program areas Digital Consumer
Program Areas
-
Blog
Surveillance Marketing Industry Claims Future of an âOpen Internetâ Requires Massive Data Gathering
New ways to take advantage of your âidentityâ raise privacy, consumer-protection and competition issues
The Trade Desk is a leading (link is external) AdTech company, providing data-driven digital advertising services (link is external) to major brands and agencies. It is also playing an outsized role responding to the initiative led by Google (link is external) to create new, allegedly âprivacy-friendlyâ approaches to ad targeting, which include ending the use of what are called âthird-partyâ cookies. These cookies enable the identification and tracking of individuals, and have been an essential building block for surveillance advertising since the dawn (link is external) of the commercial Internet. As we explained in a previous post about the so-called race to âendâ the use of cookies, the online marketing industry is engaged in a full-throated effort to redefine how our privacy is conceptualized and privately governed. Pressure from regulators (such as the EUâs GDPR) and growing concerns about privacy from consumers are among the reasons why this is happening now. But the real motivation, in my view, is that the most powerful online ad companies and global brands (such as Google, Amazon and the Trade Desk) donât need these antiquated cookies anymore. They have so much of our information that they collect directly, and also available from countless partners (such as global brands). Additionally, they now have many new ways to determine who we areâour âidentityââincluding through the use of AI, machine learning and data clouds (link is external). âUnified ID 2.0â is what The Trade Desk calls its approach to harvesting our identity information for advertising. Like Google, they claim to be respectful of data protection principles. Some of the most powerful companies in the U.S. are supporting the Unified ID standard, including Walmart, Washington Post, P&G, Comcast, CBS, Home Depot, Oracle, and Nielsen. But more than our privacy is at stake as data marketing giants fight over how best to reap the financial rewards (link is external) of what is predicted eventually to become a trillion dollar global ad marketplace. This debate is increasingly focused on the very future of the Internet itself, including how it is structured and governed. Only by ensuring that advertisers can continue to successfully operate powerful data-gathering and ad-targeting systems, argues Trade Desk CEO Jeff Green, can the âOpen (link is external) Internetâ be preserved. His argument, of course, is a digital dĂŠjĂ vu version of what media moguls have said in the U.S. dating back to commercial radio in the 1930âs. Only with a full-blown, ad-supported (and regulation-free) electronic media system, whether it was broadcast radio, broadcast TV, or cable TV, could the U.S. be assured it would enjoy a democratic and robust communications environment. (I was in the room at the Department of Commerce back in the middle 1990âs when advertisers were actually worried that the Internet would be largely ad-free; the representative from P&G leaned over to tell me that they never would let that happenâand he was right.) Internet operations are highly influenced to serve the needs of advertisers, who have reworked its architecture to ensure we are all commercially surveilled. For decades, the online ad industry has continually expanded ways to monetize our behaviors, emotions, location and much more. (link is external) Last week, The Trade Desk unveiled its latest iteration using Unified ID 2.0âcalled Solimar (see video (link is external) here). Solimar uses âan artificial intelligence tool called Koa (link is external), which makes suggestionsâ to help ensure effective marketing campaigns. Reflecting the serial partnerships that operate to provide marketers with a gold mine of information on any individual, The Trade Desk has a âKoa Identity (link is external) Alliance,â a âcross-device graph that incorporates leading and emerging ID solutions such as LiveRamp Identity Link, Oracle Cross Device, Tapad (link is external) Device Graph, and Adbrain Device Graf.â This system, they say, creates an effective way for marketers to develop a data portrait of individual consumers. Itâs useful to hear what companies such as The Trade Desk say as we evaluate claims that âbig dataâ consumer surveillance operations are essential for a democratically structured Internet. In its most recent Annual Report (link is external), the company explains that âThrough our self-service, cloud-based platform, ad buyers can create, manage, and optimize more expressive data-driven digital advertising campaigns across ad formats and channels, including display, video, audio, in-app, native and social, on a multitude of devices, such as computers, mobile devices, and connected TV (âCTVâ)âŚ. We use the massive data captured by our platform to build predictive models around user characteristics, such as demographic, purchase intent or interest data. Data from our platform is continually fed back into these models, which enables them to improve over time as the use of our platform increases.