88 posts categorized "Behavioral Advertising" Feed

Do Social Media Pose Threats To Democracies?

November 4th cover of The Economist magazine The November 4th issue of The Economist magazine discussed whether social networking sites threaten democracy in the United States and elsewhere. Social media were supposed to better connect us with accurate and reliable information. What we know so far (links added):

"... Facebook acknowledged that before and after last year’s American election, between January 2015 and August this year, 146m users may have seen Russian misinformation on its platform. Google’s YouTube admitted to 1,108 Russian-linked videos and Twitter to 36,746 accounts. Far from bringing enlightenment, social media have been spreading poison. Russia’s trouble-making is only the start. From South Africa to Spain, politics is getting uglier... by spreading untruth and outrage, corroding voters’ judgment and aggravating partisanship, social media erode the conditions..."

You can browse some of the ads Russia bought on Facebook during 2016. (Hopefully, you weren't tricked by any of them.) We also know from this United Press International (UPI) report about social media companies' testimony before Congress:

"Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) said Facebook still has many pages that appear to have been created by the Internet Research Agency, a pro-Kremlin group that bought advertising during the campaign. Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.) said some Russian-backed advertisers even paid for the ads in Russian currency.

"How could you not connect those two dots?" he asked Facebook general council Colin Stretch. "It's a signal we should have been alert to and, in hindsight, one we missed," Stretch answered."

Google logo And during the Congressional testimony:

"Google attorney Richard Salgado said his company's platform is not a newspaper, which has legal responsibilities different from technology platforms. "We are not a newspaper. We are a platform that shares information," he said. "This is a platform from which news can be read from many sources."

Separate from the Congressional testimony, Kent Walker, a Senior Vice President and General Counsel at Google, released a statement which read in part:

"... like other internet platforms, we have found some evidence of efforts to misuse our platforms during the 2016 U.S. election by actors linked to the Internet Research Agency in Russia... We have been conducting a thorough investigation related to the U.S. election across our products drawing on the work of our information security team, research into misinformation campaigns from our teams, and leads provided by other companies. Today, we are sharing results from that investigation... We will be launching several new initiatives to provide more transparency and enhance security, which we also detail in these information sheets: what we found, steps against phishing and hacking, and our work going forward..."

This matters greatly. Why? by The Economist explained that the disinformation distributed via social media and other websites:

"... aggravates the politics of contempt that took hold, in the United States at least, in the 1990s. Because different sides see different facts, they share no empirical basis for reaching a compromise. Because each side hears time and again that the other lot are good for nothing but lying, bad faith and slander, the system has even less room for empathy. Because people are sucked into a maelstrom of pettiness, scandal and outrage, they lose sight of what matters for the society they share. This tends to discredit the compromises and subtleties of liberal democracy, and to boost the politicians who feed off conspiracy and nativism..."

When citizens (via their elected representatives) can't agree nor compromise, then government gridlock results. Nothing gets done. Frustration builds among voters.

What solutions to fix these problems? The Economist article discussed several remedies: better critical-thinking skills by social media users, holding social-media companies accountable, more transparency around ads, better fact checking, anti-trust actions, and/or disallow bots (automated accounts). It will take time for social media users to improve their critical-thinking skills. Considerations about fact checking:

"When Facebook farms out items to independent outfits for fact-checking, the evidence that it moderates behavior is mixed. Moreover, politics is not like other kinds of speech; it is dangerous to ask a handful of big firms to deem what is healthy for society.

Considerations about anti-trust actions:

"Breaking up social-media giants might make sense in antitrust terms, but it would not help with political speech—indeed, by multiplying the number of platforms, it could make the industry harder to manage."

All of the solutions have advantages and disadvantages. It seems the problems will be with us for a long while. Social media has been abused... and will continue to be abused. Comments? What solutions do you think would be best?


What We Do and Don’t Know About Facebook’s New Political Ad Transparency Initiative

[Editor's note: today's guest post is by the reporters at ProPublica. It is reprinted with permission.]

The short answer: It leaves the company some wiggle room.

Facebook logo By Julia Angwin, ProPublica

On Thursday September 21, Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg announced several steps to make political ads on the world’s largest social network more transparent. The changes follow Facebook’s acknowledgment in September that $100,000 worth of political ads were placed during the 2016 election cycle by “inauthentic accounts” linked to Russia.

The changes also follow ProPublica’s launch of a crowdsourcing effort during September to collect political advertising from Facebook. Our goal was to ensure that political ads on Facebook, which until now have largely avoided scrutiny, receive the same level of fact-checking by journalists, advocacy groups and political opponents as do print, broadcast and radio political ads. We hope to have some results to share soon.

In the meantime, here’s what we do and don’t know about how Facebook’s changes could play out.

How does Facebook plan to increase disclosure of funders of political ads?
In his statement, Zuckerberg said that Facebook will start requiring political advertisers to disclose “which page paid for an ad.”

This is a reversal for Facebook. In 2011, the company argued to the Federal Election Commission that it would be “inconvenient and impracticable” to include disclaimers in political ads because the ads are so small in size.

While the commission was too divided to make a decision on Facebook’s request for an advisory ruling, the deadlock effectively allowed the company to continue omitting disclosures. (The commission has just reopened discussion of whether to require disclosure for internet advertising).

Now Facebook appears to have dropped its objections to adding disclosures. However, the problem with Facebook’s plan of only revealing which page purchased the ad is that the source of the money behind the page is not always clear.

What is Facebook doing to make political ads more transparent to the public?
Zuckerberg also said that Facebook will start to require political advertisers to place on their pages all the ads they are “currently running to any audience on Facebook.”

This requirement could mean the end of the so-called “dark posts” on Facebook — political ads whose origins were not easily traced. Now, theoretically, each Facebook political ad would be associated with and published on a Facebook page — either for candidates, political action committees or interest groups.

However, the word “currently” suggests that such disclosure could be fleeting. After all, ads can run on Facebook for as little as a few minutes or a few hours. And since campaigns can run dozens, hundreds or even thousands of variations of a single ad — to test which one gets the best response — it will be interesting to see whether and how they manage to display all those ads on their pages simultaneously.

“It would require a lot of vigilance on the part of users and voters to be on those pages at the exact time” that campaigns posted all of their ads, said Brendan Fischer, a lawyer at the Campaign Legal Center, a campaign finance reform watchdog group.

How will Facebook decide which ads are political?
It’s not clear how Facebook will decide which ads are political and which aren’t. There are several existing definitions they could choose from.

The Federal Communications Commission defines political advertising as anything that “communicates a message relating to any political matter of national importance,” but those rules only apply to television and radio broadcasters. FCC rules require extensive disclosure, including the amount paid for the ads, the audiences targeted and how many times the ads run.

The Federal Election Commission has traditionally defined two major types of campaign ads. “Independent expenditures” are ads that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a “clearly identified candidate.” A slightly broader definition, “electioneering communications,” encompasses so-called “issue ads” that mention a candidate but may not directly advocate for his or her election or defeat.

The FEC only requires spending on electioneering ads to be disclosed in the 60 days leading up to a general election or the 30 days leading up to a primary election. And the electioneering communications rule does not apply to online advertising.

Of course, Facebook doesn’t have to choose of any of the existing definitions of political advertising. It could do what it did with hate speech — and make up its own rules.

How will Facebook catch future political ads secretly placed by foreigners?
The law prohibits a foreign national from making any contribution or expenditure in any U.S. election. That means that Russians who bought the ads may have broken the law, but it also means that any American who “knowingly provided substantial assistance” may also have broken the law.

In mid-September, when Facebook disclosed the Russian ad purchase, the company said it was increasing its technical efforts to identify fake and inauthentic pages and to prevent them from running ads.

Zuckerberg said the company would “strengthen our ad review process for political ads” but didn’t specify exactly how. (Separately, Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg said in September that the company is adding more human review to its ad-buying categories, after ProPublica revealed that it allowed advertisers to target ads toward “Jew haters.”)

Zuckerberg also said Facebook will work with other tech companies and governments to share information about online risks during elections.

Will ProPublica continue crowd-sourcing Facebook political ads?
Yes, we plan to keep using our tool to monitor political advertising. In September, we worked with news outlets in Germany — Spiegel Online, Süddeutsche Zeitung and Tagesschau — to collect more than 600 political ads during the parliamentary elections.

