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.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
FTC Considers Do-Not-Track List
By Wendy Davis
The Federal Trade Commission is considering proposing a do-not-track mechanism that would allow consumers to easily opt out of all behavioral targeting, chairman Jon Leibowitz told lawmakers on Tuesday.
Testifying at a hearing about online privacy, Leibowitz said the FTC is exploring the feasibility of a browser plug-in that would store users' targeting preferences. He added that either the FTC or a private group could run the system.
Leibowitz said that while Web users on a no-tracking list would still receive online ads, those ads wouldn't be targeted based on sites that users had visited in the past.
Three years ago, a coalition of privacy groups including the World Privacy Forum, Center for Digital Democracy and Center for Democracy & Technology proposed that the FTC create a do-not-track registry, similar to the do-not-call registry. At the time, the online ad industry strongly opposed the idea of a government-run no-tracking list.
Currently, many people who want to opt out do so through cookies, either on a company-by-company basis or through the Network Advertising Initiative's opt-out cookie (which allows users to opt out of targeting from many of the largest companies). But those opt-outs aren't stable because they're tied to cookies, which often get deleted.
The Network Advertising Initiative recently rolled out a browser plug-in that enables consumers to opt out of targeted ads by NAI members.
Leibowitz also told lawmakers that he personally favored opt-in consent to behavioral targeting, or receiving ads based on sites visited. "I think opt-in generally protects consumers' privacy better than opt-out, under most circumstances," he said. "I don't think it undermines a company's ability to get the information it needs to advertise back to consumers."
Online ad companies say that behavioral targeting is "anonymous" because they don't collect users' names or other so-called personally identifiable information, but Leibowitz said that it might be possible to piece together users' names from clickstream data. He told lawmakers about AOL's "Data Valdez," which involved AOL releasing three months' of "anonymized" search queries for 650,000 users. Even though the company didn't directly tie the queries to users' names, some were identified based solely on the patterns in their search queries. Several lawmakers expressed concerns with behavioral advertising during Tuesday's hearing. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said she was "a little spooked out" about online tracking and ad targeting.
McCaskill said that after reading online about foreign SUVs, she noticed that she was receiving ads for such cars. "That's creepy," she said, likening it to someone following her with a camera and recording her moves.
She added that if an "average American" were to learn that someone was trailing him around stores with a camera, "there would be a hue and cry in this country that would be unprecedented."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) both expressed concern that privacy policies weren't giving Web users enough useful information about online ad practices.
Rockefeller proposed that some companies were burying too much information in lengthy documents that consumers don't read. "Some would say the fine print is there and it's not our fault you didn't read it," he said, adding, "I say, that's a 19th-century mentality."
Kerry added that he didn't know that consumers understood how companies use data. "I'm not sure that there's knowledge in the caveat emptor component of this," he said.
The Federal Trade Commission is considering proposing a do-not-track mechanism that would allow consumers to easily opt out of all behavioral targeting, chairman Jon Leibowitz told lawmakers on Tuesday.
Testifying at a hearing about online privacy, Leibowitz said the FTC is exploring the feasibility of a browser plug-in that would store users' targeting preferences. He added that either the FTC or a private group could run the system.
Leibowitz said that while Web users on a no-tracking list would still receive online ads, those ads wouldn't be targeted based on sites that users had visited in the past.
Three years ago, a coalition of privacy groups including the World Privacy Forum, Center for Digital Democracy and Center for Democracy & Technology proposed that the FTC create a do-not-track registry, similar to the do-not-call registry. At the time, the online ad industry strongly opposed the idea of a government-run no-tracking list.
Currently, many people who want to opt out do so through cookies, either on a company-by-company basis or through the Network Advertising Initiative's opt-out cookie (which allows users to opt out of targeting from many of the largest companies). But those opt-outs aren't stable because they're tied to cookies, which often get deleted.
The Network Advertising Initiative recently rolled out a browser plug-in that enables consumers to opt out of targeted ads by NAI members.
Leibowitz also told lawmakers that he personally favored opt-in consent to behavioral targeting, or receiving ads based on sites visited. "I think opt-in generally protects consumers' privacy better than opt-out, under most circumstances," he said. "I don't think it undermines a company's ability to get the information it needs to advertise back to consumers."
Online ad companies say that behavioral targeting is "anonymous" because they don't collect users' names or other so-called personally identifiable information, but Leibowitz said that it might be possible to piece together users' names from clickstream data. He told lawmakers about AOL's "Data Valdez," which involved AOL releasing three months' of "anonymized" search queries for 650,000 users. Even though the company didn't directly tie the queries to users' names, some were identified based solely on the patterns in their search queries. Several lawmakers expressed concerns with behavioral advertising during Tuesday's hearing. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said she was "a little spooked out" about online tracking and ad targeting.
McCaskill said that after reading online about foreign SUVs, she noticed that she was receiving ads for such cars. "That's creepy," she said, likening it to someone following her with a camera and recording her moves.
She added that if an "average American" were to learn that someone was trailing him around stores with a camera, "there would be a hue and cry in this country that would be unprecedented."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) both expressed concern that privacy policies weren't giving Web users enough useful information about online ad practices.
