program areas Digital Citizen
Program Areas
-
In the Matter of Petition of Public Knowledge, Center for Digital Democracy, Consumer Watchdog, Consumer Federation of America, and TURN —The Utility Reform Network Introduction: 47 U.S.C. §551 and 47 U.S.C. § 338(i) (collectively referred to as “privacy rules”) require that cable and satellite providers (herein referred to as “cable operators”) obtain the “written or electronic consent of the subscriber concerned” prior to the collection and use of that information for advertising purposes. Cable operators are also required to provide a written statement to their subscribers, which clearly and conspicuously informs the subscriber of the nature of the use of their personally identifiable information. Through these rules, Congress and the Federal Communications Commission have emphasized the importance of giving consumer’s control over how their information is being used. Despite this, cable operators have continued to use large amounts of their customers’ data without properly obtaining customer consent or informing subscribers of the extent of the use of their information. The Commission should enforce the relevant privacy provisions to ensure that cable operators only use subscriber information when they have the consent required by law. Cable Operators Collect and Share Large Amounts of Customer Data to Generate Targeted Advertising. The use of consumer data to target consumers for advertising is on the rise. Exactly how and to what extent cable operators are leveraging their customer’s data has been extensively documented in a recent report by the Center for Digital Democracy. Cable operators increasingly gather their customers’ personal information, share and combine that information with third parties, and use it to target customers for advertising on an individual level. Verizon, Comcast, Google, AT&T, Time Warner, Cablevision and others have incorporated powerful layers of data collection and digital marketing technologies to better target individuals. AT&T’s TV Blueprint, for example, “gives advertisers working with AT&T the ability to reach people based on factors like device, operating system, whether or not they’re heavy data users or the status of their carrier contract,” using “sophisticated second-by-second set- top box data” and other information. AT&T pulls data “from millions of set-top boxes” and analyzes consumer viewing history and uses these data to target consumers based on their viewing profile. Companies like Cablevision leverage granular data and precise details of household viewing behavior, and combine it with third-party data covering other intimate details of consumers’ lives to analyze and target specific individuals with video advertising across a range of screens. In their own words, “this set-top box level targeting lets marketers target customers that fit particular trends, profiles, demographics and attributes, and they can also pair the Cablevision data with their own or third-party data.” Cablevision and AT&T are not alone in their pervasive use of consumer data. Comcast recently acquired Visible World, which boasts of using data “from millions of enabled Smart TVs” as part of its advertising targeting service. Data points used to target consumers include income, ethnicity, education level, what kind of car they drive, purchase history, and location of their residence. Further, Comcast has acquired companies like This Technology, which is capable of inserting personalized content into network streams—including advertising messages tailored for specific individuals. These programs illustrate how cable providers give advertisers the ability to easily access and use a customer’s information, without that customer knowing the extent to which that information is being used. While these practices are broadly indicative of the ways many cable operators improperly use subscriber data, AT&T, Cablevision, and Comcast are among the most egregious. The Commission should investigate these practices and find that they violate the privacy rules. --- Full filed complaint attached below.
-
CDD Calls on FCC to Protect Consumer Privacy on Broadband Networks
Comments show ISP "Big Data" techniques used to target consumers and discusses limited capabilities of FTC
The Center for Digital Democracy (CDD), a nonprofit organization representing the interests of consumers in the digital marketplace, strongly supports the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) proposal to empower individuals to make effective decisions regarding their privacy on broadband networks. Broadband Internet access service (BIAS) plays a powerful and distinctive role in the commercial digital media marketplace, requiring precisely the set of sensible safeguards offered by the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). CDD believes it is entirely necessary and consistent with the Communications Act that the commission extend longstanding consumer-protection policies for the telephone network into the modern broadband context. The role of the network in the broadband marketplace has a distinct purpose compared to so-called “edge” content providers: to facilitate a fairly managed and efficient connection between the subscriber/consumer and the content and/or services of their choice. Given their network-management role, BIAS providers have unique capabilities in terms of monitoring the communications and activities of their subscribers, enabling the capture and use of an extensive array of personal and other consumer information. Positioned by necessity at the center of subscribers’ wireline or wireless broadband use, and holding a “digital key” that can help analyze much of their users’ digitally connected behaviors, BIAS providers have unlimited opportunities to influence the decisions consumers make via data-collection-related applications and services. Consumers today confront a far-reaching and largely invisible data-gathering apparatus that