We believe there is value to creating a permanent database of political ads that can be inspected by the public, and we intend to track whether Facebook lives up to its promises. If you want to help us, download our tool for Firefox or Chrome web browsers.

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for their newsletter.


Facebook Enabled Advertisers to Reach ‘Jew Haters’

[Editor's note: today's guest post, by the reporters at ProPublica, is part of its Machine Bias series. After being contacted by ProPublica, Facebook removed several anti-Semitic ad categories and it no longer allows advertisers to target groups based upon self-reported information. Today's post is reprinted with permission.]

By Julia Angwin, Madeleine Varner, and Ariana Tobin - ProPublica

Facebook logo Want to market Nazi memorabilia, or recruit marchers for a far-right rally? Facebook’s self-service ad-buying platform had the right audience for you.

Until last week, when we asked Facebook about it, the world’s largest social network enabled advertisers to direct their pitches to the news feeds of almost 2,300 people who expressed interest in the topics of “Jew hater,” “How to burn jews,” or, “History of ‘why jews ruin the world.’”

To test if these ad categories were real, we paid $30 to target those groups with three “promoted posts” — in which a ProPublica article or post was displayed in their news feeds. Facebook approved all three ads within 15 minutes.

After we contacted Facebook, it removed the anti-Semitic categories — which were created by an algorithm rather than by people — and said it would explore ways to fix the problem, such as limiting the number of categories available or scrutinizing them before they are displayed to buyers.

“There are times where content is surfaced on our platform that violates our standards,” said Rob Leathern, product management director at Facebook. “In this case, we’ve removed the associated targeting fields in question. We know we have more work to do, so we’re also building new guardrails in our product and review processes to prevent other issues like this from happening in the future.”

Facebook’s advertising has become a focus of national attention since it disclosed last week that it had discovered $100,000 worth of ads placed during the 2016 presidential election season by “inauthentic” accounts that appeared to be affiliated with Russia.

Like many tech companies, Facebook has long taken a hands off approach to its advertising business. Unlike traditional media companies that select the audiences they offer advertisers, Facebook generates its ad categories automatically based both on what users explicitly share with Facebook and what they implicitly convey through their online activity.

Traditionally, tech companies have contended that it’s not their role to censor the Internet or to discourage legitimate political expression. In the wake of the violent protests in Charlottesville by right-wing groups that included self-described Nazis, Facebook and other tech companies vowed to strengthen their monitoring of hate speech.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote at the time that “there is no place for hate in our community,” and pledged to keep a closer eye on hateful posts and threats of violence on Facebook. “It’s a disgrace that we still need to say that neo-Nazis and white supremacists are wrong — as if this is somehow not obvious,” he wrote.

But Facebook apparently did not intensify its scrutiny of its ad buying platform. In all likelihood, the ad categories that we spotted were automatically generated because people had listed those anti-Semitic themes on their Facebook profiles as an interest, an employer or a “field of study.” Facebook’s algorithm automatically transforms people’s declared interests into advertising categories.

Here is a screenshot of our ad buying process on the company’s advertising portal:

Screenshot of Facebook ad buying process

This is not the first controversy over Facebook’s ad categories. Last year, ProPublica was able to block an ad that we bought in Facebook’s housing categories from being shown to African-Americans, Hispanics and Asian-Americans, raising the question of whether such ad targeting violated laws against discrimination in housing advertising. After ProPublica’s article appeared, Facebook built a system that it said would prevent such ads from being approved.

Last year, ProPublica also collected a list of the advertising categories Facebook was providing to advertisers. We downloaded more than 29,000 ad categories from Facebook’s ad system — and found categories ranging from an interest in “Hungarian sausages” to “People in households that have an estimated household income of between $100K and $125K.”

At that time, we did not find any anti-Semitic categories, but we do not know if we captured all of Facebook’s possible ad categories, or if these categories were added later. A Facebook spokesman didn’t respond to a question about when the categories were introduced.

Two weeks ago, acting on a tip, we logged into Facebook’s automated ad system to see if “Jew hater” was really an ad category. We found it, but discovered that the category — with only 2,274 people in it — was too small for Facebook to allow us to buy an ad pegged only to Jew haters.

Facebook’s automated system suggested “Second Amendment” as an additional category that would boost our audience size to 119,000 people, presumably because its system had correlated gun enthusiasts with anti-Semites.

Instead, we chose additional categories that popped up when we typed in “jew h”: “How to burn Jews,” and “History of ‘why jews ruin the world.’” Then we added a category that Facebook suggested when we typed in “Hitler”: a category called “Hitler did nothing wrong.” All were described as “fields of study.”

These ad categories were tiny. Only two people were listed as the audience size for “how to burn jews,” and just one for “History of ‘why jews ruin the world.’” Another 15 people comprised the viewership for “Hitler did nothing wrong.”

Facebook’s automated system told us that we still didn’t have a large enough audience to make a purchase. So we added “German Schutzstaffel,” commonly known as the Nazi SS, and the “Nazi Party,” which were both described to advertisers as groups of “employers.” Their audiences were larger: 3,194 for the SS and 2,449 for Nazi Party.

Still, Facebook said we needed more — so we added people with an interest in the National Democratic Party of Germany, a far-right, ultranationalist political party, with its much larger viewership of 194,600.

Once we had our audience, we submitted our ad — which promoted an unrelated ProPublica news article. Within 15 minutes, Facebook approved our ad, with one change. In its approval screen, Facebook described the ad targeting category “Jew hater” as “Antysemityzm,” the Polish word for anti-Semitism. Just to make sure it was referring to the same category, we bought two additional ads using the term “Jew hater” in combination with other terms. Both times, Facebook changed the ad targeting category “Jew hater” to “Antisemityzm” in its approval.

Here is one of our approved ads from Facebook:

Screenshot of approved Facebook ad for ProPublica

A few days later, Facebook sent us the results of our campaigns. Our three ads reached 5,897 people, generating 101 clicks, and 13 “engagements” — which could be a “like” a “share” or a comment on a post.

Since we contacted Facebook, most of the anti-Semitic categories have disappeared.

Facebook spokesman Joe Osborne said that they didn’t appear to have been widely used. “We have looked at the use of these audiences and campaigns and it’s not common or widespread,” he said.

We looked for analogous advertising categories for other religions, such as “Muslim haters.” Facebook didn’t have them.

Update, Sept. 14, 2017: This story has been updated to include the Facebook spokesman's name.

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for their newsletter.


Despite Disavowals, Leading Tech Companies Help Extremist Sites Monetize Hate

[Editor's note: today's guest post, by reporters at ProPublica, explores how hate sites maintain an online presence. It is reprinted with permission.]

By Julia Angwin, Jeff Larson, Madeleine Varner and Lauren Kirchner. ProPublica

Because of its "extreme hostility toward Muslims," the website Jihadwatch.org is considered an active hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League. The views of the site's director, Robert Spencer, on Islam led the British Home Office to ban him from entering the country in 2013.

But its designation as a hate site hasn't stopped tech companies -- including PayPal, Amazon and Newsmax -- from maintaining partnerships with Jihad Watch that help to sustain it financially. PayPal facilitates donations to the site. Newsmax -- the online news network run by President Donald Trump's close friend Chris Ruddy -- pays Jihad Watch in return for users clicking on its headlines. Until recently, Amazon allowed Jihad Watch to participate in a program that promised a cut of any book sales that the site generated. All three companies have policies that say they don't do business with hate groups.

Jihad Watch is one of many sites that monetize their extremist views through relationships with technology companies. ProPublica surveyed the most visited websites of groups designated as extremist by either the SPLC or the Anti-Defamation League. We found that more than half of them -- 39 out of 69 -- made money from ads, donations or other revenue streams facilitated by technology companies. At least 10 tech companies played a role directly or indirectly in supporting these sites.

Traditionally, tech companies have justified such relationships by contending that it's not their role to censor the Internet or to discourage legitimate political expression. Also, their management wasn't necessarily aware that they were doing business with hate sites because tech services tend to be automated and based on algorithms tied to demographics.

In the wake of last week's violent protest by alt-right groups in Charlottesville, more tech companies have disavowed relationships with extremist groups. During just the last week, six of the sites on our list were shut down. Even the web services company Cloudflare, which had long defended its laissez-faire approach to political expression, finally ended its relationship with the neo-Nazi site The Daily Stormer last week.

