Back to Main

Privacy

July 16, 2008

Lawmakers Press NebuAd Offensive, Lean On Another ISP

U.S. Congressmen have called out another Internet service provider for working with behavior tracking and ad serving firm NebuAd.

House Representatives Edward Markey, John Dingell, and Joe Barton this week penned a letter to Embarq, one of the behavioral targeting vendor's early ISP partners. The missive requests detailed information on early tests the company conducted with NebuAd.

Depending on how you count, it's the second or the third time lawmakers have raised questions about ISPs' recent interest in tracking their subscribers' Web meanderings for ad serving purposes. Charter Communications was the first to table its plans to work with NebuAd after Congress raised public concerns over the deal.

Right after that move, Rep. Markey urged other broadband companies considering "similar user profiling programs" to hold off while the privacy implications are addressed. In short order, DSL provider CenturyTel called off its own plans with NebuAd.

The latest move by Markey and his fellow lawmakers suggests Congress is unlikely to let the issue die down. Embarq is being asked to cough up a range of info, including how many subscribers were involved in the test, how Embarq notified them of the tests, and whether it conducted a legal analysis with regard to consumer privacy laws before flipping the switch. The Reps are also asking Embarq to provide a copy of the notifications used to inform subscribers of the test.

Embarq declined to comment, saying only that it has received and is reviewing the letter from Reps. Markey, Barton and Dingell.

In a statement on his Web site, Rep. Markey characterized the data NebuAd collects as potentially "highly personal and sensitive."

He continued, "Embarq's apparent use of this technology without directly notifying affected customers that their activity was being tracked, collected, and analyzed raises serious privacy red flags."

Posted by Zachary Rodgers at 4:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 26, 2008

Guardian Says 'No Thanks' to Phorm

Phorm recently partnered with a three leading U.K. ISPs, and has been working hard to allay privacy concerns stemming from its use of IP-based targeting technology.

In what could portent a blow to the companies attempt to make inroads into the British advertising marketing, Guardian News & Media has just politely said thanks, but no thanks to the prospect of working with Phorm's OIX advertising exchange.

"Our decision was in no small part down to the conversations we had internally about how this product sits with the values of our company," Simon Philby, the Guardian's advertising manager, is reported to have written in an e-mail to a concerned reader.

Posted by Rebecca Lieb at 2:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 4, 2008

The Seedy Side of Sears

Over the holiday season, Sears.com and Kmart.com customers got an added bonus: tracking software many experts classify as spyware. Computer Associates Senior Researcher Benjamin Googins was asked to join MY SHC Community and through detailed reporting, determined the procedure failed to give users proper notice of what they were doing. Ultimately, Sears had users opt-in to install comScore tracking software. Further research was conducted by Ben Edelman, who contacted Sears and got a response about how SHC "goes through great lengths to describe the tracking aspect." To which Edelman states, "I emphatically disagree."

In a period where Web audience measurement is under scrutiny, it's surprising to see the terms and conditions obfuscated when installing tracking software on user machines, if that is what Sears is, in fact, doing. Edelman alleges the practice is in violation of FTC rulings.

Further digging by Edelman uncovered another issue on Sears' managemyhome.com site. Once logged into the site, he discovered users can look up the purchase history of other managemyhome.com members. When I tried to visit the Web site, it wouldn't load. I'm unsure whether the site is having issues, or if it's been taken down due to these findings.

Sears did not respond to a phone call requesting comment on either matter.

Posted by Enid Burns at 4:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 20, 2007

What European Consumer Advocates Are Saying About Google/DoubleClick

As the FTC finally gives the green light to Google's proposed acquisition of DoubleClick, all eyes are now on Europe's investigation of the deal.

Following its initial warnings issued in late June, consumer group BEUC has once again written to the European competition commissioner Neelie Kroes to express concerns over Google's proposed $3.1 billion acquisition of Doubleclick.