tracks and analyzes their every move online. For example, as the FTC has acknowledged, the growth of cross-device tracking, enabling the identification of a particular consumer’s use of personal computers, mobile phones, tablets, and increasingly even television, and combining multiple sources of data for the development of a targeting profile, illustrates how recent advances in digital data collection pose growing threats to consumer privacy. Indeed, the journal of the Association of National Advertisers explained just last month, “cross-device marketing … allows unprecedented access to individual consumers via personal or shared household devices. … Data-driven cross-device marketers gain exclusive access to a slew of advantageous marketing enhancements, including consistent messaging across all devices … .” Leading BIAS providers promise such cross-device targeting capabilities. Lacking the ability to enact regulations to protect privacy (except for children 12 and under), the FTC has been powerless to ensure consumer protection from cross-device tracking practices, let alone from the growing myriad of practices that gather consumer data from social media, mobile app, online video usage, programmatic targeting, and many other practices. Without the authority to issue regulations on privacy-related matters connected to consumer financial services, for example, the FTC has been forced to rely on its Section 5 authority related to unfair and deceptive practices. In practical terms, this has enabled the digital-data industry to recognize that there are no real constraints to their rapidly expanding collection, analysis, and use of consumer data. The FTC has long recognized that its inability to issue regulations has placed the agency at a serious disadvantage, and has called for the enactment of new regulatory authority. For example, as former FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz testified before Congress in 2009, in order for the agency “to perform a greater and more effective role protecting consumers … changes in the law and additional authority to promulgate needed rules …” are required. As CDD explained in its March 2016 report on the growth of digital data gathering by leading ISPs (and filed separately in this proceeding), companies such as ATT, Comcast, Verizon, Cablevision, and Charter have made significant investments in their ability to capture, process, and take advantage of a consumer’s information across all the devices they use daily. They are using cloud- and IP-based management systems to deliver data-connected advertising and marketing; have invested in or allied with real-time programmatic marketing technologies that, in milliseconds, make personalized ad-related decisions on which consumers to target and for what product; and have acquired numerous companies that strengthen their hold and use of consumer information, including data gathered by their consumers’ use of apps, online video, and mobile phones... Key characteristics of the BIAS data collection apparatus include: [see attached comments for full submission] -
Blog
Katharina Kopp Joins CDD as Deputy Director and Director of Policy
Leading Privacy Advocate Will Direct CDD’s Work on Big Data and the Public Interest
Katharina Kopp, Ph.D., will join the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD) on 6 June 2016 as its deputy director and director of policy. Dr. Kopp comes to CDD with decades of experience as an advocate, scholar, policy analyst, privacy expert, and corporate leader. She will develop and oversee a range of new initiatives at CDD, expanding the scope of its work on the role and impact of “Big Data” in contemporary society. Dr. Kopp will focus particularly on developing new policies to advance individual autonomy and consumer protections, as well as social justice, equity, and human rights. She will also play a leadership role in the organization’s ongoing constituency-building and grassroots efforts. Dr. Kopp worked with the Center for Media Education during the 1990’s and served as a key policy advocate during the passage and implementation of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). In addition to her work with the Aspen Institute, the Benton Foundation, and the Health Privacy Project, Dr. Kopp served as vice president at American Express, leading its global privacy risk management program. Most recently she was the director of the Privacy and Data Project at the Center for Democracy and Technology. “We are privileged to have Katharina Kopp join CDD,” said Jeff Chester, its executive director. “Her unique leadership qualities and rich background will shape the organization’s agenda in this important new phase of our work. This includes forging partnerships with global NGOs, research institutions, and community-based organizations.” Dr. Kopp, deputy director, added: “I look forward to exploring the effects of technology and discriminatory data practices on democracy and social justice, particularly the effects on individual autonomy and increasing inequality. How to respond to these trends with appropriate public policy will be core to my work. Furthermore, I want to see CDD engaged in shaping the public’s understanding of these processes and to frame the solutions not in individualistic but collective and systemic terms. I believe that this will be key to the success of any policy proposals.” The Center for Digital Democracy is a leading nonprofit organization focused on empowering and protecting the rights of the public in the digital era. Since its founding in 2001 (and prior to that through its predecessor organization, the Center for Media Education), CDD has been at the forefront of research, public education, and advocacy protecting consumers in the digital age. -
Set-top Box market should be open, but consumers and privacy protected, CDD tells FCC
Calls for Safeguards for sensitive data, including protecting youth, seniors, and use of ethnic/racial information in FCC"s Navigational Device Proceeding