"I can't recall a time where the tech industry was so in step in their response to hate on their platforms," said Oren Segal, director of the ADL's Center on Extremism. "Stopping financial support to hate sites seems like a win-win for everyone."

But ProPublica's findings indicate that some tech companies with anti-hate policies may have failed to establish the monitoring processes needed to weed out hate sites. PayPal, the payment processor, has a policy against working with sites that use its service for "the promotion of hate, violence, [or] racial intolerance." Yet it was by far the top tech provider to the hate sites with donation links on 23 sites, or about one-third of those surveyed by ProPublica. In response to ProPublica's inquiries, PayPal spokesman Justin Higgs said in a statement that the company "strives to conscientiously assess activity and review accounts reported to us."

After Charlottesville, PayPal stopped accepting payments or donations for several high-profile white nationalist groups that participated in the march. It posted a statement that it would remain "vigilant on hate, violence & intolerance." It addresses each case individually, and "strives to navigate the balance between freedom of expression" and the "limiting and closing" of hate sites, it said.

After being contacted by ProPublica, Newsmax said it was unaware that the three sites that it had relationships with were considered hateful. "We will review the content of these sites and make any necessary changes after that review," said Andy Brown, chief operating officer of Newsmax.

Amazon spokeswoman Angie Newman said the company had previously removed Jihad Watch and three other sites identified by ProPublica from its program sharing revenue for book sales, which is called Amazon Associates. When ProPublica pointed out that the sites still carried working links to the program, she said that it was their responsibility to remove the code. "They are no longer paid as an Associate regardless of what links are on their site once we remove them from the Associates Program," she said.

Where to set the boundaries between hate speech and legitimate advocacy for perspectives on the edge of the political spectrum, and who should set them, are complex and difficult questions. Like other media outlets, we relied in part on the Southern Poverty Law Center's public list of "Active Hate Groups 2016." This list is controversial in some circles, with critics questioning whether the SPLC is too quick to brand organizations on the right as hate groups.

Still, the center does provide detailed explanations for many of its designations. For instance, the SPLC documents its decision to include the Family Research Council by citing the evangelical lobbying group's promotion of discredited science and unsubstantiated attacks on gay and lesbian people. We also consulted a list from ADL, which is not public and that was provided to us for research purposes. See our methodology here.

The sites that we identified from the ADL and SPLC lists vehemently denied that they are hate sites.

"It is not hateful, racist or extremist to oppose jihad terror," said Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch. He added that the true extremism was displayed by groups that seek to censor the Internet and that by asking questions about the tech platforms on his site, we were "aiding and abetting a quintessentially fascist enterprise."

Spencer made these comments in response to questions emailed by ProPublica reporter Lauren Kirchner. Afterwards, Spencer posted an item on Jihad Watch alleging that "leftist 'journalist'" Kirchner had threatened the site. He also posted Kirchner's photo and email, as well as his correspondence with her. After being contacted by ProPublica, another anti-Islam activist, Pamela Geller, also posted an attack on Kirchner, calling her a "senior reporting troll." Like Spencer, Geller was banned by the British Home Office; her eponymous site is on the SPLC and ADL lists.

Donations -- and the ability to accept them online through PayPal and similar companies -- are a lifeline for sites like Jihad Watch. In 2015, the nonprofit website disclosed that three quarters of its roughly $100,000 in revenues came from donations, according to publicly available tax records.

In recent weeks, PayPal has been working to shut down donations to extremist sites. This week, it pulled the plug on VDARE.com, an anti-immigration website designated as "white nationalist" by the SPLC and as a hate site by the ADL. VDARE, which denies being white nationalist, immediately switched to its backup system, Stripe.

Stripe, a private company recently described by Bloomberg Businessweek as a $9 billion startup, is unusual in not having a policy against working with hate sites. It does, however, prohibit financial transactions that support drugs, pornography and "psychic services." Stripe provided donation links for 10 sites, second only to PayPal on our list. Stripe did not respond to a request for comment.

VDARE editor Peter Brimelow declared on his site that the PayPal shutdown was likely part of a purge by the "authoritarian Communist Left to punish anyone who disagrees with their anti-American violence against patriotic people." He urged his readers to donate through other channels such as Bitcoins. "We need your help desperately," he wrote. "We must have the resources to defend ourselves and our people."

In 2015, VDARE received nearly all of its revenue -- $267,038 out of total $293,663 -- from donations, according to publicly available tax return forms that the Internal Revenue Service requires nonprofits to disclose.

Brimelow did not respond to our questions, instead characterizing ProPublica as the "Totalitarian Left."

Some sites also supplement their donations with revenue from online advertising. For instance, SonsofLibertyMedia.com, which is on the SPLC list, generated about 10 percent of its revenue -- $37,828 -- from advertising in 2015, according to its tax documents.

The site, which describes itself as promoting a "Judeo-Christian ethic," and recently posted an article declaring that a black activist protesting Confederate statues needed "a serious beat down," does not appear to attract advertisers directly.

Instead, Sons of Liberty benefits from a type of ad-piggybacking arrangement that is becoming more common in the tech industry. The website runs sponsored news articles from a company called Taboola, which shares ad revenues with it. Known for being at the forefront of "click-bait," Taboola places links on websites to articles about celebrities and popular culture.

Taboola's policy prohibits working with sites that have "politically religious agendas" or use hate speech. "We strive to ensure the safety of our network but from time to time, unfortunately, mistakes can happen," said Taboola spokeswoman Dana Miller. "We will ask our Content Policy group to review this site again and take action if needed."

Sons of Liberty founder Bradlee Dean said that he forwarded our questions to his attorney. The lawyer did not respond.

Hate sites can initiate relationships with tech companies with little scrutiny.

Any website can fill out an online form asking to join, for instance, Amazon's network, and often can get approved instantly. Once a website has joined a tech network, it can quickly start earning money through advertising, donations, or content farms such as Taboola that share ad revenues with websites that distribute their articles.

Some companies, such as Newsmax, say that joining their ad network requires explicit prior approval.

But, according to a former Newsmax employee, the only criterion for this approval was whether traffic to the site reached a minimum threshold. There was no content review. Salespeople were told to be aggressive in signing up publishing partners.

"We'd put our news feed on anybody's page, anyone who was willing to listen," he said, "it's about email addresses, it's about marketing, they don't care about ultra conservative or left wing."

Dylan Roof frequented a website described by the SPLC as "white nationalist." He said in a manifesto posted online that finding the website was a turning point in his life. He went on to murder nine African-American churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015. That year, USA Today found Newsmax ads on the site.

They no longer appear there.

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for their newsletter.

 


How To Control The Ads Facebook Displays

If you use Facebook, then you know that the social networking site serves ads based upon your interests. And, you''d probably be surprised at what Facebook thinks you are interested in versus what you are really interested in.

To see what Facebook thinks you are interested in, you will need to access your Ad Preferences page. Sign into your Facebook account using the browser interface, and click on the triangle drop-down menu icon in the upper right corner. Next select Settings, and then select Ads in the left column. Your Ad Preferences page looks like this:

Default view of the Facebook Ad Preferences page. Click to view larger version

Facebook has neatly organized what it thinks your interests are into several categories: Your Interests, Advertisers You've Interacted With, Your Information, and Ad Settings. Open the Your Interests module:

Your Interests module within Facebook Ad Preferences. Click to view larger version

This module includes several sub-categories: News & Entertainment, Business & Industry, Hobbies & Activities, Travel Places, & Events, People, Technology, and Lifestyle. Mouse over an item to reveal both an explanation why that item appears in your list and the "X" delete button. Click on the "X" button to remove that item.

Facebook has collected impressively long lists about what it thinks your interests are. So, click on the "See More" links within each sub-category. Facebook ads interest items based upon links you've selected, groups you've joined, ads you have viewed, the photos/videos you have uploaded, items (e.g., groups, events, status messages) you have "Liked," and more. There's plenty to browse, so you'll probably want to set aside 15 minutes to review and delete items.

There is a sneaky aspect to Facebook's interface. An item may appear in several categories. So, if you delete it in one category don't assume it was deleted in other categories. You'll have to visit each sub-category and delete it there, too. And, there is no guarantee Facebook won't re-add that item later based upon your activities within the site and/or mobile app.

Caution: even if you delete everything, Facebook will still show advertisements. Why? That's what the social networking service is designed to do. That's its business model. Even if you stop clicking "Like" buttons, Facebook will use alternate criteria to display ads. You can control or limit the topics for ads, but you can't stop ads entirely.