The BEUC (The European Consumers' Organisation), which represents 41 pro-consumer groups from across Europe, is arguing that the deal is "not in the interest of European consumers." The letter cited three main areas of concern: pricing and competition, harm to consumers, and matters of privacy.

Firstly the correspondence suggests that the deal would have a significant negative impact on pricing, and could ultimately impede on publishers' revenue. It states that Google would be free to raise prices and prevent rival networks from using Doubleclick's technology, resulting in Web publishers seeing "a reduction in the revenue they receive from Google" and passing these costs on to the consumer.

On competition grounds it argues that the deal would place the entire online advertising market in jeopardy, as the company would "dominate both major pipelines for online advertising." It goes on to state that "there will be no real alternative to the combined entity for advertisers and web publishers," which will apparently result in the "significant harm" of European consumers.

Finally the letter expresses concerns over consumer privacy and welfare, stating that the merger would create a structure that would "almost certainly be less respectful of user privacy." It argues that privacy protection is a competitive differentiator in the ad serving market, and that the merger would eradicate incentives for Google to innovate in the area since competition will have been diminished.

The European Commission is now carrying out a second-phase investigation into competition concerns surrounding the deal. As previously reported by ClickZ news, disapproval from the European Commission is likely to result in a collapse of the entire deal irrespective of the FTC's decision, since both companies generate significant revenue from within Europe.

Posted by Jack Marshall at 1:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 3, 2007

A Few Advertisers Distance Themselves From Beacon. Why?

Facebook has taken steps to ease privacy concerns about its Beacon consumer data sharing initiative, but many of the social net's own partners are wary of the program.

Overstock.com was among the first of Facebook's early partners to back out, but as the Times' Bits blog reports, Coke has also begged off for the moment. My guess is both companies will return to Beacon after assessing the new changes, which require users to explicitly approve the broadcast of off-Facebook behavioral and purchase data to their social networks.

If you happen to be a Facebook partner, whether you're skittish about Beacon will depend a lot on your product or service. Overstock.com probably blinked because of the holiday-heartbreaker come-on in MoveOn's pitch ("Matt in New York already knows what his girlfriend got him for Christmas...") Also, analyst Charlene Li singled out the company in her blogged complaint about the program.

However I also spoke with a Fandango rep Friday who said the company remains enthusiastic about the Beacon program. After all, he noted, Fandango doesn't sell tickets to skin flicks, and who's secretive about their movie-going habits?

Posted by Zachary Rodgers at 1:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 28, 2007

MoveOn's Facebook Privacy Campaign: Pot, Kettle, Black?

Judging by the astounding rate at which MoveOn's Facebook group 'Petition: Facebook, stop invading my privacy!' is gaining members, it's clear that there is a great deal of public concern surrounding the way in which the site is using user data.

One of the key privacy issues for MoveOn, according to the petition group page, is the fact that Facebook's new 'Beacon' ad format automatically shares information about a user's activity gathered on third-party sites.

The text in the group description, presumably written by MoveOn, states, "Facebook says its users can 'opt out' of having their private purchases reported to all their friends. But that option is easily missed."

It continues; "The obvious solution is to switch to an 'opt in' policy, like most other applications on Facebook."

I couldn't agree more! However, an interesting comment on the group wall was pointed out to me yesterday. A member has posted the following:

"Well, I tried to write this yesterday but it looks like it was removed. I'd love to sign a petition, but I am not going to sign something that will automatically subscribe me to moveon.com emails. Sorry."

I took a look at the petition on the MoveOn.org site earlier today. The privacy policy is outlined at the bottom of the page and reads; "MoveOn will send you updates on this and other important campaigns by email. If at any time you would like to unsubscribe from our email list, you may do so."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this reads very much like an 'opt-out' policy to me. Admittedly, if someone is interested enough to sign an online petition, the assumption is that he or she will want to be updated on its progress. However, I'm not sure that sending e-mail updates on campaigns that MoveOn deem to be "important" really passes as an acceptable use of user data.

