Flash Cookie

We have done multiple blog posts warning about mis-use of flash cookies, so we are not going to harp on the issue again.  And although it is flattering to be called a watchdog, we are just a small consumer privacy and technology focused think tank focused on advancing responsible data use practices.  So if you have flagged our criticisms on this issue to your business partners who use flash cookies for targeting and they haven’t cooperated, you may want to poin them to the words yesterday of a watchdog with real teeth.

Information Governance and Cloud Computing

Our friends at Nymity have published a thoughtful interview with FPF Advisory Board member Michelle Dennedy.  Have a look!

Future of Privacy Forum Releases Behavioral Notices Study

Today, the Future of Privacy Forum (FPF) released the results of a research study which tested the effectiveness of using new icons and key phrases to provide web surfers with more transparency and choice about behavioral advertising practices. FPF launched the notices initiative in May 2009 and partnered with a number of divisions at WPP, the global marketing communications company, to launch a consumer focused effort that would rely on the skill of advertising and communications professionals to engage users about efforts to provide relevant banner advertising. In February 2009, the Federal Trade Commission had expressed concern that privacy policies were not being read or understood, and urged the industry to develop new methods of providing notice to users about behavioral advertising practices.

The two phrases that performed significantly better than others in the 2600 internet user panel were, “Why did I get this ad?” and “Interest based ads.” “AdChoice,” a phrase which is currently being used by eBay in its notice program, was a favorite of earlier focus group participants, particularly with less experienced internet users. Overall the notices research showed which phrases and icons were more effective than others, but it also indicated that an educational effort will be necessary to fully ensure that users comprehend behavioral advertising practices.

Two new icons that had emerged as leaders from earlier focus groups, and were tested in the survey included an “asterisk man” and a “Power I” image. Focus group participants, who were previously presented with choices of icons, associated the lowercase “i” with “Information” links, interest-based ads, a power on/off switch alluding to the opt-out option, and the Internet in general. “Asterisk Man” was associated with personalization or a person “watching”. In the internet user panel, without further education or branding, neither had a major advantage over the other and each was dependant on being linked to key phrases, which effectively communicate to users about behavioral advertising.

As Jules Polonetsky, co-chair and director of FPF noted, “We think the icons and phrases, plus an education campaign can play an important role in educating consumers about behavioral advertising, but this needs to be done in concert with serious self regulatory efforts and continued technology and policy advances.”

FPF founder and co-chair Christopher Wolf applauded the results, “When FPF started this initiative, we challenged our partners at WPP to find a creative way to help companies communicate with consumers about behavioral advertising in terms consumers could understand. The research we have released today shows that we have achieved our goal.”

George V. Pappachen, Chief Privacy Officer at WPP’s Kantar Group said, “From the onset of this project, we believed there were innovative ways to engage and inform consumers about behavioral advertising. By using consumer research to guide us and enlisting communication experts to create these new notices, we believe we have reached an effective tactic to help explain behavioral advertising to consumers.”

The study also measured comfort with behavioral advertising with and without transparency and choice. Among the findings, applying transparency and choice increased the percentage of those who were comfortable with behavioral advertising from 24% to 40%, a 37% change. The same study also found that approximately 30% are neutral about behavioral ads with or without transparency and choice.

The final research report was authored by leading academics Mary Culnan and Manoj Hastak, who worked with Polonetsky to structure and design the consumer testing. With GroupM and Kantar coordination, a creative team from Ogilvy designed a collection of symbols, Greenfield Consulting conducted focus groups to test the symbols that showed the most promise, and teams from Kantar Group and Lightspeed were responsible for the online quantitative study.

Members of FPF’s advisory board provided input into the research, including valuable assistance from privacy leaders at AT&T, AOL, eBay, Verizon, TRUSTe and Yahoo as well as Ari Schwartz from the Center for Democracy & Technology and Professor Lorrie Cranor from Carnegie Mellon.

final_privacy_icons

poweriinternetbasedads

To see the full research report click here.