The Your Information module includes toggle switches to either activate or deactivate groups of items within your profile which Facebook uses to display ads:

Your Information module within Facebook Ad Preferences. Click to view larger version

It's probably wise to re-visit your Ad Preference page once yearly to delete items. What do you think?


Berners-Lee: 3 Reasons Why The Internet Is In Serious Trouble

Most people love the Internet. It's a tool that has made life easier and more efficient in many ways. Even with all of those advances, the founder of the Internet listed three reasons why our favorite digital tool is in serious trouble:

  1. Consumers have lost control of their personal information
  2. It's too easy for anyone to publish misinformation online
  3. Political advertising online lacks transparency

Tim Berners-Lee explained the first reason:

"The current business model for many websites offers free content in exchange for personal data. Many of us agree to this – albeit often by accepting long and confusing terms and conditions documents – but fundamentally we do not mind some information being collected in exchange for free services. But, we’re missing a trick. As our data is then held in proprietary silos, out of sight to us, we lose out on the benefits we could realise if we had direct control over this data and chose when and with whom to share it. What’s more, we often do not have any way of feeding back to companies what data we’d rather not share..."

Given appointees in the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) by President Trump, it will likely get worse as the FCC seeks to revoke online privacy and net neutrality protections for consumers in the United States. Berners-Lee explained the second reason:

"Today, most people find news and information on the web through just a handful of social media sites and search engines. These sites make more money when we click on the links they show us. And they choose what to show us based on algorithms that learn from our personal data that they are constantly harvesting. The net result is that these sites show us content they think we’ll click on – meaning that misinformation, or fake news, which is surprising, shocking, or designed to appeal to our biases, can spread like wildfire..."

Fake news has become so widespread that many public libraries, schools, and colleges teach students how to recognize fake news sites and content. The problem is more widespread and isn't limited to social networking sites like Facebook promoting certain news. It also includes search engines. Readers of this blog are familiar with the DuckDuckGo search engine for both online privacy online and to escape the filter bubble. According to its public traffic page, DuckDuckGo gets about 14 million searches daily.

Most other search engines collect information about their users and that to serve search results items related to what they've searched upon previously. That's called the "filter bubble." It's great for search engines' profitability as it encourages repeat usage, but is terrible for consumers wanting unbiased and unfiltered search results.

Berners-Lee warned that online political advertising:

"... has rapidly become a sophisticated industry. The fact that most people get their information from just a few platforms and the increasing sophistication of algorithms drawing upon rich pools of personal data mean that political campaigns are now building individual adverts targeted directly at users. One source suggests that in the 2016 U.S. election, as many as 50,000 variations of adverts were being served every single day on Facebook, a near-impossible situation to monitor. And there are suggestions that some political adverts – in the US and around the world – are being used in unethical ways – to point voters to fake news sites, for instance, or to keep others away from the polls. Targeted advertising allows a campaign to say completely different, possibly conflicting things to different groups. Is that democratic?"

What do you think of the assessment by Berners-Lee? Of his solutions? Any other issues?


Your Smart TV Is A Blabbermouth. How To Stop Its Spying On You

Internet-connected televisions, often referred to as "smart TVs," collect a wide variety of information about consumers. The devices track the videos you watch from several sources: cable, broadband, set-top box, DVD player, over-the-air broadcasts, and streaming devices. The devices collect a wide variety of information about consumers, including items such as as sex, age, income, marital status, household size, education level, home ownership, and household value. The TV makers sell this information to third parties, such as advertisers and data brokers.

Some people might call this "surveillance capitalism."

Reliability and trust with smart devices are critical for consumers. Earlier this month, Vizio agreed to pay $2.2 million to settle privacy abuse charges by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

What's a consumer to do to protect their privacy? This C/Net article provides good step-by-step instructions to turn off or to minimize the tracking by your smart television. The instructions include several smart TV brands: Samsung, Vizio, LG, Sony, and others. Sample instructions for one brand:

"Samsung: On 2016 TVs, click the remote's Home button, go to Settings (gear icon), scroll down to Support, then down to Terms & Policy. Under "Interest Based Advertisement" click "Disable Interactive Services." Under "Viewing Information Services" unclick "I agree." And under "Voice Recognition Services" click "Disable advanced features of the Voice Recognition services." If you want you can also disagree with the other two, Nuance Voice Recognition and Online Remote Management.

On older Samsung TVs, hit the remote's Menu button (on 2015 models only, then select Menu from the top row of icons), scroll down to Smart Hub, then select Terms & Policy. Disable "SynchPlus and Marketing." You can also disagree with any of the other policies listed there, and if your TV has them, disable the voice recognition and disagree with the Nuance privacy notice described above."

Browse the step-by-step instructions for your brand of television. If you disabled the tracking features on your smart TV, how did it go? If you used a different resource to learn about your smart TV's tracking features, please share it below.


GOP Legislation In Congress To Revoke Consumer Privacy And Protections

Logo for Republican Party, also known as the GOP The MediaPost Policy Blog reported:

"Republican Senator Jeff Flake, who opposes the Federal Communications Commission's broadband privacy rules, says he's readying a resolution to rescind them, Politico reports. Flake's confirmation to Politico comes days after Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee), the head of the House Communications Subcommittee, said she intends to work with the Senate to revoke the privacy regulations."

Blackburn's name is familiar. She was a key part of the GOP effort in 2014 to keep state laws in place to limit broadband competition by preventing citizens from forming local broadband providers. To get both higher speeds and lower prices compared to offerings by corporate internet service providers (ISPs), many people want to form local broadband providers. They can't because 20 states have laws preventing broadband competition. A worldwide study in 2014 found the consumers in the United States get poor broadband value: pay more and get slower speeds. Plus, the only consumers getting good value were community broadband customers. In June 2014, the FCC announced plans to challenge these restrictive state laws that limit competition, and keep your Internet prices high. That FCC effort failed. To encourage competition and lower prices, several Democratic representatives introduced the Community Broadband Act in 2015.That legislation went nowhere in a GOP-controlled Congress.

Pause for a moment and let that sink in. Blackburn and other GOP representatives have pursued policies where we consumers all pay more for broadband due to the lack of competition. The GOP, a party that supposedly dislikes regulation and prefers free-market competition, is happy to do the opposite to help their corporate donors. The GOP, a party that historically has promoted states' rights, now uses state laws to restrict the freedoms of constituents at the city, town, and local levels. And, that includes rural constituents.

Too many GOP voters seem oblivious to this. Why Democrats failed to capitalize on this broadband issue, especially during the Presidential campaign last year, is puzzling. Everyone needs broadband: work, play, school, travel, entertainment.

Now, back to the effort to revoke the FCC's broadband privacy rules. Several cable, telecommunications, and advertising lobbies sent a letter in January asking Congress to remove the broadband privacy rules. That letter said in part:

"... in adopting new broadband privacy rules late last year, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) took action that jeopardizes the vibrancy and success of the internet and the innovations the internet has and should continue to offer. While the FCC’s Order applies only to Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”), the onerous and unnecessary rules it adopted establish a very harmful precedent for the entire internet ecosystem. We therefore urge Congress to enact a resolution of disapproval pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (“CRA”) vitiating the Order."

The new privacy rules by the FCC require broadband providers (a/k/a ISPs) to obtain affirmative “opt-in” consent from consumers before using and sharing consumers' sensitive information; specify the types of information that are sensitive (e.g., geo-location, financial information, health information, children’s information, social security numbers, web browsing history, app usage history and the content of communications); stop using and sharing information about consumers that have opted out of information sharing; meet transparency requirements to clearly notify customers about the information collection sharing and how to change their opt-in or opt-out preferences, prohibit "take-it-or-leave-it" offers where ISPs can refuse to serve customers who don't consent to the information collection and sharing; and comply with "reasonable data security practices and guidelines" to protect the sensitive information collected and shared.

The new FCC privacy rules are common sense stuff, but clearly these companies view common-sense methods as a burden. They want to use consumers' information however they please without limits, and without consideration for consumers' desire to control their own personal information. And, GOP representatives in Congress are happy to oblige these companies in this abuse.

Alarmingly, there is more. Lots more.

