FTC To Examine Targeted Advertising

narramissic writes "Following a series of complaints by privacy groups, the FTC has announced plans to host a two-day forum on targeted advertising at the beginning of November in Washington, DC. It's the first time since 2000 that the agency has looked at industry practices in this area. They hope to learn how Web advertising firms protect the personal data they collect, how they notify consumers about that data, and whether the data is sold to or used by other firms." The FTC page for the event ia here. Sign up by September 14 if you want to be a panelist or to recommend topics for discussion.

Comments

Editors!

[computerman413]

The FTC page for the event ia here. Perhaps the editors need to use the preview button. Or should I say Perhapa the editora need to uae the preview button.

Re:Editors!

[5c11]

You shouldn't be so hard on the poor editors... that's a common Lovecraftian slip. You're just typing like normal then all of a sudden Iä! Shub-Niggurath! The Goat with a Thousand Young! Ftaghn!

Normal typo, happens all the time.

Hosts file - don't surf without it

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm

No need for a popup blocker when the ad site host name goes into the bit bucket.

Re:Hosts file - don't surf without it

[jlarocco]

Bah. A hosts file is okay when you don't have a regular ad-blocker, but it really loses out by not being able to block stuff like "www.example.com/ads/*".

The filter list I use in Konqueror and Opera has over 700 things in it. Along with an ad-blocking stylesheet, I don't even see text ads in Google search results anymore.

Re:Hosts file - don't surf without it

[The Hobo]

Adblock Plus + an auto-updating filter = I don't know how I used the web without it

http://adblockplus.org/en/

Re:Hosts file - don't surf without it

[null.account]

To the parent and GP:

I too use hosts file blocking, but I took a weekend (I'm not a code god) and augmented it's usefulness by developing a browser plug-in that infers whether a given image is a (putative) ad. It acquires DOM info about a particular image (size, dimensions, position in the client area) and examines the originating URL.

So far, I've gotten about 70% "true positive" results on images/frames that aren't straight-out blocked by my hosts file (~8900 entries and growing). I'm working on ways to improve that statistic in my spare time.

Also, part of the goal of this little hobby of mine is to pre-filter the html/JS source for a given document for the undesireable non-graphic-ad content (a la tracking gifs, etc.) while preserving the important stuff (like legitimate links). It's interesting work, and I really believe I'm doing something worthwhile.

Given the ad-blocking features within popular browsers parent mentioned, I know it's "NIH" to do it myself, but for me it's as much an avocation as it is my own personal ad blocker, and if I can do something in my spare time that works at least that well then there are surely folks out there who have damned-near perfect tools for this goal in their own spare time, home-grown or not.

I'd be interested to hear anyone's ideas about this kind of "personal" project.

I'll make the FTC's job easy.

[sconeu]

They hope to learn how Web advertising firms protect the personal data they collect,

They don't.

how they notify consumers about that data,

They don't.

and whether the data is sold to or used by other firms.

Yes.

There. Study done.

Re:I'll make the FTC's job easy.

[Jaime2]

I work at a Fortune 100 company. You are an exception to the norm. Everyone who sends us "marketing leads" doesn't seem to exercise anywhere as much care as you do. Oh, and we buy leads, so somebody sells them.

Honestly, not selling your data is a bad business move. All your competitors do it. The poor suckers who gave you the data won't know the difference. There is no way to sell the "we don't sell your data" story because everyone claims the same and it is very difficult for a consumer to tell who is telling the truth and who is employing some sort of third party work around to sell the data (rent the data to a trusted third party who signs an NDA, that third party then sells the data and folds the company -- the third party is usually run by the brother-in-law of a company officer). Also, it has recently been tested that you don't have to live up to your own privacy policy.

Re:I'll make the FTC's job easy.

[Antique Geekmeister]

Keeping it secret also hides the sales to spammers, scammers, and people who do follow the CAN-SPAM rules to protect themselves from lawsuit. Publishing the data would doubtless encourage legislation against many of the more nefarious practices, such as selling client lists of who bought the data and the date of its sale to other advertisers so they can plan their ads to best compete with each other, or the use of easily deniable "valid email lists" that are mostly fraudulently or misleadingly gathered.

