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."
Showing posts with label advertising. Show all posts
Showing posts with label advertising. Show all posts
Friday, July 23, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Feds vs. Facebook: Just Give Up Now
It was inevitable, really: between the need of Congressional Democrats to rattle the media cage, and the need of Facebook to turn itself into a viable ad platform at any cost, there was bound to be some kind of collision. Predictably, the issue is privacy. Equally predictable is the outcome: Facebook will have to offer at least a few real concessions to hold on to the basic core strategy.
Last week, Facebook announced a bold new audience and advertising strategy that will extend its presence across the Web through partnerships with sites like Pandora, Yelp and Microsoft Docs. The new strategy involves sharing user information from Facebook with these other Web sites. Today four U.S. Senators -- Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, Sen. Michael Bennet, D-CO, Sen. Mark Begich, D-AK, and Sen. Al Franken, D-MN -- are demanding that Facebook implement new controls that will make it easier for users to determine how much of their personal information is shared with other Web sites.
I'm no legal expert, so I couldn't say whether Facebook really runs a risk of crossing some regulatory authority on privacy issues (although MediaPost's Wendy Davis thinks the new strategy is problematic). I doubt very much that the company would undertake something of questionable legality at this point in its existence -- but that doesn't mean it will be smooth sailing. In the past misconceived revamps and new programs like Beacon have encountered strident opposition from Facebook users, even though they were perfectly legal and also covered by the site's existing terms of use. In keeping with the basic ethos of a social network, there are other criteria beyond legality to consider -- namely, public opinion.
That's where Congress comes in. Always ready to grandstand unhelpfully, members of Congress seem compelled to insert themselves into controversial media debates, whether or not they possess any actual expertise or useful advice. A good example is the recently concluded Congressional hearings about issues surrounding Arbitron's Portable People Meter for radio ratings. The hearings were held at the behest of minority broadcasters who asserted that Arbitron's audience samples failed to adequately represent minority listeners. Obviously this was a rather complex technical issue involving the firm's sampling methodology, audience sociology, and statistical validity, and it's unclear what a couple sound bites from a full-time politician could contribute to this quantitative quagmire -- but that didn't stop the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform from holding months of "inquiries."
The Arbitron example is instructive and cautionary for Facebook. After a lot of back and forth and around and around, Congress heard testimony from the Media Rating Council, which reminded Congress that it had created the MRC back in the 1960s for just this very purpose (i.e., maintaining quality standards in media ratings). Surprised at its own foresight, Congress joined MRC boss George Ivie in encouraging minority broadcasters to join the MRC, so they could gain access to confidential information regarding Arbitron's sampling techniques and also have a say in future reviews of PPM methodology. Last week Arbitron, the MRC, and the minority broadcasters announced they reached an agreement wherein Arbitron would take steps to improve minority sampling techniques.
Congress declared victory without really having done anything -- and that's the whole point. Congressional hearings don't seem designed to achieve much of anything; rather, they simply generate a continuous stream of negative publicity for companies accused of political (but not legal) transgressions, until the companies "voluntarily" agree to take whatever measures seem necessary to placate public opinion.
Frankly, in my humble opinion, Facebook would be well advised to just skip this whole process by caving in to the Senators' demands now. Because ultimately you can't win. The really dangerous thing about Congressional hearings is that they can go on forever: members of Congress get paid no matter what, and positively revel in the publicity. They want the hearings to last forever, and the universe of subject matter they can address is effectively infinite.
Meanwhile, ironically enough, Facebook users have already come up with an effective response to the Facebook changes. A message has been making the rounds which reads: "There is a new privacy setting called 'Instant Personalization' that shares data with non-Facebook websites and it is automatically set to 'Allow.' Go to Account > Privacy Settings > Applications and Websites and uncheck 'Allow.' Please copy & repost."
Last week, Facebook announced a bold new audience and advertising strategy that will extend its presence across the Web through partnerships with sites like Pandora, Yelp and Microsoft Docs. The new strategy involves sharing user information from Facebook with these other Web sites. Today four U.S. Senators -- Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, Sen. Michael Bennet, D-CO, Sen. Mark Begich, D-AK, and Sen. Al Franken, D-MN -- are demanding that Facebook implement new controls that will make it easier for users to determine how much of their personal information is shared with other Web sites.
I'm no legal expert, so I couldn't say whether Facebook really runs a risk of crossing some regulatory authority on privacy issues (although MediaPost's Wendy Davis thinks the new strategy is problematic). I doubt very much that the company would undertake something of questionable legality at this point in its existence -- but that doesn't mean it will be smooth sailing. In the past misconceived revamps and new programs like Beacon have encountered strident opposition from Facebook users, even though they were perfectly legal and also covered by the site's existing terms of use. In keeping with the basic ethos of a social network, there are other criteria beyond legality to consider -- namely, public opinion.
That's where Congress comes in. Always ready to grandstand unhelpfully, members of Congress seem compelled to insert themselves into controversial media debates, whether or not they possess any actual expertise or useful advice. A good example is the recently concluded Congressional hearings about issues surrounding Arbitron's Portable People Meter for radio ratings. The hearings were held at the behest of minority broadcasters who asserted that Arbitron's audience samples failed to adequately represent minority listeners. Obviously this was a rather complex technical issue involving the firm's sampling methodology, audience sociology, and statistical validity, and it's unclear what a couple sound bites from a full-time politician could contribute to this quantitative quagmire -- but that didn't stop the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform from holding months of "inquiries."
The Arbitron example is instructive and cautionary for Facebook. After a lot of back and forth and around and around, Congress heard testimony from the Media Rating Council, which reminded Congress that it had created the MRC back in the 1960s for just this very purpose (i.e., maintaining quality standards in media ratings). Surprised at its own foresight, Congress joined MRC boss George Ivie in encouraging minority broadcasters to join the MRC, so they could gain access to confidential information regarding Arbitron's sampling techniques and also have a say in future reviews of PPM methodology. Last week Arbitron, the MRC, and the minority broadcasters announced they reached an agreement wherein Arbitron would take steps to improve minority sampling techniques.
Congress declared victory without really having done anything -- and that's the whole point. Congressional hearings don't seem designed to achieve much of anything; rather, they simply generate a continuous stream of negative publicity for companies accused of political (but not legal) transgressions, until the companies "voluntarily" agree to take whatever measures seem necessary to placate public opinion.
Frankly, in my humble opinion, Facebook would be well advised to just skip this whole process by caving in to the Senators' demands now. Because ultimately you can't win. The really dangerous thing about Congressional hearings is that they can go on forever: members of Congress get paid no matter what, and positively revel in the publicity. They want the hearings to last forever, and the universe of subject matter they can address is effectively infinite.
Meanwhile, ironically enough, Facebook users have already come up with an effective response to the Facebook changes. A message has been making the rounds which reads: "There is a new privacy setting called 'Instant Personalization' that shares data with non-Facebook websites and it is automatically set to 'Allow.' Go to Account > Privacy Settings > Applications and Websites and uncheck 'Allow.' Please copy & repost."
Monday, January 25, 2010
FCC Urged To Steer Clear Of Online Privacy Issues
The Interactive Advertising Bureau is urging the Federal Communications Commission to refrain from addressing privacy issues in the national broadband plan.
"IAB believes that regulation by the commission, or potentially conflicting regulations from multiple government agencies, could stifle the Internet," the trade group said in a letter to the FCC. "Existing robust self-regulatory principles provide consumers with strong protections in a manner that has allowed the Internet to thrive, thereby benefiting the U.S. economy."
The group's filing came in response to a request for comments about privacy issues raised by the Center for Democracy & Technology. Earlier this month, that organization asked the FCC to solicit input on how to meet consumers' expectations of privacy online and build privacy protections into new technology.
The FCC made the inquiry as part of its efforts to formulate a national broadband plan, mandated by Congress last year when it passed the broadband stimulus bill.
The IAB said in its filing that the FCC should not consider online privacy issues because the broadband stimulus bill "makes no mention of privacy" and was aimed at "furthering the build out of a high-speed broadband infrastructure across the country."
The group reiterated its stance that Web companies can protect consumers' privacy by complying with self-regulatory principles. "Unlike formal regulations, which can become quickly outdated in the face of evolving technologies, self-regulation provides industry with a nimble way of responding to new challenges presented by the evolving Internet ecosystem," states the letter, which was signed by IAB Vice President for Public Policy Mike Zaneis.
Last year, the FTC issued self-regulatory guidelines generally recommending that online ad companies notify consumers about online behavioral advertising -- or tracking consumers across the Web in order to serve them ads -- and allow people to decline to participate.
Privacy advocates have been pressing for new laws to require companies to obtain consumers' consent before tracking them online for ad purposes. A coalition of nine consumer groups -- including the ACLU, Center for Digital Democracy, Consumer Federation of America, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group -- filed their own papers with the FCC Friday arguing that self-regulation by the online ad industry will not protect users' privacy. The advocacy organizations asked the commission to "consider all avenues it may use to protect consumers, including exercising its ancillary jurisdiction to address broadband privacy issues."
The privacy advocates are asking the FCC to base online privacy protections on the Fair Information Practices standards set out in 1973 by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
They argue in their comments that online behavioral advertising can compromise Web users' privacy even when companies don't collect people's names, but instead identify them based on "anonymous" markers like cookies. "Often, data that is believed to have been rendered anonymous can easily be "de-anonymized," and sensitive data would be linked back with the affected individual," the groups argue.
"IAB believes that regulation by the commission, or potentially conflicting regulations from multiple government agencies, could stifle the Internet," the trade group said in a letter to the FCC. "Existing robust self-regulatory principles provide consumers with strong protections in a manner that has allowed the Internet to thrive, thereby benefiting the U.S. economy."
The group's filing came in response to a request for comments about privacy issues raised by the Center for Democracy & Technology. Earlier this month, that organization asked the FCC to solicit input on how to meet consumers' expectations of privacy online and build privacy protections into new technology.
The FCC made the inquiry as part of its efforts to formulate a national broadband plan, mandated by Congress last year when it passed the broadband stimulus bill.
The IAB said in its filing that the FCC should not consider online privacy issues because the broadband stimulus bill "makes no mention of privacy" and was aimed at "furthering the build out of a high-speed broadband infrastructure across the country."
The group reiterated its stance that Web companies can protect consumers' privacy by complying with self-regulatory principles. "Unlike formal regulations, which can become quickly outdated in the face of evolving technologies, self-regulation provides industry with a nimble way of responding to new challenges presented by the evolving Internet ecosystem," states the letter, which was signed by IAB Vice President for Public Policy Mike Zaneis.
Last year, the FTC issued self-regulatory guidelines generally recommending that online ad companies notify consumers about online behavioral advertising -- or tracking consumers across the Web in order to serve them ads -- and allow people to decline to participate.
Privacy advocates have been pressing for new laws to require companies to obtain consumers' consent before tracking them online for ad purposes. A coalition of nine consumer groups -- including the ACLU, Center for Digital Democracy, Consumer Federation of America, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group -- filed their own papers with the FCC Friday arguing that self-regulation by the online ad industry will not protect users' privacy. The advocacy organizations asked the commission to "consider all avenues it may use to protect consumers, including exercising its ancillary jurisdiction to address broadband privacy issues."
The privacy advocates are asking the FCC to base online privacy protections on the Fair Information Practices standards set out in 1973 by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
They argue in their comments that online behavioral advertising can compromise Web users' privacy even when companies don't collect people's names, but instead identify them based on "anonymous" markers like cookies. "Often, data that is believed to have been rendered anonymous can easily be "de-anonymized," and sensitive data would be linked back with the affected individual," the groups argue.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
FTC Probes Facebook's EPIC Privacy Fail
A privacy watchdog's criticisms of Facebook appear to have captured the attention of the Federal Trade Commission.
In a letter dated Jan. 14, David Vladeck, head of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, told the Electronic Privacy Information Center that its complaint about recent privacy changes at Facebook "raises issues of particular interest for us at this time."