To avoid hypocrisy therefore, perhaps MoveOn should take some of its own advice. To quote their Facebook group description once again, maybe "the obvious solution is to switch to an 'opt in' policy" for future e-mail correspondence.

Posted by Jack Marshall at 9:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 18, 2007

Google Seeks Global Privacy Standards as DoubleClick Deal is Challenged in EU, Australia

Google said last week it would advocate for global standards on privacy protection, which could ease the privacy outcries and regulatory snags that tend to accompany its product and business moves around the world.

Speaking at a UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) meeting on ethics and human rights in France Friday, Google global privacy counsel Peter Fleischer put forward proposals for new global privacy rules protecting consumer data. In a blog post earlier today he stated that “as long as there are no global standards for privacy protection, individuals and businesses will remain at risk as they operate online.”

Fleischer went on to suggest that the APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) framework laid out at the 2004 conference provided an appropriate foundation on which to build, arguing that “if privacy principles can be agreed upon within the 21 APEC member economies, a similar set of principles could be applied on a global scale”.

Cynics may point out the timing of the announcements in light of hostility towards the proposed $3.1 billion acquisition of Doubleclick. In an e-mail sent to ClickZ, the Executive Director for the Center for Digital Democracy Jeff Chester stated “It's clear that this is motivated in part to dampen the growing opposition to the takeover. Google is attempting to head-off a global regulatory digital train-wreck.”

Fleischer played down links between today’s announcements and the pending deal however, describing a “sustained multi-pronged effort by Google to improve privacy practices”, and stating that “We would do this regardless of whether DoubleClick were part of the equation or not.”

Of course, Google is no stranger to Internet privacy concerns. Worries about its practices date back to 2004, when Privacy International filed complaints against targeted ads in Gmail. Doubleclick or no Doubleclick, it seems that Google has learned its lesson, and this time round is rather sensibly adopting a pre-emptive, rather than reactive approach.

Posted by Jack Marshall at 9:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 19, 2007

Google Sweet Google

Google Maps didn't photograph my cats, although my living room window is clearly visible in their shot of my building.

Rather, they immortalized me (as well as a neighbor) leaving our building.

The friend who called this to my attention notes, "Looks like it was taken in April...the facade on the new vitamin shop hasn't changed yet" (he strolled down the street to check).

It's a weird feeling, all right. But blurry enough so I don't feel violated or anything.

My friend added: "Now, of course, you need to Google your place of employ to see if they have you walking out of that."

I don't think I want to.

Posted by Rebecca Lieb at 11:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 25, 2007

TRUSTe Welcomes Three More to Trusted Download

Following acceptance of seven firms including Coupons, Inc. and WhenU into its Trusted Download program in February, TRUSTe has added three more firms to the software whitelist: ComScore's Relevant Knowledge, Weatherbug and SoonR Agent.

Posted by Kate Kaye at 5:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 20, 2007

The DoubleGoo Privacy Laments Have Begun

DoubleClick got burned badly once before where sharing data was concerned. Don't expect the company not to pounce in defense when accused of potential privacy infringement, which has been a common cry since the big Google takeover. CDD The Center for Digital Democracy, Electronic Privacy Information Center and U.S. Public Interest Research Group have filed a complaint with the FTC, claiming the DoubleGoo pair up will lead to privacy infringement.

Some excerpts from the complaint:

Neither Google nor DoubleClick have taken adequate steps to safeguard the personal data that is collected. Moreover, the proposed acquisition will create unique risks to privacy and will violate previously agreed standards for the conduct of online advertising.

The acquisition of DoubleClick will permit Google to track both a person’s Internet
searches and a person’s web site visits. This could impact the privacy interests of 233
million Internet users in North America, 314 million Internet users in Europe, and more
than 1.1 billion Internet users around the world.

