce Subcommittees will hold a joint hearing on behavioral advertising. When I first testified before the Senate Commerce Committee on this very issue almost a decade ago, I wasn’t quite sure the Members clearly understood the technologies and business models we were discussing. It will be interesting to see how congressional fluency in this area has progressed. Subcommittee Chairman Boucher and his staff have spent a great deal of time on this issue, hearing from companies, advocates and trade groups and seem to be well up to speed. My former colleague from local Brooklyn politics, Anthony Weiner, is quite tech savvy and had some smart points to make at the recent ISP focused committee hearing. Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman also seems interested in the issue and even has the Chief Privacy Officer of the Federal Trade Commission detailed to his committee to support privacy efforts. So I do hope for a savvier and more engaging discussion this time around.
Will the companies presenting have much more to say than I did nearly a decade ago? Have practices progressed much further than the commitments made in those early days? I will be twittering from the hearing, so follow me there or at the Twitter box on this site for live updates.