AT&T Sends Mixed Message On Behavioral Advertising

Ian Lamont writes "An advertising company that runs a 'targeting marketplace' and partner AT&T are playing down the telecommunications giant's use of its services after AT&T's chief privacy officer told a House subcommittee yesterday that the company does not engage in behavioral advertising. The AT&T executive testified (PDF) to the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet that AT&T would not use behavioral advertising methods without informed customer consent. However, AudienceScience, a company that records 'billions of behavioral events daily' has apparently worked for AT&T since 2005. After the hearing, AudienceScience removed a client testimonial relating to AT&T from its website, so 'all the appropriate parties [have] consistent messaging,' its CEO said. An AT&T spokesman also said that the testimony was talking about AT&T's role as an ISP, not an advertiser."

Comments

"Mixed Message" = "Lying"

[Doc Ruby]

What is "Mixed Message" supposed to mean? When testifying to Congress, witnesses are required by law to tell the truth. Saying you don't do something when you do is lying.

I understand that Congress does whatever AT&T wants (wiretapping is power), calls whatever AT&T does whatever AT&T wants. But since when did Slashdot become corporate mass media, afraid to call lying "lying"?

Re:"Mixed Message" = "Lying"

[Anonymous Coward]

What is "Mixed Message" supposed to mean? When testifying to Congress, witnesses are required by law to tell the truth. Saying you don't do something when you do is lying.

Actually if you're under oath isn't it actually called perjury?

Re:"Mixed Message" = "Lying"

[HangingChad]

But since when did Slashdot become corporate mass media, afraid to call lying "lying"?

Corporations owe no allegiance to the truth but sometimes the interesting question is why they're lying. And why are they so anxious to erase their tracks? Liability or regulation...they're not worried about competition. The US market in telecommunications isn't a free market, it's a cartel.

Figure out what they're afraid you'll know why they're lying. Like the oil companies. They're keeping up the PR assault to try and distract people from the fact they're throttling domestic oil production in the face of lower prices. No point extracting expensive oil at $47 a barrel when they can still make a margin buying from the Saudis. So waive the flag to distract from the uncomfortable reality that big oil is willing to let our national security suffer if they can make a margin on the status quo. And air those slick commercials with the PR gal telling us how they're doing so much for domestic exploration.

That's just being sleazy and two-faced. What AT&T is displaying is fear. They're afraid of something. This isn't a PR embarrassment, there's liability, serious liability. Hand in the cookie jar, massive regulation kind of liability. Maybe they were using non-identifiable data aggregates from the wiretaps as a marketing tool? It'll be something like that.

It's always sparks my curiosity to discover what's in a hole someone is anxious to fill in.

Re:"Mixed Message" = "Lying"

[rts008]

While you may have more at stake here, I agree with your overall concept, but not as vehemently as you.

What I will say is this:
ATT+marketing/advertising==up to their ears...at least that deep. Period. Really.

Any telecom, not just ATT that would deny something like this, I would automatically be suspicious of what they are saying. Sorry, but 'track records', and all that....

Re:"Mixed Message" = "Lying"

[Doc Ruby]

You're right about corporate lying. That's why US oil corps flood the info markets (like news) with lies about domestic oil production.

The amount of remaining US reserves that could be tapped is very small. Opening it up would put new oil on the market starting at earliest 10 years from now, and probably 20 before a significant fraction of its total contribution. Its contribution would last maybe another 10-20 years. The tiny new US amount in the global supply would not affect prices by more than a cent or two a barrel, even at scarcity prices around $150-200 per barrel.

The amount of extra oil we'd have if we just kept all our car tires properly inflated would exceed the total annual contribution of all potential new US oil even once it's at peak production in 20-30 years from now. Any number of other conservation measures would do more to free up more oil, and to reduce prices.

And of course that extra oil would do more intolerable damage to the environment. The exploration, drilling and delivery destroys ecosystems in the already stressed environments, especially marine fisheries we've already fished to exhaustion. The burning would further increase how far we've already gone past our atmosphere's capacity to absorb the pollution, which we should be substantially reducing instead of increasing even a little. The extra benefit would be insignificant in our huge global energy market, but even its relatively tiny addition to the pollution would be 100% too much, since we're already producing way too much.

Oil corps know all that. But they want new leases (dirt cheap from the government, instead of compensating the public for exploiting all that public territory). Not for drilling, as they haven't even explored for new oil on the large majority of all the leases they've already got, but idled. The new leases they want are for harvesting methane hydrate deposits from ocean floors. Even though that "frozen gas" would be even more damaging to our atmosphere (methane is 17x more potent a Greenhouse pollutant than is CO2). They know new oil leases would take decades to pay off and net just a small amount for a short time, but they're using the idea as propaganda to get even more dangerous methane hydrate into production, instead of working on alternates (like clean/scalabe geothermal power).

Because corporations lie to get what they want. They're not people (though legally they have the "rights" of "persons"), so there's no conscience or morality involved, only cost:benefit*risk. The oil corps are lying about "drill, baby, drill", just as they've lied about everything else they ever wanted to.