Rockefeller proposed that some companies were burying too much information in lengthy documents that consumers don't read. "Some would say the fine print is there and it's not our fault you didn't read it," he said, adding, "I say, that's a 19th-century mentality."
Kerry added that he didn't know that consumers understood how companies use data. "I'm not sure that there's knowledge in the caveat emptor component of this," he said.
Privacy Lawsuit Targets Net Giants Over ‘Zombie’ Cookies
A wide swath of the net’s top websites, including MTV, ESPN, MySpace, Hulu, ABC, NBC and Scribd, were sued in federal court Friday on the grounds they violated federal computer intrusion law by secretly using storage in Adobe’s Flash player to re-create cookies deleted by users.
At issue is technology from Quantcast, also targeted in the lawsuit. Quantcast created Flash cookies that track users across the web, and used them to re-create traditional browser cookies that users deleted from their computers. These “zombie” cookies came to light last year, after researchers at UC Berkeley documented deleted browser cookies returning to life. Quantcast quickly fixed the issue, calling it an unintended consequence of trying to measure web traffic accurately.
Flash cookies are used by many of the net’s top websites for a variety of purposes, from setting default volume levels on video players to assigning a unique ID to users that tracks them no matter what browser they use. (Disclosure: The last time we reported on this issue, we found that Wired.com used one to set video preferences.)
The lawsuit (.pdf), filed in U.S. district court in San Francisco, asks the court to find that the practice violated eavesdropping and hacking laws, and that the practice of secretly tracking users also violated state and federal fair trade laws. The lawsuit alleges a “pattern of covert online surveillance” and seeks status as a class action lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed by Joseph Malley, a privacy activist lawyer who also played key roles in other high profile privacy lawsuits, including a $9.5 million settlement earlier this year from Facebook over its ill-fated Beacon program and a settlement with Netflix after the company gave imperfectly anonymized data to contestants in a movie recommendation contest.
“The objective of this scheme was the online harvesting of consumers’ personal information for Defendants’ use in online marketing activities,” wrote Malley, who called the technique “as simple as it was deceptive and devious.”
Unlike traditional browser cookies, Flash cookies are relatively unknown to web users, and they are not controlled through the cookie privacy controls in a browser. That means even if a user thinks they have cleared their computer of tracking objects, they most likely have not.
Adobe’s Flash software is installed on an estimated 98 percent of personal computers, and has been a key component in the explosion of online video, powering video players for sites such as YouTube and Hulu.
Websites can store up to 100 kilobytes of information in the plug-in, 25 times what a browser cookie can hold. Sites like Pandora.com also use Flash’s storage capability to pre-load portions of songs or videos to ensure smooth playback.
QuantCast was using the same user ID in its HTML and Flash cookies, and when a user got rid of the former, Quantcast would reach into the Flash storage bin, retrieve the user’s old number and reapply it so the customer’s browsing history around the net would not be cut off.
Quantcast’s behavior stopped last August, after Wired.com reported on the research from then-grad student Ashkan Soltani.
Quantcast is used by thousands of sites to measure the number of unique visitors and to get information on the kinds of people visiting their site — athletic, older, interested in food, etc.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and a court order requiring the companies to delete data collected, stop the practice in the future and provide an easy way to opt out.
All modern browsers now include fine-grained controls to let users decide what cookies to accept and which to get rid of, but Flash cookies are handled differently. These are fixed through a web page on Adobe’s site, and the controls are not easily understood (There is a panel for Global Privacy Settings and another for Website Privacy Settings — the difference is unclear). In fact, the controls are so odd, the page has to tell you that it actually is the control for your computer, not just a tutorial on how to use the control.
Firefox users can prevent or delete Flash cookies using a free add-on called BetterPrivacy.
Scribd, Hulu, and ESPN both declined to comment, saying they had not yet been served with the lawsuit.
Quantcast and MTV’s parent company, Viacom, did not respond to requests for comment.
The case number is 10-CV-5484, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
By Ryan Singel, wired.com
At issue is technology from Quantcast, also targeted in the lawsuit. Quantcast created Flash cookies that track users across the web, and used them to re-create traditional browser cookies that users deleted from their computers. These “zombie” cookies came to light last year, after researchers at UC Berkeley documented deleted browser cookies returning to life. Quantcast quickly fixed the issue, calling it an unintended consequence of trying to measure web traffic accurately.
Flash cookies are used by many of the net’s top websites for a variety of purposes, from setting default volume levels on video players to assigning a unique ID to users that tracks them no matter what browser they use. (Disclosure: The last time we reported on this issue, we found that Wired.com used one to set video preferences.)
The lawsuit (.pdf), filed in U.S. district court in San Francisco, asks the court to find that the practice violated eavesdropping and hacking laws, and that the practice of secretly tracking users also violated state and federal fair trade laws. The lawsuit alleges a “pattern of covert online surveillance” and seeks status as a class action lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed by Joseph Malley, a privacy activist lawyer who also played key roles in other high profile privacy lawsuits, including a $9.5 million settlement earlier this year from Facebook over its ill-fated Beacon program and a settlement with Netflix after the company gave imperfectly anonymized data to contestants in a movie recommendation contest.
