Posts Tagged privacy
Privacy Groups Lobby Congress to Limit Behavioral Targeting
A coalition of ten privacy groups have launched an effort to lobby Congress for new legislation which would limit how web sites and ad networks can collect personal data and browsing habits to target advertising to those users. It is argued that in many cases consumers don’t even realize they are being tracked, and these groups hope its efforts will give consumers more control over their own online lives.
The procedure — which has become increasingly more popular as of late — is drawing increasing criticism as its detractors see it as a breach of privacy. However, advertisers in efforts to improve their results see it as an effective way to ensure their ads are seen by the right eyes.
In a list of recommendations to legislators, the groups said that Congress should mandate an opt-in policy that all sites using the practice must offer users within 24 hours of collecting their first bits of information. Additionally, they want to limit the types of data that can be collected, barring information on race, sexual orientation, finances, or personal health.
If possible to discern the age of the Web user, information collection for those under 18 would be illegal according to the group’s recommendations. If a user wants to opt-out of all behavioral targeting, they should be able to under something akin to the do-not-call list.
Not everybody’s buying the need for such legislation, with at least one industry executive saying it could do a lot of damage.
“Financial services and pharma/health are two of the leading categories for online advertising; the youth demographic is highly attractive to many advertisers, and limiting behavioral targeting to one day without an opt in severely restricts the usefulness of the data,” Lightspeed Venture Partners managing director Jeremy Liew argued.
I do think that some type of regulation on behavioral targeting is needed. I do also think it’s only fair that we know when (and what) we’re being tracked. However, I can see the point that too far-reaching legislation could potentially be harmful, especially to the advertising industry.
Hey, many websites (including this one) are funded by advertising. So, it’s in our interest to keep those advertisers around.
I think BusinessWeek’s Rob Hof says it best:
The key will be coming up with a workable mechanism for consumers to make this trade more consciously—one that isn’t so intrusive that it impedes use of the Internet. If such a mechanism emerges from the coming battle over privacy legislation, that seems likely to be a good thing for all concerned.
ACLU Sues for Records on Border Laptop Searches
The American Civil Liberties Union said Wednesday that it had filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), demanding records from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) policy of searching laptops at border crossings without any suspicion of wrongdoing.
CBP instituted the policy last year, saying it had the right to look at the contents of traveler’s laptops without any need for a warrant. Obviously, the agency is framing this as an anti-terrorism measure, hoping to prevent terrorists and other criminals from entering the country.
However, the scope of what they can search is quite expansive. According to the ACLU, personal financial information, web site histories, and photgraphs are fair game, as well as “documents, books, pamphlets and other printed material, as well as computers, disks, hard drives and other electronic or digital storage devices.”
It is irrelevant whether or not the traveler is a US citizen or not: everyone is subject to search at the CBP’s discretion. The ACLU argues that this is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
“Under CBP’s policy, innumerable international travelers have had their most personal information searched by government officials and retained by the government indefinitely,” ACLU attorney Larry Schwartztol said. He said the group was using the lawsuit to see if the CBP may be violating the Constitution under this policy.
While I can understand the Border Patrol’s desire to use this policy as an anti-terrorism tool, its expansiveness as to what it can include makes me leery. There is too much of an opportunity here for abuse, and it seems to violate in some way our rights to privacy, especially for American citizens that may have been subjected to these searches.
The CBP did not respond to requests for comment on the ACLU’s action.
Obama Admin Fires Back Over E-Mail Snafu
The Obama Administration is trying to get back on the offensive after a slew of reports characterized its efforts to collect e-mail addresses as an attempt at compiling information on the political beliefs of individuals, and possibly invading American’s rights to privacy.
Fox News has been one of the leading media outlets in taking the Administration to task, reporting Monday night that it the White House was telling it that third-party groups were likely to blame for a rash of unsolicited e-mail that was sent out over the weekend.
Reviewing, the e-mail in question was from Senior Advisor David Axelrod, which was aimed at combating detractors of Obama’s heath care overhaul.
According to the network’s reporting, it has found individuals that were part of no group nor were they advocating for any issue. Several reported they had given their e-mail address through another government website before the unsolicited e-mails began.
In a post to the official White House blog, New Media Director Macon Phillips said that it was aware of the reports, but categorically denied the Obama Administration was doing anything nefarious.
“We’re certainly not interested in anyone receiving emails from the White House who don’t want them. That’s one reason why we have never — and will never — add names from a commercial or political list to the White House list,” Phillips wrote. He added changes were being made to prevent future incidents of unwanted e-mail.
One of these measures is the use of CAPTCHA, which would necessitate that each email address be entered invidually. The White House did not say if it had any concrete evidence that these “third party groups” had somehow found a way to batch add e-mail addresses they had compiled.
Certainly, the White House sending unsolicited e-mail is somewhat troubling. At the same time, should we really jump to conclusions right away that what is happening here is nefarious?
Do we distrust government that much? After all, this technology-enhanced participatory government thing is new for all of us. In my opinion, I think we all need to step back, take a breath, and not be so paranoid.
But I guess that’s just me…
FTC Serious About Privacy, Hires Researcher
In an effort to strengthen it’s efforts to combat the sometimes not-so-sanguine efforts of online marketers, Harvard Berkman Center for Internet & Society researcher Christopher Soghoian has accepted a job with the Federal Trade Commission, according to a post on his blog Monday.
While most of us would have no clue who this guy is, he is one of the most respected researchers in the country when it comes to online privacy. At the FTC he would serve as a consultant in the FTC’s Privacy and Identity Protection division.
Soghoian typically would take unscrupulous companies to task on his own blog, but he warned that style of writing would likely not fly in his new gig. “Hopefully, there will be other ways that I can help to achieve this positive change from within the DC beltway,” he mused.
It is good to see the government taking privacy seriously. We’ve seen a good deal of stories in the news regarding lax security resulting in significant data breaches. There’s even a story in the news about it right now regarding the “7-Eleven Hacker,” which has resulted in the disclosure of some 40 million credit card numbers.
As Soghoian puts it to Threat Level:
“It’s a good idea to have someone in a regulatory body who actually understands how the technology works and understands a little more than how to browse through a web page. Someone who knows how to use packet sniffers and can look through the source code and can actually analyze code and see what malware is doing. I think D.C. would be a better place if there were more geeks.”
Tools
Recent Comments