Disqus - Latest Comments for Jeff Chester

Re: War Against the Web

Jeff Chester — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:21:40 -0000

Mr. Rothenberg fails to address the central question regarding online advertising. The call for regulation is designed to ensure individuals control their data while on the Internet or using their mobile phones—not companies such as Google, Microsoft, and AOL. Public interest groups are not opposed to interactive marketing: indeed, we recognize it as a key source of funds for online publishing. But Mr. Rothenberg’s members have created a commercial surveillance system that rivals the NSA—tracking and analyzing our every move while on the Internet, all so we can be encouraged to behave favorably to some marketing message. Responsible ad industry leaders will seriously address the privacy threats created by the interactive marketing apparatus—and not hide behind self-serving claims that unless our privacy is lost, we won’t have a robust digital medium. We have already identified problems related to online targeting and data collection with pharma, subprime mortgages, and junk food marketing aimed at children, for example. We urge readers to review the USPIRG/CDD FTC complaints at www.democraticmedia.org and also review digitalads.org

Re: Obama’s FTC Spells Trouble with a Capital T

Jeff Chester — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:49:46 -0000

Ken: I won't comment on your grasp of political reality. But I should point you to the FTC's new principle governing so-called non-personal information. I suggest you update and revise your analysis. Here's a link and an excerpt from the recent FTC staff opinion: " An IP address is a numerical identifier assigned to a computer or device that connects to the Internet.

Staff believes that, in the context of online behavioral advertising, the traditional notion
of what constitutes PII versus non-PII is becoming less and less meaningful and should not, by
itself, determine the protections provided for consumer data. Indeed, in this context, the
Commission and other stakeholders have long recognized that both PII and non-PII raise privacy
issues, a view that has gained even more currency in recent years for a number of reasons.
First, depending on the way information is collected and stored, it may be possible to link or
merge non-PII with PII...Second, with the development of new and more sophisticated technologies, it likely will
become easier to identify an individual consumer based on information traditionally considered
to be non-PII. For instance, although industry has traditionally considered most IP addresses to
be non-PII, it soon may be possible to link more IP addresses to specific individuals.50"
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/02/behavad.shtm

Re: Obama FTC Spells Trouble: Part II

Jeff Chester — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:39:02 -0000

I also was referring to the 2008 decision of the EU data protection commissioners (Article 29 Working Party) on search engine data what is considered identifiable information. Here's an excerpt: "An individual's search history is personal data if the individual to which it relates, is identifiable...When a cookie contains a unique user ID, this ID is clearly personal data. The use of persistent cookies or similar devices with a unique user ID allows tracking of users of a certain computer even when dynamic IP addresses are used. The behavioural data that is generated through the use of these devices allows focusing even more on the personal characteristics of the individual concerned."
source: ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2008/wp148_en.pdf

Re: Do Not Track Registry Likely to Include Exemptions

Jeff Chester — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 05:51:47 -0000

The Center for Digital Democracy does not support a do-not-track list. We want federal rules that give individuals control over their data--so it can't be readily used by advertisers or government. The commercial surveillance system put in place tracks and analyzes our activities online. It's not a debate about people selling "duvet covers" via digital marketing. It's preventing, if an individual desires, from having a system used by others that includes sensitive information about our lives (health concerns, political interests, etc). At a time when a growing majority, especially young people, are living their lives online, do we want either Big Brother/Big Sister from Washington or Madison Ave. always peering over our (digital) shoulder?

Re: Targeted Online Advertising: What’s the Harm & Where Are We Heading?

Jeff Chester — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 14:39:14 -0000

It's absurd to suggest that ensuring privacy online threatens the economic well-being of the Internet. The Internet should not be immune to consumer protection policies (including such critical areas as when seeking a mortgage, getting a loan or researching a medical condition or treatment). As one investigates the technologies and business models at the core of the threat to online privacy, it's clear that the ever-growing digital profiling, tracking, and targeting across sites and platforms threaten privacy and also consumer welfare. Individual liberty, in my opinion, is also at stake when someone is using the power of online marketing to influence your opinions and actions in a non-transparent way. The FTC has made advances in its capacity to research and analyze the issue, hence its new principles. I urge the authors to spend more time doing first-hand research, so they can more knowledgeably participate in the debate.