â And hereâs how The Trade Deskâs Koaâs process is described in the trade publication Campaign (link is external) Asia: âŚclients can specify their target customer in the form of first-party or third-party data, which will serve as a seed audience that Koa will model from to provide recommendations. A data section provides multiple options for brands to upload first-party data including pixels, app data, and IP addresses directly into the platform, or import data from a third-party DMP or CDP. If a client chooses to onboard CRM data in the form of email addresses, these will automatically be converted into UID2s. Once converted, the platform will scan the UID2s to evaluate how many are âactive UID2sâ, which refers to how many of these users have been active across the programmatic universe in the past week. If the client chooses to act on those UID2s, they will be passed into the programmatic ecosystem to match with the publisher side, building the UID2 ecosystem in tandem. For advertisers that don't have first-party data⌠an audiences tab allows advertisers to tap into a marketplace of second- and third-party data so they can still use interest segments, purchase intent segments and demographics. In other words, these systems have a ton of information about you. They can easily get even more data and engage in the kinds of surveillance advertising that regulators (link is external) and consumer (link is external) advocates around the world are demanding be stopped. There are now dozens of competing âidentity solutionsââincluding those from Google, Amazon (link is external), data brokers (link is external), telephone (link is external) companies, etc. (See visual at bottom of page here (link is external)). The stakes here are significantâhow will the Internet evolve in terms of privacy, and will its core âDNAâ be ever-growing forms of surveillance and manipulation? How do we decide the most privacy-protective ways to ensure meaningful monetization of online contentâand must funding for such programming only be advertising-based? In what ways are some of these identity proposals a way for powerful platforms such as Google to further expand its monopolistic control of the ad market? These and other questions require a thoughtful regulator in the U.S. to help sort this out and make recommendations to ensure that the public truly benefits. Thatâs why itâs time for the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to step in. The FTC should analyze these advertising-focused identity efforts; assess their risks and the benefits; address how to govern the collection and use of data where a person has supposedly given permission to a brand or store to use it (known as âfirst-partyâ data). A key question, given todayâs technologies, is whether meaningful personal consent for data collection is even possible in a world driven by sophisticated and real-time AI systems that personalize content and ads? The commission should also investigate the role of data-mining clouds and other so-called âcleanâ rooms where privacy is said to prevail despite their compilation of personal information for targeted advertising. The time for private, special interests (and conflicted) actors to determine the future of the Internet, and how our privacy is to be treated, is over. -
Press Release
Against surveillance-based advertising
CDD joins an international coalition of more than 50 NGOs and scholars in a call for a surveillance-based advertising ban in its Digital Services Act and for the U.S. to enact a federal digital privacy and civil rights law
International coalition calls for action against surveillance-based advertising Every day, consumers are exposed to extensive commercial surveillance online. This leads to manipulation, fraud,âŻdiscriminationâŻand privacy violations.âŻInformation about what we like, our purchases, mental and physical health, sexual orientation,âŻlocationâŻand political views are collected,âŻcombinedâŻand used under the guise of targeting advertising. ⯠In a new report, theâŻNorwegian Consumer Council (NCC)âŻsheds light on the negative consequencesâŻthatâŻthisâŻcommercial surveillanceâŻhasâŻon consumers and society. Together with [XXX] organizations and experts, NCC is asking authorities on both sides of the Atlantic to consider a ban. In Europe, the upcoming Digital Services Act can lay the legal framework to do so.âŻIn the US, legislators should seize the opportunity to enact comprehensive privacy legislation that protects consumers.