Vladeck added that he has asked an official to arrange a followup meeting with EPIC, but also said he can't currently confirm or deny whether the FTC has opened an investigation. FTC investigations are not public until the agency either issues a complaint or closes the matter.
The FTC's consumer protection chief also said in his letter to EPIC that the commission plans to focus on privacy issues raised by social networks at the next roundtable, scheduled to be held in Berkeley, Calif. on Jan. 28.
"As the amount of personal information shared on social networking sites grows, and the number of third parties and advertising networks with access to such information grows, it is important that consumers understand how their data is being shared and what privacy rules apply," Vladeck wrote. "The Commission staff believes it is critical that companies provide transparency about how this data is being handled, maintained, shared, and protected, and what steps consumers may take to control the use of their information."
Last month, EPIC and nine other groups filed a complaint alleging that Facebook's new privacy settings constitute an unfair and deceptive change in terms. The groups say that Facebook's decision to institute the new controls violates users' expectations and diminishes their privacy. The new settings classify a host of data as "publicly available information" -- including users' names, profile pictures, cities, networks, lists of friends and pages that people are fans of.
EPIC late last week filed a supplemental complaint that mentions Vladeck's letter. The new papers also highlight recent statements made by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and an anonymous employee.
In an interview earlier this month, Zuckerberg said that new social norms justified the company's decision to change its privacy settings. "People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people," he said. "We view it as our role in the system to constantly be innovating and be updating what our system is to reflect what the current social norms are."
In addition, a Facebook employee allegedly said recently that users' messages are stored in a database regardless of whether users attempt to delete them. "We track everything. Every photo you view, every person you're tagged with, every wall-post you make, and so forth," the employee allegedly added.
EPIC alleges that these public statements demonstrate that Facebook engages in unfair and deceptive trade practices.
The new filing also questions a new iPhone synching feature that transfers users' iPhone contacts to Facebook, even when the phone contacts are not Facebook friends with the users. "Some Facebook users and non-Facebook users have consciously chosen not to provide Facebook with their contact information. This choice is rendered meaningless with the sync function of the application, because information from all phone contacts will be transferred to Facebook if the sync function is enabled on an iPhone," EPIC alleges. "There is no privacy setting on Facebook that allows Facebook users to prevent having their information shared in this way."
Facebook spokesperson Andrew Noyes said that EPIC's latest filing "offers little or no new information to substantiate the claims they make."
In a letter dated Jan. 14, David Vladeck, head of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, told the Electronic Privacy Information Center that its complaint about recent privacy changes at Facebook "raises issues of particular interest for us at this time."
Vladeck added that he has asked an official to arrange a followup meeting with EPIC, but also said he can't currently confirm or deny whether the FTC has opened an investigation. FTC investigations are not public until the agency either issues a complaint or closes the matter.
The FTC's consumer protection chief also said in his letter to EPIC that the commission plans to focus on privacy issues raised by social networks at the next roundtable, scheduled to be held in Berkeley, Calif. on Jan. 28.
"As the amount of personal information shared on social networking sites grows, and the number of third parties and advertising networks with access to such information grows, it is important that consumers understand how their data is being shared and what privacy rules apply," Vladeck wrote. "The Commission staff believes it is critical that companies provide transparency about how this data is being handled, maintained, shared, and protected, and what steps consumers may take to control the use of their information."
Last month, EPIC and nine other groups filed a complaint alleging that Facebook's new privacy settings constitute an unfair and deceptive change in terms. The groups say that Facebook's decision to institute the new controls violates users' expectations and diminishes their privacy. The new settings classify a host of data as "publicly available information" -- including users' names, profile pictures, cities, networks, lists of friends and pages that people are fans of.
EPIC late last week filed a supplemental complaint that mentions Vladeck's letter. The new papers also highlight recent statements made by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and an anonymous employee.
In an interview earlier this month, Zuckerberg said that new social norms justified the company's decision to change its privacy settings. "People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people," he said. "We view it as our role in the system to constantly be innovating and be updating what our system is to reflect what the current social norms are."
In addition, a Facebook employee allegedly said recently that users' messages are stored in a database regardless of whether users attempt to delete them. "We track everything. Every photo you view, every person you're tagged with, every wall-post you make, and so forth," the employee allegedly added.
EPIC alleges that these public statements demonstrate that Facebook engages in unfair and deceptive trade practices.
The new filing also questions a new iPhone synching feature that transfers users' iPhone contacts to Facebook, even when the phone contacts are not Facebook friends with the users. "Some Facebook users and non-Facebook users have consciously chosen not to provide Facebook with their contact information. This choice is rendered meaningless with the sync function of the application, because information from all phone contacts will be transferred to Facebook if the sync function is enabled on an iPhone," EPIC alleges. "There is no privacy setting on Facebook that allows Facebook users to prevent having their information shared in this way."
Facebook spokesperson Andrew Noyes said that EPIC's latest filing "offers little or no new information to substantiate the claims they make."
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
FTC Probes Facebook's EPIC Privacy Fail
A privacy watchdog's criticisms of Facebook appear to have captured the attention of the Federal Trade Commission.
In a letter dated Jan. 14, David Vladeck, head of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, told the Electronic Privacy Information Center that its complaint about recent privacy changes at Facebook "raises issues of particular interest for us at this time."
Vladeck added that he has asked an official to arrange a followup meeting with EPIC, but also said he can't currently confirm or deny whether the FTC has opened an investigation. FTC investigations are not public until the agency either issues a complaint or closes the matter.
The FTC's consumer protection chief also said in his letter to EPIC that the commission plans to focus on privacy issues raised by social networks at the next roundtable, scheduled to be held in Berkeley, Calif. on Jan. 28.
"As the amount of personal information shared on social networking sites grows, and the number of third parties and advertising networks with access to such information grows, it is important that consumers understand how their data is being shared and what privacy rules apply," Vladeck wrote. "The Commission staff believes it is critical that companies provide transparency about how this data is being handled, maintained, shared, and protected, and what steps consumers may take to control the use of their information."
Last month, EPIC and nine other groups filed a complaint alleging that Facebook's new privacy settings constitute an unfair and deceptive change in terms. The groups say that Facebook's decision to institute the new controls violates users' expectations and diminishes their privacy. The new settings classify a host of data as "publicly available information" -- including users' names, profile pictures, cities, networks, lists of friends and pages that people are fans of.
EPIC late last week filed a supplemental complaint that mentions Vladeck's letter. The new papers also highlight recent statements made by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and an anonymous employee.
In an interview earlier this month, Zuckerberg said that new social norms justified the company's decision to change its privacy settings. "People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people," he said. "We view it as our role in the system to constantly be innovating and be updating what our system is to reflect what the current social norms are."
In addition, a Facebook employee allegedly said recently that users' messages are stored in a database regardless of whether users attempt to delete them. "We track everything. Every photo you view, every person you're tagged with, every wall-post you make, and so forth," the employee allegedly added.
EPIC alleges that these public statements demonstrate that Facebook engages in unfair and deceptive trade practices.
The new filing also questions a new iPhone synching feature that transfers users' iPhone contacts to Facebook, even when the phone contacts are not Facebook friends with the users. "Some Facebook users and non-Facebook users have consciously chosen not to provide Facebook with their contact information. This choice is rendered meaningless with the sync function of the application, because information from all phone contacts will be transferred to Facebook if the sync function is enabled on an iPhone," EPIC alleges. "There is no privacy setting on Facebook that allows Facebook users to prevent having their information shared in this way."
Facebook spokesperson Andrew Noyes said that EPIC's latest filing "offers little or no new information to substantiate the claims they make."
In a letter dated Jan. 14, David Vladeck, head of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, told the Electronic Privacy Information Center that its complaint about recent privacy changes at Facebook "raises issues of particular interest for us at this time."
Vladeck added that he has asked an official to arrange a followup meeting with EPIC, but also said he can't currently confirm or deny whether the FTC has opened an investigation. FTC investigations are not public until the agency either issues a complaint or closes the matter.
The FTC's consumer protection chief also said in his letter to EPIC that the commission plans to focus on privacy issues raised by social networks at the next roundtable, scheduled to be held in Berkeley, Calif. on Jan. 28.
"As the amount of personal information shared on social networking sites grows, and the number of third parties and advertising networks with access to such information grows, it is important that consumers understand how their data is being shared and what privacy rules apply," Vladeck wrote. "The Commission staff believes it is critical that companies provide transparency about how this data is being handled, maintained, shared, and protected, and what steps consumers may take to control the use of their information."
Last month, EPIC and nine other groups filed a complaint alleging that Facebook's new privacy settings constitute an unfair and deceptive change in terms. The groups say that Facebook's decision to institute the new controls violates users' expectations and diminishes their privacy. The new settings classify a host of data as "publicly available information" -- including users' names, profile pictures, cities, networks, lists of friends and pages that people are fans of.
EPIC late last week filed a supplemental complaint that mentions Vladeck's letter. The new papers also highlight recent statements made by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and an anonymous employee.
In an interview earlier this month, Zuckerberg said that new social norms justified the company's decision to change its privacy settings. "People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people," he said. "We view it as our role in the system to constantly be innovating and be updating what our system is to reflect what the current social norms are."
In addition, a Facebook employee allegedly said recently that users' messages are stored in a database regardless of whether users attempt to delete them. "We track everything. Every photo you view, every person you're tagged with, every wall-post you make, and so forth," the employee allegedly added.
EPIC alleges that these public statements demonstrate that Facebook engages in unfair and deceptive trade practices.
The new filing also questions a new iPhone synching feature that transfers users' iPhone contacts to Facebook, even when the phone contacts are not Facebook friends with the users. "Some Facebook users and non-Facebook users have consciously chosen not to provide Facebook with their contact information. This choice is rendered meaningless with the sync function of the application, because information from all phone contacts will be transferred to Facebook if the sync function is enabled on an iPhone," EPIC alleges. "There is no privacy setting on Facebook that allows Facebook users to prevent having their information shared in this way."
Facebook spokesperson Andrew Noyes said that EPIC's latest filing "offers little or no new information to substantiate the claims they make."
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Facebook CEO: Privacy Policies Continue to Adapt to Social Norm
After facing a myriad of privacy concerns from users and other groups, Facebook’s (News - Alert) founder and CEO said that sharing information online is the new “social norm” and that the company’s privacy policies continue to evolve to coincide with what users’ comfort-levels are.
Last month, the company announced that it was calling on its more than 350 million users to review and update their privacy settings – what company officials called “a first among major Internet services.”
“When we first started Facebook in my dorm room in Harvard [in 2004], people asked me why would I want to have any information at all on the Internet,” the 25-year-old Zuckerberg said at the annual Crunchies awards ceremony sponsored by TechCrunch. “But the social norm has evolved over time.”
“We focused a lot on the past few years on helping our users spread Facebook worldwide,” and that effort is still continuing Zuckerberg said.
“A lot of companies would be trapped by the conventions and their legacies of what they’ve built, doing a privacy change for 350 million users is not the type of thing that a lot of companies would do,” Zuckerberg said.
“People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people ... We view it as our role in the system to constantly be innovating and be updating what our system is to reflect what the current social norms are.”
Facebook’s current privacy model revolves around “networks” such as communities for schools, companies or regions. However, some of the regional networks like Australia and Turkey now have millions of members, which is why Facebook is moving toward a more personalized model of control, company officials said. Regional networks will be removed and replaced with four basic control settings: “friends,” “friends of friends,” “everyone” and “customized,” which apply uniformly to all users worldwide.
Last month, the company announced that it was calling on its more than 350 million users to review and update their privacy settings – what company officials called “a first among major Internet services.”
“When we first started Facebook in my dorm room in Harvard [in 2004], people asked me why would I want to have any information at all on the Internet,” the 25-year-old Zuckerberg said at the annual Crunchies awards ceremony sponsored by TechCrunch. “But the social norm has evolved over time.”
“We focused a lot on the past few years on helping our users spread Facebook worldwide,” and that effort is still continuing Zuckerberg said.