“The objective of this scheme was the online harvesting of consumers’ personal information for Defendants’ use in online marketing activities,” wrote Malley, who called the technique “as simple as it was deceptive and devious.”
Unlike traditional browser cookies, Flash cookies are relatively unknown to web users, and they are not controlled through the cookie privacy controls in a browser. That means even if a user thinks they have cleared their computer of tracking objects, they most likely have not.
Adobe’s Flash software is installed on an estimated 98 percent of personal computers, and has been a key component in the explosion of online video, powering video players for sites such as YouTube and Hulu.
Websites can store up to 100 kilobytes of information in the plug-in, 25 times what a browser cookie can hold. Sites like Pandora.com also use Flash’s storage capability to pre-load portions of songs or videos to ensure smooth playback.
QuantCast was using the same user ID in its HTML and Flash cookies, and when a user got rid of the former, Quantcast would reach into the Flash storage bin, retrieve the user’s old number and reapply it so the customer’s browsing history around the net would not be cut off.
Quantcast’s behavior stopped last August, after Wired.com reported on the research from then-grad student Ashkan Soltani.
Quantcast is used by thousands of sites to measure the number of unique visitors and to get information on the kinds of people visiting their site — athletic, older, interested in food, etc.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and a court order requiring the companies to delete data collected, stop the practice in the future and provide an easy way to opt out.
All modern browsers now include fine-grained controls to let users decide what cookies to accept and which to get rid of, but Flash cookies are handled differently. These are fixed through a web page on Adobe’s site, and the controls are not easily understood (There is a panel for Global Privacy Settings and another for Website Privacy Settings — the difference is unclear). In fact, the controls are so odd, the page has to tell you that it actually is the control for your computer, not just a tutorial on how to use the control.
Firefox users can prevent or delete Flash cookies using a free add-on called BetterPrivacy.
Scribd, Hulu, and ESPN both declined to comment, saying they had not yet been served with the lawsuit.
Quantcast and MTV’s parent company, Viacom, did not respond to requests for comment.
The case number is 10-CV-5484, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
By Ryan Singel, wired.com
Friday, July 23, 2010
IAB, Consumer Advocates Weigh In On Privacy Laws
A senior Republican lawmaker expressed concern on Thursday that a privacy bill introduced by Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) could impose too many restrictions on businesses.
"We must craft legislation that creates an incentive for businesses to subscribe to the very best practices," Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) said at a hearing on Rush's proposal. Stearns criticized several aspects of Rush's bill, including that it would allow consumers to bring lawsuits against companies that violate the law, and that it delegates too much power to the Federal Trade Commission.
Stearns had signed on to an earlier proposal floated in May by Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), which differs in a few key ways from Rush's bill the Best Practices Act (H.R. 5577).
Rush's measure would require Web companies to obtain users' explicit permission before sharing their personal information with third parties, unless those companies participate in a "universal opt-out" program operated by a self-regulatory program and overseen by the Federal Trade Commission. Rush also would allow consumers to sue privately for up to $1,000 per violation, with damages capped at $5 million per incident.
Boucher's slightly different proposal would require ad networks that track people and collect personal information for ad purposes to obtain users' opt-in consent, unless the networks provide prominent notice through an icon and also allow people to view and edit their profiles. Boucher also would ban private lawsuits.
Rush's bill, like Boucher's, doesn't just cover personally identifiable information like names and addresses, but also applies to supposedly anonymous information, including Web users' marketing profiles that are associated with cookies on their computers. But unlike Boucher's proposal, Rush's measure also tasks the FTC with further defining the type of data that is covered by the bill.
At Thursday's hearing, Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) asked whether the collection of anonymous browsing activity should "require the same level of consent" as collecting material like names and financial account numbers.
Two privacy advocates on the panel, Ed Mierzwinski, program director of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, and Leslie Harris, president and CEO of the Center for Democracy & Technology, indicated they believed the answer was yes, because of the possibility that people could be identified based on "anonymous" information.
"We're concerned that de-identified or supposedly anonymous information can be repackaged back together," Mierzwinski said.
But the Interactive Advertising Bureau's Vice President for Public Policy Mike Zaneis said that Congress shouldn't try to legislate about activity that was only theoretical. He said that it isn't the "predominant business model" to connect clickstream data to personally identifiable information.
Whitfield also asked whether requiring users' opt-in consent to data collection would hinder online businesses.
Federal Trade Commission Consumer Protection Chief David Vladeck said that the most important consideration isn't whether companies obtain opt-in or opt-out consent, but whether they are adequately notifying consumers about data collection. "The goal ought to be to keep consumers well-informed," he said. "Clarity and ease of use ought to be the key metrics."
"We must craft legislation that creates an incentive for businesses to subscribe to the very best practices," Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) said at a hearing on Rush's proposal. Stearns criticized several aspects of Rush's bill, including that it would allow consumers to bring lawsuits against companies that violate the law, and that it delegates too much power to the Federal Trade Commission.
Stearns had signed on to an earlier proposal floated in May by Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), which differs in a few key ways from Rush's bill the Best Practices Act (H.R. 5577).
Rush's measure would require Web companies to obtain users' explicit permission before sharing their personal information with third parties, unless those companies participate in a "universal opt-out" program operated by a self-regulatory program and overseen by the Federal Trade Commission. Rush also would allow consumers to sue privately for up to $1,000 per violation, with damages capped at $5 million per incident.
