12 Mar 09
2 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaBy the way, these aren't my opinions. They are the opinions of privacy lawyers and several class action lawsuits against behavioural advertisers. Just read the bolded parts if you all are too lazy to read.
I've given up on you. Reality isn't binding on your opinions.
Advertiser tracking of Web surfing brings suits
Class action filed; guidelines issued.
Tresa Baldas / Staff reporter
March 2, 2009
Big Brother may be at it again.
Behavioral advertising — the tracking of consumer's Internet surfing activity to create tailored ads — has triggered an intense legal controversy that has law firms scrambling to stay on top of a burgeoning practice.
Attorneys say that behavioral advertising is raising privacy, litigation and regulation fears among consumer advocates, the electronic commerce and advertising industries and legislators.
Law firms are busy helping companies come up with a transparent way of letting consumers know that their online activities are being tracked and possibly shared.
"Lawmakers and companies are having a tough time keeping up with this new frontier of Internet privacy issues, and there is growing consumer unrest about behavioral advertising, leading in some cases to consumer rebellion," said Lisa Sotto, a partner and head of the privacy and security data group in the New York office of Richmond, Va.-based Hunton & Williams. "Consumers find this type of tracking intrusive, and businesses are starting to take the consumer reaction seriously," she said.
The buzz over behavioral advertising has been building since congressional hearings that were held last year, during which Congress called on Internet service providers (ISPs) to testify about a highly controversial advertising practice known as "deep-packet inspection."
The practice gives companies the ability to track every Web site consumers visit and provides a detailed look at everything they're doing, such as where they're going on vacation, who is going, how much they spent on the trip and what credit card was used.
But then came the first class action targeting behavioral advertising, filed against Foster City, Calif.-based NebuAd Inc., an online advertising company accused of spying on consumers from several states and allegedly violating their privacy and computer security rights. The lawsuit specifically alleges that NebuAd engaged in deep-packet inspection. Valentine v. NebuAd, No. CV 08 5113 (N.D. Calif.).
A 'vacuum unit'
"It's almost like a central vacuum unit in a house and the consumer's information is on the carpet somewhere — and there's a big giant container that sucks up all of their information, no matter where they are," said Scott A. Kamber of the New York office of Chicago's KamberEdelson who is representing the plaintiffs in the NebuAd lawsuit. "Deep-packet inspection is the most insidious practice regarding privacy."
What's most egregious about the practice, Kamber added, is that consumers don't know it's happening — and are not consenting.
"It's no more a legitimate form of advertising than someone standing across the street from your home [with] binoculars and looking into the room of your house and saying, 'Hey, that person likes to buy shoes. So lets send them some shoe advertisements,' " said Kamber, who plans to file more deep-packet inspection lawsuits in the next month.
Thomas Gilbertsen of the Washington office of New York's Kelley Drye & Warren, who is representing NebuAd, defended behavioral advertising, calling it a useful tool that helps advertisers show consumers only the products and services in which they're actually interested. He also denied claims that NebuAd violated consumers' privacy rights, stressing that NebuAd does not collect any personally identifiable information on Internet users, nor does it know who the users are.
"We believe that the complaint has the facts wrong on a variety of key points," Gilbertsen said.
Moreover, Gilbertsen believes behavioral advertising is getting a bad rap.
"I do believe it's unfairly getting a bad name because people don't have a perfect understanding of how behavioral advertising works," Gilbertsen said. "It's the dream of personalized media."
Meanwhile, the Federal Trade Commission this month released a report in which it announced that it would adhere to its self-regulation policy when it comes to behavior advertising — at least for now. Within the report, the FTC also released revised behavioral-advertising guidelines calling for more rigorous self-policing, and it strongly advised the industry to follow the guidelines or brace for more regulation and legislation.
Those guidelines call for more disclosure and transparency with consumers about tracking and data-collection practices, the ability of consumers to choose whether to allow data collection, and keeping promises regarding the use of consumer data. They also suggest that companies store data "only as long as is necessary to fulfill a legitimate business or law enforcement need." And when obtaining sensitive data, consent must be obtained.
Attorneys note that it's the collection of sensitive data — such as financial, health and other personal information — that has fueled privacy fears with regard to behavioral advertising.
"The bigger concern is what happens with this data . . . .Not only do you not know what information is being collected, you don't know who is collecting it," said Jacqueline Klosek, counsel to the privacy and data security practice in the New York office of Boston's Goodwin Procter, who advises business clients about complying with FTC guidelines.
From the business perspective, companies see behavioral advertising as an essential tool to reach more customers, Klosek said. But from the consumers' side, privacy fears abound.
"As the technology gets more robust, there's the risk that things that were anonymous won't be anymore," Klosek said.
Klosek, meanwhile, is advising her clients to brace for greater regulation and new legislation regulating behavioral advertising.
In the past year, three states — Connecticut, Massachusetts and New York — introduced bills to regulate behavioral ads, none of which passed. Klosek believes that legislation is inevitable. "The current position is still self-regulation," Klosek tells her clients. "But expect considerable focus on regulation and potential changes in the next 12 to 18 months."
The advertising industry, meanwhile, is on alert, said attorney Jerry Cerasale, senior vice president of government affairs for the Direct Marketing Association, a trade group for the marketing and advertising industry.
"The FTC is kind of like, 'We're watching you, and you better get going on this,' " Cerasale said.
According to Cerasale, online advertising networks are working to improve transparency with consumers and trying to come up with ways to notify them that data are being collected on them and get permission from them to do it.