To see the power point presentation of Manoj Hastak click here.

To see the power point presentation of Mary Culnan click here.

A Little ‘i’ to Teach About Online Privacy

A Little ‘i’ to Teach About Online Privacy

New York Times

By Stephanie Clifford

January 26, 2010

A LITTLE blue symbol is carrying big implications. A mockup of an ad that includes the Power-I icon.

Trying to ward off regulators, the advertising industry has agreed on a standard icon — a little “i” — that it will add to most online ads that use demographics and behavioral data to tell consumers what is happening.

Jules Polonetsky, the co-chairman and director of the Future of Privacy Forum, an advocacy group that helped create the symbol, compared it to the triangle made up of three arrows that tells consumers that something is recyclable.

Jules Polonetsky quoted:

The idea was “to come up with a recycling symbol — people will look at it, and once they know what it is, they’ll get it, and always get it,” Mr. Polonetsky said.

“We said, let’s turn to creative people whose job it is to sell things, to communicate, instead of to lawyers whose job is to create highly accurate things that mean only what they mean and can be highly complex,” Mr. Polonetsky said.

Click here to read the full article.

Future of Privacy Forum Release Behavioral Notices Study

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

January 27, 2010

Media Contact:Ted Kresse

202.777.3719

[email protected]

Future of Privacy Forum Releases Behavioral Notices Study

Research Shows Transparency and Choice Significantly Increase Acceptance of Behavioral Ads

WASHINGTON – Today, the Future of Privacy Forum (FPF) released the results of a research study which tested the effectiveness of using new icons and key phrases to provide web surfers with more transparency and choice about behavioral advertising practices. FPF launched the notices initiative in May 2009 and partnered with a number of divisions at WPP, the global marketing communications company, to launch a consumer focused effort that would rely on the skill of advertising and communications professionals to engage users about efforts to provide relevant banner advertising. In February 2009, the Federal Trade Commission had expressed concern that privacy policies were not being read or understood, and urged the industry to develop new methods of providing notice to users about behavioral advertising practices.

The two phrases that performed significantly better than others in the 2600 internet user panel were, “Why did I get this ad?” and “Interest based ads.” “AdChoice,” a phrase which is currently being used by eBay in its notice program, was a favorite of earlier focus group participants, particularly with less experienced internet users. Overall the notices research showed which phrases and icons were more effective than others, but it also indicated that an educational effort will be necessary to fully ensure that users comprehend behavioral advertising practices.

Two new icons that had emerged as leaders from earlier focus groups, and were tested in the survey included an “asterisk man” and a “Power I” image. Focus group participants, who were previously presented with choices of icons, associated the lowercase “i” with “Information” links, interest-based ads, a power on/off switch alluding to the opt-out option, and the Internet in general. “Asterisk Man” was associated with personalization or a person “watching”. In the internet user panel, without further education or branding, neither had a major advantage over the other and each was dependant on being linked to key phrases, which effectively communicate to users about behavioral advertising.

As Jules Polonetsky, co-chair and director of FPF noted, “We think the icons and phrases, plus an education campaign can play an important role in educating consumers about behavioral advertising, but this needs to be done in concert with serious self regulatory efforts and continued technology and policy advances.”

FPF founder and co-chair Christopher Wolf applauded the results, “When FPF started this initiative, we challenged our partners at WPP to find a creative way to help companies communicate with consumers about behavioral advertising in terms consumers could understand. The research we have released today shows that we have achieved our goal.”

George V. Pappachen, Chief Privacy Officer at WPP’s Kantar Group said, “From the onset of this project, we believed there were innovative ways to engage and inform consumers about behavioral advertising. By using consumer research to guide us and enlisting communication experts to create these new notices, we believe we have reached an effective tactic to help explain behavioral advertising to consumers.”

The study also measured comfort with behavioral advertising with and without transparency and choice. Among the findings, applying transparency and choice increased the percentage of those who were comfortable with behavioral advertising from 24% to 40%, a 37% change. The same study also found that approximately 30% are neutral about behavioral ads with or without transparency and choice.