The Center for Digital Democracy (CDD), which works to empower and protect consumers in the digital marketplace, endorses the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) important proposal to provide both choice and competition in the provision of navigational devices for video and related content. CDD strongly believes that the FCC should proceed with its plan to allow third parties to build and sell navigational devices. We support giving these developers/providers access to the information proposed in the NPRM, including Service Discovery, Entitlement, and Content Delivery data. For decades, a handful of powerful cable—and now also telephone—companies have held a monopoly over the design, availability, and use of set-top boxes. This has resulted in greater costs to subscribers, including an especially unfair burden on low- or limited-income consumers. The set-top stranglehold has impaired competition and programming diversity, and has undermined consumer privacy. --- Full PDF of filing attached. -
Blog
Today’s FCC Action Will Force Open the “Black Box” of ISP Data Gathering Practices that Threaten Consumer Privacy
Vote Shows lack of understanding on limited role of FTC
Phone and cable ISPs pose a major threat to the privacy of their subscribers and consumers. They have a growing arsenal of “Big Data” capabilities that eavesdrop on their customers—including families. Internet Service Providers are gathering data on what we do and where we go, using sophisticated algorithms and predictive analytics to sell our information to marketers. As CDD documented in a report released last week, ISPs have been on a data buying and partnering shopping spree so they can build in-depth digital profiles of their customers (such as Verizon (link is external)/AOL/Millennial Media and Comcast/ (link is external)Visible World). Consumers should have the right to make decisions on how their information can be collected, shared or sold. With a set of FCC safeguards, Americans will have some of their privacy restored. We look forward placing on the record all the ways those ISPs now—and will—threaten the privacy of Americans. Several commissioners appear uninformed about the ability of the FTC to protect consumer privacy. The FTC does not have the regulatory authority to ensure privacy of Americans is protected (except in rare cases, such as the Children’s privacy law we helped develop). The FTC’s framework has failed to do anything to check the massive collection of our data that everyone online confronts. It’s the role of the FCC to ensure that broadband networks operate in the public interest, including protecting consumers. Today’s vote reaffirms that the FCC takes its mission to do so seriously. -
Blog
Commerce Department Continues to Show Disregard for Consumer Privacy by “convening” industry dominated group on facial recognition without participation of consumer and privacy civil society groups
Lobbyists craft purposefully vague proposals without any real safeguards for biometric data
Americans face new privacy threats from the use of their facial and other biometric information, as personal details of our physical selves are captured, analyzed and used for commercial purposes. Facial recognition (link is external)technologies are part of the ever-growing (link is external)data collection and profiling (link is external) being conduced daily on Americans today—whether we are online and offline. Companies want to be able to use the power (link is external) of facial recognition to make (link is external) decisions about us—including how we are to be treated in stores and on websites. Consumer groups have called on industry to support pro-consumer and pro-rights policies that would ensure an individual can decide whether facial and other personal physical information can be collected in the first place. Last June, however, the industry dominated process led by the Department of Commerce refused to support respecting a persons’ right to control how their biometric data can be gathered and used. As a result, consumer and privacy groups withdrew (link is external) from the Commerce Department “stakeholder” convening on facial recognition. These meetings—primarily dominated by industry lobbyists—are part of a White House initiated effort to design “codes of conduct” to ensure American’s have greater privacy rights. But instead of trying to address the concerns of the consumer and privacy community about meaningful safeguards for facial recognition when used for commercial purposes, the Commerce Department merely continued the process without their participation. For the Commerce Department, its priority is to help grow the consumer data profiling industry—regardless of whether Americans face a serious threat to their privacy and the consequences of potential discriminatory and unfair practices. Today, the Commerce Department is considering industry proposals (link is external) on facial recognition that fail to ensure the American public is protected by the growing use of facial data collection for commercial use. The drafts allow unlimited use of our most personal data without effective safeguards. Instead of ensuring basic rights—such as giving people the right to make informed decisions prior to the collection of their facial data—the industry proposes a scheme that would allow it to harvest our faces, skin color, age, race/ethnicity and more without any limit. By allowing such a clearly inadequate and self-serving industry proposal to be considered at all, the Department of Commerce (and its NTIA division) demonstrates it cannot be trusted to protect consumers. It is putting the commercial interests of the data industry ahead of its responsibilities to the American public. The process and the proposals are not reflective of America today. We cannot believe that President Obama (link is external) endorses how his Commerce Department has transformed the idea of a “Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights” into one that really gives carte blanche to the unfettered use of our faces and other highly personal biometric information. -