By the way, if this is really your corporate data policy, I approve. You seem to be doing it responsibly. Unfortunately, which of your corporate partners with access to the data is not keeping it longer? How do you know they're not turning around and resellng it?

Re:I'll make the FTC's job easy.

[Jack9]

All advertising companies with more than a few months using an ad-server or doing performance level campaigns, have these basic policies. Of course corruption and stupidity leads to exceptions and we have let a number of people go over the years for straightforward incompetence and deception. It's advertising, so there's always leaks.

P.S.
It's interesting to see people mod down (my)facts about the industry and mod up people who have no idea as to what actually happens to this type of data.

Re:I'll make the FTC's job easy.

[Jack9]

Honestly, not selling your data is a bad business move

There's PLENTY of reasons NOT to sell soft data. For starters, what you collect tells someone a lot about how you are using it. You almost never want that to get out. Most companies are not Google :p and anyone with the right financing can copy you. Using the data to form trends and selling the metadata quietly is where it's at. Offering to serve Cingular ads to people who have a Verizon number in a cookie or to show graphs as to how many creatives per campaign per year Ford buys into, to Chevy reps, is selling the data without selling the actuals. That's smart business.

Most mailing lists consist of hard data; always worth good money. The value of personal information is inversely proportional to the number of people who have access to it. The ol' Wizard of Oz. The trick is to sell it to all the vendors you know at once so nobody can sell it to each other and the contacts quickly start changing their numbers, addresses and emails. Assume all "we wont sell your data" claims to be false. Up front, I agree, it will be sold.

Also, it has recently been tested that you don't have to live up to your own privacy policy.

In the United States maybe. That is legally binding in many European companies.

Re:I'll make the FTC's job easy.

[hobo sapiens]

Ok, so you're gonna make me trundle out the tired old "You must be new here" gag.

I work for a large company that many people here hate, and no, not MSFT. It seems that whenever I make factual statements about certain company initiatives I get modded down (via the overrated mod, of course...pansy boy mods) while the kneejerk "large corp A === teh evils!1!" comments get modded up as insightful. Not that I really even defend my company, as I am no "company man", I just occasionally refute statements I know to be false.

Not too long ago, as sort of an experiment, I just rattled off some stupid groupthink twaddle and got modded to +5 insighful! Like you said, it's interesting to see that even geeks (or people who at least claim to be geeks) can toss objectivity out the window. Groupthink truly *is* a universal phenomenon. You, sir, went against the groupthink. For that transgression, and since nobody can give you a "bad" downmod like flamebait or troll, they hit you with sly ones. Except this not-so-bright moderator used the redundant mod, which means that he can and likely will be metamodded.

And watch as this gets modded overrated. Or maybe offtopic. Whatever.

Re:I'll make the FTC's job easy.

[Antique Geekmeister]

Your "facts" don't seem to be agreed with by most folks, or may even be unsupported (as they are in your statement here). You have a strong incentive to portray your own company positively, and they may in fact be positive about these practices.

But no, *all* advertising companies do not have these policies. Or don't you count spammers, Viagra salesmen, and "my unclale left me $10,000,000" advertisers? And frankly, they have you outnumbered by far too much for your claim that "all advertising companies" follow any responsible privacy practices. The spammers are an industry, with admittedly a relatively small number of skilled tradesmen selling the spamming services, but there are a whole set of unskilled ones selling their services as well.

I'd also be very surprised indeed if your company has not sold the spammers your data, whether deliberately or by accident or through fraud on the spammers' part, so that your own customers are hit by this kind of "targeted" advertising. It's just too prevalent: as soon as any company says "we share our data with partners", you can pretty much rely on it going to the spammers.

Re:I'll make the FTC's job easy.

[Jack9]

You have a strong incentive to portray your own company positively, and they may in fact be positive about these practices.