In addition to criticizing both companies' histories in the privacy protection realm, the complaint states DoubleClick and Google intend to combine their data on users. To support this, it cites an LA Times article which notes, "Google's associate general counsel, Nicole Wong, said Monday that Google did in fact hope to integrate the two companies' "non-personally identifiable data," and that mixing them would be of "great benefit" to both consumers and advertisers. Personally identifiable data include names, physical addresses and the like."

It goes on to request that the FTC "Initiate an investigation of the proposed acquisition…with regard to the ability of Google to record, analyze, track, and profile" PII and non-PII. It also wants DoubleClick to remove user identified cookies and other persistent identifiers from all databases before the Google transfer. There's more, too. Check out the full complaint.

Surely privacy implications of what both firms do will now be exacerbated by the acquisition. However, this complaint seems premature considering it will be months before these companies actually begin integrating their ad management technologies.

DoubleClick responded later today with a press release stating, "Information collected by DoubleClick DART ad serving technology belongs to DoubleClick’s clients and not to DoubleClick. Any and all information collected by DoubleClick is, and will remain, the property of the company’s clients. Ownership rights, like the other terms of DoubleClick's client contracts, will be unaffected by any acquisition." The firm went on to stress it won't be matching data with Google's search data since it doesn't have the right to use the data flowing through its own Dart system.

As we all knew when the news dropped almost exactly a week ago, this deal will touch every end of the online ad industry, so look forward to more complaints from more parties beyond privacy watchdogs and unlikely trust busters.

Posted by Kate Kaye at 5:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 9, 2006

Dyson: Advertisers to Blame for Spyware Problem

When researching my piece on Ben Edelman's recent paper taking TRUSTe to task, I requested an interview with Esther Dyson, who was involved with TRUSTe's creation. Though we failed to connect in time for the story, we were able to chat this morning.

Though acknowledging that TRUSTe is more "establishment" than the likes of other privacy crusaders like Edelman, Dyson had nothing but good things to say about the organization. "It's not a profit making organization....They're not perfect, but nobody is, and they're definitely a force for good."

Dyson was not shy about who she thinks is to blame for spyware-related privacy infringement: advertisers. "The key to all of this is where the money comes from, and it comes from the advertisers," she said.

I wondered, though, don't advertisers see some benefit from distributing their ads via adware and spyware? They wouldn't use these outlets if they didn't, right?

Dyson agreed, noting, "It's incumbent on many of us to make [advertisers] see some negative results."

Posted by Kate Kaye at 11:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 5, 2006

Edelman on Trusted Download

I thought I'd add a bit more depth to my piece today looking at the impact of Ben Edelman's recent paper taking TRUSTe to task. He contends in his report that TRUSTe's privacy certification is impotent because it doesn't deal with other prevalent online privacy-infringing scourges like spyware. However, he makes no mention therein of TRUSTe's upcoming Trusted Download Program, which is intended to deal with spyware and adware. In an e-mail confirming that, Edelman noted:

My analysis covers TRUSTe's main "web privacy seal" -- their primary product, a product that's actively in use by hundreds of certified sites. In contrast, Trusted Download has yet to launch -- so there is literally no way to empirically analyze its effectiveness as yet.

The saga continues...

Posted by Kate Kaye at 11:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 5, 2006

TrackMeNot: More Search Privacy

Worried about search privacy?

Plenty of users are in the wake of the much-ballyhooed AOL personal search data leak, as well as the profiling practices of the major search engines.

Enter TrackMeNot, a Firefox plug-in that obfuscates your personal search history.

"It does so not by means of concealment or encryption (i.e. covering one's tracks), but instead, paradoxically, by the opposite strategy: noise and obfuscation...actual web searches, lost in a cloud of false leads, are essentially hidden in plain view...TrackMeNot works with the Firefox Browser and popular search engines, e.g. AOL, Yahoo!, Google, and MSN, and requires no 3rd-party servers or services," claims the Web site.

via Threadwatch

Posted by Rebecca Lieb at 1:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

See More Posts From:

Today | This Week | This Month