⯠- The collection and combinationâŻofâŻinformation about us not only violates our right to privacy, but renders us vulnerable to manipulation,âŻdiscriminationâŻand fraud. This harms individuals andâŻsociety as a whole,âŻsaysâŻthe director of digitalâŻpolicyâŻin the NCC, FinnâŻMyrstad.⯠In a Norwegian population survey conducted by YouGov on behalf of the NCC, consumers clearly state that they do not want commercial surveillance. Just one out of ten respondents were positive to commercial actors collecting personal information about them online, while only one out of five thought that ads based on personal information is acceptable. - Most of us do not want to be spied on online, or receive ads based on tracking and profiling. These results mirror similar surveys from Europe and the United States, and should be a powerful signal to policymakers looking at how to better regulate the internet, Myrstad says. Policymakers and civil society organisations on both sides of the Atlantic are increasingly standing up against these invasive practices.âŻFor example,âŻThe European Parliament and the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS)âŻhave alreadyâŻcalled forâŻphasing out and banningâŻsurveillance-based advertising. A coalition of consumer and civil rights organizations in the United States has called for a similar ban.âŻâŻ ⯠Significant consequences⯠The NCC reportâŻâTime to ban surveillance-based advertisingâ exposesâŻaâŻvariety ofâŻharmfulâŻconsequencesâŻthatâŻsurveillance-based advertisingâŻcan have on individuals and on society:⯠⯠1. Manipulation⯠Companies with comprehensive and intimate knowledge about us can shapeâŻtheirâŻmessages inâŻattempts to reach us when we are susceptible,âŻfor example to influenceâŻelections orâŻtoâŻadvertiseâŻweight loss products, unhealthyâŻfoodâŻor gambling.âŻâŻ ⯠2. Discrimination⯠TheâŻopacity and automation ofâŻsurveillance-basedâŻadvertisingâŻsystems increaseâŻtheâŻrisk of discrimination,âŻfor example by excluding consumers based on income, gender,âŻrace,âŻethnicity or sexual orientation,âŻlocation,âŻor byâŻmakingâŻcertain consumers payâŻmore for productsâŻor services.âŻâŻ ⯠3. MisinformationâŻâŻ The lack of control over where ads are shown can promote and finance false orâŻmaliciousâŻcontent.âŻThis also poses significant challenges to publishers and advertisers regarding revenue, reputational damage, and opaque supply chains. 4. Undermining competitionâŻâŻ TheâŻsurveillanceâŻbusiness model favoursâŻcompaniesâŻthatâŻcollectâŻand processâŻinformation across different services and platforms. This makes it difficult forâŻsmallerâŻactorsâŻto compete, and negativelyâŻimpactsâŻcompanies that respectâŻconsumersââŻfundamental rights.⯠5. Security risks⯠When thousands of companiesâŻcollect andâŻprocessâŻenormous amounts of personal data, the risk of identity theft,âŻfraudâŻand blackmail increases.âŻNATO has described this data collection as a national security risk.âŻâŻâŻ 6. Privacy violationsâŻâŻ The collection and use of personal data is happening with little or no control, both by large companies and by companies that are unknown to most consumers. Consumers have no way to know what data is collected, who the information is shared with, and how it mayâŻbe used. ⯠-âŻâŻIt isâŻvery difficult to justfy the negative consequences of this system. A ban will contribute to a healthier marketplace thatâŻhelpsâŻprotect individuals and society,âŻMyrstadâŻcomments.⯠Good alternatives⯠In the report, the NCC points to alternative digital advertising models that do not depend on the surveillance of consumers, and that provide advertisers and publishers more oversight and control over where ads are displayed and which ads are being shown. - It is possible to sell advertising space without basing it on intimate details about consumers. Solutions already exist to show ads in relevant contexts, or where consumers self-report what ads they want to see, Myrstad says. - A ban on surveillance-based advertising would also pave the way for a more transparent advertising marketplace, diminishing the need to share large parts of ad revenue with third parties such as data brokers. A level playing field would contribute to giving advertisers and content providers more control, and keep a larger share of the revenue. The coordinated push behind the report and letter illustrates the growing determination of consumer, digital rights, human rights and other civil society groups to end the widespread business model of spying on the public. -
The Center for Digital Democracy and 23 other leading civil society groups sent a letter to President Biden today asking his Administration to ensure that any new transatlantic data transfer deal is coupled with the enactment of U.S. laws that reform government surveillance practices and provide comprehensive privacy protections.