Julie Brill faces a formidable task as she tries to balance what she knows are industry-wide practices that undermine privacy with the intense commercial pressures to financially harvest our data. Whether Julie can successfully act as a one woman privacy truth squad is to early to tell. She recognizes all the ways that companies take advantage of consumers today, including tracking them on every device and wherever they are. Consumer groups will expect Julie to push her powerful clients to change how the way they do business today, where—despite lip service to the contrary-- privacy is viewed as an impediment to success in the marketplace. Whether Julie Brill can survive as a privacy Wallanda is to early to tell. She will face an industry that is largely in denial of what they do with our data. Julie does have the skills to walk the privacy tightrope. She has often reconciled her decades long role as a consumer advocate with work to get industry to act more responsibly—especially regarding how they collect and use consumer information. Julie Brill has been an extraordinary FTC commissioner who has played an important role supporting the strongest possible consumer protection actions by the agency. She has a unique, deep and personal relationship with many in the consumer community. She is already missed. The hiring of Julie Brill is not only the recognition by Hogan Lovells that she is extraordinarily well-connected, knowledgable and skilled. Hogan recognizes that powerful changes are now underway, led by the EU, that will potentially transform how consumer information is treated. The new (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—its privacy law—is going to give new rights to the public that will force companies to treat our data differently. The uncertainty of the future of digital trade between the U.S. and EU also plays a role in Julie’s hiring I believe. With Safe Harbor struck down by the EU Court of Justice and privacy advocates threatening to see the same legal outcome for its replacement—the Privacy Shield—Hogan’s clients (and the industry) need someone like Julie who is respected by many powerful EU officials. With the US/EU trade deal that focuses on digital trade and data flows now being negotiated (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP), the stakes are enormous in whether the U.S. data companies can win favorable rules.
-
This brief is submitted on behalf of several Consumer Privacy Organizations who seek to protect consumers from data breach, financial fraud, and identity theft. The Consumer Privacy Organizations associated with the EPIC amicus brief believe that a court order to compel Apple to develop a technique to break security features designed to keep out third parties will result in an increase in crime against consumers. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (“EPIC”) is a public interest research center in Washington, D.C., established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging privacy and civil liberties issues. EPIC was specifically established to advocate for the use of strong encryption technology and for the development of related Privacy Enhancing Technologies. EPIC led the effort in the United States in the 1990s to support strong encryption tools and played a key role in the development of the international framework for cryptography policy that favored the deployment of strong security measures to safeguard personal information. EPIC also published the first comparative studies of international encryption policy. (See EPIC Cryptography and Libert 1998: An International Survey of Encryption Policy.) The Center for Digital Democracy (CDD) is one of the leading consumer protection and privacy organizations in the United States. Since its founding in 2001, CDD has been at the forefront of research, public education, and advocacy protecting consumers in the digital age. Constitutional Alliance is privately funded nonpartisan non-profit organiation whose stated mission is to "preserve state and national sovereignty, and the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as pronounced in the Declaration of Independence and protected under the Bill of Rights of the United States of America." Consumer Action empowers underrepresented consumers nationwide to assert their rights in the marketplace and financially prosper through multilingual financial education materials, community outreach, and issue-focused advocacy. Consumer Watchdog is a nonprofit organization dedicated to educating and advocating on behalf of consumers for over 25 years.11 Its mission is to provide an effective voice for the public interest. Consumer Watchdog’s programs include health care reform, oversight of insurance rates, energy policy, protecting privacy rights, protecting legal rights, corporate reform, and political accountability. The Cyber Privacy Project researches and educates the public about privacy issues raised in today’s networked world. Patient Privacy Rights (“PPR”) works to empower individuals and prevent widespread discrimination based on health information using a grassroots, community organizing approach. PPR educates consumers, champions smart policies, and exposes and holds industry and the government accountable. The Privacy Rights Clearinghouse (“PRC”) is a nonprofit consumer education and advocacy organization based in San Diego, California. Established in 1992, the PRC focuses on consumers’ rights and interests relating to informational privacy, answers individual consumer inquiries, and maintains a robust website of practical privacy protection tips. Privacy Times provides accurate reporting, objective analysis and thoughtful insight into the events that shape the ongoing debate over privacy and Freedom of Information. --- See full brief attached.