“A lot of companies would be trapped by the conventions and their legacies of what they’ve built, doing a privacy change for 350 million users is not the type of thing that a lot of companies would do,” Zuckerberg said.
“People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people ... We view it as our role in the system to constantly be innovating and be updating what our system is to reflect what the current social norms are.”
Facebook’s current privacy model revolves around “networks” such as communities for schools, companies or regions. However, some of the regional networks like Australia and Turkey now have millions of members, which is why Facebook is moving toward a more personalized model of control, company officials said. Regional networks will be removed and replaced with four basic control settings: “friends,” “friends of friends,” “everyone” and “customized,” which apply uniformly to all users worldwide.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Facebook Privacy Changes Break the Law, Privacy Groups Tell FTC
A coalition of privacy groups asked regulators Thursday to investigate controversial new privacy settings on Facebook, saying recent changes in how the massive social networking site treats customer data violate federal consumer protection laws.
The complaint, filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), says the changes significantly cut back customer privacy controls by forcing into the public eye certain information that they could previously restrict. Under the new policy, a user’s profile picture, current city, gender and friend and fan page lists are automatically public for all users, with little option to limit who is able to see this information. Additionally, Facebook set more defaults to its public setting, hoping users will start sharing information, such as their status updates, with the entire internet rather than limited sets of hand selected family members or friends — a clear effort to compete with Twitter by serving more real time customer data.
The changes “violate user expectations, diminish user privacy, and contradict. Facebook’s own representations,” EPIC charges (.pdf). The complaint asks the Federal Trade Commission to “determine the extent of the harm to consumer privacy and safety, require Facebook to restore privacy settings that were previously available…, require Facebook to give users meaningful control over personal information, and seek appropriate injunctive and compensatory relief.”
The challenge raises the stakes for Facebook, the world’s largest social-networking site, which has been trying to ride out a vocal backlash against what some see as a blatant attempt to push users into sharing publicly and often. It will also serve as a test case for the FTC under the Obama Administration, forcing the agency to show whether it will remain focused on scams with provable harms, or become a more interventionist player in the market as the FCC has become with telecommunications companies.
EPIC was joined in its complaint by a coalition of interest groups, including the Center for Digital Democracy, the American Library Association and the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.
EPIC’s director Marc Rotenberg described the complaint as the most significant one facing the FTC, which is now headed by Jon Leibowitz. He is considered to be more sympathetic to privacy issues, and the FTC just signaled as much by holding a series of open-ended privacy hearings earlier this month.
“More than 100 million people in the United States subscribe to the Facebook service,” Rotenberg said. “The company should not be allowed to turn down the privacy dial on so many American consumers.”
But Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes says the company discussed the changes with the FTC, privacy groups and the public ahead of time.
“We’ve had productive discussions with dozens of organizations around the world about the recent changes and we¹re disappointed that EPIC has chosen to share their concerns with the FTC while refusing to talk to us about them,” said Noyes, a longtime DC tech policy reporter who joined Facebook this fall. “The new tools offer users the opportunity to decide on privacy with every photo, link or status update they wish to post, so the process of personalizing privacy on Facebook will continue.”
The complaint comes just a day after privacy groups had a behind-the-scenes briefing with Facebook lawyers. Those included Tim Sparapani, who joined Facebook in the spring after working for several years as the ACLU’s top lobbyist battling government spying bills.
In the presentation, Facebook told the groups that as of Monday 220 million users had used its privacy settings transition wizard. Of those, about 40 percent are changing the defaults settings, while about 50 percent are opting to stick with Facebook’s new, more public default choices.
The Center for Digital Democracy’s Jeff Chester called Facebook’s definition of privacy “self-serving and narrow” and that the company’s intention is to get users to share as much as possible, in part to allow for more targeted advertising.
“They don’t disclose that consumer data is being used for very sophisticated marketing and targeting,” Chester said. “The Obama administration will have to be the cop on the beat.”
While the Electronic Frontier Foundation did not sign onto the complaint, EFF lawyer Kevin Bankston described his group’s concerns as similar.
“The complaint raises important questions about Facebook’s privacy practices that echo EFF’s own concerns, and I expect that the FTC will seriously consider opening an investigation,” Bankston said.
Bankston wrote an influential critique of the changes last week, but his concerns were largely dismissed by a Facebook spokesman who called Bankston part of a tiny minority who used a feature blocking third-party developers from accessing any of their data when a friend installs an application.
But Bankston is hardly alone in his criticism.
Facebook’s own posts on the privacy changes have more than 2,000 comments, most negative. Meanwhile, purely grassroots protest groups such as “Against The New Facebook Privacy Settings!” and “Facebook! Fix the Privacy Settings” have formed inside Facebook, demanding that Facebook roll back the changes.
While the FTC is a complaint-driven agency, it does not disclose when or if it opens investigations. A previous FTC complaint by EPIC regarding the data marketing industry led to record fines.
A Facebook spokesman did not return a call seeking comment by press time
The complaint, filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), says the changes significantly cut back customer privacy controls by forcing into the public eye certain information that they could previously restrict. Under the new policy, a user’s profile picture, current city, gender and friend and fan page lists are automatically public for all users, with little option to limit who is able to see this information. Additionally, Facebook set more defaults to its public setting, hoping users will start sharing information, such as their status updates, with the entire internet rather than limited sets of hand selected family members or friends — a clear effort to compete with Twitter by serving more real time customer data.
The changes “violate user expectations, diminish user privacy, and contradict. Facebook’s own representations,” EPIC charges (.pdf). The complaint asks the Federal Trade Commission to “determine the extent of the harm to consumer privacy and safety, require Facebook to restore privacy settings that were previously available…, require Facebook to give users meaningful control over personal information, and seek appropriate injunctive and compensatory relief.”
The challenge raises the stakes for Facebook, the world’s largest social-networking site, which has been trying to ride out a vocal backlash against what some see as a blatant attempt to push users into sharing publicly and often. It will also serve as a test case for the FTC under the Obama Administration, forcing the agency to show whether it will remain focused on scams with provable harms, or become a more interventionist player in the market as the FCC has become with telecommunications companies.
EPIC was joined in its complaint by a coalition of interest groups, including the Center for Digital Democracy, the American Library Association and the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.
EPIC’s director Marc Rotenberg described the complaint as the most significant one facing the FTC, which is now headed by Jon Leibowitz. He is considered to be more sympathetic to privacy issues, and the FTC just signaled as much by holding a series of open-ended privacy hearings earlier this month.
“More than 100 million people in the United States subscribe to the Facebook service,” Rotenberg said. “The company should not be allowed to turn down the privacy dial on so many American consumers.”
But Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes says the company discussed the changes with the FTC, privacy groups and the public ahead of time.
“We’ve had productive discussions with dozens of organizations around the world about the recent changes and we¹re disappointed that EPIC has chosen to share their concerns with the FTC while refusing to talk to us about them,” said Noyes, a longtime DC tech policy reporter who joined Facebook this fall. “The new tools offer users the opportunity to decide on privacy with every photo, link or status update they wish to post, so the process of personalizing privacy on Facebook will continue.”
The complaint comes just a day after privacy groups had a behind-the-scenes briefing with Facebook lawyers. Those included Tim Sparapani, who joined Facebook in the spring after working for several years as the ACLU’s top lobbyist battling government spying bills.
In the presentation, Facebook told the groups that as of Monday 220 million users had used its privacy settings transition wizard. Of those, about 40 percent are changing the defaults settings, while about 50 percent are opting to stick with Facebook’s new, more public default choices.
The Center for Digital Democracy’s Jeff Chester called Facebook’s definition of privacy “self-serving and narrow” and that the company’s intention is to get users to share as much as possible, in part to allow for more targeted advertising.
“They don’t disclose that consumer data is being used for very sophisticated marketing and targeting,” Chester said. “The Obama administration will have to be the cop on the beat.”
While the Electronic Frontier Foundation did not sign onto the complaint, EFF lawyer Kevin Bankston described his group’s concerns as similar.
“The complaint raises important questions about Facebook’s privacy practices that echo EFF’s own concerns, and I expect that the FTC will seriously consider opening an investigation,” Bankston said.
Bankston wrote an influential critique of the changes last week, but his concerns were largely dismissed by a Facebook spokesman who called Bankston part of a tiny minority who used a feature blocking third-party developers from accessing any of their data when a friend installs an application.
But Bankston is hardly alone in his criticism.
Facebook’s own posts on the privacy changes have more than 2,000 comments, most negative. Meanwhile, purely grassroots protest groups such as “Against The New Facebook Privacy Settings!” and “Facebook! Fix the Privacy Settings” have formed inside Facebook, demanding that Facebook roll back the changes.
While the FTC is a complaint-driven agency, it does not disclose when or if it opens investigations. A previous FTC complaint by EPIC regarding the data marketing industry led to record fines.
A Facebook spokesman did not return a call seeking comment by press time
Privacy Groups To FTC: 'We Want Old Facebook Settings Back'
Consumer advocates have asked the Federal Trade Commission to order Facebook to bring back its former privacy settings.
In a complaint filed Thursday, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and nine other groups allege that Facebook's controversial new privacy settings "violate user expectations, diminish user privacy, and contradict Facebook's own representations." The advocacy organizations, including The Center for Digital Democracy, Consumer Federation of America and the American Library Association, say that Facebook's change in terms are a deceptive and unfair business practice.
"We fully respect that some people want to be fully public, which is fine, but other people need gradations of privacy and Facebook has made it more difficult for people who need those gradations to keep them," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the EPIC.
Last week, Facebook unveiled new privacy settings that for the first time, classify a host of data as "publicly available information." Included in that category are users' names, profile pictures, cities, networks, lists of friends and pages people are fans of.
Facebook users can still avoid displaying their friends lists, but the controls to do so are no longer located with the other privacy settings. Instead, people who want to keep the names of their friends from appearing must go to the profile section, click on an icon next to their friend list, and uncheck the "show my friends on my profile" box.
Even when Facebook users complete that procedure, application developers nonetheless have access to all "publicly available information" about users.
Privacy advocates say these changes potentially harm people because information about their friends can be used for questionable purposes. For instance, the complaint references MIT's "gaydar" research, which involved figuring out who was gay based on their Facebook friends.
Another area of contention involves the default settings. When Facebook rolled out its revised privacy controls, it asked members to review their settings, but also changed most defaults to share-with-everyone. The upshot was that some members who previously restricted access to their pictures, status updates and other information are now giving all Web users access to it.
Rotenberg says this shift wasn't fair to Facebook's members. "It's a little bit like opting out of a list, and then having the company opt you back in and saying, 'Well you can just opt out again,'" he says.
Privacy advocate Jeff Chester, executive director of The Center for Digital Democracy, says he's particularly troubled by Facebook's share-everything default standard. "Facebook is boldly redefining the concept of privacy for all Americans," he said. "Facebook is consciously devaluing the notion of privacy for its own interests."
A Facebook spokesperson said the company met with outside parties, including the FTC, before revising its privacy settings. "We've had productive discussions with dozens of organizations around the world about the recent changes and we're disappointed that EPIC has chosen to share their concerns with the FTC while refusing to talk to us about them," a spokesperson said.
Rotenberg said that his organization met with Facebook on Wednesday for over an hour. "I walked out of the meeting and concluded that they didn't understand," Rotenberg said.
In a complaint filed Thursday, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and nine other groups allege that Facebook's controversial new privacy settings "violate user expectations, diminish user privacy, and contradict Facebook's own representations." The advocacy organizations, including The Center for Digital Democracy, Consumer Federation of America and the American Library Association, say that Facebook's change in terms are a deceptive and unfair business practice.
"We fully respect that some people want to be fully public, which is fine, but other people need gradations of privacy and Facebook has made it more difficult for people who need those gradations to keep them," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the EPIC.
Last week, Facebook unveiled new privacy settings that for the first time, classify a host of data as "publicly available information." Included in that category are users' names, profile pictures, cities, networks, lists of friends and pages people are fans of.