The final research report was authored by leading academics Mary Culnan and Manoj Hastak, who worked with Polonetsky to structure and design the consumer testing. With GroupM and Kantar coordination, a creative team from Ogilvy designed a collection of symbols, Greenfield Consulting conducted focus groups to test the symbols that showed the most promise, and teams from Kantar Group and Lightspeed were responsible for the online quantitative study.

Members of FPF’s advisory board provided input into the research, including valuable assistance from privacy leaders at AT&T, AOL, eBay, Verizon, TRUSTe and Yahoo as well as Ari Schwartz from the Center for Democracy & Technology and Professor Lorrie Cranor from Carnegie Mellon.

To see the full research report and examples of the icons visit FPF’s website at: fpf.org.

The Future of Privacy Forum is a Washington, DC based think tank that seeks to advance responsible data practices. The forum is led by Internet privacy experts Jules Polonetsky and Christopher Wolf and includes an 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, The Better Advertising Project, Deloitte, eBay, Facebook, Intel, Lockeed Martin, Microsoft, The Nielsen Company, Verizon and Yahoo.

###

Privacy Scholars and Think Tank Partner

Privacy Scholars and Think Tank Partner

GW Magazine

January 25, 2010

GW Law School and Washington-based think tank the Future of Privacy Forum announced a partnership to advance programs focused on the future of privacy law and policy.

Christopher Wolf quoted:

“FPF and GW Law have come together to create something quite new: a formal partnership to examine the privacy challenges presented by new technology,” FPF Co-Chair Christopher Wolf says. “By bringing together some of the best-thinking people from academia, the private sector, and government, we can ensure critical examination of the social, legal, and policy implications of the digital age.”

Jules Polonetsky quoted:

“FPF is focused on advancing responsible data practices in both the United States and abroad,” Mr. Polonetsky says. “This partnership will bring a greater visibility and more thorough discussion of the legal intricacies involved in privacy-related public policies.”

Another Step Forward for Transparency…

One more step forward for transparency in the behavioral advertising world, as today Lotame Solutions launches its new preference manager. Web surfers can see the categories in their profile used for ad targeting, add or delete some of them, or opt-out. Lotame follows in the steps of DoubleClick, Yahoo, and BlueKai in taking one of the key steps that will help give consumers a greater comfort level with behavioral advertising. Check it out!

Jan. 26, 2010 – A Little ‘i’ to Teach About Online Privacy, NY Times

Microsoft to delete full Search IP addresses after 6 months

The news is just in that Microsoft is announcing that it will delete full IP addresses from their Bing search engine log files after 6 months. In July 2009, when Microsoft and YAHOO announced their search partnership, we predicted that real competition in the search arena between Google and Microsoft could lead to privacy benefits for consumers. Today, we are pleased to see Microsoft stepping up to the plate to delete one of the most sensitive and potentially identifiable elements in search log-files.

There is really no need to keep IP addresses long term to improve search results, when the primary geographic data can be immediately derived for use in search query analysis. At the same time, an IP address can be used by governments or legal adversaries as a key to a user’s identity. Search engines do need to keep IP addresses for a limited time to help with security and anti-fraud measures.

Here is a Microsoft chart showing the new Bing search data retention periods:

bingsearch

Yahoo’s current policy is to delete IP addresses at 3 months, with a small subset kept for 6 months for security uses. Google partially deletes IP addresses at 9 months by lopping off the last octect of the address.

Today’s announcement doesn’t affect practices around other cross-session identifiers, such as the hashed cookies maintained in search log files, so there is still work to be done in this area by Microsoft and Google.  But although a cookie enables potential research that can assemble enough data about some random selection of users who have provided enough clues due to their queries, it is the more sensitive IP address that is the key to being able to force the identification of any individual users. Kudos to Microsoft for this important search privacy advance.

Supporters