The GOP-led Congress also seeks to roll back consumer protections in banking and financial services. According to Consumer Reports, the issue arose earlier this month in:

"... a memo by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex), which was leaked to the press yesterday... The fate of the database was first mentioned [February 9th] when Bloomberg reported on a memo by Hensarling, an outspoken critic of the CFPB. The memo outlined a new version of the Financial CHOICE Act (Creating Hope and Opportunity for Investors, Consumers and Entrepreneurs), a bill originally advanced by the House Financial Services Committee in September. The new bill would lead to the repeal of the Consumer Complaint Database. It would also eliminate the CFPB's authority to punish unfair, deceptive or abusive practices among banks and other lenders, and it would allow the President to handpick—and fire—the bureau's director at will."

Banks have paid billions in fines to resolve a variety of allegations and complaints about wrongdoing. Consumers have often been abused by banks. You may remember the massive $185 million fine for the phony accounts scandal at Wells Fargo. Or, you may remember consumers forced to use prison-release cards. Or, maybe you experienced debt collection scams. And, this blog has covered extensively much of the great work by the CFPB which has helped consumers.

Does these two legislation items bother you? I sincerely hope that they do bother you. Contact your elected officials today and demand that they support the FCC privacy rules.


Facebook Doesn't Tell Users Everything it Really Knows About Them

[Editor's note: today's guest post is by reporters at ProPublica. I've posted it because, a) many consumers don't know how their personal information is bought, sold, and used by companies and social networking sites; b) the USA is capitalist society and the sensitive personal data that describes consumers is consumers' personal property; c) a better appreciation of "a" and "b" will hopefully encourage more consumers to be less willing to trade their personal property for convenience, and demand better privacy protections from products, services, software, apps, and devices; and d) when lobbyists and politicians act to erode consumers' property and privacy rights, hopefully more consumers will respond and act. Facebook is not the only social networking site that trades consumers' information. This news story is reprinted with permission.]

by Julia Angwin, Terry Parris Jr. and Surya Mattu, ProPublica

Facebook has long let users see all sorts of things the site knows about them, like whether they enjoy soccer, have recently moved, or like Melania Trump.

But the tech giant gives users little indication that it buys far more sensitive data about them, including their income, the types of restaurants they frequent and even how many credit cards are in their wallets.

Since September, ProPublica has been encouraging Facebook users to share the categories of interest that the site has assigned to them. Users showed us everything from "Pretending to Text in Awkward Situations" to "Breastfeeding in Public." In total, we collected more than 52,000 unique attributes that Facebook has used to classify users.

Facebook's site says it gets information about its users "from a few different sources."

What the page doesn't say is that those sources include detailed dossiers obtained from commercial data brokers about users' offline lives. Nor does Facebook show users any of the often remarkably detailed information it gets from those brokers.

"They are not being honest," said Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy. "Facebook is bundling a dozen different data companies to target an individual customer, and an individual should have access to that bundle as well."

When asked this week about the lack of disclosure, Facebook responded that it doesn't tell users about the third-party data because its widely available and was not collected by Facebook.

"Our approach to controls for third-party categories is somewhat different than our approach for Facebook-specific categories," said Steve Satterfield, a Facebook manager of privacy and public policy. "This is because the data providers we work with generally make their categories available across many different ad platforms, not just on Facebook."

Satterfield said users who don't want that information to be available to Facebook should contact the data brokers directly. He said users can visit a page in Facebook's help center, which provides links to the opt-outs for six data brokers that sell personal data to Facebook.

Limiting commercial data brokers' distribution of your personal information is no simple matter. For instance, opting out of Oracle's Datalogix, which provides about 350 types of data to Facebook according to our analysis, requires "sending a written request, along with a copy of government-issued identification" in postal mail to Oracle's chief privacy officer.

Users can ask data brokers to show them the information stored about them. But that can also be complicated. One Facebook broker, Acxiom, requires people to send the last four digits of their social security number to obtain their data. Facebook changes its providers from time to time so members would have to regularly visit the help center page to protect their privacy.

One of us actually tried to do what Facebook suggests. While writing a book about privacy in 2013, reporter Julia Angwin tried to opt out from as many data brokers as she could. Of the 92 brokers she identified that accepted opt-outs, 65 of them required her to submit a form of identification such as a driver's license. In the end, she could not remove her data from the majority of providers.

ProPublica's experiment to gather Facebook's ad categories from readers was part of our Black Box series, which explores the power of algorithms in our lives. Facebook uses algorithms not only to determine the news and advertisements that it displays to users, but also to categorize its users in tens of thousands of micro-targetable groups.

Our crowd-sourced data showed us that Facebook's categories range from innocuous groupings of people who like southern food to sensitive categories such as "Ethnic Affinity" which categorizes people based on their affinity for African-Americans, Hispanics and other ethnic groups. Advertisers can target ads toward a group 2014 or exclude ads from being shown to a particular group.

Last month, after ProPublica bought a Facebook ad in its housing categories that excluded African-Americans, Hispanics and Asian-Americans, the company said it would build an automated system to help it spot ads that illegally discriminate.

Facebook has been working with data brokers since 2012 when it signed a deal with Datalogix. This prompted Chester, the privacy advocate at the Center for Digital Democracy, to filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission alleging that Facebook had violated a consent decree with the agency on privacy issues. The FTC has never publicly responded to that complaint and Facebook subsequently signed deals with five other data brokers.

To find out exactly what type of data Facebook buys from brokers, we downloaded a list of 29,000 categories that the site provides to ad buyers. Nearly 600 of the categories were described as being provided by third-party data brokers. (Most categories were described as being generated by clicking pages or ads on Facebook.)

The categories from commercial data brokers were largely financial, such as "total liquid investible assets $1-$24,999," "People in households that have an estimated household income of between $100K and $125K, or even "Individuals that are frequent transactor at lower cost department or dollar stores."

We compared the data broker categories with the crowd-sourced list of what Facebook tells users about themselves. We found none of the data broker information on any of the tens of the thousands of "interests" that Facebook showed users.

Our tool also allowed users to react to the categories they were placed in as being "wrong," "creepy" or "spot on." The category that received the most votes for "wrong" was "Farmville slots." The category that got the most votes for "creepy" was "Away from family." And the category that was rated most "spot on" was "NPR."

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for their newsletter.


Cable, Telecom And Advertising Lobbies Ask Congress To Remove FCC Broadband Privacy Rules

The Association of National Advertisers (ANA) and 15 other cable, telecommunications, advertising lobbies sent a letter on January 27, 2017 to key leaders in Congress urging them to repeal the broadband privacy rules the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted in October 2016 requiring Internet service providers (ISPs) to protect the privacy of their customers. 15 advertising and lobbyist groups co-signed the letter with the ANA: the American Cable Association, the Competitive Carriers Association, CTIA-The Wireless Association (formerly known as the Cellular Communications Industry Association), the Data & Marketing Association, the Internet Advertising Bureau, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Telecom Association, and others.

The letter, available at the ANA site and here (Adobe PDF; 354.4k), explained the groups' reasoning:

"Unfortunately, in adopting new broadband privacy rules late last year, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) took action that jeopardizes the vibrancy and success of the internet and the innovations the internet has and should continue to offer. While the FCC’s Order applies only to Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”), the onerous and unnecessary rules it adopted establish a very harmful precedent for the entire internet ecosystem. We therefore urge Congress to enact a resolution of disapproval pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (“CRA”) vitiating the Order.

Adopted on a party-line 3-2 vote just ten days before the Presidential election, over strenuous objections by the minority and strong concerns expressed by entities throughout the internet ecosystem, the new rules impose overly prescriptive online privacy and data security requirements that will conflict with established law, policy, and practice and cause consumer confusion... the FCC Order would create confusion and interfere with the
ability of consumers to receive customized services and capabilities they enjoy and be informed of new products and discount offers. Further, the Order would also result in consumers being bombarded with trivial data breach notifications."

Data breach notifications are trivial? After writing this blog for almost 10 years, I have learned they aren't. Consumers deserve to know when companies fail to protect their sensitive personal information. Most states have laws requiring breach notifications. It seems as these advertising groups don't want to be responsible nor held accountable.

The Hill explained the CRA and how it usually fails:

"The Congressional Review Act (CRA) has only worked precisely one time as a way for Congress to undo an executive branch regulation... The CRA was passed in 1996 as part of then-Speaker Newt Gingrich's (R-Ga.) "Contract with America." While executive branch agencies can only issue regulations pursuant to statutes passed by Congress, Congress wanted to find a way to make it easier to overturn those regulations. Previously there was a process by which, if one house of Congress voted to overturn the regulation, it was invalidated. This procedure was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1983.