Facebook users can still avoid displaying their friends lists, but the controls to do so are no longer located with the other privacy settings. Instead, people who want to keep the names of their friends from appearing must go to the profile section, click on an icon next to their friend list, and uncheck the "show my friends on my profile" box.
Even when Facebook users complete that procedure, application developers nonetheless have access to all "publicly available information" about users.
Privacy advocates say these changes potentially harm people because information about their friends can be used for questionable purposes. For instance, the complaint references MIT's "gaydar" research, which involved figuring out who was gay based on their Facebook friends.
Another area of contention involves the default settings. When Facebook rolled out its revised privacy controls, it asked members to review their settings, but also changed most defaults to share-with-everyone. The upshot was that some members who previously restricted access to their pictures, status updates and other information are now giving all Web users access to it.
Rotenberg says this shift wasn't fair to Facebook's members. "It's a little bit like opting out of a list, and then having the company opt you back in and saying, 'Well you can just opt out again,'" he says.
Privacy advocate Jeff Chester, executive director of The Center for Digital Democracy, says he's particularly troubled by Facebook's share-everything default standard. "Facebook is boldly redefining the concept of privacy for all Americans," he said. "Facebook is consciously devaluing the notion of privacy for its own interests."
A Facebook spokesperson said the company met with outside parties, including the FTC, before revising its privacy settings. "We've had productive discussions with dozens of organizations around the world about the recent changes and we're disappointed that EPIC has chosen to share their concerns with the FTC while refusing to talk to us about them," a spokesperson said.
Rotenberg said that his organization met with Facebook on Wednesday for over an hour. "I walked out of the meeting and concluded that they didn't understand," Rotenberg said.
Monday, December 7, 2009
One-Third May Be Open To Behavioral Tracking
Nearly a third (32%) of Americans say they would be open to having their Web-surfing and television viewing habits monitored in order to receive ads more relevant to their interests -- as long as the data collected could not identify them as individuals, according to a global study of consumer media habits and advertising attitudes conducted by market research firm Synovate.
Another 8% said they would be open to such monitoring with "few, if any, concerns."
However, 35% said they would reject such technology because they would be concerned about monitoring services collecting data about them, and 9% said that they are not interested in changing the ads to which they are exposed.
On a worldwide basis, 11% expressed acceptance with few or no concerns, 26% indicated openness if individual identities were protected, 27% indicated rejection on the basis of privacy concerns, and 16% said they are not interested in changing the ads to which they are exposed.
The survey was conducted in September among consumers in the U.S. and 10 other countries. The U.S. survey took place online, and the 500 respondents comprised a representative national sample, according to Synovate.
The results confirm that consumers are taking steps to avoid advertising, and that this behavior varies by medium. For instance, 41% report that they are avoiding Web sites with intrusive ads or pop-ups more frequently than they did a year ago (9% are doing this less frequently, and 37% have not changed the frequency of this behavior). Even more (44%) are more frequently skipping ads when watching TV or listening to radio (5% are doing this less frequently, and 46% have not changed this behavior).
Here's a summary of U.S. consumer responses when asked about their frequency of engaging with brands/advertising via the Internet and social media during the past year:
But according to this survey -- remembering that it was conducted online -- Americans are even more attached to the Internet: 58% said they can't live without it, and 31% said they'd miss it a great deal if it wasn't there. Just 10% said they like it but don't need it, and 1% that they could easily live without it.
More than one-third (35%) said they can't live without their mobile phones, and another 28% would greatly miss them.
In comparison, 25% of Americans said they would greatly miss newspapers, and 10% that they can't live without them, while 23% and 6%, respectively, expressed those opinions about magazines.
Looking at perceptions about the amount of advertising in various media, 71% of Americans said there are too many ads on TV -- although 26% actually said that the number is about right, and 1% would be "happier to see or hear more ads."
Print media came out more favorably. Just 30% and 54% said that there are too many ads in newspapers and magazines, respectively, while 61% and 40% said that the number of ads is just right in newspapers and magazines, respectively. Four percent would like to see more ads in newspapers, and 2% would like to see more in magazines.
As for the new advertising frontier of mobile phones, 39% feel that the current number of ads is about right, versus 28% who already view advertising as too intrusive. Nearly a third (31%) were undecided.
How many would be willing to be exposed to more ads if they were paid for it? For both TV and the Internet, more than half (52%) said they would agree to be exposed to more ads, while 40% would not be willing. Slightly more - 54% -- would be willing to view more ads on their cell phones if they were paid to do so, although 31% said they would not be willing.
Looking at ad content, novelty appears to be more important than perkiness to U.S. consumers. Asked what characteristics their favorite ads tend to have in common, 21% chose "innovative/unique," 17% chose "spontaneous/playful," 15% chose "logical/straightforward," and 12% "optimistic/happy."
Another 8% said they would be open to such monitoring with "few, if any, concerns."
However, 35% said they would reject such technology because they would be concerned about monitoring services collecting data about them, and 9% said that they are not interested in changing the ads to which they are exposed.
On a worldwide basis, 11% expressed acceptance with few or no concerns, 26% indicated openness if individual identities were protected, 27% indicated rejection on the basis of privacy concerns, and 16% said they are not interested in changing the ads to which they are exposed.
The survey was conducted in September among consumers in the U.S. and 10 other countries. The U.S. survey took place online, and the 500 respondents comprised a representative national sample, according to Synovate.
The results confirm that consumers are taking steps to avoid advertising, and that this behavior varies by medium. For instance, 41% report that they are avoiding Web sites with intrusive ads or pop-ups more frequently than they did a year ago (9% are doing this less frequently, and 37% have not changed the frequency of this behavior). Even more (44%) are more frequently skipping ads when watching TV or listening to radio (5% are doing this less frequently, and 46% have not changed this behavior).
Here's a summary of U.S. consumer responses when asked about their frequency of engaging with brands/advertising via the Internet and social media during the past year:
- Following a brand on Twitter: 82% have never done this, 4% are doing it more often than a year ago, 1% less often, and 9% with the same frequency.
- Promoting a brand or ad on their social networking pages or becoming a brand fan: 63% have never done, 9% are doing more often, 6% less often, and 18% with the same frequency.
- Sharing links to ads that they like with friends: 55% have never done, 7% are doing more often, 9% less often, and 26% with the same frequency.
- Searching for an ad on the Internet (e.g. YouTube): 51% have never done, 8% are doing more often, 12% less often, and 27% with the same frequency.
But according to this survey -- remembering that it was conducted online -- Americans are even more attached to the Internet: 58% said they can't live without it, and 31% said they'd miss it a great deal if it wasn't there. Just 10% said they like it but don't need it, and 1% that they could easily live without it.
More than one-third (35%) said they can't live without their mobile phones, and another 28% would greatly miss them.
In comparison, 25% of Americans said they would greatly miss newspapers, and 10% that they can't live without them, while 23% and 6%, respectively, expressed those opinions about magazines.
Looking at perceptions about the amount of advertising in various media, 71% of Americans said there are too many ads on TV -- although 26% actually said that the number is about right, and 1% would be "happier to see or hear more ads."
Print media came out more favorably. Just 30% and 54% said that there are too many ads in newspapers and magazines, respectively, while 61% and 40% said that the number of ads is just right in newspapers and magazines, respectively. Four percent would like to see more ads in newspapers, and 2% would like to see more in magazines.
As for the new advertising frontier of mobile phones, 39% feel that the current number of ads is about right, versus 28% who already view advertising as too intrusive. Nearly a third (31%) were undecided.
How many would be willing to be exposed to more ads if they were paid for it? For both TV and the Internet, more than half (52%) said they would agree to be exposed to more ads, while 40% would not be willing. Slightly more - 54% -- would be willing to view more ads on their cell phones if they were paid to do so, although 31% said they would not be willing.
Looking at ad content, novelty appears to be more important than perkiness to U.S. consumers. Asked what characteristics their favorite ads tend to have in common, 21% chose "innovative/unique," 17% chose "spontaneous/playful," 15% chose "logical/straightforward," and 12% "optimistic/happy."
Friday, December 4, 2009
IAB: 'Advertising Is Creepy'
Faced with increasing pressure from Washington, the Interactive Advertising Bureau launched a public service campaign on Thursday aimed at educating consumers about behavioral targeting.
The online campaign, created pro bono by WPP's Schematic, features rich media banner ads with copy like "Advertising is creepy" and "Hey, this banner can tell where you live. Mind if we come over and sell you stuff?"
More than one dozen publishers -- including Microsoft, Google's YouTube, and AOL -- have committed to donate a combined 500 million impressions for the initiative.
The campaign comes as policymakers are questioning whether data collection by marketers violates consumers' privacy. Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) has said he plans to introduce a bill that could require Web companies to notify users about online ad targeting, and in some circumstances, obtain their explicit consent.
In addition, the Federal Trade Commission has criticized the industry for using dense privacy policies to inform people about behavioral targeting, or tracking people online and sending them ads based on sites visited.
In a meeting with reporters Thursday morning, IAB President and CEO Randall Rothenberg said one goal of the campaign is to address regulators' concerns that consumers don't understand behavioral advertising.
The ad units themselves offer information about online ad techniques. For instance, users who mouse over the "creepy" banner can pull down copy stating that companies don't use "personally identifiable information" to determine which ads to serve.
Users who click through land on the IAB's Privacy Matters page, which includes a description of various forms of online advertising, information about cookies (including Flash cookies) and links to opt-out pages.
The portion of the landing page devoted to cookies says they "contain data that allow a Web site to customize content and advertising to your interests but generally do not contain personally identifiable information." A section with information about geotargeting states that an IP address "reveals nothing personal about you to marketers and websites."
But privacy advocate Jeff Chester immediately raised questions about such statements. "They are ignoring the growing consensus that cookies and IP addresses are personally identifiable," says Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy.
Cathy Dwyer, a privacy expert and professor of information systems at Pace University, also questions whether the banners' headlines are too sophisticated to draw in users. "Even 'creepy' itself is a technical term," she says, adding that it's mainly industry insiders and observers who use that word in discussions about behavioral advertising.
The FTC said this year in its report about online behavioral targeting that non-personally identifiable information could be used to identify specific users.
In the past, industry groups and observers defined personally identifiable information as names, addresses, phone numbers or other information that could be used to contact an individual directly.
Critics recently moved away from that definition, in part because Web users have been identified based on supposedly anonymous data. The most famous example occurred in 2006, when AOL publicly released search logs showing users' queries and "anonymized" IP addresses for more than 600,000 users, Within days, one "anonymized" user, Thelma Arnold, was profiled in The New York Times after reporters identified her based on her search queries.
Schematic CEO Trevor Kaufman told reporters Thursday that a test of the campaign in late October and early November yielded a click-through rate of 0.5%. The trial involved 7 million impressions, mainly served on Microsoft's Hotmail.
Separately, the digital rights group Center for Democracy & Technology also launched a privacy campaign on Thursday -- although with a different goal. The CDT is hoping to persuade users to lobby Congress for online privacy legislation. The Web site for the CDT's "Take Back Your Privacy" campaign enables users to submit concerns directly to the FTC and to send emails to their lawmakers.
The online campaign, created pro bono by WPP's Schematic, features rich media banner ads with copy like "Advertising is creepy" and "Hey, this banner can tell where you live. Mind if we come over and sell you stuff?"
More than one dozen publishers -- including Microsoft, Google's YouTube, and AOL -- have committed to donate a combined 500 million impressions for the initiative.
The campaign comes as policymakers are questioning whether data collection by marketers violates consumers' privacy. Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) has said he plans to introduce a bill that could require Web companies to notify users about online ad targeting, and in some circumstances, obtain their explicit consent.
In addition, the Federal Trade Commission has criticized the industry for using dense privacy policies to inform people about behavioral targeting, or tracking people online and sending them ads based on sites visited.
In a meeting with reporters Thursday morning, IAB President and CEO Randall Rothenberg said one goal of the campaign is to address regulators' concerns that consumers don't understand behavioral advertising.