Boucher's slightly different proposal would require ad networks that track people and collect personal information for ad purposes to obtain users' opt-in consent, unless the networks provide prominent notice through an icon and also allow people to view and edit their profiles. Boucher also would ban private lawsuits.
Rush's bill, like Boucher's, doesn't just cover personally identifiable information like names and addresses, but also applies to supposedly anonymous information, including Web users' marketing profiles that are associated with cookies on their computers. But unlike Boucher's proposal, Rush's measure also tasks the FTC with further defining the type of data that is covered by the bill.
At Thursday's hearing, Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) asked whether the collection of anonymous browsing activity should "require the same level of consent" as collecting material like names and financial account numbers.
Two privacy advocates on the panel, Ed Mierzwinski, program director of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, and Leslie Harris, president and CEO of the Center for Democracy & Technology, indicated they believed the answer was yes, because of the possibility that people could be identified based on "anonymous" information.
"We're concerned that de-identified or supposedly anonymous information can be repackaged back together," Mierzwinski said.
But the Interactive Advertising Bureau's Vice President for Public Policy Mike Zaneis said that Congress shouldn't try to legislate about activity that was only theoretical. He said that it isn't the "predominant business model" to connect clickstream data to personally identifiable information.
Whitfield also asked whether requiring users' opt-in consent to data collection would hinder online businesses.
Federal Trade Commission Consumer Protection Chief David Vladeck said that the most important consideration isn't whether companies obtain opt-in or opt-out consent, but whether they are adequately notifying consumers about data collection. "The goal ought to be to keep consumers well-informed," he said. "Clarity and ease of use ought to be the key metrics."
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Google Takes FTC to Task Over Journalism’s Future
There’s a lot of hand-wringing about the future of journalism, but does that mean the government should step in?
The Federal Trade Commission last month issued a “discussion draft” paper that proposed things like legislation to limit news aggregators, and tax breaks and antitrust exemptions for news organizations. Other reports, like one from Columbia University, also have suggested that the government take a bigger role in supporting journalism. This week, tech giant Google put in its two cents — or 20 pages, to be exact — questioning the FTC draft proposals and saying that “business problems require business solutions” rather than regulation.
The problem, Google says, is that newspapers have failed to keep up with the times. To back up its argument, Google quotes the former editor of the Rocky Mountain News on lessons he learned from the paper’s failure, including that the company made a mistake by seeing its website as relatively unimportant.
Google points out that search engines and services like Google News allow news organizations to find new audiences. And it says the Internet has increased the opportunity for new publishers — like bloggers — to enter the market. Meanwhile, the FTC draft focuses on newspapers and mentions the word “blog” only once in 35 pages, as City University of New York journalism professor Jeff Jarvis pointed out on his blog.
Google also argues that journalists should not have a copyright on so-called “hot news” or scoops, given that journalists have long reported the work of others and that facts shouldn’t be copyrighted. (It’s no surprise that Google comes down on the side of news aggregators, since Google itself operates one, but this brief uses tougher language than Google has in the past.)
The tech giant comes out strongly against breaks for news organizations and journalists, pointing out that historically the FTC has opposed such exemptions.
But there’s still a consensus that journalism is an important part of democracy. The question is whether that part of its role will survive. Other ideas proposed in the FTC document included increasing access to government data and starting a journalism division of AmeriCorps.
The Federal Trade Commission last month issued a “discussion draft” paper that proposed things like legislation to limit news aggregators, and tax breaks and antitrust exemptions for news organizations. Other reports, like one from Columbia University, also have suggested that the government take a bigger role in supporting journalism. This week, tech giant Google put in its two cents — or 20 pages, to be exact — questioning the FTC draft proposals and saying that “business problems require business solutions” rather than regulation.
The problem, Google says, is that newspapers have failed to keep up with the times. To back up its argument, Google quotes the former editor of the Rocky Mountain News on lessons he learned from the paper’s failure, including that the company made a mistake by seeing its website as relatively unimportant.
Google points out that search engines and services like Google News allow news organizations to find new audiences. And it says the Internet has increased the opportunity for new publishers — like bloggers — to enter the market. Meanwhile, the FTC draft focuses on newspapers and mentions the word “blog” only once in 35 pages, as City University of New York journalism professor Jeff Jarvis pointed out on his blog.
Google also argues that journalists should not have a copyright on so-called “hot news” or scoops, given that journalists have long reported the work of others and that facts shouldn’t be copyrighted. (It’s no surprise that Google comes down on the side of news aggregators, since Google itself operates one, but this brief uses tougher language than Google has in the past.)
The tech giant comes out strongly against breaks for news organizations and journalists, pointing out that historically the FTC has opposed such exemptions.
But there’s still a consensus that journalism is an important part of democracy. The question is whether that part of its role will survive. Other ideas proposed in the FTC document included increasing access to government data and starting a journalism division of AmeriCorps.
Google To Government: Keep Your Hands Off Journalism
Google just published a response to some ideas recently floated by the FTC on how to rescue journalism.
Google's message: "business problems require business solutions rather than regulatory ones."