-
Contact: Jeff Chester, CDD (jeff@democraticmedia.org (link sends e-mail); 202-494-7100) David Monahan, CCFC (david@commercialfreechildhood.org (link sends e-mail);) Advocates Ask FTC to Protect Youth From Manipulative âDark Patternsâ Online BOSTON, MA and WASHINGTON, DC â May 28, 2021âTwo leading advocacy groups protecting children from predatory practices online filed comments today asking the FTC to create strong safeguards to ensure that internet âdark patternsâ donât undermine childrenâs well-being and privacy. Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC) and the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD) cited leading authorities on the impacts of internet use on child development in their comments prepared by the Communications & Technology Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center. These comments follow testimony given by representatives of both groups last month at a FTC workshop spearheaded by FTC Acting Chair Rebecca Slaughter. CCFC and CDD say tech companies are preying upon vulnerable kids, capitalizing on their fear of missing out, desire to be popular, and inability to understand the value of misleading e-currencies, as well as putting them on an endless treadmill on their digital devices. They urged the FTC to take swift and strong action to protect children from the harms of dark patterns. Key takeaways include: - A range of practices, often called âdark patternsâ are pervasive in the digital marketplace, manipulate children, are deceptive and unfair and violate Section 5 of the FTC Act. They take advantage of a young personâs psycho-social development, such as the need to engage with peers. - The groups explained the ways children are vulnerable to manipulation and other harms from âdark patterns,â including that they have âimmature and developing executive functioning,â which leads to impulse behaviors. - The FTC should prohibit the use of dark pattern practices in the childrenâs marketplace; issue guidance to companies to ensure they do not develop or deploy such applications, and include new protections under their Childrenâs Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) rulemaking authority to better regulate them. The commission must bring enforcement actions against the developers using child-directed dark patterns. - The FTC should prohibit the use of micro-transactions in apps serving children, including the buying of virtual currency to participate in game playing. - The FTC should adopt a definition of dark patterns to include all ânudgesâ designed to use a range of behavioral techniques to foster desired responses from users. The groupsâ filing was in response to the FTCâs call for comments (link is external) on the use of digital âdark patternsâ â deceptive and unfair user interface designs â on websites and mobile apps. Comment of Jeff Chester, executive Director of the Center for Digital Democracy: âDark Patternsâ are being used in the design of child-directed services to manipulate them to spend more time and money on games and other applications, as well as give up more of their data. Itâs time the FTC acted to protect young people from being unfairly treated by online companies. The commission should issue rules that prohibit the use of these stealth tactics that target kids and bring legal action against the companies promoting their use. Comment of Josh Golin, executive Director of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood: In their rush to monetize children, app and game developers are using dark patterns that take advantage of childrenâs developmental vulnerabilities. The FTC has all the tools it needs to stop unethical, harmful, and illegal conduct. Doing so would be a huge step forward towards creating a healthy media environment for children. Comment of Michael Rosenbloom, Staff Attorney & Clinical Teaching Fellow, Communications and Technology Law Clinic, Georgetown University Law Center: Software and game companies are using dark patterns to pressure children into playing more and paying more. Today, many apps and games that children play use dark patterns like arbitrary virtual currencies, encouragement from in-game characters, and ticking countdown timers, to get children to spend more time and money on microtransactions. These dark patterns harm children and violate Section 5 of the FTC Act, and we urge the FTC to act to stop these practices. ###
-
To watch the full FTC Dark Patterns Workshop online visit the FTC website here (link is external).