The ad units themselves offer information about online ad techniques. For instance, users who mouse over the "creepy" banner can pull down copy stating that companies don't use "personally identifiable information" to determine which ads to serve.
Users who click through land on the IAB's Privacy Matters page, which includes a description of various forms of online advertising, information about cookies (including Flash cookies) and links to opt-out pages.
The portion of the landing page devoted to cookies says they "contain data that allow a Web site to customize content and advertising to your interests but generally do not contain personally identifiable information." A section with information about geotargeting states that an IP address "reveals nothing personal about you to marketers and websites."
But privacy advocate Jeff Chester immediately raised questions about such statements. "They are ignoring the growing consensus that cookies and IP addresses are personally identifiable," says Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy.
Cathy Dwyer, a privacy expert and professor of information systems at Pace University, also questions whether the banners' headlines are too sophisticated to draw in users. "Even 'creepy' itself is a technical term," she says, adding that it's mainly industry insiders and observers who use that word in discussions about behavioral advertising.
The FTC said this year in its report about online behavioral targeting that non-personally identifiable information could be used to identify specific users.
In the past, industry groups and observers defined personally identifiable information as names, addresses, phone numbers or other information that could be used to contact an individual directly.
Critics recently moved away from that definition, in part because Web users have been identified based on supposedly anonymous data. The most famous example occurred in 2006, when AOL publicly released search logs showing users' queries and "anonymized" IP addresses for more than 600,000 users, Within days, one "anonymized" user, Thelma Arnold, was profiled in The New York Times after reporters identified her based on her search queries.
Schematic CEO Trevor Kaufman told reporters Thursday that a test of the campaign in late October and early November yielded a click-through rate of 0.5%. The trial involved 7 million impressions, mainly served on Microsoft's Hotmail.
Separately, the digital rights group Center for Democracy & Technology also launched a privacy campaign on Thursday -- although with a different goal. The CDT is hoping to persuade users to lobby Congress for online privacy legislation. The Web site for the CDT's "Take Back Your Privacy" campaign enables users to submit concerns directly to the FTC and to send emails to their lawmakers.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
IAB Lobbies Against Proposal To Expand FTC's Power
The online ad industry is sounding the alarm about a new bill currently pending in Congress that would expand the Federal Trade Commission's power by making it easier for the agency to create rules and to bring civil lawsuits.
"There are reasons why there have been limits on the FTC, and we want to see those limits preserved," says Mike Zaneis, vice president for public policy at the Interactive Ad Bureau. "This is legislative priority No. 1 for our industry."
The Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act (H.R. 3126) cleared the House Energy and Commerce committee last week and now moves to the full House, where it's expected to pass. But the proposal's fate in the Senate is uncertain.
The current House version creates a new consumer protection commission while also beefing up the FTC's power in a few key ways. The bill removes administrative hurdles to the FTC's rulemaking ability, makes it easier for the agency to pursue civil litigation, and allows the FTC to target ad companies that aid and abet unfair practices.
These new powers are so significant that industry observers are already saying the bill would effectively make FTC Chair Jon Leibowitz an "Internet czar."
For his part, Leibowitz said in a statement to the energy and commerce committee that the "modest new authority" given to the commission "will help ensure that we have the tools necessary to fight fraud and go after those who perpetrate it."
Industry executives say that the existing curbs on rulemaking ability have contributed to the FTC's decision to support industry self-regulation of matters like online behavioral targeting and privacy.
"We'd hate to see them move directly to government regulation in all of these areas, but that's the prospect that we're facing if this is enacted," Zaneis says.
Currently, the FTC can only make rules aimed at curbing a prevalent practice. But the bill would remove that restriction, allowing the agency to enact regulations as long as there's a rational reason to believe the rule would stem from unfair and deceptive conduct. The bill also would provide for a faster rulemaking procedure.
A host of consumer groups and privacy advocates, including the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Consumers Union, Center for Digital Democracy and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, are advocating in favor of the bill. They argue that the current restrictions on the FTC hinder its effectiveness.
"We believe that the FTC must play a more proactive role addressing critical consumer concerns, including privacy, online marketing, and food advertising to young people," the groups wrote last week to the leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
The bill also would enable the FTC to pursue civil actions without prior review by the Department of Justice. In addition, the measure would let the FTC impose civil penalties without prior rules or orders.
A provision that would allow the FTC to prosecute companies that aid or abet an unfair act could be especially damaging to marketers and intermediaries, says the Association of National Advertisers. "This would have serious implications for advertising agencies, media companies and other companies that play any role in the communication/sale/delivery process," ANA Executive Vice President Dan Jaffe said last week in a letter to lawmakers.
Observers say the full House will probably pass the bill by the end of the calendar year. The proposal is expected to move more slowly in the Senate, where lawmakers are still hammering out a draft of the bill.
"There are reasons why there have been limits on the FTC, and we want to see those limits preserved," says Mike Zaneis, vice president for public policy at the Interactive Ad Bureau. "This is legislative priority No. 1 for our industry."
The Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act (H.R. 3126) cleared the House Energy and Commerce committee last week and now moves to the full House, where it's expected to pass. But the proposal's fate in the Senate is uncertain.
The current House version creates a new consumer protection commission while also beefing up the FTC's power in a few key ways. The bill removes administrative hurdles to the FTC's rulemaking ability, makes it easier for the agency to pursue civil litigation, and allows the FTC to target ad companies that aid and abet unfair practices.
These new powers are so significant that industry observers are already saying the bill would effectively make FTC Chair Jon Leibowitz an "Internet czar."
For his part, Leibowitz said in a statement to the energy and commerce committee that the "modest new authority" given to the commission "will help ensure that we have the tools necessary to fight fraud and go after those who perpetrate it."
Industry executives say that the existing curbs on rulemaking ability have contributed to the FTC's decision to support industry self-regulation of matters like online behavioral targeting and privacy.
"We'd hate to see them move directly to government regulation in all of these areas, but that's the prospect that we're facing if this is enacted," Zaneis says.
Currently, the FTC can only make rules aimed at curbing a prevalent practice. But the bill would remove that restriction, allowing the agency to enact regulations as long as there's a rational reason to believe the rule would stem from unfair and deceptive conduct. The bill also would provide for a faster rulemaking procedure.
A host of consumer groups and privacy advocates, including the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Consumers Union, Center for Digital Democracy and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, are advocating in favor of the bill. They argue that the current restrictions on the FTC hinder its effectiveness.
"We believe that the FTC must play a more proactive role addressing critical consumer concerns, including privacy, online marketing, and food advertising to young people," the groups wrote last week to the leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
The bill also would enable the FTC to pursue civil actions without prior review by the Department of Justice. In addition, the measure would let the FTC impose civil penalties without prior rules or orders.
A provision that would allow the FTC to prosecute companies that aid or abet an unfair act could be especially damaging to marketers and intermediaries, says the Association of National Advertisers. "This would have serious implications for advertising agencies, media companies and other companies that play any role in the communication/sale/delivery process," ANA Executive Vice President Dan Jaffe said last week in a letter to lawmakers.
Observers say the full House will probably pass the bill by the end of the calendar year. The proposal is expected to move more slowly in the Senate, where lawmakers are still hammering out a draft of the bill.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Yahoo Settles Lawsuit - lawyers win, advertisers lose.
Yahoo Inc. has reportedly settled a class action lawsuit with some of its search advertising customers who weren't happy about where their ads were showing up.
Lawsuit administrator Rust Consulting sent an e-mail to members of the group that preliminary court approval of the settlement has been granted and posted copies of court documents here.
Yahoo customers who sued claimed that when ads they placed through "Sponsored Search" and "Contact Match," they showed up in spyware, domain name parking sites, typosquatting sites and other undesirable locations on the Web.
They sued the Sunnyvale company (NASDAQ:YHOO) for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, and unfair business practices.
As part of the settlement, Yahoo agreed to offer a new filtering option for ads, and to modify how it handles disclosures and click fraud investigations:
It also agreed to develop and offer a way for customers to control where their Yahoo Ads appear.
Advertisers got screwed again, of the $4.3 million settlement, $4.17 million is going to the lawyers.
Lawsuit administrator Rust Consulting sent an e-mail to members of the group that preliminary court approval of the settlement has been granted and posted copies of court documents here.
Yahoo customers who sued claimed that when ads they placed through "Sponsored Search" and "Contact Match," they showed up in spyware, domain name parking sites, typosquatting sites and other undesirable locations on the Web.
They sued the Sunnyvale company (NASDAQ:YHOO) for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, and unfair business practices.
As part of the settlement, Yahoo agreed to offer a new filtering option for ads, and to modify how it handles disclosures and click fraud investigations:
It also agreed to develop and offer a way for customers to control where their Yahoo Ads appear.
Advertisers got screwed again, of the $4.3 million settlement, $4.17 million is going to the lawyers.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
FTC Disclosure Rules Affect Bloggers
The Federal Trade Commission has approved final revisions to guides concerning the use of endorsements and testimonials in advertising, which address endorsements by consumers, experts, organizations, and celebrities, as well as the disclosure of important connections between advertisers and endorsers. The guides were last updated in 1980.
Bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service. The revised guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement.
"We were expecting this [from the FTC] and have had guidelines in place to on what to do, when they are blogging, to disclose their relationship," Emilio Amodei, founder of BlogVertise, said during a session at Search Marketing Expo East here on Oct. 6.
Good news for the merchant or the product-pusher though: If a blogger breaks the rules, the blogger has to pay the fine, which could be upwards of $11,000 per offense, according to Amodei. BlogVertise acts as a middle man between product-pushers and bloggers who subscribe to the service.
But Amodei says he is not sure how the FTC is going to enforce the new rule, and thinks the logistics could get tricky. “Let's say it's a foreign blogger,” Amodei said. "They're not going to go to India and fine someone for not disclosing a relationship."
Bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service. The revised guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement.
"We were expecting this [from the FTC] and have had guidelines in place to on what to do, when they are blogging, to disclose their relationship," Emilio Amodei, founder of BlogVertise, said during a session at Search Marketing Expo East here on Oct. 6.
Good news for the merchant or the product-pusher though: If a blogger breaks the rules, the blogger has to pay the fine, which could be upwards of $11,000 per offense, according to Amodei. BlogVertise acts as a middle man between product-pushers and bloggers who subscribe to the service.
But Amodei says he is not sure how the FTC is going to enforce the new rule, and thinks the logistics could get tricky. “Let's say it's a foreign blogger,” Amodei said. "They're not going to go to India and fine someone for not disclosing a relationship."
Friday, October 2, 2009
Two-Thirds of Americans Object to Online Tracking
ABOUT two-thirds of Americans object to online tracking by advertisers — and that number rises once they learn the different ways marketers are following their online movements, according to a new survey from professors at the University of Pennsylvania and the University of California, Berkeley.
Joseph Turow, lead author of a study on consumers’ feelings about online tracking, said, “The most important thing is to bring the public into the picture, which is not going on right now.”
The professors say they believe the study, scheduled for release on Wednesday, is the first independent, nationally representative telephone survey on behavioral advertising.
The topic may be technical, but it has become a hot political issue. Privacy advocates are telling Congress and the Federal Trade Commission that tracking of online activities by Web sites and advertisers has gone too far, and the lawmakers seem to be listening. Representative Rick Boucher, Democrat of Virginia, wrote in an article for The Hill last week that he planned to introduce privacy legislation. And David Vladeck, head of consumer protection for the F.T.C., has signaled that he will examine data privacy issues closely.
Marketers are arguing that advertising supports free online content. Major advertising trade groups proposed in July some measures that they hoped would fend off regulation, like a clear notice to consumers when they were being tracked.
The data in this area, however, has been largely limited to company-financed research or Internet-based research, which survey experts say they believe is not representative of all Americans. So the study — among the first independent surveys to examine this issue — has attracted widespread interest.
“This research is going to ignite an intense debate on both sides of the Atlantic on what the appropriate policy should be,” said Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the privacy group Center for Digital Democracy, which did not work on the study.