Re: Targeted Online Advertising: What’s the Harm & Where Are We Heading?

Jeff Chester — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:33:55 -0000

Our views have been formed by a analysis of the data collection and targeting strategies deployed online (and its relationship to content construction and user behavior). This includes a review of the online ad research apparatus, including its goals.

You should examine more closely the CDD/USPIRG complaints to the FTC [starting with the initial 2006 filing]. You should also read the chapter from my 2007 book which examines online advertising. And our reports available at digitalads.org (which provide both an overview and an update on techniques and trends for one specific targeting category). I also respectfully urge you to review--if you haven't recently-- the professional, scholarly and trade literature on online marketing, including data collection. There's a huge literature here, which should be followed closely if we are to have a serious debate.

I also urge you to examine first the entire range of data collection/profiling and targeting cross-platform strategies of your funders, and then report back via this blog the results. Progress and Freedom Foundation is funded by many of the leading online marketers who are affected by this policy debate. Such potential conflicts of interest should be acknowledged.

Re: Behavioral Advertising Industry Practices Hearing: Some Issues that Need to be Discussed

Jeff Chester — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:38:07 -0000

I find it ironic--if not disturbing--that the writers of this post are employed by an organization whose financial backers are the biggest online marketing companies: Google, Microsoft, News Corp/MySpace, Time Warner/Platform A, etc. Here's the list: http://www.pff.org/about/supporters.html

The head in the digital sand `what me worry about my privacy' approach is similar to the wrongheaded thinking that led to the current financial crisis (but perhaps with well-heeled financial backers such as Google and Microsoft, the authors don't share the same financial and personal pain most US consumers experience!). The failure to regulate the financial sector directly led to the greatest economic catastrophe since the 1930's. Financial, health and other transactions essential for the welfare of consumers have moved online--all without regulatory safeguards. The authors continue to portray a online marketing system which doesn't reflect what's actually going on with consumers. Yet members of congress from both sides of the aisle can understand that when your information is collected and analyzed and used for purposes an individual hasn't consented to--let alone knows about--it's bad for consumers. I believe we can have reasonable regulation that permits consumer interests and a robust online marketplace. Anyone who thinks we can't have both is living in a previous era.

Re: Google-DoubleClick Merger Encounters More Setbacks On Capitol Hill

Jeff Chester — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 07:20:53 -0000

My group opposes the merger on both competition and privacy grounds. Besides, as we have explained to the FTC and others, the data collection and targeted use intrinsic to the business goals of the merger and protecting user privacy are inextricably linked.

Re: FTC Online Ad Targeting Guidelines: Industry Breathes A Sigh Of Relief

Jeff Chester — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 14:35:45 -0000

The FTC--and the public--will continue to learn why real federal rules are required. Responsible and forward-looking ad industry leaders should embrace the need for a democracy to have legal safeguards empowering citizen/consumer control over their information.

Re: Online Ad Industry Groups Take Steps To Self-Police

Jeff Chester — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 16:02:11 -0000

It’s clear that the IAB is incapable of developing a policy that will protect consumers. Anyone who understands the contemporary dimensions of the interactive marketing industry–and has the public welfare in mind–should recognize what is required. The IAB will not be taken seriously if it can’t deliver the truth (it’s so far failed to protect the public from troubling online lead generation practices, for example. See our November 1, 2007 FTC filing). Yahoo!, Microsoft, Time Warner and others on the committee should lead–and not follow–advice from the IAB that will lead to prolonged political conflict–in Europe, in Congress, at the FTC and FCC, and with the incoming Administration.

Real governmental rules are required–including measures that effectively protect every consumer and also address vulnerable groups and sensitive marketing issues.

Re: Online Ad Industry Groups Take Steps To Self-Police

Jeff Chester — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 19:12:08 -0000

Mr. Kelley is incorrect; my group did not support or introduce the do-not-track list. That was from CDT (Center for Democracy and Technology). I run CDD (Center for Digital Democracy). Polls show that the majority of users oppose the use of their personal information without their consent. (once users understand what's going on). As for the future of democracy, I stand with what I said in November. Creating a system where individuals have their data collected and then are motivated to engage in a behavioral agenda on behalf of others does threaten democracy.