The FTC document outlines the crisis facing, in particular, print media, and expresses doubt that any new online business model will emerge that can support original journalism. It then goes on to outline a number of possible policy solutions, including:
Google, of course, has a powerful financial motive for opposing any new regulation of online news consumption. But if there is a serious case in favor of government-supported journalism, we haven't seen it yet.
By Nick Saint
Google's message: "business problems require business solutions rather than regulatory ones."
The FTC document outlines the crisis facing, in particular, print media, and expresses doubt that any new online business model will emerge that can support original journalism. It then goes on to outline a number of possible policy solutions, including:
- Reducing search engines' and aggregators' fair use rights to news content.
- Creating an antitrust exemption that would allow newspapers to form a paywall cartel, and to charge search engines and aggregators for access to their content.
Google, of course, has a powerful financial motive for opposing any new regulation of online news consumption. But if there is a serious case in favor of government-supported journalism, we haven't seen it yet.
By Nick Saint
DoubleVerify Launches Fraud Detection Lab
Digital media-verification company DoubleVerify on Wednesday debuted a research arm to uncover fraudulent sites, as well as malware, spyware, adware and other forms of fraudulent online ads. The Advertising Fraud Detection Lab will investigate ad fraud in real-time and raise awareness of deceptive scams taking place online.
"Marketers are often unaware when compliance is at risk due to rogue publishers acting inappropriately on ad networks and exchanges, and most ad networks don't typically have the capabilities to verify the problem in real-time," said Oren Netzer, CEO of DoubleVerify. "We created the Virtual Visitors technology specifically to combat this problem."
In an initial test, the Lab identified several examples of fraudulent publisher schemes that waste ad spend and put advertisers in danger of severe punishment from the government, regardless of whether they were aware of it taking place or not.
Common -- yet deceptive -- types of fraud observed include misplacing or stealing ad tags, whereby organizations sign up as a legitimate publisher and then re-place the tag onto an inappropriate site for advertisers. Affiliate fraud is another in which publishers using an affiliate program in order to accumulate more traffic upload affiliate sites in hidden iFrames, which users can't see.
Invisible ads, meanwhile, occur when ads are on micro-sized iFrames that are essentially hidden to users because they can't see them even if they are prominently placed on the page.
Launched in May 2008, DoubleVerify launched its real-time verification solution for online ad transactions last May. In March, the startup raised a $10 million series B financing round led by Institutional Venture Partners.
Presently, DoubleVerify's platform and technology verify over 20 billion monthly impressions on behalf of marketers in a range of verticals, including telecom, pharma, retail, finance, CPG, and entertainment.
Late last year, video ad network Tremor Media tapped DoubleVerify for increased accountability and transparency of video ad campaigns. Tremor serves in-stream and in-banner video ads across a network of over 1,500 mid-tier and premium sites including WWE.com and WSJ.com.
The new lab will encourage collaboration between advertisers, ad networks and publishers to fight malicious activities that harm brands, legitimate publishers and users, and negatively affect the industry overall.
In the fall, the group plans to publish a white paper detailing findings from the first few months of its inception and recommending actions to mitigate publisher fraud risk.
"Marketers are often unaware when compliance is at risk due to rogue publishers acting inappropriately on ad networks and exchanges, and most ad networks don't typically have the capabilities to verify the problem in real-time," said Oren Netzer, CEO of DoubleVerify. "We created the Virtual Visitors technology specifically to combat this problem."
In an initial test, the Lab identified several examples of fraudulent publisher schemes that waste ad spend and put advertisers in danger of severe punishment from the government, regardless of whether they were aware of it taking place or not.
Common -- yet deceptive -- types of fraud observed include misplacing or stealing ad tags, whereby organizations sign up as a legitimate publisher and then re-place the tag onto an inappropriate site for advertisers. Affiliate fraud is another in which publishers using an affiliate program in order to accumulate more traffic upload affiliate sites in hidden iFrames, which users can't see.
Invisible ads, meanwhile, occur when ads are on micro-sized iFrames that are essentially hidden to users because they can't see them even if they are prominently placed on the page.
Launched in May 2008, DoubleVerify launched its real-time verification solution for online ad transactions last May. In March, the startup raised a $10 million series B financing round led by Institutional Venture Partners.
Presently, DoubleVerify's platform and technology verify over 20 billion monthly impressions on behalf of marketers in a range of verticals, including telecom, pharma, retail, finance, CPG, and entertainment.
Late last year, video ad network Tremor Media tapped DoubleVerify for increased accountability and transparency of video ad campaigns. Tremor serves in-stream and in-banner video ads across a network of over 1,500 mid-tier and premium sites including WWE.com and WSJ.com.
The new lab will encourage collaboration between advertisers, ad networks and publishers to fight malicious activities that harm brands, legitimate publishers and users, and negatively affect the industry overall.
In the fall, the group plans to publish a white paper detailing findings from the first few months of its inception and recommending actions to mitigate publisher fraud risk.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Report: Consumers Prefer Receiving Credit Card Information Via Email, Targeted Approach Best For New Business
Marketers able to mount multichannel, highly targeted ad campaigns are well positioned to capture a piece of the lucrative credit card business, according to new research from direct marketing agency Epsilon.