Congress was still able to overturn an executive branch regulation by passing a law. Passing a law is, of course, subject to filibusters in the Senate. We've learned that the filibuster in recent years has made it quite difficult to pass laws. The CRA created a period of 60 "session days" (days in which Congress is in session) during which Congress could use expedited procedures to overturn a regulation.

Also on January 27, several consumer privacy advocates sent a letter (Adobe PDF) to the same Congressional representatives. The letter, signed by 20 privacy advocates including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Center for Media Justice, Consumers Union, the National Hispanic Media Coalition, the Privacy Rights Clearing House, and others urging the Congressional representatives:

"... to oppose the use of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to adopt a Resolution of Disapproval overturning the FCC’s broadband privacy order. That order implements the mandates in Section 222 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which an overwhelming, bipartisan majority of Congress enacted to protect telecommunications users’ privacy. The cable, telecom, wireless, and advertising lobbies request for CRA intervention is just another industry attempt to overturn rules that empower users and give them a say in how their private information may be used.

Not satisfied with trying to appeal the rules of the agency, industry lobbyists have asked Congress to punish internet users by way of restraining the FCC, when all the agency did was implement Congress’ own directive in the 1996 Act. This irresponsible, scorched-earth tactic is as harmful as it is hypocritical. If Congress were to take the industry up on its request, a Resolution of Disapproval could exempt internet service providers (ISPs) from any and all privacy rules at the FCC... It could also preclude the FCC from addressing any of the other issues in the privacy order like requiring data breach notification and from revisiting these issues as technology continues to evolve in the future... Without these rules, ISPs could use and disclose customer information at will. The result could be extensive harm caused by breaches or misuse of data.

Broadband ISPs, by virtue of their position as gatekeepers to everything on the internet, have a largely unencumbered view into their customers’ online communications. That includes the websites they visit, the videos they watch, and the messages they send. Even when that traffic is encrypted, ISPs can gather vast troves of valuable information on their users’ habits; but researchers have shown that much of the most sensitive information remains unencrypted. The FCC’s order simply restores people’s control over their personal information and lets them choose the terms on which ISPs can use it, share it, or sell it..."

The new FCC broadband privacy rules kept consumers in control of their online privacy. The new rules featured opt-in requirements allowing them to collect consumers' sensitive personal information only after gaining customers' explicit consent.

So, advertisers have finally stated clearly how much they care about protecting consumers' privacy. They really don't. They don't want any constraints upon their ability to collect and archive consumers' (your) sensitive personal information. During the 2016 presidential campaign, candidate and now President Donald Trump promised:

"One of the keys to unlocking growth is scaling-back years of disastrous regulations unilaterally imposed by our out-of-control bureaucracy. In 2015 alone, federal agencies issued over 3,300 final rules and regulations, up from 2,400 the prior year. Every year, over-regulation costs our economy $2 trillion dollars a year and reduces household wealth by almost $15,000 dollars. Mr. Trump has proposed a moratorium on new federal regulations that are not compelled by Congress or public safety, and will ask agency and department heads to identify all needless job-killing regulations and they will be removed... A complete regulatory overhaul will level the playing field for American workers and add trillions in new wealth to our economy – keeping companies here, expanding hiring and investment, and bringing thousands of new companies to our shores."

Are FCC rules protecting your privacy "over-regulation," "onerous and unnecessary?" Are FCC privacy rules keeping consumers in control over their sensitive personal information "disastrous?" Will the Trump administration side with corporate lobbies or consumers' privacy protections? We shall quickly see.

There is a clue what the answer to that question will be. President Trump has named Ajit Pai, a Republican member of the Federal Communications Commission, as the new FCC chair replacing Tom Wheeler, the former chair and Democrat, who stepped down on Friday. This will also give the Republicans a majority on the FCC.

Pai is also an opponent of net neutrality rules the FCC has also adopted, which basically says consumers (and not ISPs) decided where consumers go on the Internet with their broadband connections. Republicans in Congress and lobby groups have long opposed net neutrality. In 2014, more than 100 tech firms urged the FCC to protect net neutrality. With a new President in the White House opposing regulations, some companies and lobby groups seem ready to undo these consumer protections.

What do you think?


Facebook Says it Will Stop Allowing Some Advertisers to Exclude Users by Race

Facebook logo [Editor's note: Today's guest post was originally published by ProPublica on November 11, 2016. It is reprinted with permission. This prior post explained the problems with Facebook's racial advertising filters.]

by Julia Angwin, ProPublica

Facing a wave of criticism for allowing advertisers to exclude anyone with an "affinity" for African-American, Asian-American or Hispanic people from seeing ads, Facebook said it would build an automated system that would let it better spot ads that discriminate illegally.

Federal law prohibits ads for housing, employment and credit that exclude people by race, gender and other factors.

Facebook said it would build an automated system to scan advertisements to determine if they are services in these categories. Facebook will prohibit the use of its "ethnic affinities" for such ads.

Facebook said its new system should roll out within the next few months. "We are going to have to build a solution to do this. It is not going to happen overnight," said Steve Satterfield, privacy and public policy manager at Facebook.

He said that Facebook would also update its advertising policies with "stronger, more specific prohibitions" against discriminatory ads for housing, credit and employment.

In October, ProPublica purchased an ad that targeted Facebook members who were house hunting and excluded anyone with an "affinity" for African-American, Asian-American or Hispanic people. When we showed the ad to a civil rights lawyer, he said it seemed like a blatant violation of the federal Fair Housing Act.

After ProPublica published an article about its ad purchase, Facebook was deluged with criticism. Four members of Congress wrote Facebook demanding that the company stop giving advertisers the option of excluding by ethnic group.

The federal agency that enforces the nation's fair housing laws said it was "in discussions" with Facebook to address what it termed "serious concerns" about the social network's advertising practices.

And a group of Facebook users filed a&n class-action lawsuit against Facebook, alleging that the company's ad-targeting technology violates the Fair Housing Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Facebook's Satterfield said that today's changes are the result of "a lot of conversations with stakeholders."

Facebook said the new system would not only scan the content of ads, but could also inject pop-up notices alerting buyers when they are attempting to purchase ads that might violate the law or Facebook's ad policies.

"We're glad to see Facebook recognizing the important civil rights protections for housing, credit and employment," said Rachel Goodman, staff attorney with the racial justice program at the American Civil Liberties Union. "We hope other online advertising platforms will recognize that ads in these areas need to be treated differently."

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for their newsletter.


Facebook Lets Advertisers Exclude Users by Race

Facebook logo [Editor's note: Today's guest post was originally published by ProPublica on October 28, 2016. It is reprinted with permission.]

by Julia Angwin and Terry Parris Jr., ProPublica

Imagine if, during the Jim Crow era, a newspaper offered advertisers the option of placing ads only in copies that went to white readers.

That's basically what Facebook is doing nowadays.

The ubiquitous social network not only allows advertisers to target users by their interests or background, it also gives advertisers the ability to exclude specific groups it calls "Ethnic Affinities." Ads that exclude people based on race, gender and other sensitive factors are prohibited by federal law in housing and employment.

Here is a screenshot of a housing ad that we purchased from Facebook's self-service advertising portal:

Image

The ad we purchased was targeted to Facebook members who were house hunting and excluded anyone with an "affinity" for African-American, Asian-American or Hispanic people. (Here's the ad itself.)

When we showed Facebook's racial exclusion options to a prominent civil rights lawyer John Relman, he gasped and said, "This is horrifying. This is massively illegal. This is about as blatant a violation of the federal Fair Housing Act as one can find."

The Fair Housing Act of 1968 makes it illegal "to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin." Violators can face tens of thousands of dollars in fines.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 also prohibits the "printing or publication of notices or advertisements indicating prohibited preference, limitation, specification or discrimination" in employment recruitment.

Facebook's business model is based on allowing advertisers to target specific groups 2014 or, apparently to exclude specific groups 2014 using huge reams of personal data the company has collected about its users. Facebook's microtargeting is particularly helpful for advertisers looking to reach niche audiences, such as swing-state voters concerned about climate change. ProPublica recently offered a tool allowing users to see how Facebook is categorizing them. We found nearly 50,000 unique categories in which Facebook places its users.