-
Blog
Ten Questions that the Federal Trade Commission Should Answer on Cross-Device Online Tracking of Individuals.
1. Why has the FTC waited so long to review this serious threat to our privacy? The Federal Trade Commission’s November 16, 2015, workshop (link is external) on cross-device tracking is a examination of a very disturbing practice that emerged several years ago. The online industry’s business model of identifying specific individuals and following them on whatever device they may use (PCs, mobile, etc.), so their behaviors can be analyzed for more effective micro-targeting, is well-known. For example, companies such as Drawbridge, which “track how [an] individual user traverses the web on his or her smartphone, tablet, laptop and PC,” and analyze “billions” of pieces of data on us, has been around since 2010.[1] Cross-device targeter Tapad has been operating since 2011.[2] During the last few years there has been a veritable explosion of cross-device tracking of individuals—illustrating how our privacy has been lost regardless of what device we may use.[3] The FTC should be monitoring much more closely industry developments to expand their data-driven profiling and targeting techniques. The serious erosion of our privacy is reported daily by leading trade publications and is not a secret.[4] The commission—and other agencies responsible for consumer privacy, such as the FCC and CFPB—need to become much more proactive if they are to actually protect the public. 2. Why isn’t the FTC bringing complaints against both Google and Facebook under their respective “consent decrees” for their own cross-device surveillance of consumers? Both Facebook and Google—as the two dominant online marketing companies—have significantly expanded their own collection, analysis, and use of data from individuals for cross-device tracking. Both companies are under 20-year legal agreements with the FTC that is supposed to ensure that their practices protect our privacy.[5] But the commission has been silent regarding a major violation of our privacy, given the range of Facebook and Google cross-device practices. For example, Facebook’s acquisition of Atlas and its incorporation of new ways to engage in cross-device tracking have not been challenged by the agency.[6] Nor has the FTC pursued Google’s cross-device tracking as a consent decree matter.[7] The commission’s consent decrees are only as good as their enforcement. The FTC’s inaction regarding Facebook’s and Google’s expansion of cross-device data harvesting undermines its claims that its decrees actually protect our privacy. 3. How has the FTC’s and Department of Justice’s (DoJ) failure to stop “Big Data” mergers furthered the expansion of cross-device gathering of our information? As one of two U.S. antitrust and competition regulators, the FTC plays a key role reviewing mergers and acquisitions. Yet the agency has approved Big Data-related mergers that have further weakened consumer privacy and expanded the ability of marketers to track our behaviors across devices. While the FTC’s consumer protection and competition bureaus are separate, the commission has a responsibility to protect the public. Even with mergers reviewed by the DoJ, the FTC should speak out against deals that erode privacy and place consumers at further disadvantage through the use of Big Data. For example, Oracle was allowed to acquire both BlueKai and Datalogix—significantly expanding its sources of data used to profile Americans and to engage in cross-platform targeting. Alliance Data Systems was permitted to acquire Conversant, which bolstered its cross-device applications. The FTC should acknowledge that it is helping weaken the privacy of the American public by allowing data-driven mergers to be approved without effective consumer safeguards.[8] 4. Isn’t cross-device tracking and targeting just a part of an ever-growing commercial Big Data surveillance complex that continually gathers and uses all our information? Anyone who follows the online industry recognizes that our privacy is being continually undermined. Every major company has become its own “data broker,” harvesting all the data they directly gather on a person (when you come to their site, for example). They now merge that data with the abundance of so-called third-party information available for sale or use today. A key goal is to engage in what they call “identity management, ”which means using information on us to help influence our actions, purchases, and behaviors. Cross-device tracking is made possible through the unlimited ability companies now have to use our online and offline information without any serious consideration of our privacy.[9] 5. What is the role that Big Data companies and technologies—such as Data Management Platforms (DMPs)—play in cross-device tracking of individuals? The most powerful U.S. companies are using sophisticated data engines and analytics to gather data on individuals. The growing use of technologies such as DMPs, along with the real-time data targeting now embraced by the industry (known as “programmatic”) is at the core of cross-device practices.[10] While the FTC is aware of these practices, it has not taken any actions to protect consumers.