-
Press Release
Advocates say Google Play continues to disregard childrenâs privacy law and urge FTC to act
Contact: Jeff Chester, CDD jeff@democraticmedia.org (link sends e-mail); 202-494-7100David Monahan, CCFC, david@commercialfreechildhood.org (link sends e-mail)Advocates say Google Play continues to disregard childrenâs privacy law and urge FTC to act BOSTON, MA and WASHINGTON, DC â March 31, 2021âToday, advocacy groups Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC) and the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD) called on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate Googleâs promotion of apps which violate the Childrenâs Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). In December 2018, CCFC and CDD led a coalition of 22 consumer and health advocacy groups in asking the FTC to investigate these same practices. Since then Google has made changes to the Play Store, but the advocates say these changes fail to address the core problem: Google is certifying as safe and appropriate for children apps that violate COPPA and put children at risk. Recent studies found that a significant number of apps in Google Play violate COPPA by collecting and sharing childrenâs personal information without getting parental consent. For instance, a JAMA Pediatrics study found that 67% of apps used by children aged 5 and under were transmitting personal identifiers to third parties.Comment of Angela Campbell, Chair of the Board of Directors, Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, Professor Emeritus, Communications & Technology Law Clinic, Georgetown University Law Center:âParents reasonably expect that Google Play Store apps designated as âTeacher approvedâ or appropriate for children under age 13 comply with the law protecting childrenâs privacy. But far too often, that is not the case. The FTC failed to act when this problem was brought to its attention over two years ago. Because children today are spending even more time using mobile apps, the FTC must hold Google accountable for violating childrenâs privacy.âComment of Jeff Chester, executive Director of the Center for Digital Democracy:"The Federal Trade Commission must swiftly act to stop Googleâs ongoing disregard of the privacy and well-being of children. For too long, the Commission has allowed Googleâs app store, and the data marketing practices that are its foundation, to operate without enforcing the federal law that is designed to protect young people under 13. With children using apps more than ever as a consequence of the pandemic, the FTC should enforce the law and ensure Google engages with kids and families in a responsible manner."### -
Blog
Contextual AdvertisingâNow Driven by AI and Machine LearningâRequires Regulatory Review for Privacy and Marketing Fairness
Contextual AdvertisingâNow Driven by AI and Machine LearningâRequires Regulatory Review for Privacy and Marketing FairnessWhatâs known as contextual advertising is receiving a big boost from marketers and some policymakers, who claim that it provides a more privacy-friendly alternative to the dominant global surveillance-based âbehavioralâ marketing model. Googleâs plans to eliminate cookies and other third-party trackers used for much of online ad delivery are also spurring greater interest in contextual marketing, which is being touted especially as safe for children.Until several years ago, contextual ads meant that you would see an ad based on the content of the page you were onâso there might be ads for restaurants on web pages about food, or cars would be pitched if you were reading about road trips. The ad tech involved was basic: keywords found on the page would help trigger an ad.Todayâs version of whatâs called âcontextual intelligence (link is external), âContextual 2.0 (link is external),â or Googleâs âAdvanced Contextual (link is external)â is distinct. Contextual marketing uses artificial intelligence (AI (link is external)) and machine learning technologies, including computer vision and natural language processing, to provide âtargeting precision.â AI-based techniques, the industry explains, allow marketers to read âbetween the linesâ of online content. Contextual advertising is now capable of comprehending âthe holistic and subtle meaning of all text and imagery,â enabling predictions and decisions on ad design and placement by âleveraging deep neural (link is external) networksâ and âproprietary data sets.â AI is used to decipher the meaning of visuals âon a massive scale, enabling advertisers to create much more sophisticated links between the content and the advertising.â Computer vision (link is external) technologies identify every visual element, and ânatural language processingâ minutely classifies all the concepts found on each page. Millions of ârules (link is external)â are applied in an instant, using software that helps advertisers take advantage of the âmultiple meaningsâ that may be found on a page.For example, one leading contextual marketing company, GumGum (link is external), explains that its âVerityâ algorithmic and AI-based service âcombines natural language processing with computer vision technology to execute a multi-layered reading process. First, it finds the meat of the article on the page, which means differentiating it from any sidebar and header ads. Next, it parses the body text, headlines, image captions with natural language processing; at the same time, it uses computer vision to parse the main visuals.