"That's the gauntlet that the FTC laid down to us for self-regulatory purposes — to have transparency so that people know it's happening, and then give them a choice, and an effective choice," Cerasale said.
FTC attorney Peder Magee said the FTC's message is pretty clear.
"The message is: If they ignore the principles and the guidelines, they're doing so at their own peril," Magee said. "They may be running out of chances to get it right before Congress passes legislation."
Magee was citing FTC Commissioner Jon Leibowitz, who put the behavioral-advertising world on official notice last month, stating: "Put simply, this could be the last clear chance to show that self-regulation can — and will — effectively protect consumers' privacy in a dynamic online marketplace."
Does the industry stand a chance at proving that self-regulation works?
Bart Lazar, a partner at Chicago-based Seyfarth Shaw who assists business clients with privacy, copyright and trademark issues, thinks so.
Self-policing should work, Lazar said, but there should be continuing efforts into educating consumers about behavioral-marketing practices and what happens on Web sites, "so the information is not buried deep in a privacy policy that no one ever reads.
"It is important to not have a negative 'knee-jerk' reaction to behavioral advertising, call it all a bad thing and then be fearful of it," Lazar said.
Lazar sees some benefits to behavioral advertising, such as consumers' ability to receive discounts and other information about products and services that they are interested in purchasing. He also noted that some forms of behavioral advertising have little chance for misuse, such as first-party advertising, whereby a Web site collects information to deliver target ads to users, but doesn't share the data with third parties.
*****Meanwhile, some third parties are holding out for the chance to get their hands on behavioral-advertising data, namely civil attorneys, who could subpoena consumer surfing data to present as evidence in a lawsuit.
And why not, argued family law attorney Brad LaMorgese. If advertisers can use this information to make ads, he said, why can't lawyers use it as evidence in lawsuits?
"It's a great, ready-made source — almost puts the investigation together for you," LaMorgese said, noting that how much money spouses spend online and what sites they visit are crucial details in a divorce case. "If someone is doing all sorts of things online, why wouldn't a court want to know that?"
LaMorgese of McCurley Orsinger McCurley Nelson & Downing, a Dallas family law boutique, said he's not aware of behavioral-advertising data being used in court, but he can foresee a time when it will be commonplace.
"I think that's where we're going eventually," LaMorgese said.*****
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202428674349
12 Mar 09
Originally posted by uzlessDo you even know what is deep-packet inspection and why RHP has nothing to do with it? 😵
By the way, these aren't my opinions. They are the opinions of privacy lawyers and several class action lawsuits against behavioural advertisers. Just read the bolded parts if you all are too lazy to read.
[b]Advertiser tracking of Web surfing brings suits
Class action filed; guidelines issued.
Tresa Baldas / Staff reporter
March 2, 2009
...[text shortened]... 349[/b]
12 Mar 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Palynkagrr, that is just one example. It's also why i didn't bold it.
Do you even know what is deep-packet inspection and why RHP has nothing to do with it? 😵
By the way, do you know if the advertisers that advertise on RHP use deep packet inspection? The RHP privacy statement doesn't tell us one way or the other.
12 Mar 09
Originally posted by uzlessRHP privacy statements tells us what RHP DOES not what their advertisers do.
By the way, do you know if the advertisers that advertise on RHP use deep packet inspection? The RHP privacy statement doesn't tell us one way or the other.
Have you received any direct advertisments relating to psychiatric help as yet?
12 Mar 09
Originally posted by uzless"The only way for these ads to appear (other than sheer coincidence which it's not) is for RHP to be using software than scans your web history. RHP then provides this information to its advertisers.
That was my point exactly. Was I being too subtle?
How do you feel about your privacy being given away by RHP?"
If by subtle, you mean completely wrong, then yes, you were too "subtle".
D
12 Mar 09
Originally posted by uzlessIf you allow advertisers to track your online habits, then you are chosing to not wear any clothes.
You should read my post to adramforall. (2 posts up)
You are looking at this backwards. Of course someone would be an idiot if they wore NO CLOTHES and complained people could see their body.
We are talking about someone tracking your movements, FOLLOWING YOU...ad companies aren't just looking at you as you walk by them. They are following you and re ...[text shortened]... , or should they just not be following you in the first place??
Your analogy needs revision.
Claiming you are technically unable to do the couple of mouse clicks required is as ridiculous as claiming you don't know how to put trousers on.
There is no figuring out. You either let them or you don't. Effectively, what you're doing in this thread is going on and on about your credit card company asking you to opt OUT of receiving ads when you fill out the application form.
I hope you don't use any search engines or free email accounts. You'd flip.
D
12 Mar 09
Originally posted by RagnorakI clarified what I meant way back. Stop living in the past. If you are basing your opinion on that statement from way back, then you have been beating a dead horse. We've moved on and that's not what were talking about.
"The only way for these ads to appear (other than sheer coincidence which it's not) is for RHP to be using software than scans your web history. RHP then provides this information to its advertisers.
How do you feel about your privacy being given away by RHP?"
If by subtle, you mean completely wrong, then yes, you were too "subtle".
D
12 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Ragnoraksee the post above yours.
If you allow advertisers to track your online habits, then you are chosing to not wear any clothes.
Claiming you are technically unable to do the couple of mouse clicks required is as ridiculous as claiming you don't know how to put trousers on.
There is no figuring out. You either let them or you don't. Effectively, what you're doing in this thread ...[text shortened]... orm.
I hope you don't use any search engines or free email accounts. You'd flip.
D
I never claimed i was technically unable to do mouse clicks. WHERE DID I SAY THAT?????? I said, we shouldn't have to.