"Consumers want and expect to receive information that is relevant and personal, especially when it comes to financial services marketing," said Michael Penney, EVP of Epsilon's Strategic & Analytic Consulting Group. "In order to engage consumers and create unique experiences, marketers need to focus on asking questions and understanding what consumers want and how to engage with them."
More than half of consumers surveyed were unsure of what credit card company they were going to use when opening up a new account. Only 34% of consumers surveyed definitely knew which company they would go with, while over four in ten consumers chose a company with which they already had accounts.
The most influential sources of information were friends and family, followed by a financial advisor, brand Web sites, and product review Web sites.
"A multichannel approach that speaks directly with the individual consumer can create long-lasting relationships," Penney added.
Meanwhile, the primary reason why consumers selected a credit card company was the rewards program, while interest rates and recommendations from friends and family were also driving forces. The preferred channel for receiving information about credit cards was email, followed by postal mail and company Web sites.
Consumers also expressed interest in receiving rate changes and sales/discount offers from credit card companies, while nearly one-third also chose information tailored to their interests as one of their top two selections.
Loyalty programs were identified as another critical component of a successful retail banking marketing strategy.
The survey included responses from over 180 consumers who recently opened up a new credit card. It was part of a listening exercise designed to explore the concept of Customer Experience Marketing, an approach to deliver relevant interactions that anticipate and respond to the many ways that consumers want to engage, shop and buy today.
"Consumers want and expect to receive information that is relevant and personal, especially when it comes to financial services marketing," said Michael Penney, EVP of Epsilon's Strategic & Analytic Consulting Group. "In order to engage consumers and create unique experiences, marketers need to focus on asking questions and understanding what consumers want and how to engage with them."
More than half of consumers surveyed were unsure of what credit card company they were going to use when opening up a new account. Only 34% of consumers surveyed definitely knew which company they would go with, while over four in ten consumers chose a company with which they already had accounts.
The most influential sources of information were friends and family, followed by a financial advisor, brand Web sites, and product review Web sites.
"A multichannel approach that speaks directly with the individual consumer can create long-lasting relationships," Penney added.
Meanwhile, the primary reason why consumers selected a credit card company was the rewards program, while interest rates and recommendations from friends and family were also driving forces. The preferred channel for receiving information about credit cards was email, followed by postal mail and company Web sites.
Consumers also expressed interest in receiving rate changes and sales/discount offers from credit card companies, while nearly one-third also chose information tailored to their interests as one of their top two selections.
Loyalty programs were identified as another critical component of a successful retail banking marketing strategy.
The survey included responses from over 180 consumers who recently opened up a new credit card. It was part of a listening exercise designed to explore the concept of Customer Experience Marketing, an approach to deliver relevant interactions that anticipate and respond to the many ways that consumers want to engage, shop and buy today.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
New Privacy Bill Released, House To Consider Thursday
By Wendy Davis
Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) unveiled a privacy bill on Monday that would require companies to obtain people's opt-in consent before disclosing their personal information to third parties in some circumstances.
A version of the bill seen by Online Media Daily appears to be similar to a draft measure floated in May by Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet, but with some key differences.
Both bills follow a notice-and-choice framework, and both require users' consent for online behavioral advertising, or tracking users across sites in order to serve targeted ads. Both also allow companies to obtain opt-out consent rather than opt-in, but under slightly different circumstances.
Rush's measure would require Web sites to obtain users' explicit permission before sharing their personal information with third parties, unless those companies participate in a "universal opt-out" program operated by industry groups, like the Network Advertising Initiative, and overseen by the Federal Trade Commission.
Boucher's draft proposal, by contrast, would require ad networks that track people and collect personal information for ad purposes to obtain users' opt-in consent, unless the networks provide prominent notice through an icon and also allow people to view and edit their profiles.
Rush's bill also defines third-party broadly, saying that companies are considered third parties to each other if consumers would not expect reasonably them to be related. For instance, a publisher that owns an unbranded network of blogs could be considered a third party to those blogs.
Rush's measure also tasks the FTC with further defining "third party" within 18 months.
Like Boucher's proposal, Rush's bill would apply to data that is traditionally considered "personally identifiable" -- such as names and addresses -- as well as information sometimes deemed "anonymous," like marketing profiles associated with particular computers.
Rush's bill provides that IP addresses would be covered if used to create marketing profiles, but not when used to send ads dynamically. As with the definition of third party, Rush delegates to the FTC the task of further defining personal information.
Also similar to Boucher's measure, Rush's bill requires companies to obtain users' affirmative consent before collecting or sharing sensitive information -- but provides a more sweeping definition of that term. Rush says that sensitive data includes information about people's medical history or health, race or ethnicity, religious beliefs and affiliation, sexual orientation or sexual behavior, as well as certain financial data. Precise geolocation information would be considered "sensitive" if associated with other data like names or profiles. Rush also says FTC may modify the definition of sensitive information through a rulemaking.
Boucher, by contrast, defined sensitive information as medical records, race or ethnicity, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, financial records and precise geolocation information.
One key area that differs from Boucher's proposal involves consumers' ability to sue. Rush would allow individuals to sue companies that don't follow the measure for up to $1,000 per violation. Boucher's bill would completely bar consumers from bringing private lawsuits.