I do not own a company. I'm not sure what I've said to portray my employer in a positive light, but have tried to relay the facts about advertising companies. I've dealt with about 200 to date (not counting the actual customers like Pfizer, Random House, Nestle, etc.)

Your "facts" don't seem to be agreed with by most folks, or may even be unsupported (as they are in your statement here).

I'm not really concerned too much about "most folks". "Most folks" are ignorant. If you are going to be dealing or have dealt with advertising companies, my characterization should be rather helpful in what to expect or similar to what you have experienced. I'm sure it's very hard to believe given what you see in your email box but I have little interest in debating the reality. ValueClick, DoubleClick, Q-Interactive, RedMcCombs they all work the same today and I don't need to prove it, it's my experience. *shrug*

But no, *all* advertising companies do not have these policies.

The average spammer is related to an advertising company like a Tiajuana ratburger cart to McDonalds. They both sell food, but I dont consider the cart owner to be a restaurant. If an advertising company is doing 300k a year, yea you do have these policies. It's about the money. LOTS of companies dont and they fail like any business selling used condoms does. So there's truth in your statement to that extent. Not all (online) advertising companies have these policies. I guess we have a difference in opinion as to what an online advertising company is.

Scammers/Spammers are just plain unreliable, go figure!, but we sell data to whoever wants to pay for it with a 10k minimum and a passing credit check and a good track record in regards to invoicing so it's more than possible, it's business.

Re:I'll make the FTC's job easy.

[dhavleak]

Why did parent get modded redundant?? There's good info in his post. It really looks like anything going against the hive-mind gets slapped down on /. these days..

Re:I'll make the FTC's job easy.

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

You, are a liar.

Re:I'll make the FTC's job easy.

[Antique Geekmeister]

And being a legitimate advertiser is a lot like being a high-class escort. The business you're engaged in, as legitimate as it may be in the way you practice it, is a paid service tainted by the dangerous majority of its practicioners. You cannot reasonably talk about how "advertisers don't do this" any more than you can say "escorts are safe" without qualifying your statement, restricting it to what seem to the be the clear majority of the professionals we see out here cluttering up the sidewalks and molesting us as we try to get home.

Your business being legitimate simply isn't enough to say "advertisers are well-behaved" when the hideously large majority of the advertisement we see is sent by people who are not at all well-behaved. Even if there are relatively few such abusive advertisers, they are certainly part of your business pool.

Moreover, I'd bet dollars to donuts that you have been defrauded by your clients or had your data stolen at least once in the last year, purchasing your user data and turning right around to resell it under the table or even publicly to other fraudulent businesses. It's endemic to the industry, and painful to prosecute. $10,000 is quite a bit of money, true. But to a Russian spamming gang who just stole a mob of credit cards with their latest bank password phishing scheme, or a cracker geting paid for new mailing lists, it's merely an investment in their paid time.

Re:I'll make the FTC's job easy.

[garnetlion]

Honestly, not using slaves is a bad business move. All your competitors do it.
Fixed that for you.

With that attitude, the problem only escallates. The practice has to stop somewhere. Just because everybody does a given thing doesn't make it right. I mean, look at how long people owned slaves because it didn't seem economically feasible to do otherwise.

Re:I'll make the FTC's job easy.

[Jack9]

Moreover, I'd bet dollars to donuts that you have been defrauded by your clients or had your data stolen at least once in the last year,

2 years I've been here, it has never happened.

Nobody with hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend does large transactions with companies they havent checked out thoroughly. Running credit checks on companies is something you might expect. A number of us have our credit histories run as a requirement as well. It's not like you simply tell General Mills that you have this list to sell them and they send you a check lol. You're gonna be waiting 90 days and probably have the rate reduced based on the conversions the list provided. The companies with the money don't need to buy random data from people they don't know. That spammer sending you viagra emails isn't getting paid 20 per diem from Pfizer but is phishing for more practically useful data.

Re:I'll make the FTC's job easy.