⌠[and then] blends its textual and visual analysis into one cohesive report, which it then sends off to an adserver,â which determines whether âVerityâs report on a given page matches its advertisers campaign criteria.âMachine learning also enables contextual intelligence services to make predictions about the best ways to structure and place marketing content, taking advantage of real-time events and the ways consumers interact with content. It enables segmentation of audience targets to be fine-tuned. It also incorporates a number of traditional behavioral marketing concepts, gathering a range of data âsignals (link is external)â that ensure more effecting targeting. There are advanced measurement (link is external) technologies; custom methods to influence what marketers term our âcustomer journey,â structuring ad-buying in similar ways to behavioral, data-driven approaches, as âbidsâ are made to targetâand retargetâthe most desirable people. And, of course, once the contextual ad âworksâ and people interact with it, additional personal and other information is then gathered.Contextual advertising, estimated to generate (link is external) $412 billion in spending by 2025, requires a thorough review by the FTC and data regulators. Regulators, privacy advocates and others must carefully examine how the AI and machine-learning marketing systems operate, including for Contextual 2.0. We should not accept marketersâ claims that it is innocuous and privacy-appropriate. We need to pull back the digital curtain and carefully examine the data and impact of contextual systems. -
Blog
The Whole World will Still be Watching You: Google & Digital Marketing Industry âDeath-of-the-Cookieâ Privacy Initiatives Require Scrutiny from Public Policymakers
The Whole World will Still be Watching You: Google & Digital Marketing Industry âDeath-of-the-Cookieâ Privacy Initiatives Require Scrutiny from Public Policymakers Jeff Chester One would think, in listening to the language used by Google, Facebook, and other ad and data companies to discuss the construction and future of privacy protection, that they are playing some kind of word game. We hear terms (link is external) such as âTURTLEDOVE,â âFLEDGE,â SPARROW and âFLoC.â Such claims should be viewed with skepticism, however. Although some reports make it appear that Google and its online marketing compatriots propose to reduce data gathering and tracking, we believe that their primary goal is still focused on perfecting the vast surveillance system theyâve well-established. A major data marketing industry effort is now underway to eliminateâor diminishâthe role of the tracking software known as âthird-partyâ cookies. Cookies were developed (link is external) in the very earliest days of the commercial âWorld Wide Web,â and have served as the foundational digital tether connecting us to a sprawling and sophisticated data-mining complex. Through cookiesâand later mobile device IDs and other âpersistentâ identifiersâGoogle, Facebook, Amazon, Coca-Cola and practically everyone else have been able to surveil and target usâand our communities. Tracking cookies have literally helped engineer a âsweet spot (link is external)â for online marketers, enabling them to embed spies into our web browsers, which help them understand our digital behaviors and activities and then take action based on that knowledge. Some of these trackersâplaced and used by a myriad (link is external) of data marketing companies on various websitesâare referred to as âthird-partyâ cookies, to distinguish them from what online marketers claim, with a straight face, are more acceptable forms of tracking softwareâknown as âfirst-partyâ cookies. According to the tortured online advertiser explanation, âfirst-partyâ trackers are placed by websites on which you have affirmatively given permission to be tracked while you are on that site. These âwe-have-your-permission-to-useâ first-party cookies would increasingly become the foundation for advances in digital tracking and targeting. Please raise your hand if you believe you have informed Google or Amazon, to cite the two most egregious examples, that they can surveil what you do via these first-party cookies, including engaging in an analysis of your actions, background, interests and more. What the online ad business has developed behind its digital curtainâsuch as various ways to trigger your response, measure your emotions (link is external), knit together information on device (link is external) use, and employ machine learning (link is external) to predict your behaviors (just to name a few of the methods currently