The study’s authors hired a survey company to conduct interviews with 1,000 adult Internet users. The interview, which lasted about 20 minutes, included questions like “Please tell me whether or not you want the Web sites you visit to give you discounts that are tailored to your interests.” The results were later adjusted to reflect Census Bureau patterns in categories like sex, age, population density and telephone usage.
Tailored ads in general did not appeal to 66 percent of respondents. Then the respondents were told about different ways companies tailor ads: by following what someone does on the company’s site, on other sites and in offline places like stores.
The respondents’ aversion to tailored ads increased once they learned about targeting methods. In addition to the original 66 percent that said tailored ads were “not O.K.,” an additional 7 percent said such ads were not O.K. when they were tracked on the site. An additional 18 percent said it was not O.K. when they were tracked via other Web sites, and an additional 20 percent said it was not O.K. when they were tracked offline.
The survey company also asked about customized discounts and customized news. Fifty-one percent of respondents said that tailored discounts were O.K., and 58 percent said that customized news was fine.
On the advertising question, there was not a big difference between age groups. Marketers often use teenagers’ behavior on Facebook as anecdotal evidence that they do not mind handing over information. But 55 percent of respondents from 18 to 24 objected to tailored advertising.
“We sometimes think that the younger adults in the United States don’t care about this stuff, and I would suggest that’s an exaggeration,” said Joseph Turow, lead author of the study and a professor of communication at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. His co-authors are professors at Berkeley’s law school and at the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.
The survey also asked nine true-or-false questions about privacy laws to see how knowledgeable Americans were about protection, including “If a Web site has a privacy policy, it means that the site cannot share information about you with other companies, unless you give the Web site your permission.” (The correct answer is “false.”) On only one question, regarding sweepstakes, was answered correctly by more than half of respondents.
Finally, the survey sought opinions on laws regarding tracking, asking if there should be a law that gave people the right to know everything a Web site knew about them. Sixty-nine percent of respondents said yes. Respondents also overwhelmingly supported a hypothetical law that required Web sites and advertising companies to delete all information about an individual upon request; 92 percent endorsed it.
“I don’t think that behavioral targeting is something that we should eliminate, but I do think that we’re at a cusp of a new era, and the kinds of information that companies share and have today is nothing like we’ll see 10 years from now,” Professor Turow said. He said he would like “a regime in which people feel they have control over the data that marketers collect about them. The most important thing is to bring the public into the picture, which is not going on right now.”
Stuart P. Ingis, a partner at the law firm Venable who represents the industry trade groups’ self-regulation coalition, said that the industry was taking steps to explain to consumers how behavioral targeting worked.
“The more people understand the practices and how the data is actually being used, that’s when the concerns disappear,” he said. Just because many Americans are not in favor of something does not mean it should be banned, he said, citing negative feelings about taxes.
But Mr. Chester, whose group is part of a privacy coalition calling for Congressional action, said the survey would be helpful. “This research gives the F.T.C. and Congress a political green light to go ahead and enact effective, but reasonable, rules and policies,” he said.
Joseph Turow, lead author of a study on consumers’ feelings about online tracking, said, “The most important thing is to bring the public into the picture, which is not going on right now.”
The professors say they believe the study, scheduled for release on Wednesday, is the first independent, nationally representative telephone survey on behavioral advertising.
The topic may be technical, but it has become a hot political issue. Privacy advocates are telling Congress and the Federal Trade Commission that tracking of online activities by Web sites and advertisers has gone too far, and the lawmakers seem to be listening. Representative Rick Boucher, Democrat of Virginia, wrote in an article for The Hill last week that he planned to introduce privacy legislation. And David Vladeck, head of consumer protection for the F.T.C., has signaled that he will examine data privacy issues closely.
Marketers are arguing that advertising supports free online content. Major advertising trade groups proposed in July some measures that they hoped would fend off regulation, like a clear notice to consumers when they were being tracked.
The data in this area, however, has been largely limited to company-financed research or Internet-based research, which survey experts say they believe is not representative of all Americans. So the study — among the first independent surveys to examine this issue — has attracted widespread interest.
“This research is going to ignite an intense debate on both sides of the Atlantic on what the appropriate policy should be,” said Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the privacy group Center for Digital Democracy, which did not work on the study.
The study’s authors hired a survey company to conduct interviews with 1,000 adult Internet users. The interview, which lasted about 20 minutes, included questions like “Please tell me whether or not you want the Web sites you visit to give you discounts that are tailored to your interests.” The results were later adjusted to reflect Census Bureau patterns in categories like sex, age, population density and telephone usage.
Tailored ads in general did not appeal to 66 percent of respondents. Then the respondents were told about different ways companies tailor ads: by following what someone does on the company’s site, on other sites and in offline places like stores.
The respondents’ aversion to tailored ads increased once they learned about targeting methods. In addition to the original 66 percent that said tailored ads were “not O.K.,” an additional 7 percent said such ads were not O.K. when they were tracked on the site. An additional 18 percent said it was not O.K. when they were tracked via other Web sites, and an additional 20 percent said it was not O.K. when they were tracked offline.
The survey company also asked about customized discounts and customized news. Fifty-one percent of respondents said that tailored discounts were O.K., and 58 percent said that customized news was fine.
On the advertising question, there was not a big difference between age groups. Marketers often use teenagers’ behavior on Facebook as anecdotal evidence that they do not mind handing over information. But 55 percent of respondents from 18 to 24 objected to tailored advertising.
“We sometimes think that the younger adults in the United States don’t care about this stuff, and I would suggest that’s an exaggeration,” said Joseph Turow, lead author of the study and a professor of communication at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. His co-authors are professors at Berkeley’s law school and at the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.
The survey also asked nine true-or-false questions about privacy laws to see how knowledgeable Americans were about protection, including “If a Web site has a privacy policy, it means that the site cannot share information about you with other companies, unless you give the Web site your permission.” (The correct answer is “false.”) On only one question, regarding sweepstakes, was answered correctly by more than half of respondents.
Finally, the survey sought opinions on laws regarding tracking, asking if there should be a law that gave people the right to know everything a Web site knew about them. Sixty-nine percent of respondents said yes. Respondents also overwhelmingly supported a hypothetical law that required Web sites and advertising companies to delete all information about an individual upon request; 92 percent endorsed it.
“I don’t think that behavioral targeting is something that we should eliminate, but I do think that we’re at a cusp of a new era, and the kinds of information that companies share and have today is nothing like we’ll see 10 years from now,” Professor Turow said. He said he would like “a regime in which people feel they have control over the data that marketers collect about them. The most important thing is to bring the public into the picture, which is not going on right now.”
Stuart P. Ingis, a partner at the law firm Venable who represents the industry trade groups’ self-regulation coalition, said that the industry was taking steps to explain to consumers how behavioral targeting worked.
“The more people understand the practices and how the data is actually being used, that’s when the concerns disappear,” he said. Just because many Americans are not in favor of something does not mean it should be banned, he said, citing negative feelings about taxes.
But Mr. Chester, whose group is part of a privacy coalition calling for Congressional action, said the survey would be helpful. “This research gives the F.T.C. and Congress a political green light to go ahead and enact effective, but reasonable, rules and policies,” he said.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
rpath.org Privacy Policy
Preface: We intend this policy to be a common-sense policy supporting minimal use and storage of private information. Our goal for this site is to store as little private personal information as is technically and legally feasible.
The term "The Service" as used in this document means the Conary repository hosting service accessible via http://www.rpath.com/rbuilder/ and all software development projects created via http://www.rpath.com/rbuilder/, hosted in the rpath.org domain.
We will never sell, rent, or otherwise transfer your private information that you give to us unless required by law or regulation; we will not use your information for unsolicited commercial email without your express permission (opt-in); you may request to be removed from our lists and we will use our best efforts to honor your request within 30 days.
We may send you automated email messages that are not unsolicited commercial email. By way of example and not limitation:
We may send periodic emails purely to verify that the email data that you have provided to us is still valid. We may, from time to time, inform you of any changes to this privacy policy or our terms of service by email.
Private information may include the following information in your user profile:
email address
full name
passwords and other authentication information such as hints
other contact information, such as phone number and address
You may be given the option whether to mark some such information as private or public. The profile information may also include other information we collect, as required by law.
All other information on the site is to be considered public information, and storing private information on this service, except for personal account information, is prohibited by the terms of service.
Some use of this site may intrinisically disclose personal information.
When you commit to a Conary archive, the name and contact information you provide will be permanently recorded in the Conary archive. When you send mail to a mailing list, the email address you use will be provided in the email that is sent, and will be stored in the permanent archives on our site. Any information at all that you commit to a Conary archive will be publically visible.
These examples are by way of example and not limitation.
We may collect, analyze, and store detailed and aggregate network information, including domain names, in order to monitor trends. We may share or publish this information only in aggregate form.
The full functionality of this site may, at our discretion, require the use of "cookies", which store data on your hard drive or in memory on your computer.
This privacy policy applies only to The Service, and not to any other services provided by rPath, Inc. Links on this site to URLs not part of The Service are not covered by this privacy policy.
In order to enhance security and guard the privacy of your information, we may take any actions necessary, such as security audits by persons or automated tools. Access to your private information will be limited to individuals who have a non-disclosure agreement.
If site security has been compromised in any way, we reserve the right to notify and cooperate fully with appropriate law enforcement officials, and to take other measures that we believe to be appropriate. If we are aware that your private information has been disclosed, we will attempt to notify you by email, as soon as possible and permitted by law or regulation, of the information we possess related to the disclosure of your private information.
We may change this policy from time to time. Any such changes will not make previously private personal information public, unless required by law. A change to this privacy policy will be posted at the following URL http://www.rpath.com/permanent/rbo-privacy.html, and we will send email to active users notifying them of the change 15 days prior to change, unless otherwise required by law or regulation.
This document expresses our policy for maintaining your privacy. We do not guarantee any specific performance under these terms. In particular, circumstances over which we have no control may cause your information to be disclosed. We will not be liable if your information is disclosed.
Your use of any services provided as part of The Service signify your acceptance of these terms.
The term "The Service" as used in this document means the Conary repository hosting service accessible via http://www.rpath.com/rbuilder/ and all software development projects created via http://www.rpath.com/rbuilder/, hosted in the rpath.org domain.
We will never sell, rent, or otherwise transfer your private information that you give to us unless required by law or regulation; we will not use your information for unsolicited commercial email without your express permission (opt-in); you may request to be removed from our lists and we will use our best efforts to honor your request within 30 days.
We may send you automated email messages that are not unsolicited commercial email. By way of example and not limitation:
We may send periodic emails purely to verify that the email data that you have provided to us is still valid. We may, from time to time, inform you of any changes to this privacy policy or our terms of service by email.
Private information may include the following information in your user profile:
email address
full name
passwords and other authentication information such as hints
other contact information, such as phone number and address
You may be given the option whether to mark some such information as private or public. The profile information may also include other information we collect, as required by law.
All other information on the site is to be considered public information, and storing private information on this service, except for personal account information, is prohibited by the terms of service.
Some use of this site may intrinisically disclose personal information.
When you commit to a Conary archive, the name and contact information you provide will be permanently recorded in the Conary archive. When you send mail to a mailing list, the email address you use will be provided in the email that is sent, and will be stored in the permanent archives on our site. Any information at all that you commit to a Conary archive will be publically visible.
These examples are by way of example and not limitation.
We may collect, analyze, and store detailed and aggregate network information, including domain names, in order to monitor trends. We may share or publish this information only in aggregate form.
The full functionality of this site may, at our discretion, require the use of "cookies", which store data on your hard drive or in memory on your computer.
This privacy policy applies only to The Service, and not to any other services provided by rPath, Inc. Links on this site to URLs not part of The Service are not covered by this privacy policy.
In order to enhance security and guard the privacy of your information, we may take any actions necessary, such as security audits by persons or automated tools. Access to your private information will be limited to individuals who have a non-disclosure agreement.