[11] 6. Isn’t the gathering of information from our use of mobile phones, including for cross-device targeting, a major privacy violation? The answer is yes. The mobile phone is the digital spy in our pockets that we take and use nearly everywhere. Gaining access and insights from our mobile phones serves as a veritable digital gold mine for brands and advertisers. Marketers continually research how we use mobile devices, in order to help their clients identify our actual or intended location, as well other data about us (such as income, race, ethnicity, and gender). Companies such as Facebook, Google, and many others have developed ingenious ways to encourage consumers to use “apps” that, once they are downloaded, report on our actions. Google, for example, explains they can help marketers understand how to take advantage of what they call a person’s “micro-moments”--when through the use of our mobile phone we reveal we are searching for a product, store, activity or location.[12] Cross-device tracking and targeting is fueled by the unchecked data gathering from our mobile devices.[13] 7. Will the FTC address how cross-device tracking is helping marketers and brands reach us when we are in retail, grocery stores, and other “real-world” locations? As we use our phone or tablet to search for information, download coupons, or scan for price information, these signals allow marketers to learn about our location and quickly connect data they have about us. So-called “hyper-location” tracking enables companies to identify what neighborhoods we live and work in, for example. As stores deploy so-called “beacons,” Wi-Fi-networks, “geo-fences,” and other ways to connect to people in and around stores, the data they gather from our use of multiple devices becomes more complex and valuable to them.[14] Online and offline distinctions are quickly fading, as cross-device tracking merges with sophisticated data targeting services. 8. Can the FTC protect consumers from cross-device tracking when we watch video online? There is an explosion of video consumption, as more people use their mobile devices to watch online video content. Internet-delivered video to TV’s (so-called “over-the-top”) is another key way we see such programming. Incorporating our video viewing as part of the cross-device tracking apparatus is the latest way our media behaviors are being closely observed, whether we watch on small or large-screen devices.[15] 9. Will the FTC investigate how consumers are tracked and analyzed by cross-device “measurement” services? Measurement is built in to today’s tracking and targeting online system. Marketers wish to know whether we see an ad or promotional message and how we responded. Since we use multiple devices, measurement techniques now reflect an analysis of what we do on all our devices. With advances in measurement having a direct impact on our privacy, as well as with the transactions we make, the commission should investigate the impact of cross-platform “attribution” techniques now broadly deployed.[16] 10. Will the FTC call on the online industry to “cease and desist” from cross-device tracking until privacy safeguards can be proposed and implemented? The online ad lobby has—for decades—worked to keep the FTC relatively powerless to protect privacy. It has opposed calls to provide the agency with “rulemaking” authority so it could develop safeguards that would protect the public.[17] The lack of FTC authority to effectively address privacy threats is a key reason why U.S. data-driven marketers are able to expand their commercial surveillance activities. Despite its lack of power to require companies to engage in a moratorium on cross-device tracking, the FTC should use its moral authority. The commission should declare that the use of cookie syncing, probabilistic or deterministic attribution, unique identifiers, and other methods of stealthily following us from device to device should not be permitted. Leading data companies such as Google and Facebook, digital marketing trade groups such as the Interactive Advertising Bureau and Mobile Marketing Association, data brokers such as Axciom, Oracle, and Merkle, and cross-platform companies such as Tapad and Drawbridge should all be asked to support the commission’s call to stop the tracking of individuals across devices. During the period established for the data-gathering moratorium, the FTC should propose safeguards. The commission’s policies should empower individuals to decide whether and how they can be tracked and analyzed on any device. It’s time for action by the FTC. It knows that Americans confront the loss of their privacy—and it should speak out against the eavesdropping practices that enable online companies to gather data on us—whether we use a PC, mobile phone, or even TV. [1] http://adage.com/article/digital/drawbridge-raises-14-million-vc-investm... (link is external) [2] http://adexchanger.com/press-release/tapad-announces/;http://techcrunch.... (link is external) [3] http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/10/a-senator-raises-privacy-questions-about-cross-device-tracking/?