in use)âhas played a fundamental role in personal data gathering. Yet these and other practicesâwhich have an enormous impact on privacy, autonomy, fairness, and so many other aspects of our livesâwill not be affected by the âdeath-of-the-cookieâ transition currently underway. On the contrary, we believe that a case to be made that the opposite is true. Rather than strengthening data safeguards, we are seeing unaccountable platforms such as Google actually becoming more dominant, as so-called âprivacy preserving (link is external)â systems actually enable enhanced data profiling. In a moment, we will briefly discuss some of the leading online marketing industry work underway to redefine privacy. But the motivation for this post is to sound the alarm that we should notâonce againâallow powerful commercial interests to determine the evolving structure of our online lives. The digital data industry has no serious track record of protecting the public. Indeed, it was the failure of regulators to rein in this industry over the years that led to the current crisis. In the process, the growth of hate speech, the explosion of disinformation, and the highly concentrated control over online communications and commerceâto name only a fewâ now pose serious challenges to the fate of democracies worldwide. Google, Facebook and the others should never be relied on to defer their principal pursuit of monetization out of respect to any democratic idealâlet alone consumer protection and privacy. One clue to the likely end result of the current industry effort is to see how they frame it. It isnât about democracy, the end of commercial surveillance, or strengthening human rights. Itâs about how best to preserve what they call the âOpen Internet.â (link is external)Some leading data marketers believe we have all consented to a trade-off, that in exchange for âfreeâ content weâve agreed to a pact enabling them to eavesdrop on everything we doâand then make all that information available to anyone who can pay for itâprimarily advertisers. Despite its rhetoric about curbing tracking cookies, the online marketing business intends to continue to colonize our devices and monitor our online experiences. This debate, then, is really about who can decideâand under what termsâthe fate of the Internetâs architecture, including how it operationalizes privacyâat least in the U.S. It illustrates questions that deserve a better answer than the âindustry-knows-bestâ approach we have allowed for far. Thatâs why we call on the Biden Administration, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Congress to investigate these proposed new approaches for data use, and ensure that the result is truly privacy protective, supporting democratic governance and incorporating mechanisms of oversight and accountability. Hereâs a brief review (link is external) of some of the key developments, which illustrate the digital âtug-of-warâ ensuing over the several industry proposals involving cookies and tracking. In 2019, Google announced (link is external) that it would end the role of whatâs known as âthird-party cookies.â Google has created a âprivacy sandbox (link is external)â where it has researched various methods it claims will protect privacy, especially for people who rely on its Chrome browser. It is exploring âways in which a browser can group together people with similar browsing habits, so that ad tech companies can observe the habits of large groups instead of the activity of individuals. Ad targeting could then be partly based on what group the person falls into.â This is its âFederated Learning of Cohorts (FLoC) approach, where people are placed into âclustersâ based on the use of âmachine learning algorithmsâ that analyze the data generated from the sites a person visited and their content. Google says these clusters would âeach represent thousands of people,â and that the âinput featuresâ used to generate the targeting algorithm, such as our âweb history,â would be stored on our browsers. There would be other techniques deployed, to add ânoiseâ to the data sets and engage in various âanonymization methodsâ so that the exposure of a personâs individual information is limited. Its TURTLEDOVE initiative is designed to enable more personalized targeting, where web browsers will be used to help ensure our data is available for the real-time auctions that sell us to advertisers. The theory is that by allowing the data to remain within our devices, as well using clusters of people for targeting, our privacy is protected. But the goal of the processâ to have sufficient data and effective digital marketing techniquesâis still at the heart of this process. Google recently (link is external) reported that âFLoC can provide an effective replacement signal for third-party cookies. Our tests of FLoC to reach in-market and affinity Google Audiences show that advertisers can expect to see at least 95% of the conversions per dollar spent when compared to cookie-based advertising.