Share

Web Firms Tell Congress They Track Behavior Without Consent

by: Ellen Nakashima  |  The Washington Post

photo
Google admitted to tracking online behavior of its users. (Photo: AP)

    Several Internet and broadband companies have acknowledged using targeted-advertising technology without explicitly informing customers, according to letters released yesterday by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

    And Google, the leading online advertiser, stated that it has begun using Internet tracking technology that enables it to more precisely follow Web-surfing behavior across affiliated sites.

    The revelations came in response to a bipartisan inquiry of how more than 30 Internet companies might have gathered data to target customers. Some privacy advocates and lawmakers said the disclosures help build a case for an overarching online-privacy law.

    "Increasingly. there are no limits technologically as to what a company can do in terms of collecting information ... and then selling it as a commodity to other providers," said committee member Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who created the Privacy Caucus 12 years ago. "Our responsibility is to make sure that we create a law that, regardless of the technology, includes a set of legal guarantees that consumers have with respect to their information."

    Markey said he and his colleagues plan to introduce legislation next year, a sort of online-privacy Bill of Rights, that would require that consumers must opt in to the tracking of their online behavior and the collection and sharing of their personal data.

    But some committee leaders cautioned that such legislation could damage the economy by preventing small companies from reaching customers. Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) said self-regulation that focuses on transparency and choice might be the best approach.

    Google, in its letter to committee Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.), Markey, Stearns and Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Tex.), stressed that it did not engage in potentially the most invasive of technologies -- deep packet inspection, which companies such as NebuAd have tested with some broadband providers. But Google did note that it had begun to use across its network the "DoubleClick ad-serving cookie," a computer code that allows the tracking of Web surfing.

    Alan Davidson, Google's director of public policy and government affairs, stated in the letter that users could opt out of a single cookie for both DoubleClick and the Google content network. He also said that Google was not yet focusing on "behavioral" advertising, which depends on Web site tracking.

    But on its official blog last week, Google touted how its recent $3.1 billion merger with DoubleClick provides advertisers "insight into the number of people who have seen an ad campaign," as well as "how many users visited their sites after seeing an ad."

    "Google is slowly embracing a full-blown behavioral targeting over its vast network of services and sites," said Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy. He said that Google, through its vast data collection and sophisticated data analysis tools, "knows more about consumers than practically anyone."

    Microsoft and Yahoo have disclosed that they engage in some form of behavioral targeting. Yahoo has said it will allow users to turn off targeted advertising on its Web sites; Microsoft has yet to respond to the committee.

    More than a dozen of the 33 companies queried said they do not conduct targeted advertising based on consumers' Internet search or surfing activities. But, Chester said, a number of them engage in sophisticated interactive marketing. On Comcast's site promoting "interactive advertising," for instance, the company promotes its ability to receive users' monthly data: "over 3 billion page views, 15 million unique users ... and over 60 million video streams."

    Broadband providers Knology and Cable One, for instance, recently ran tests using deep-packet-inspection technology provided by NebuAd to see whether it could help them serve up more relevant ads, but their customers were not explicitly alerted to the test. Cable One is owned by The Washington Post Co.

    Both companies said that they have ended the trials. Cable One has no plans to adopt the technology, spokeswoman Melany Stroupe said. "However, if we do," she said, "we want people to be able to opt in."

    Ari Schwartz, vice president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, said lawmakers are beginning to understand the convergence of platforms. "People are starting to see: 'Oh, we have these different industries that are collecting the same types of information to profile individuals and the devices they use on the network," he said. "Internet. Cellphones. Cable. Any way you tap into the network, concerns are raised."

    Markey said yesterday that any legislation would require explicitly informing the consumer of the type of information that is being gathered and any intent to use it for a different purpose, and a right to say 'no' to the collection or use.

    The push for overarching legislation is bipartisan. "A broad approach to protecting people's online privacy seems both desirable and inevitable," Barton said. "Advertisers and data collectors who record where customers go and what they do want profit at the expense of privacy."

    As of yesterday evening, the committee had posted letters from 25 companies on its Web site.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

Google: US Constitution

Google: US Constitution third amendment rights to privacy

Leave it to a Republican to

Leave it to a Republican to promote "self-regulation" as a fix... and to be more concerned about corporate profits that individual rights. The way things are going, we'll have two-way monitors in our homes by 2010... just like 1984.

I think we'd do well to

I think we'd do well to remember we have one party, not two, or that we have two wings of one party. There is little difference between the Republicans and the Democrats as they both are corporate controlled entities. If we had a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress and a Democratic Supreme Court, little or nothing would change. Google and others would still be given the right to trample on our privacy right simply because the right to pursue profit amid extreme capitalism tends to trump Constitutional rights in a fascist state the democrats have helped to produce. Fascism denotes the merger of the American government with both American and international corporations and banking institutions. The latter, through bribery and blackmail and other nefarious means, dictates the decisions of the former. There is no other way to explain such menacing legislation as the FISA bill, the Military Commissions Act, the Patriot Act, the latest Bankruptcy bill, foolish legislation to bloackade shipments of supplies, materials, and goods headed for Iran, and the nearly complete corporate control over our lives.

do no harm

do no harm

i stopped using google and

i stopped using google and yahoo services years ago due to their privacy policies. i got a free e-mail address with riseup networks, https://mail.riseup.net, and started using scroogle for searching, https://ssl.scroogle.org. i of course use firefox, and have it delete my cookies on every shutdown as well. noscript, adblock plus, and adblock plus filterset g updater extensions for firefox are essential. this pretty much squashs all advertising and privacy-invading attempts.

There actually is a way to

There actually is a way to explain the menacing legislation mentioned by Anonymous # 8/12/2008 @ 16:54 ~ But the explanation is sort of long and boring. See, most people aren't really all that interested in protecting their rights. Remember that old Dead Kennedy's album, "Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death"? That pretty much sums up the attitude of the average person. They don't care. Period. There wasn't much protest when the Patriot Act was passed. Only one politician had the guts to stand up to say that it was wrong, and that guy was, believe it or not, a republican. Butch Otter of Idaho stood on the House floor and told them that creating more fear was not an appropriate response to 9/11. Some 13 democrats voted against it, along with him (the only republican). But it passed, and very few people complained about it. I complained. I did an internship in Otter's office, gathering information and publishing a paper that he read on the House floor in an effort to prevent Patriot Act II from passing. He won that fight, whooppee. But there was still the FISA bill and the Military Commissions Act and countless others. Some get passed, others are averted. This doesn't happen because both parties are somehow the same party. That is one of the laziest attempts I have ever heard at trying to explain reality. The reason we have such corporate control in our lives is because they are always at it. They keep trying and every time they fail they get up and try again. Meanwhile, people who aren't corporations get tired of defending their rights every single day. Some of us have dreams we want to live out, you know? And so as soon as we're not looking they write some new law that allows more corporate exploitation and they may or may not get it passed. They don't care either way. They have plenty of time. The only way to end corporate dominance of our nation is to elect politicians who favor the state over the corporations, because the state and the corpse are natural enemies. Me, I bet on the democrats. I'd vote socialist, but like Nader, they'll never win in a million years or at least not soon enough to prevent McCain from trying to conquer the world. Someone once wrote that the difference between republicans and democrats is that when the dems take money from business it makes them feel slimy. They would honestly rather win without taking money from corpse, but they can't because they have to reach as many people as they can. It costs money. They didn't create the system, and they can't fix it until they have 61 in the Senate because the repugs will obstruct all ideas that could actually fix the problem. The corpse know the dems aren't truly on their side, thats why they give much more $ to the republicans.