Facebook says its policies prohibit advertisers from using the targeting options for discrimination, harassment, disparagement or predatory advertising practices.

"We take a strong stand against advertisers misusing our platform: Our policies prohibit using our targeting options to discriminate, and they require compliance with the law," said Steve Satterfield, privacy and public policy manager at Facebook. "We take prompt enforcement action when we determine that ads violate our policies."

Satterfield said it's important for advertisers to have the ability to both include and exclude groups as they test how their marketing performs. For instance, he said, an advertiser "might run one campaign in English that excludes the Hispanic affinity group to see how well the campaign performs against running that ad campaign in Spanish. This is a common practice in the industry."

He said Facebook began offering the "Ethnic Affinity" categories within the past two years as part of a "multicultural advertising" effort.

Satterfield added that the "Ethnic Affinity" is not the same as race 2014 which Facebook does not ask its members about. Facebook assigns members an "Ethnic Affinity" based on pages and posts they have liked or engaged with on Facebook.

When we asked why "Ethnic Affinity" was included in the "Demographics" category of its ad-targeting tool if it's not a representation of demographics, Facebook responded that it plans to move "Ethnic Affinity" to another section.

Facebook declined to answer questions about why our housing ad excluding minority groups was approved 15 minutes after we placed the order.

By comparison, consider the advertising controls that the New York Times has put in place to prevent discriminatory housing ads. After the newspaper was successfully sued under the Fair Housing Act in 1989, it agreed to review ads for potentially discriminatory content before accepting them for publication.

Steph Jespersen, the Times' director of advertising acceptability, said that the company's staff runs automated programs to make sure that ads that contain discriminatory phrases such as "whites only" and "no kids" are rejected.

The Times' automated program also highlights ads that contain potentially discriminatory code words such as "near churches" or "close to a country club." Humans then review those ads before they can be approved.

Jespersen said the Times also rejects housing ads that contain photographs of too many white people. The people in the ads must represent the diversity of the population of New York, and if they don't, he says he will call up the advertiser and ask them to submit an ad with a more diverse lineup of models.

But, Jespersen said, these days most advertisers know not to submit discriminatory ads: "I haven't seen an ad with 'whites only' for a long time."

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for their newsletter.


4 Website Operators Settle With New York State Attorney General For Illegal Tracking of Children

Earlier this month, the Attorney General for the State of New York (NYSAG) announced settlement agreements with the operators of several popular websites for the illegal online tracking of children, which violated the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). The website operators agreed to pay a total of $835,000 in fines, comply with, and implement a comprehensive set of requirements and changes.

COPPA, passed by Congress in 1998 and updated in 2013, prohibits the unauthorized collection, use, and disclosure of children’s personal information (e.g., first name, last name, e-mail address, IP address, etc.) on websites directed to children under the age of 13, including the collection of information for tracking a child’s movements across the Internet. The 2013 update expanded the list of personal information items, and prohibits covered operators from using cookies, IP addresses, and other persistent identifiers to track users across websites for most advertising purposes, amassing profiles on individual users, and serving targeted behavioral advertisements.

The NYSAG operated a program titled "Operation Child Tracker," which analyzed the most popular children’s websites for any unauthorized tracking. The analysis found that four website operators include third-party tracking on their websites -- which is prohibited by COPPA -- and failed to properly evaluate third-party companies, such as advertisers, advertising networks, and marketers. The website operators and their properties included Viacom (websites associated with Nick Jr. and Nickelodeon), Mattel (Barbie, Hot Wheels, and American Girl), JumpStart (Neopets), and Hasbro (My Little Pony, Littlest Pet Shop, and Nerf).

Regular readers of this blog are familiar with the variety of technologies and mechanisms companies have used to track consumers online: web browser cookies, “zombie cookies,” Flash cookies, “zombie e-tags,” super cookies, “zombie databases” on mobile devices, canvas fingerprinting, and augmented reality (which tracks consumers both online and in the physical world). For example, the web browser cookie is a small text file placed by a website on a user’s computer which is stored by the user’s web browser.  Every time a user visits the website, the website retrieves all cookies files stored by that website on the user’s computer. Some website operators shared the information contained in web browser cookies with third-party companies, such as marketing affiliates, advertisers, and tracking companies. This allows web browser cookies to be used to track a user’s browsing history across several websites.

All of this happens in the background without explicit notices in the web browser software, unless the user configures their web browser to provide notice and/or to delete all browser cookies stored. The other technologies represent alternative methods with more technical sophistication and stealth.

The announcement by the NYSAG described each website operator's activities:

"Viacom operates the Nick Jr. website, at www.nickjr.com, and the Nickelodeon website, at www.nick.com... The office of the Attorney General found a variety of improper third party tracking on the Nick Jr. and Nickelodeon websites. These included:

1. Many advertisers and agencies that placed advertisements on Nick Jr. and Nickelodeon websites introduced tracking technologies of third parties that routinely engage in the type of tracking, profiling, and targeted advertising prohibited by COPPA. Viacom considered several approaches to mitigate the risk of COPPA violations from these third parties, including removing adult advertising from a child-directed section of the Nick Jr. website and monitoring advertisements for unexpected tracking... However, Viacom did not timely take either approach and did not implement sufficient safeguards for its users.

2. Some visitors to the homepage of the Nick Jr. website were served behavioral advertising and tracked through a third party advertising platform Viacom used to serve advertisements. Although Viacom considered the homepage of the Nick Jr. website to be parent-directed, and thus not covered by COPPA, the homepage had content that appealed to children. Under COPPA, website operators must treat mixed audience pages as child-directed..."

Mattel logo The NYSAG also found:

"... 26 of Mattel’s websites feature content for young children, including online games, animated cartoons, and downloadable content such as posters, computer desktop wallpaper, and pages for young children to color... The office of the Attorney General found that a variety of improper third party tracking technologies were present on Mattel’s child-directed websites and sections of websites. These included:

1. Mattel deployed a tracking technology supplied by a third party data broker across its Barbie, Hot Wheels, Fisher-Price, Monster High, Ever After High, and Thomas & Friends websites. Mattel used the tracking technology for measuring website metrics, such as the number of visitors to each site, a practice permitted under COPPA. However, the tracking technology supplied by the data broker introduced many other third party tracking technologies in a process known as “piggy backing.” Many of these third parties engage in the type of tracking, profiling, and targeted advertising prohibited by COPPA.

2. A tracking technology that Mattel deployed on the e-commerce portion of the American Girl website, which is not directed to children or covered by COPPA, was inadvertently introduced onto certain child-directed webpages of the American Girl website.

3. Mattel uploaded videos to Google’s YouTube.com, a video hosting platform, and then embedded some of these videos onto the child-directed portion of several Mattel websites, including the Barbie website. When the embedded videos were played by children, it enabled Google tracking technologies, which were used to serve behavioral advertisements.

JumpStart logo Regarding JumpStart, the NYSAG found:

"... several improper third party tracking technologies were present on the Neopets website, both for logged-in users under the age of 13 and users who were not logged-in. These included:

1. JumpStart failed to configure the advertising platform used to serve ads on the Neopets website in a manner that would comply with COPPA. As a result, users under the age of 13 were served behavioral advertising and tracked through the advertising platform.

2. JumpStart integrated a Facebook plug-in into the Neopets website... Facebook uses the tracking information for serving behavioral advertising, among other things, unless the website operator notifies Facebook with a COPPA flag that the website falls is subject to COPPA. JumpStart did not notify Facebook that the Neopets website was directed to children."

Hasbro logo For Hasbro, the NYSAG found:

"... several improper third party tracking technologies were present on Hasbro’s child-directed websites and sections of websites. These included:

1. Hasbro engaged in an advertising campaign that tracked visitors to the Nerf section of Hasbro’s website in order to serve Hasbro advertisements to those same users as they visited other websites at a later time, a type of online behavioral advertising prohibited by COPPA known as “remarketing.”

2. Hasbro integrated a third-party plug-in into many of its websites, that allowed users to be tracked across websites and introduced other third parties that engaged in the type of tracking, profiling, and targeted advertising prohibited under COPPA.

It is important to note that Hasbro participated in a safe harbor program. A website operator that complies with the rules of an FTC-approved safe harbor program is deemed in compliance with COPPA. However, safe harbor programs rely on full disclosure of the operator’s practices and Hasbro failed to disclose the existence of the remarketing campaign through the Nerf website."