Rush, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection, did not have a co-sponsor for the bill as of Monday afternoon. A hearing on Rush's proposal is slated for Thursday.
Some consumer advocates reacted more favorably to Rush's proposal than to Boucher's. Privacy advocate Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, said Rush's proposal "significantly advances the privacy debate in Congress."
Chester added, "By empowering the FTC to engage in additional rule-makings on privacy, it creates a framework to better address consumer privacy concerns -- online and off."
Leslie Harris, president of the digital rights group Center for Democracy & Technology, said Rush's bill "establishes a forward looking and flexible framework for protecting consumer privacy."
Harris is expected to testify at a hearing on Thursday addressing privacy legislation.
Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) unveiled a privacy bill on Monday that would require companies to obtain people's opt-in consent before disclosing their personal information to third parties in some circumstances.
A version of the bill seen by Online Media Daily appears to be similar to a draft measure floated in May by Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet, but with some key differences.
Both bills follow a notice-and-choice framework, and both require users' consent for online behavioral advertising, or tracking users across sites in order to serve targeted ads. Both also allow companies to obtain opt-out consent rather than opt-in, but under slightly different circumstances.
Rush's measure would require Web sites to obtain users' explicit permission before sharing their personal information with third parties, unless those companies participate in a "universal opt-out" program operated by industry groups, like the Network Advertising Initiative, and overseen by the Federal Trade Commission.
Boucher's draft proposal, by contrast, would require ad networks that track people and collect personal information for ad purposes to obtain users' opt-in consent, unless the networks provide prominent notice through an icon and also allow people to view and edit their profiles.
Rush's bill also defines third-party broadly, saying that companies are considered third parties to each other if consumers would not expect reasonably them to be related. For instance, a publisher that owns an unbranded network of blogs could be considered a third party to those blogs.
Rush's measure also tasks the FTC with further defining "third party" within 18 months.
Like Boucher's proposal, Rush's bill would apply to data that is traditionally considered "personally identifiable" -- such as names and addresses -- as well as information sometimes deemed "anonymous," like marketing profiles associated with particular computers.
Rush's bill provides that IP addresses would be covered if used to create marketing profiles, but not when used to send ads dynamically. As with the definition of third party, Rush delegates to the FTC the task of further defining personal information.
Also similar to Boucher's measure, Rush's bill requires companies to obtain users' affirmative consent before collecting or sharing sensitive information -- but provides a more sweeping definition of that term. Rush says that sensitive data includes information about people's medical history or health, race or ethnicity, religious beliefs and affiliation, sexual orientation or sexual behavior, as well as certain financial data. Precise geolocation information would be considered "sensitive" if associated with other data like names or profiles. Rush also says FTC may modify the definition of sensitive information through a rulemaking.
Boucher, by contrast, defined sensitive information as medical records, race or ethnicity, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, financial records and precise geolocation information.
One key area that differs from Boucher's proposal involves consumers' ability to sue. Rush would allow individuals to sue companies that don't follow the measure for up to $1,000 per violation. Boucher's bill would completely bar consumers from bringing private lawsuits.
Rush, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection, did not have a co-sponsor for the bill as of Monday afternoon. A hearing on Rush's proposal is slated for Thursday.
Some consumer advocates reacted more favorably to Rush's proposal than to Boucher's. Privacy advocate Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, said Rush's proposal "significantly advances the privacy debate in Congress."
Chester added, "By empowering the FTC to engage in additional rule-makings on privacy, it creates a framework to better address consumer privacy concerns -- online and off."
Leslie Harris, president of the digital rights group Center for Democracy & Technology, said Rush's bill "establishes a forward looking and flexible framework for protecting consumer privacy."
Harris is expected to testify at a hearing on Thursday addressing privacy legislation.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Click-Fraud Rates Remain At Record Level
The average "innocuous invalid rate" in Anchor Intelligence's network declined to 29.8% in the second quarter of 2010, representing a 36.1% sequential decrease. That means the invalid traffic rate dropped to less than 1% from 7% in the prior quarter, according to the company's Traffic Quality Q2 2010 report released Monday. But the decrease does not necessarily mean good news for advertisers.
Anchor analyzes multiple types of advertising, but predominantly driven by CPC, search ads. While the decrease presents an interesting trend, it does not represent a decline in malicious activity across the Web, but rather a decline in robot traffic such as Web site crawlers and spiders designed to index Web sites as well as a sharp decrease in internal testing traffic like test clicks from ad networks and search engines. The report suggests that since innocuous invalid traffic is generally pre-filtered by ad providers, it rarely impacts an advertiser's ad budget.
While neither the innocuous-invalid rate or the attempted click-fraud rate bode well for advertisers, the malicious intent of the click-fraud invalids generally are worse "because in those instances you're dealing with groups of bad actors who spend lots of time, money, energy, and resources to steal money from the advertising community," says Ken Miller, Anchor's chief executive officer. "Whereas the innocuous is more of an annoying occurrence that many companies can manage, the malicious activity requires systems that are as good as those built by the bad guys, and most companies aren't equipped to do that."
The attempted click-fraud rate remained nearly unchanged, decreasing from 29.2% in Q1 to 28.9% in Q2, but year-on-year the percentage jumped 26%. The Traffic Quality Report aims to provide online advertisers with insights into the magnitude of traffic quality issues observed by Anchor, while providing clear and accurate definitions for the statistics provided.