If site security has been compromised in any way, we reserve the right to notify and cooperate fully with appropriate law enforcement officials, and to take other measures that we believe to be appropriate. If we are aware that your private information has been disclosed, we will attempt to notify you by email, as soon as possible and permitted by law or regulation, of the information we possess related to the disclosure of your private information.
We may change this policy from time to time. Any such changes will not make previously private personal information public, unless required by law. A change to this privacy policy will be posted at the following URL http://www.rpath.com/permanent/rbo-privacy.html, and we will send email to active users notifying them of the change 15 days prior to change, unless otherwise required by law or regulation.
This document expresses our policy for maintaining your privacy. We do not guarantee any specific performance under these terms. In particular, circumstances over which we have no control may cause your information to be disclosed. We will not be liable if your information is disclosed.
Your use of any services provided as part of The Service signify your acceptance of these terms.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Privacy backers push FTC to end AskEraser service
January 24, 2008 (Computerworld) A group of privacy advocacy organizations has filed a complaint with the U।S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) alleging that Ask.com's recently launched AskEraser service does not live up to its promise of deleting users' search histories.
In an 11-page brief filed with the FTC last week (download PDF), the group claimed that the search engine company is indulging in deceptive and unfair trade practices with AskEraser and should be forced to withdraw the service। The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), the Center for Digital Democracy, Consumer Action and the Fairfax County Privacy Council are among those that filed the complaint.
Officials from IAC Search & Media's Ask.com did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the compliant. Ask।com's AskEraser service was unveiled on Dec. 11 and described at the time as a way for users to ask that their search activity data not to be retained on the company's servers.
Ask।com claimed that AskEraser, when enabled by the user, would completely delete search queries and associated cookie information from Ask.com servers -- including IP addresses, user IDs, session IDs and the text of queries made. The feature is available to users of the company's U.S. and U.K. search engines and is designed to give users more control over search data, the company said. In most cases, the deletion would take place within a few hours of the time a search is completed.
The reality, however, is quite different, said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Washington-based EPIC. He pointed to three problems. "When it was announced, there as a lot of hoopla over it," Rotenberg said. "So we decided to take a closer look and were kind of surprised. Some of the things that AskEraser does we don't think are very privacy-friendly."
The first issue is that users who want to enable the service must accept and install an AskEraser opt-out cookie on their system। That approach is both counterintuitive and misleading, Rotenberg said. Users who are concerned about privacy typically tend to delete cookies. For such users, the privacy settings on Ask.com are meaningless because each time the cookie is deleted, the settings are lost -- and Ask.com will no longer honor the user's privacy choice. Similarly, Ask.com offered no explanation for its policy of allowing the opt-out cookies to expire after two years.
Another troubling fact is that Ask।com's AskEraser service can be turned off without notice to the user, Rotenberg said। According to Ask.com's policies on its Web site, the company can disable the AskEraser service at any time -- to comply with a court order, for instance. In such cases, the company will retain search data, even if the AskEraser service appears enabled to the user, Rotenberg said. Without user notice, such a practice would be tantamount to spying on a user's search activity.
Another issue identified by the privacy advocacy groups has since been addressed by Ask।com, Rotenberg said। That had to do with Ask.com's previous practice of putting a date and time-stamp on the opt-out cookies when a user enabled the service. The information stored in the opt-out cookie's content field had the effect of turning the cookie into a unique identifier, Rotenberg said.
Since the issue was first raised by the privacy groups, Ask.com has stopped using time-stamps on its opt-out cookies, he said, arguing that that alone would appear to be a tacit admission from the company that the previous approach was problematic. Ask.com's relationships with various third-party advertisers and with Google Inc. also limit the efficacy of the privacy protections ostensibly offered via AskEraser, Rotenberg said. Though Ask.com itself has said it will not store any search data, there are no such restrictions on third parties tracking and storing the search histories of those who use Ask.com. Under a five-year agreement with Google signed last November, user search information from Ask.com is passed on to Google, raising serious privacy questions, Rotenberg said.
In an 11-page brief filed with the FTC last week (download PDF), the group claimed that the search engine company is indulging in deceptive and unfair trade practices with AskEraser and should be forced to withdraw the service। The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), the Center for Digital Democracy, Consumer Action and the Fairfax County Privacy Council are among those that filed the complaint.
Officials from IAC Search & Media's Ask.com did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the compliant. Ask।com's AskEraser service was unveiled on Dec. 11 and described at the time as a way for users to ask that their search activity data not to be retained on the company's servers.
Ask।com claimed that AskEraser, when enabled by the user, would completely delete search queries and associated cookie information from Ask.com servers -- including IP addresses, user IDs, session IDs and the text of queries made. The feature is available to users of the company's U.S. and U.K. search engines and is designed to give users more control over search data, the company said. In most cases, the deletion would take place within a few hours of the time a search is completed.
The reality, however, is quite different, said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Washington-based EPIC. He pointed to three problems. "When it was announced, there as a lot of hoopla over it," Rotenberg said. "So we decided to take a closer look and were kind of surprised. Some of the things that AskEraser does we don't think are very privacy-friendly."
The first issue is that users who want to enable the service must accept and install an AskEraser opt-out cookie on their system। That approach is both counterintuitive and misleading, Rotenberg said. Users who are concerned about privacy typically tend to delete cookies. For such users, the privacy settings on Ask.com are meaningless because each time the cookie is deleted, the settings are lost -- and Ask.com will no longer honor the user's privacy choice. Similarly, Ask.com offered no explanation for its policy of allowing the opt-out cookies to expire after two years.
Another troubling fact is that Ask।com's AskEraser service can be turned off without notice to the user, Rotenberg said। According to Ask.com's policies on its Web site, the company can disable the AskEraser service at any time -- to comply with a court order, for instance. In such cases, the company will retain search data, even if the AskEraser service appears enabled to the user, Rotenberg said. Without user notice, such a practice would be tantamount to spying on a user's search activity.
Another issue identified by the privacy advocacy groups has since been addressed by Ask।com, Rotenberg said। That had to do with Ask.com's previous practice of putting a date and time-stamp on the opt-out cookies when a user enabled the service. The information stored in the opt-out cookie's content field had the effect of turning the cookie into a unique identifier, Rotenberg said.
Since the issue was first raised by the privacy groups, Ask.com has stopped using time-stamps on its opt-out cookies, he said, arguing that that alone would appear to be a tacit admission from the company that the previous approach was problematic. Ask.com's relationships with various third-party advertisers and with Google Inc. also limit the efficacy of the privacy protections ostensibly offered via AskEraser, Rotenberg said. Though Ask.com itself has said it will not store any search data, there are no such restrictions on third parties tracking and storing the search histories of those who use Ask.com. Under a five-year agreement with Google signed last November, user search information from Ask.com is passed on to Google, raising serious privacy questions, Rotenberg said.
They Can Get You Where You Live
Most people have a pre-conceived notion that if there computer has a firewall or the latest anti-virus protection they are completely safe from hackers. This is simply not true.
It doesnt matter if you have a firewall or not. Sure, it blocks some unwanted intrusion to your computer but it cant block them all because of the very nature of the system. Just like a tiny bug that comes from outside and enters your home all it needs is the smallest opening and its there! Web traffic has to pass through firewalls to access your computer and even the best firewalls cannot process all the hugh amounts of inbound information.
Before a hacker can hack they have to talk to a computer in its own native tongue. Much of the time its HTML (hypertext markup language), but it can be Java, XML, Perl or a number of others. Most successful hackers have much more than a basic knowledge of computer languages as well as how security systems function. A hacker can be anybody with enough knowledge of computer languages and a great deal of computer savvy to look at a URL string and read between the lines. All a hacker needs to do is request information from web sites, servers or PCs using there unique knowledge of computer languages by using simple-well placed codes that may seen trivial yet extract a great deal of what you thought was secure information about you or your business. A hacker can, with persistence get administrative control of a web page and do just about anything to it like changing colors, graphic, text or Meta tags.
The only tools a hacker needs is an internet browser and a target URL. Broadly speaking a URL structure is: Protocol://sever/path/to/resourse?parameters This roughly translates to: http://targetsite.com/directory/files
When you open your browser to a web page whats viewed is what the browser interprets and displays. There is an ocean of information behind the pictures and text. On a typical web page, not readily available to the human eye but can be found none the less is information such as the HTML source code, source code keywords, hidden parameters, hyperlinks and a whole lot more. The more a hacker knows the better they can plan an attack. These people are very good at tricking a web server to release a source code for an application or script without it being executed. With enough prodding and poking at a web server they can view the original source code of the HTML content generated by the script. The method of attack will depend on what the hacker learns from the information accumulated from the server side, browser or client side.
Protocols
HTTPS is a protocol used for encrypted traffic within an HTTP stream. HTTPS is mainly used by sites that offer security where credit card and bank account numbers are used. Another level of security is the Secure Sockets Layer set of protocols (SSL) that has become a standard way to communicate between a web browser and a web site when a high level of security is needed. Not only that, but it can help secure e-mail, file downloads, and chat line conversations by using File Transfer Protocols (FTP) that works with SSL. Without this type of security in place it is relatively easy for someone to read the information you are transmitting. The thing to know here is that SSL only secures information in transit (between computer and website). It does not and will not guarantee security at your end and the site you are viewing! You will have to trust security measures at the site you are viewing and rely on your own computers virus and firewall protection. SSL uses a symmetric key cryptography for encryption, meaning the client and server uses the same key to encrypt and decrypt communication. If a hacker can decode the encryption key they can decipher the message coming in and going out.
Cookies
Many sites you visit will set a cookie on your system when you view that site. The purpose of cookies is to give you easier and faster access to the sites resources and to identify you later if you choose to purchase a product from them. This cookie will keep your personal information such as name, address and credit card number on their file in case you visit them again at a later date. The site itself has its own cookie system with the same personal information so when some user logs in they know who they are, what was ordered previously and what credit card was used so they can give you the use same and credit card? option. Because a lot of websites have security vulnerabilities hackers can view there cookies and retrieve credit card numbers and other personal info. Most web browsers let a user delete cookies on there system, either all of them or manually but they are still on the website visited. A common problem is if you punch in http://buyitnowsite.com and it sets up a cookie on your system, the creator of that cookie may have specified the domain type as site.com rather than buyitnow.com. Your browser then will offer up that cookie to any page in the same domain like virusdownloadsite.com (for example) or any site that you visit which may not have good intentions for you. This can lead to other sites having access to your personal information not intended for them. This could have been prevented if the technician who created that cookie made it specific enough to include the whole site name (buyitnow) in the coding. Really cookies are not intended to store information like user names and passwords, but unfortunately it is a common practice with websites and a hacker can view this information when infiltrating them. The best way to combat against cookie threats is through cookie management software that gives you full control over the use of cookies, which should include:
* Disable the sending and saving of cookies
* Notification before a cookie is sent
* Control of sending and receiving cookies based on the domain
* Look at and delete the contents of cookies
Most internet browser should give you a whole lot more options for cookies in the advanced tab or you can buy cookie software to have complete and easy access over all cookies.
I have mentioned here only a few areas of concern on protecting computer systems and internet browsing but there are others left untouched due to space ( one could write a book on the subject) but I hope you can see we are at more risk than you think. Because many of us have so easy access to the internet like an always on connection computers and servers will always be a target for hackers. Also the speed of connecting increases the risk of attack and the harder it will be to filter that access and make it harder for hackers. Even though we may never be completely safe from hackers there are things we can do to make there job harder. Never store personal information (passwords, credit card numbers) on your PC; instead use a floppy dick or CD for your private information and eject it from your PC when done. A general rule on firewalls is to block all incoming traffic that you didnt initiate. Dont run applications you are not familiar with and take what you download! Most important is to backup everything on your computer and make a bootable disk that you know is clean from infection.
It doesnt matter if you have a firewall or not. Sure, it blocks some unwanted intrusion to your computer but it cant block them all because of the very nature of the system. Just like a tiny bug that comes from outside and enters your home all it needs is the smallest opening and its there! Web traffic has to pass through firewalls to access your computer and even the best firewalls cannot process all the hugh amounts of inbound information.