_r=0 (link is external); http://blogs.teradata.com/teradata-applications/connecting-the-dots-at-t... (link is external) http://adexchanger.com/ad-exchange-news/data-management-platforms-are-ev... (link is external) [4] https://econsultancy.com/blog/62754-cross-device-measurement-in-google-analytics-will-turn-mobile-marketing-on-its-head/ (link is external); https://www.admonsters.com/blog/fight-fragmentation-grasping-cross-device-audience-behavior (link is external); “Mobile creativity: Track mobile performance. AdMap. September 2015. Warc.com. Personal copy. [5] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2011/11/facebook-settles-ftc-charges-it-deceived-consumers-failing-keep (link is external); https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/102-3136/google-inc-ma... (link is external) [6] http://atlassolutions.com/why-atlas/cross-everything/ (link is external); http://atlassolutions.com/2015/09/02/in-app-conversion-measurement/ (link is external); http://atlassolutions.com/2015/09/17/cross-everything-dilemma/ (link is external); http://atlassolutions.com/2015/05/11/the-4cs/ (link is external); https://www.facebook.com/business/news/cross-device-measurement (link is external); http://digiday.com/platforms/omnicom-adds-atlas-tags-doubleclick-served-... (link is external) [7] http://doubleclickadvertisers.blogspot.com/2015/06/cross-device-conversion-metrics-come-to.html (link is external); http://adexchanger.com/online-advertising/google-adds-cross-device-metrics-to-doubleclick-partially-answers-facebooks-people-power/ (link is external); https://support.google.com/ds/answer/6139741?hl=en (link is external); https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFodrj2Drxg (link is external); http://adwords.blogspot.com/2013/10/estimated-total-conversions.html (link is external); http://adage.com/article/digital/google-tests-desktop-mobile-retargeting... (link is external) [8] https://www.oracle.com/marketingcloud/products/data-management-platform/id-graph.html (link is external); https://www.oracle.com/marketingcloud/products/cross-channel/mobile-marketing.html (link is external); http://adexchanger.com/data-exchanges/oracle-links-cross-platform-ids-touts-data-neutrality/ (link is external); http://www.bluekai.com/mobiledmp/ (link is external); http://www.tapad.com/press-release/tapads-cross-device-data-now-integrated-into-oracle-data-cloud/ (link is external); http://techcrunch.com/2015/05/04/drawbridge-cross-device/ (link is external); http://www.conversantmedia.com/digital-marketing-product-overview (link is external); https://www.quantcast.com/audience-grid/ (link is external) [9] http://adexchanger.com/mobile/google-allows-targeted-ads-based-on-first-party-data/ (link is external); http://liquid.pch.com/press/case-for-first-party-data-in-a-third-party-world/ (link is external); http://www.krux.com/blog/data-management/cross-device-identity-management-the-path-to-one-to-one-marketing/ (link is external); http://www.merkleinc.com/what-we-do/marketing-technology/merkle-data-management-cloud/connected-recognition#.Vkjj7craNyo (link is external); http://www.drawbrid.ge/technology (link is external); [10] https://www.neustar.biz/marketing-solutions (link is external); https://www.neustar.biz/blog/cross-device-dmp-as-the-unifying-layer-in-the-adtech-stack (link is external); http://www.lotame.com/resource/the-cross-device-question/ (link is external); http://blogs.adobe.com/digitalmarketing/digital-marketing/adobe-audiencemanager-takes-cross-device-targeting-new-level/ (link is external); http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/237039/cross-device-marketing-no-longer-hypothetical-use.html (link is external); https://radiumone.com/products/advertiser/programmatic/ (link is external); http://www.digilant.com/digilant-announces-partnership-with-crosswise-to... (link is external) [11] http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/242295/ftc-consumer-protec... (link is external) [12] http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/press-room/2015/exelate-expands-its-mobile-user-dataset-by-billions-of-monthly-interactions-with-pushspring.html (link is external); https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/topics/mobile.html (link is external); https://developers.facebook.com/docs/app-ads/measuring/installs-and-in-app-conversions (link is external); http://doubleclickadvertisers.blogspot.com/2015/11/active-view-updates-improved-cross.html (link is external); https://www.fiksu.com/about/news-releases/precision-audience-targeting-w... (link is external) ; https://www.kochava.com/aol-partners-kochava-expand-programmatic-targeting-attribution-mobile-apps/ (link is external); http://adexchanger.com/mobile/kochava-attempts-to-crack-the-cross-device-attribution-code/ (link is external); https://www.fiksu.com/technology/audience-targeting (link is external); http://www.pushspring.com/news.html?post=124 (link is external) [13] http://streetfightmag.com/2015/06/02/why-cross-device-matching-will-transform-the-mobile-advertising-industry/ (link is external); http://www.marinsoftware.com/resources/whitepapers/the-cross-device-targeting-playbook-for-display-advertisers (link is external); http://www.marinsoftware.com/resources/whitepapers/the-cross-device-targ... (link is external) [14] http://www.criteo.com/resources/cross-device-advertising-how-to-navigate-the-next-big-opportunity-in-mobile-marketing/ (link is external); http://developer.android.com/training/location/geofencing.html (link is