Another trend that Anchor identified points to targeting smaller, less established ad networks and search engines that may on average become more vulnerable to attacks. It has become apparent that some customers consistently record increases in volume while also experiencing decreases in attempted click-fraud rates. This trend indicates that advertisers are seeing improved performance on ad networks and search engines that defend networks and sites against click fraud.
Anchor also measures click fraud by country. Of the top 30 countries, Vietnam took No. 1 at 37.3% in Q2 when it comes to attempted click fraud, up from 35.4% sequentially. Anchor attributes this to automated, high-velocity traffic from a distinct number of IP addresses as well as traffic from users displaying historically suspicious behavior.
Vietnam's Internet infrastructure is more vulnerable to attack than those of other countries because most computers run on outdated operating systems and Web browsers. Furthermore, the click-fraud attempts originating out of Vietnam in Q2 were believed to be a result of machines that were compromised during politically motivated cyber attacks against blogs criticizing mining projects in Vietnam.
Australia and the United States remain at No. 1 and No. 2, respectively, when it comes to the highest attempted click-fraud rates. The click-fraud rate in Australia increased from 35.2% in Q1 to 36.4 in Q2, and the attempted click-fraud rate in the U.S. decreased from 35.0% to 34.0%.
Click fraud is not the only malicious online activity advertisers need to keep an eye on. Video as a promotional advertising tool will begin to attract more mischief by those who want to exploit the Web and its content.
Anchor has successfully tested its ClearMark technology on video ads, but they don't make up a large percentage of the ads the company monitors, mainly because client demand has not yet reached the medium, Miller says. It likely will eventually.
Hackers took advantage of a cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability on Google's YouTube Sunday, hitting sections where users post comments, according to Network World, an IDG News site. The hack focused on clips related to pop star Justin Bieber. It didn't involve malware, but the code did affect YouTube pages so visitors saw tasteless messages or redirected to external sites with adult content.
Anchor analyzes multiple types of advertising, but predominantly driven by CPC, search ads. While the decrease presents an interesting trend, it does not represent a decline in malicious activity across the Web, but rather a decline in robot traffic such as Web site crawlers and spiders designed to index Web sites as well as a sharp decrease in internal testing traffic like test clicks from ad networks and search engines. The report suggests that since innocuous invalid traffic is generally pre-filtered by ad providers, it rarely impacts an advertiser's ad budget.
While neither the innocuous-invalid rate or the attempted click-fraud rate bode well for advertisers, the malicious intent of the click-fraud invalids generally are worse "because in those instances you're dealing with groups of bad actors who spend lots of time, money, energy, and resources to steal money from the advertising community," says Ken Miller, Anchor's chief executive officer. "Whereas the innocuous is more of an annoying occurrence that many companies can manage, the malicious activity requires systems that are as good as those built by the bad guys, and most companies aren't equipped to do that."
The attempted click-fraud rate remained nearly unchanged, decreasing from 29.2% in Q1 to 28.9% in Q2, but year-on-year the percentage jumped 26%. The Traffic Quality Report aims to provide online advertisers with insights into the magnitude of traffic quality issues observed by Anchor, while providing clear and accurate definitions for the statistics provided.
Another trend that Anchor identified points to targeting smaller, less established ad networks and search engines that may on average become more vulnerable to attacks. It has become apparent that some customers consistently record increases in volume while also experiencing decreases in attempted click-fraud rates. This trend indicates that advertisers are seeing improved performance on ad networks and search engines that defend networks and sites against click fraud.
Anchor also measures click fraud by country. Of the top 30 countries, Vietnam took No. 1 at 37.3% in Q2 when it comes to attempted click fraud, up from 35.4% sequentially. Anchor attributes this to automated, high-velocity traffic from a distinct number of IP addresses as well as traffic from users displaying historically suspicious behavior.
Vietnam's Internet infrastructure is more vulnerable to attack than those of other countries because most computers run on outdated operating systems and Web browsers. Furthermore, the click-fraud attempts originating out of Vietnam in Q2 were believed to be a result of machines that were compromised during politically motivated cyber attacks against blogs criticizing mining projects in Vietnam.
Australia and the United States remain at No. 1 and No. 2, respectively, when it comes to the highest attempted click-fraud rates. The click-fraud rate in Australia increased from 35.2% in Q1 to 36.4 in Q2, and the attempted click-fraud rate in the U.S. decreased from 35.0% to 34.0%.
Click fraud is not the only malicious online activity advertisers need to keep an eye on. Video as a promotional advertising tool will begin to attract more mischief by those who want to exploit the Web and its content.
Anchor has successfully tested its ClearMark technology on video ads, but they don't make up a large percentage of the ads the company monitors, mainly because client demand has not yet reached the medium, Miller says. It likely will eventually.
Hackers took advantage of a cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability on Google's YouTube Sunday, hitting sections where users post comments, according to Network World, an IDG News site. The hack focused on clips related to pop star Justin Bieber. It didn't involve malware, but the code did affect YouTube pages so visitors saw tasteless messages or redirected to external sites with adult content.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)