Privacy in a Nutshell: Week
02.21.2012 
By Ashlee Cherne
Tim Peterson
AdWeek
Feb. 17, 2012
"With privacy concerns looming over the data conversation, Hoffman said norms around data and privacy “are definitely changing.” When DoubleClick acquired Abacus in 1999, he said, there was a general outcry over using consumers’ offline information to target online ads, a practice now “considered to be normal.”
To avoid any missteps, Hoffman said companies looking to apply data need to be transparent about their practices and ensure that those practices deliver only value to consumers. “It’s part of the reason the [privacy] boundary moves intelligently,” he said.
Lastly, Hoffman said he hopes that those in the social media industry will be able to “collectively self-navigate the right way” to remaining aligned with consumers’ privacy and minimize need for government involvement. But to avoid harmful interference from government regulators lacking “the full skill set [to understand] how to architect social systems,” the industry may have to move to create an organizing body similar to the MPAA, he said, an idea he’s been pondering for the past year."
Google Privacy Snafu Stirs Privacy Debate, Again: Lawmakers, privacy watchers alarmed
Katy Bachmann
AdWeek
Feb. 17, 2012
"It looks like Google was caught with its hand in the privacy cookie jar again. The Wall Street Journal cited a research study from Stanford University showing that Google DoubleClick was circumventing user's privacy controls on Safari and tracking them without their knowledge or permission.
The report, following so close on the heels on the controversity over Google's coming change in its privacy policy March 1, is bound to cause another firestorm."
Could Target Sell Its ‘Pregnancy Prediction Score’?
Kashmir Hill
Forbes
Feb. 16, 2012
"Target’s privacy policy is as flexible as a mother’s belly is stretchable. It explains that Target tracks everything you do in its stores, on its websites and on its social media channels. In describing who it shares customer info with, Target includes “other companies for marketing purposes.”
“We may share information with vendors, business partners and other organizations which are not part of the Target family,” says the policy. “These companies and organizations may use the information we share to provide special offers and opportunities to you.”
Such as the opportunity to buy baby products?"
Covington and Burlington
InsidePrivacy
Feb. 16, 2012
"The FTC staff released a report today calling for participants in the mobile app ecosystem -- including app developers, app stores, and third parties who collect data through mobile apps -- to provide better privacy notices to parents about mobile apps directed to children, and warning that over the next six months, staff will be conducting additional reviews "to determine whether there are COPPA violations and whether enforcement is appropriate.""
Hey, Mom and Dad, look, I'm the most powerful censor on the planet
Peter Fleischer
Feb. 15, 2012
“Europe's proposals to create a "right to be forgotten" are suggesting that people should be able to request Google/Yahoo!/Bing to delete any third-party content from the search engines that they don't like, if it violates their sense of "privacy". If such a law were to be passed, then it would mean that employees at Google and similar companies would become censors-in-chief of the world's web content. Whenever someone finds something on the web that they found unflattering about themselves, they could demand that the search engines delete it. The Google/Yahoo!/Bing global censors would then be obligated to delete the content, regardless of whether it was true or fair or legal, regardless of who published it, and regardless of the fact that the search companies had nothing to do with the content.”
More Ad Networks Get Good Privacy Report Card
Katy Bachmann
AdWeek
Feb. 14, 2012
“The number of ad networks complying with the Network Advertising Initiative's strict online privacy code nearly doubled from 2010 to 2011, according to NAI's annual report.”
“With more ad networks stepping up to the privacy plate, more consumers are aware they can opt out of interest-based ads, the report found. Visits to the NAI's website last year were up 200 percent increase over 2010 to 8.5 million. Six million clicked on the big red button to access the opt-out page, and 14 percent submitted opt-out requests.”
MarketWire (Source: NAI)
Feb. 14, 2012
“This increased attention to OBA and the choices available to users were driven by NAI members' efforts to bring greater transparency by contributing more than 4 billion ad impressions to the NAI's educational campaign and through in-ad notice. NAI members now increasingly provide in-ad notice using the Digital Advertising Alliance's "Advertising Options" icon, which is now served more than 10 billion times daily and is quickly becoming ubiquitous.”
“"While the report found broad compliance with the NAI Code, our compliance program must continue to adapt and expand," continued Groman. In the report, NAI staff recommends that the NAI increase its technical monitoring of member companies and is currently evaluating technical tools to add to its compliance program. To supplement such testing, NAI staff also recommend that member companies be required to report on a regular basis the domains they use for OBA purposes. The NAI also intends to add additional staff dedicated to compliance in 2012.”
Netflix reveals $9m payout in privacy legal action
BBC News
Feb. 13, 2012
The online streaming firm, which made no admission of wrongdoing, said the settlement related to compliance with the Video Protection Privacy Act.
The 1988 US legislation prohibits the disclosure of video rental histories.
It is reported that the legal action concerned allegations that Netflix was failing to delete the viewing histories of customers who had left the service.
Lawmakers press Google for more answers on privacy
Brendan Sasso
The Hill
Feb. 9, 2012
“In their letter to Google CEO Larry Page, Bono Back and Butterfield asked the company to clarify how long it takes to fulfill a user's request to delete information.”
“They said "perhaps the most troubling" aspect of the privacy change is that users' search histories could influence the advertisements they see.”
“"While there may be reasons some consumers prefer advertisements tailored on their search history, many of us believe that users' search history may be sensitive and should remain anonymous," the lawmakers wrote.”
“They asked Google to describe how much control users have over sharing their search history and whether there is a way to easily opt out, aside from using a competing search engine.”
Google Knows Too Much About You
Frida Ghitis
CNN
Feb. 9, 2012
"I followed the instructions and with some difficulty eventually downloaded pages upon pages of personal material about myself from Google. What I was looking for was a simple, shall we say beautiful, button telling Google not to save anything I don't explicitly want it to save. But there was no such button.
Google, like Facebook, owns trillions if not quadrillions-plus bits of information. They mine it, use it to sell ads, algorithm it. But my real fear is not Google. My real fear is that computer technology has turned into an arms race between good guys and bad guys. Google may see itself as a jaunty white hat wearer, valiantly protecting all our information. And it may be doing it to the best of its ability. But hackers are hard at work all the time.
Google and Facebook are profiting from our private information in ways most of us don't quite understand or would approve. But hackers may do even worse, as we have already seen in many cases around the world. Hackers have already unlocked and put on the Web reams of credit card information, private documents and all sorts of personal e-mails. Imagine your e-mails and chats on the Web for anyone to read.
Online hoarding of our private information is not something we can afford to "dismiss." The only effective way to change the ways of these giant corporations -- and the smaller ones following the same practices -- is by pushing the government to make those practices illegal. We can start by following Europe's example.
The obvious, ethical, default setting should affirm that our private information belongs to us and nobody else -- not to Google, not to Facebook. We should call for laws that require them to change their terms of service so users have the option of giving or denying permission to them on holding personal data in storage."
Google Willing to Give You, Like, 5 Dollars to Give Up Privacy
Noah Garfinkel
Gawker
Feb. 8, 2012
"Google is set to begin a project called Screenwise that will pay some of its users to allow access to their search history…
In exchange for using your information, Google will provide you with an initial $5 gift card to Amazon. You can then stick with Screenwise for a year, receiving an additional $5 gift card every three months until you reach a maximum payout of $25.
If you do the math on that, you'll find that your payment works out to an hourly rate of less than 3/10ths of a cent in return for letting them know all the disgusting stuff you're looking at."
Reader Comments