â Googleâs 2019 announcement caused an uproar in the digital marketing business. It was also perceived (correctly, in my view) as a Google power grab. Google operates basically as a âWalled Garden (link is external)â and has so much data that it doesnât really need third-party data cookies to hone in on its targets. The potential âdeath of the cookieâ ignited a number of initiatives from the Interactive (link is external) Advertising Bureau, as well as competitors (link is external) and major advertisers, who feared that Googleâs plan would undermine their lucrative business model. They include such groups as the Partnership for Addressable Media (PRAM), (link is external) whose 400 members include Mastercard, Comcast/NBCU, P&G, the Association of National Advertisers, IAB and other ad and data companies. PRAM issued a request (link is external) to review proposals (link is external) that would ensure the data marketing industry continues to thrive, but could be less reliant on third-party cookies. Leading online marketing company Trade Desk is playing a key role here. It submitted (link is external) its âUnited ID 2.0 (link is external),â plan to PRAM, saying that it ârepresents an alternative to third party cookies that improves consumer transparency, privacy and control, while preserving the value exchange of relevant advertising across channels and devices.â There are also a number of other ways now being offered that claim both to protect privacy yet take advantage of our identity (link is external), such as various collaborative (link is external) data-sharing efforts. The Internet standards groups Worldwide Web Consortium (W3C) has created (link is external) a sort of neutral meeting ground where the industry can discuss proposals and potentially seek some sort of unified approach. The rationale for the [get ready for this statement] âImproving Web Advertising Business Group goal is to provide monetization opportunities that support the open web while balancing the needs of publishers and the advertisers that fund them, even when their interests do not align, with improvements to protect people from the individual and societal impacts of tracking content consumption over time.â Its participants (link is external) are another âWhoâs Whoâ in data-driven marketing, including Google, AT&T, Verizon, NYT, IAB, Apple, Group M, Axel Springer, Facebook, Amazon, Washington Post, Verizon, and Criteo. DuckDuckGo is also a member (and both Google and Facebook have multiple representatives in this group). The sole NGO listed as a member is the Center for Democracy and Technology. W3Cs ad business group has a number of documents (link is external) about the digital marketing business that illustrate why the issue of the future of privacy and data collection and targeting should be a publicâand not just data industryâconcern. In an explainer (link is external) on digital advertising, they make the paradigm so many are working to defend very clear: Marketingâs goal can be boiled down to the "5 Rights": Right Message to the Right Person at the Right Time in the Right Channel and for the Right Reason. Achieving this goal in the context of traditional marketing (print, live television, billboards, et al) is impossible. In digital realm, however, not only can marketers achieve this goal, they can prove it happened. This proof is what enables marketing activities to continue, and is important for modern marketers to justify their advertising dollars, which ultimately finance the publishers sponsoring the underlying content being monetized.â Nothing Iâve read says it better. Through a quarter century of work to perfect harvesting our identity for profit, the digital ad industry has created a formidable complex of data clouds (link is external), real-time ad auctions, cross-device tracking tools and advertising techniques (link is external) that further commodify our lives, shred our privacy, and transform the Internet into a hall of mirrors that can amplify our fears and splinter democratic norms. Itâs people, of course, who decide how the Internet operatesâespecially those from companies such as Google, Facebook, Amazon, and those working for trade groups as the IAB. We must not let them decide how cookies may or may not be used or what new data standard should be adopted by the most powerful corporate interests on the planet to profit from our âidentity.â Itâs time for action by the FTC and Congress. Part 1. (1)For the uninitiated, TURTLEDOVE stands for âTwo Uncorrelated Requests, Then Locally-Executed Decision On Victoryâ; FLEDGE is short for âFirst Locally-Executed Decision over Groups Experimentâ; SPARROW is âSecure Private Advertising Remotely Run On Webserverâ; and FLoC is âFederated Learning of Cohortsâ). (2) In January 2021, the UKâs Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) opened up an investigation (link is external) into Google privacy sandbox and cookie plans. -
CONSUMER AND CITIZEN GROUPS CONTINUE TO HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT GOOGLE FITBIT TAKEOVER Joint Statement on Possible Remedies (link is external)