My comments on a recent story (my comments are in BLUE):
Adding its voice to the debate about behavioral targeting, the Newspaper Association of America filed comments with the Federal Trade Commission recently arguing that its proposed privacy standards could infringe on newspapers' First Amendment rights. WHAT??? SO they can now invade our privacy, track our activities in order sell us more news, that we really don't even want, but they are able to HANG ON to their ever-prized "confidential source", even if the guy is a murderer. This is a perfect example of the objective creating the position. Hell with truth and privacy...uh...Mr. Newspaper, I want to know how you get your information if you want to know why I read your information...
The newspaper association argues that ads are a form of speech, and that it has the right to serve them, provided that they are not misleading. Ads displayed to readers based on their online behavior are "not only truthful advertising speech, but advertising speech that meets their interest," the group wrote in its filing. Like I said, they want to know what we want to read, but they won't tell us how they got their information. COME ON, what's fair is fair.
The Newspaper Association of America was one of dozens of groups to weigh in on the FTC's proposed voluntary behavioral advertising standards. It is just standards, it is not like anyone is ever going to police the Newspaper anyway, except for the Cookie Monster, Oh, he is too busy guarding his own Cookie Jar.
The agency issued the guidelines late last year, several weeks after holding a two-day town hall meeting about privacy and online advertising. The FTC held the meeting one year after the Center for Digital Democracy and U.S. Public Interest Research Group helped launch a discussion about behavioral targeting and privacy by filing a complaint seeking a probe of behavioral targeting. Google's merger with DoubleClick also fueled the privacy debates that resulted in the FTC's proposals. Did anyone ever doubt that this merger would create a MASSIVE exploration into beharioral targeting. Sure they won't ever connect the dots and track us like monkey on Chimps of Eden.
The FTC guidelines generally call for companies to allow consumers to opt-out of behavioral advertising, defined by the agency as "the tracking of a consumer's activities online--including the searches the consumer has conducted, the Web pages visited, and the content viewed--in order to deliver advertising targeted to the individual consumer's interests." The long discussed, the long debated and overly disputed "Opt Out". This assumes that we ALL want to be tracked and if we don't, we will tell you to stop tracking us. WHAT IF I HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO TELL TO STOP, STOP, STOP, LEAVE ME ALONE!! Of course, the companies would never build databases if it were an "opt in" system. They might never sell anything and I might never get all the various mail, snail, e-, driveway, whatever...
The agency also proposes that companies obtain users' express consent before using "sensitive" data, including information about health conditions or sexual orientation, for targeted ads. The KEY here is that the FTC is now just proposing some things...well thank you for the proposition, I'm sure they will ALL listen.
Since the FTC released its proposals late last year, a wide swath of marketing organizations, publishers and consumer advocates have taken positions on whether the government should become more involved in regulating the area. Individual Web companies--including AOL, Yahoo, Microsoft and Google--have submitted comments, all stating their preference for continued voluntary self-regulation. Of course, the reality of this situation is that enforcement is very, very difficult. Thus, the industry MUST devise a method for self policing if they want self preservation. Otherwise, it will only take a few more year before the FTC is fully regulating these efforts, not just in CAN-SPAM, either.
Associations like the American Advertising Federation, American Association of Advertising Agencies, Association of National Advertisers, Interactive Advertising Bureau, Magazine Publishers of America and Online Publishers Association also oppose any government regulations, arguing that limits on behavioral targeting could hurt online marketers and publishers. Of course they oppose it. I oppose anyone that stops my kids from thinking I'm cool...but really how can I stop that, I'm just not that cool anymore.
The Center for Digital Democracy and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group Friday reiterated their call for regulations requiring companies to obtain users' affirmative consent before monitoring them online and serving them ads. At least some of us have a level head about PRIVACY and know that we must protect it. Those groups also urged new regulations regarding behavioral targeting of users under age 18 and behavioral targeting related to medical or financial information.
This is a very important issue that most legislators completely forget: Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) issued a statement in support of stronger limits on behavioral targeting of children. "Without stronger protections, including a prohibition on collecting data on children's and teens' online activities, young Internet users may become unwitting targets of the 'hidden persuaders' of the digital age," he stated.
THE KEY TO OPEN OUR PRIVATE DOORS (THIS IS HOW THEY DO IT): Many behavioral targeting platforms collect data anonymously, but privacy advocates find such programs troubling for several reasons. For one thing, some marketers can potentially combine the supposedly anonymous clickstream data with other, personally identifiable information, like names or e-mail addresses. In addition, advocates argue that clickstream data alone--especially comprehensive data such as that collected by Internet service providers--can provide clues to people's identities. You see, now they have your information, are they protecting it for you, are they selling it, are they profiting from it, what is being done to protect???
Another important issue is that some consumer advocates argue that behavioral targeting techniques potentially manipulate consumers in a way they are not aware of. The Center for Digital Democracy and U.S. Public Interest Research Group argues that marketers have an obligation to ensure that consumers are "meaningfully informed about the issues." Consumers, they say, "should understand that they are the subjects of evolving and sophisticated targeting platforms."
However, the crazy claim re-enters the argument again and tries to use the Constitution to allow a breach of privacy stating: "Efforts to restrict what newspaper websites publish, and the basis by which editors and advertisers make decisions regarding what to publish, run directly counter to core First Amendment rights, and can amount to a prior restraint," the Newspaper group argued in its comments.
SOOOO, what do you think...Let's Talk.