Before a hacker can hack they have to talk to a computer in its own native tongue. Much of the time its HTML (hypertext markup language), but it can be Java, XML, Perl or a number of others. Most successful hackers have much more than a basic knowledge of computer languages as well as how security systems function. A hacker can be anybody with enough knowledge of computer languages and a great deal of computer savvy to look at a URL string and read between the lines. All a hacker needs to do is request information from web sites, servers or PCs using there unique knowledge of computer languages by using simple-well placed codes that may seen trivial yet extract a great deal of what you thought was secure information about you or your business. A hacker can, with persistence get administrative control of a web page and do just about anything to it like changing colors, graphic, text or Meta tags.
The only tools a hacker needs is an internet browser and a target URL. Broadly speaking a URL structure is: Protocol://sever/path/to/resourse?parameters This roughly translates to: http://targetsite.com/directory/files
When you open your browser to a web page whats viewed is what the browser interprets and displays. There is an ocean of information behind the pictures and text. On a typical web page, not readily available to the human eye but can be found none the less is information such as the HTML source code, source code keywords, hidden parameters, hyperlinks and a whole lot more. The more a hacker knows the better they can plan an attack. These people are very good at tricking a web server to release a source code for an application or script without it being executed. With enough prodding and poking at a web server they can view the original source code of the HTML content generated by the script. The method of attack will depend on what the hacker learns from the information accumulated from the server side, browser or client side.
Protocols
HTTPS is a protocol used for encrypted traffic within an HTTP stream. HTTPS is mainly used by sites that offer security where credit card and bank account numbers are used. Another level of security is the Secure Sockets Layer set of protocols (SSL) that has become a standard way to communicate between a web browser and a web site when a high level of security is needed. Not only that, but it can help secure e-mail, file downloads, and chat line conversations by using File Transfer Protocols (FTP) that works with SSL. Without this type of security in place it is relatively easy for someone to read the information you are transmitting. The thing to know here is that SSL only secures information in transit (between computer and website). It does not and will not guarantee security at your end and the site you are viewing! You will have to trust security measures at the site you are viewing and rely on your own computers virus and firewall protection. SSL uses a symmetric key cryptography for encryption, meaning the client and server uses the same key to encrypt and decrypt communication. If a hacker can decode the encryption key they can decipher the message coming in and going out.
Cookies
Many sites you visit will set a cookie on your system when you view that site. The purpose of cookies is to give you easier and faster access to the sites resources and to identify you later if you choose to purchase a product from them. This cookie will keep your personal information such as name, address and credit card number on their file in case you visit them again at a later date. The site itself has its own cookie system with the same personal information so when some user logs in they know who they are, what was ordered previously and what credit card was used so they can give you the use same and credit card? option. Because a lot of websites have security vulnerabilities hackers can view there cookies and retrieve credit card numbers and other personal info. Most web browsers let a user delete cookies on there system, either all of them or manually but they are still on the website visited. A common problem is if you punch in http://buyitnowsite.com and it sets up a cookie on your system, the creator of that cookie may have specified the domain type as site.com rather than buyitnow.com. Your browser then will offer up that cookie to any page in the same domain like virusdownloadsite.com (for example) or any site that you visit which may not have good intentions for you. This can lead to other sites having access to your personal information not intended for them. This could have been prevented if the technician who created that cookie made it specific enough to include the whole site name (buyitnow) in the coding. Really cookies are not intended to store information like user names and passwords, but unfortunately it is a common practice with websites and a hacker can view this information when infiltrating them. The best way to combat against cookie threats is through cookie management software that gives you full control over the use of cookies, which should include:
* Disable the sending and saving of cookies
* Notification before a cookie is sent
* Control of sending and receiving cookies based on the domain
* Look at and delete the contents of cookies
Most internet browser should give you a whole lot more options for cookies in the advanced tab or you can buy cookie software to have complete and easy access over all cookies.
I have mentioned here only a few areas of concern on protecting computer systems and internet browsing but there are others left untouched due to space ( one could write a book on the subject) but I hope you can see we are at more risk than you think. Because many of us have so easy access to the internet like an always on connection computers and servers will always be a target for hackers. Also the speed of connecting increases the risk of attack and the harder it will be to filter that access and make it harder for hackers. Even though we may never be completely safe from hackers there are things we can do to make there job harder. Never store personal information (passwords, credit card numbers) on your PC; instead use a floppy dick or CD for your private information and eject it from your PC when done. A general rule on firewalls is to block all incoming traffic that you didnt initiate. Dont run applications you are not familiar with and take what you download! Most important is to backup everything on your computer and make a bootable disk that you know is clean from infection.
No comments:
Keywords:
advertising,
behavioral targeting,
cookies,
delete cookies,
google,
iab,
privacy
Keywords:
advertising,
behavioral targeting,
cookies,
delete cookies,
google,
iab,
privacy
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Are Cookies Evil? What Service Do Cookies Perform In A Web Browser?
They cookies are bad and make invade your privacy? We are not talking about the kind of cookie eating, we are talking about computer crackers! It is not true that cookies are bad. So what is a cookie, what is fact and what does it do? A cookie is a small text file that a Web site can place on the team as they navigate the pages of this site. One of the things people do not understand is that a Web site can only read and write their own cookies, which are unable to access another website cookies. Cookies are used to store information on a variety of topics, such as a name, a selection or choice. This information is read again from the time they start other pages on the site, or, in visits to the site. What reason is a Web site need to use cookies? Web Browsers are stateless, statelessness means that as through several pages of a site, each of those pages is a separate and distinct. For example, the web server does not know which is the same person who was in the home who made the request for the order page. This is very different from desktop applications like Microsoft Excel that you run on your computer. The web server by visiting all applications as individual requests for pages, not like a visit from you. As you move through a website and select things and make decisions, thus avoiding the repetition of that re-enter or select the information you load each page? Usually, the answer is a cookie. A cookie can be used by the web server to track as a user so that when you navigate from page A to B, the web server knows that you and the developer of the website can be stored in reference articles In its cookie maintain a state of the experience for its session or visit the website. Sometimes, you may want or need to delete cookies. You can delete cookies in several ways. Most web browsers (Microsoft Internet Explorer, Netscape, Firefox, Opera, etc.) have different ways to do this, check your browser& 39;s help on how to clear the cache files and cookies. There are also several software packages for the PC and clean these packages also delete cookies. The use of cookies improving its user experience when browsing the Internet. Is there a security risk or danger to cookies? A site may use cookies to store information you enter in forms on web pages, and that& 39;s where security issues arise. Usually this will never cause any problems, however, before letting someone use your computer, or having your computer in any repair or services provided clear the cache and cookies! Each browser is different, so check with your help files for the browser using (Microsoft Internet Explorer, Netscape, Firefox, Opera, etc.) so as to remove the cache files and cookies.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Cookies, online tracking and advertising
When you surf the Internet, advertisers and marketers are likely using Web cookies to track your online habits -- what you buy, what Web sites you visit and how often -- in order to target their ads to you. If you're searching reviews of a specific movie or car, for example, you may later see an ad for that movie or car even when you've moved on to a completely unrelated site.
It's called behavioral advertising, and consumer advocacy groups are pushing for a way to opt out of it. A coalition of nine groups today proposed a "Do Not Track" list for users who don't want to be tracked online. The coalition asked the Federal Trade Commission to require advertisers to register all domain names of the servers that set "persistent unique identifier." Consumers could then download that list and block them. For the group's full proposal, click here.
Stopbadware.org challenged folks with a $5,000 prize to come up with 2-minute videos to explain Web cookies and explore their privacy implications. Here's one that made the cut. For all five, go here.
The winner will be announced Thursday, when the FTC's workshop on Ehaviorial Advertising begins in Washington, D.C.
Web cookies are plain text files that are transferred from the server to your browser and get stored on your computer's hard drive. Aside from tracking how often you visit certain sites, cookies allow Web sites to remember your log in or items you place in a shopping cart. ZDNet's Larry Dignan says there's nothing to worry about, including that cookies are "anonymous."
One easy way to protect yourself is to delete your cookies, run an anti-spyware program that deletes tracking programs or set up your browser to not permit them in the first place. For more on how to disable cookies, click on this useful site.
It's called behavioral advertising, and consumer advocacy groups are pushing for a way to opt out of it. A coalition of nine groups today proposed a "Do Not Track" list for users who don't want to be tracked online. The coalition asked the Federal Trade Commission to require advertisers to register all domain names of the servers that set "persistent unique identifier." Consumers could then download that list and block them. For the group's full proposal, click here.
Stopbadware.org challenged folks with a $5,000 prize to come up with 2-minute videos to explain Web cookies and explore their privacy implications. Here's one that made the cut. For all five, go here.
The winner will be announced Thursday, when the FTC's workshop on Ehaviorial Advertising begins in Washington, D.C.
Web cookies are plain text files that are transferred from the server to your browser and get stored on your computer's hard drive. Aside from tracking how often you visit certain sites, cookies allow Web sites to remember your log in or items you place in a shopping cart. ZDNet's Larry Dignan says there's nothing to worry about, including that cookies are "anonymous."
One easy way to protect yourself is to delete your cookies, run an anti-spyware program that deletes tracking programs or set up your browser to not permit them in the first place. For more on how to disable cookies, click on this useful site.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Digital peeping Toms
Email Print Normal font Large font Saved September 20, 2007 - 6:20AM
John Thompson, chief executive of Symantec, said the files, known as cookies, "are just as much an invasion of privacy as someone peering in my bedroom window."
Most major websites - including Symantec's - use cookies in some fashion.
Although some cookies are essential for remembering passwords and customising a user's web experience, they also can be used to create a profile of a user's online activities.
Thompson said people are sometimes unaware that a cookie had been created or what gets done with any information collected, such as to target advertising.
"I don't have an issue with people having cookies on their machine as long as I've been told one just got planted there," Thompson said. "I think there is an opt-in option here that should be available to everyone."
He questioned whether there is a "difference between a peeping Tom in the physical world and a cookie prying into my private affairs in the digital world."
Thompson was in Brussels to speak to EU regulators about such issues as Internet security and data privacy.
He would not say if he thought the European Commission should flex its muscles and require user permission for cookies, merely saying "if the EU felt that was a problem, they might want to insert themselves here."
Thompson said he would want to know what Google would do with personal information if it takes over online ad tracker DoubleClick - a deal that is already raising concerns about the control the deal would give Google over online advertising and data it collects about search terms.
Google has tried to soothe EU concerns, cutting the time it retains data from 24 months to 18 months.
The company also agreed to shorten the life span of its cookie, though it's not clear whether the move would do much to enhance privacy because the expiration date could get automatically extended when users revisit the search engine.
AP
John Thompson, chief executive of Symantec, said the files, known as cookies, "are just as much an invasion of privacy as someone peering in my bedroom window."
Most major websites - including Symantec's - use cookies in some fashion.
Although some cookies are essential for remembering passwords and customising a user's web experience, they also can be used to create a profile of a user's online activities.
Thompson said people are sometimes unaware that a cookie had been created or what gets done with any information collected, such as to target advertising.
"I don't have an issue with people having cookies on their machine as long as I've been told one just got planted there," Thompson said. "I think there is an opt-in option here that should be available to everyone."
He questioned whether there is a "difference between a peeping Tom in the physical world and a cookie prying into my private affairs in the digital world."
Thompson was in Brussels to speak to EU regulators about such issues as Internet security and data privacy.
He would not say if he thought the European Commission should flex its muscles and require user permission for cookies, merely saying "if the EU felt that was a problem, they might want to insert themselves here."
Thompson said he would want to know what Google would do with personal information if it takes over online ad tracker DoubleClick - a deal that is already raising concerns about the control the deal would give Google over online advertising and data it collects about search terms.
Google has tried to soothe EU concerns, cutting the time it retains data from 24 months to 18 months.
The company also agreed to shorten the life span of its cookie, though it's not clear whether the move would do much to enhance privacy because the expiration date could get automatically extended when users revisit the search engine.
AP
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)