[CodeBuster]

The FTC is probably initiating the study at the request of the advertising industry. The initiation of studies in response to the prospect of unfavorable legislative action by congress is a time honored and effective (unfortunately) delay tactic adopted by the Tobacco, Petroleum, and Junk Food industries in order to divert attention from any corrective actions which might disrupt the entrenched interests of those people who wish to create the appearance of a healthy debate (through studies, astroturfing, and 'experts' with contrary views working for or receiving funding from the delayers) when in fact there is none. This pattern is seen time and again with global warming, junk food in our school lunch programs, the health effects of smoking, and now advertising. The advertisers want to prevent the types of 'opt-in' laws which are prevalent in Europe (i.e. consumers own their information and you the advertiser must have their explicit opt-in permission to transmit that information to third parties or even record it in the first place) from becoming law here in the United States. The Advertising industry moves to quash 'opt-in' or privacy protections whenever congress attempts to legislate on the matter (i.e. the advertisers really don't want 'opt-in' or information sharing restrictions to become law).

Re:I'll make the FTC's job easy.

[Jaime2]

I said business move. If you factor your personal beliefs into your business decisions, you might be a good niche business, but you'll never be able to compete at the Fortune 500 level.

I do agree with your sentiment. But businesses not being slimey won't fix the problem. It will just make the truely slimey ones more powerful.

The real answer is to get some transparency legislation enacted or to increase fines/punishments for violating the trust and privacy of customers. Right now there is almost zero cost for being a corporate jerk. Increase the cost or make sure that the evil companies get bad press and the problem will go away.

BTW, if slavery were legal and cheap, successful businesses would do it. Actually, they do it now by outsourcing to China. Only when those options are gone will businesses behave properly.

Re:I'll make the FTC's job easy.

[Meski]

And being a legitimate advertiser is a lot like being a high-class escort. The business you're engaged in, as legitimate as it may be in the way you practice it, is a paid service tainted by the dangerous majority of its practicioners. You cannot reasonably talk about how "advertisers don't do this" any more than you can say "escorts are safe" without qualifying your statement, restricting it to what seem to the be the clear majority of the professionals we see out here cluttering up the sidewalks and molesting us as we try to get home.
Mmm. Condoms for data. Although, when you think about it, their normal use is to contain 'data'

Seeing the ads is the lesser problem...

[Actually, I do RTFA]

The greater problem is the gathering of personal data to serve the ads. For me personally, the scariest thing isn't them developing an accurate profile, but an inaccurate one and it spreading to potential employers, etc, if they ever attach my name to it.

Re:Seeing the ads is the lesser problem...

[thegnu]

For me personally, the scariest thing isn't them developing an accurate profile, but an inaccurate one and it spreading to potential employers, etc, if they ever attach my name to it.
You'll never work at Hooters again.

Ballmer must be happy

[guabah]

He's finally gonna get Google killed.

Re:Ballmer must be happy

[neuro.slug]

...along with his "free" OS supported by ads displayed based on crawling the user's entire computer. Of course, this is Steve Ballmer we're talking about. He's been known to squirt his relatives. Ew.

Sure

[proadventurer]

I am pretty sure in two days the FTC is not going to figure anything out.

Yes, whenever we have a privacy concern

[iminplaya]

We can always depend on the government to help out.

Re:Unlocking the lock.

[Cassius Corodes]

So they can actually accomplish something instead of a massive wide-ranging discussion that accomplishes nothing.

Targeted advertising is still rare?

[hcdejong]

I rarely come across an ad that looks 'targeted' to me. Amazon does it, but that's based on data they gather on their own site (books I've previously bought), not data they purchased. Otherwise, website ads are IP-based (the Slashdot page I'm looking at now shows an ad specific to my country), or use the search terms I just entered (Google).
Ads I get via e-mail are invariably spam, which is as untargeted as it gets. Snail mail isn't targeted either.

So where's all this 'targeted advertising' going on? Companies must be sitting on loads of data that never gets used, if I'm any indication.

Re:Targeted advertising is still rare?

[tek1024]

Product placement? Is that where they're headed?

I was going to sign up, but ...

[ubrgeek]

I'm not sure if the FTC promises to never sell or give out the information I submit ... :)