external); http://www.aislelabs.com/blog/2014/04/29/aislelabs-launches-the-first-marketing-automation-platform-for-physical-retail-locations/ (link is external); http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jon-buss/cross-device-use_b_6969120.html (link is external) [15] http://www.experian.com/marketing-services/cross-device-video-analysis.html (link is external); https://www.doubleclickbygoogle.com/articles/?category=video&product=all&type=whitepaper (link is external); http://www.videologygroup.com/industry-insights/P40/programmatic-tv-driving-multi-screen-conversation/#.VkjyoMraNyo (link is external); https://www.tubemogul.com/cross-channel-advertising/ (link is external) [16] http://adexchanger.com/digital-tv/comscore-dives-deeper-into-cross-platform-video-measurement/ (link is external); http://cimm-us.org/cimms-annual-summit-examines-cross-platform-media-mea... (link is external) https://www.comscore.com/Products/Advertising-Analytics/validated-Campai... (link is external) [17] https://www.democraticmedia.org/content/how-industry-lobbyists-help-kill... -
Blog
Safe Harbor on Data Declared Illegal: Message to U.S.—Time to Enact Privacy Law that Protects Americans and Supports Global Data Protection
Case illustrates why FTC is legally unable to effectively protect the public and why Safe Harbor cannot be "fixed"
Today’s historic decision by the European Court of Justice, which overturned the purposely ineffective “Safe Harbor” deal enabling data to flow to the U.S., is very welcome. As one reads the court’ (link is external)s findings, it’s clear that for the EU, fundamental and human rights include the right to have your personal privacy protected. That means from both governmental surveillance (such as the NSA and other intelligence agencies) and also with commercial Internet companies—as Google or Facebook. Advocates always recognized (link is external) that the Safe Harbor agreement brokered by the Clinton Administration was a digital privacy `house of cards.’ All U.S. companies needed to do was to sign up for some inadequate principles that allegedly would protect the EU public. The Federal Trade Commission was supposed to investigate problems. But as CDD demonstrated last year in its complaint to the FTC on how leading U.S. companies were thumbing their data collecting noses at Safe Harbor, the system doesn't really do much of anything. Safe Harbor is run by the U.S. Department of Commerce, whose political loyalties (and revolving door) lie with the data collection industry. The message to America from the EU is clear: enact comprehensive privacy legislation. It has to meet (and should try and exceed) the high bar set by the EU. It can’t be the weak (link is external) and self-regulatory based “Privacy Bill of Rights” proposed this year by the White House. It has to define strong and enforceable rights, including limiting Big Data style collection—which is now a pervasive part of our online landscape. The law should empower an independent privacy commissioner and give the FTC real regulatory clout. The U.S. also should endorse the EU’s framework (link is external) on privacy that is supported by many countries around the world. In its decision, the European Court of Justice reaffirmed what its Advocate-General has explained earlier. That the U.S. Federal Trade Commission does not have the statutory authority and legal powers to protect a person's privacy as required by the EU. In the EU, privacy is a "fundamental right." In the U.S., consumers have really very few such rights online. The court explained yesterday (in referring to the 2000 decision by the EU approving the Safe Harbor deal with the U.S.) that: " Decision 2000/520 does not contain any finding regarding the existence, in the United States, of rules adopted by the State intended to limit any interference with the fundamental rights of the persons whose data is transferred from the European Union to the United States, interference which the State entities of that country would be authorised to engage in when they pursue legitimate objectives, such as national security... Nor does Decision 2000/520 refer to the existence of effective legal protection against interference of that kind. As the Advocate General has observed (link is external)in points 204 to 206 of his Opinion, procedures before the Federal Trade Commission... are limited to commercial disputes..." The Business lobby has consistently fought against legislation that would empower the FTC to regulate privacy and other commercial practices. Consequently, while the commission does what it can (and is very active working to help the public), it cannot address the fundamental issue. U.S. companies gather and use our information in far-reaching, non-transparent and often troubling ways (think all the secret "scoring" of people that goes on to assess how to treat them; or the use of race, ethnicity, income and location used to track and target us, regardless of device, etc.). Safe Harbor cannot be fixed without the U.S. enacting comprehensive privacy legislation that brings it in sync with the EU. The time to do so is way best due. Kudos to Max Schrems (link is external), who brought the case, and is a tireless and effective privacy campaigner. See BEUC (link is external), PI (link is external) and TACD (link is external) statements as well.