The terms of the settlement agreements require the website operators to:

  1. Conduct regular electronic scans for unexpected third party tracking technologies that may appear on their children’s websites. Three of the companies, Viacom, Mattel, and JumpStart will provide regular reports to the office regarding the results of the scans.
  2. Adopt procedures to evaluate third-party companies before they are introduced onto their children’s websites. the evaluation should determine whether and how the third parties collect, use, and disclose, and allow others to collect, use, and disclose, personal information from users.
  3. Provide notice to third parties that collect, use, or disclose personal information of users with information sufficient to enable the third parties to identify the websites or sections of websites that are child directed pursuant to COPPA.
  4. Update website privacy policies with either, a) information sufficient to enable parents and others to identify the websites and portions of websites that are directed to children under COPPA, or b) a means of contacting the company so that parents and others may request such information.

Kudos to the NYSAG office and staff for a comprehensive analysis and enforcement to protect children's online privacy. This type of analysis and enforcement is critical as companies introduce more Internet-connected toys and products classified as part of the Internet of Things (ioT).


Pokemon Go: The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly

Pokemon Go mobile game image. Click to view larger version The game's popularity proliferated after a July 6 launch in Australia, New Zealand, and the United States: 7.5 million downloads during its first week; 50 million downloads from Google Play during its first month; and it was WikiPedia's most visited article by mid-July. (View the game's Wikipedia pageviews.) Everyone noticed. Early in July, a former advertising coworker joked on Facebook:

" 'How about we partner with Pokemon Go?' -- Said in every office at every agency for every client this morning."

Probably. The augmented-reality (AR) mobile game requires players to travel real-life streets to find and capture digital characters superimposed on locations and displayed on the screens of players' phones. The game's screens also display PokeStops and gyms, locations superimposed on real-life landmarks. The CNN video at the end of this blog post provides a good summary. The Apple iTunes site explains important game details:

"Search far and wide for Pokémon and items: Certain Pokémon appear near their native environment—look for Water-type Pokémon by lakes and oceans. Visit PokéStops, found at interesting places like museums, art installations, historical markers, and monuments, to stock up on Poké Balls and helpful items... As you level up, you’ll be able to catch more-powerful Pokémon to complete your Pokédex. You can add to your collection by hatching Pokémon Eggs based on the distances you walk... Take on Gym battles and defend your Gym: As your Charmander evolves to Charmeleon and then Charizard, you can battle together to defeat a Gym and assign your Pokémon to defend it against all comers."

Pokemon Go mobile game image with character. Click to view larger version For many players, Pokemon Go has been a nostalgic return to their youth when Pokemon existed in cartoons, video games, and board-games. Some experts have speculated that the game's popularity, as measured by daily active users, may have peaked in the United States.

What do we know so far about the AR game? What has happened since the game's launch? What happens when a mobile fantasy game combines real-life locations? Are non-players affected? What might be the implications for future AR games? I looked for answers, found plenty, and organized my findings into good, bad, and ugly categories -- with apologies to Mr. Leone and Mr. Eastwood.

The Good

Niantic Labs developed the game for Apple iOS and Android devices. Earlier this month, the game debuted in Latin America. Reviewers have cited the game's addictive qualities:

"... Pokemon Go’s game designers have perfectly executed on the “Hook Model” — a framework for gamification and getting users to come back again and again and again."

Advocates have said that the game has gotten gamers off of their couches (e.g., butts) and out into the real world to get exercise, meet people, and explore locations they probably wouldn't have visited otherwise. Sounds good.

Within the game, PokeStops and gyms are located in publicly-accessible locations, such as theme parks, gardens, and museums. This has increased the sales at some nearby, small businesses. IGN reported on July 21:

"Bok Tower Gardens, a “contemplative garden” and National Historic Landmark located in Lake Wales, Fl, is saturated with PokeStops. The non-profit recorded a 10 to 15 percent increase in ticket sales during the first week of Pokemon Go’s release... So far, the only way to become a PokeStop or gym is to send in a request to Niantic Labs, but it isn't likely to be accepted unless the location is one of cultural significance or in a Pokemon Go deadzone."

The Twitter account Pokemon Archaeology catalogs Pokemon sightings in historic locations. The National Park Service (NPS) has welcomed gamers in many of its parks, but not at memorial sites. Some National Parks have featured programs with the game. Earlier this month, the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore offered a new program called "Pokemon Hunt:"

"... to connect “Pokemon Go!” with real-world flora and fauna... This interactive, ranger-guided walk will allow visitors to uncover the creatures, both physical and virtual, that can be found within the National Lakeshore. They will learn how these creatures do or do not fit in with the rest of the environment, and what can be done to help them thrive. At the end of the program, visitors will be able to design their own Pokemon. “Trainers” of all ages are welcome."

This summer, the NPS celebrates 100 years of operations. Gamers should check the NPS site to learn about any discounts and programs before visiting a park.

Some local businesses near colleges and universities experienced increased sales from gamers. Minnesota Daily reported:

"Many local Minneapolis businesses have considered, or implemented, special promotions to attract more mobile-gamers. Last week, Sencha Tea Bar in Stadium Village released three special shakes in correspondence with the three color teams of the game — red, yellow and blue — said store manager Josh Suwaratana. Suwaratana said the store does special shakes for other occasions, so the Pokemon shakes weren’t anything out of the ordinary... Sencha is also located next to a Pokestop — a real-life location where players can obtain items in the game. Suwaratana said the proximity to the Pokestop has helped business attract players."

The BBC News reported that the game helped an autistic teenager. Autism Speaks published this perspective by a psychologist:

"... I would encourage parents to seize the opportunity for their children to capitalize on this gaming experience while at the park or when running errands. My advice is not to judge this new gaming experience as all bad and in need of limits. Rather let’s embrace a step toward video games and virtual reality that may one day be tailored to inspiring those we love with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to leave the house and receive points/rewards/tokens for gathering information from other people they encounter in the store, at work, or at a place of leisure. To me that sounds an awful lot like what I have been trying to get them to do by learning social skills in my office each week..."

To focus the world's attention upon the impacts to citizens and children, activists have added Pokemon characters to images from war zones. C/Net reported on July 26 that Khaled Akil, a Syrian artist:

"... has taken Pokemon Go creatures and Photoshopped them into pictures of his war-torn homeland, presenting a stark contrast between the whimsy of the augmented-reality game and the sobering day-to-day realities of war... In one image, a young boy walks his bike through a street lined by bombed-out buildings, a Vaporeon by his side. In another, a Pikachu rests on a block of rubble next to a burning car... the activist group Revolutionary Forces of Syria Media Office has been tweeting poignant photos of kids holding up printouts of popular Pokemon creatures, along with their locations, which are identified as being near areas of heavy fighting, and the words 'save me'..."

To view photos, follow the links in the C/Net article to Akil's website and Instagram account.

The Niantic Terms of Service policy clearly encourages safe game play and describes players' responsibilities:

"During game play, please be aware of your surroundings and play safely. You agree that your use of the App and play of the game is at your own risk, and it is your responsibility to maintain such health, liability, hazard, personal injury, medical, life, and other insurance policies as you deem reasonably necessary for any injuries that you may incur while using the Services. You also agree not to use the App to violate any applicable law, rule, or regulation (including but not limited to the laws of trespass) or the Trainer Guidelines, and you agree not to encourage or enable any other individual to violate any applicable law, rule, or regulation or the Trainer Guidelines. Without limiting the foregoing, you agree that in conjunction with your use of the App you will not inflict emotional distress on other people, will not humiliate other people (publicly or otherwise), will not assault or threaten other people, will not enter onto private property without permission, will not impersonate any other person or misrepresent your affiliation, title, or authority, and will not otherwise engage in any activity that may result in injury, death, property damage, and/or liability of any kind."

The "Conduct, General Prohibitions, and Niantic’s Enforcement Rights" section of the policy also lists the responsibilities of players, including players will not:

"... trespass, or in any manner attempt to gain or gain access to any property or location where you do not have a right or permission to be..."

So, it is important for players to know their responsibilities. Do they? Keep reading.

The Bad

Foot traffic by gamers in public parks hasn't been all good. Some gamers have ignored local laws and ordinances. WPRI in Providence, Rhode Island reported:

"Members of the East Providence Police Department said “Pokemon Go” has drawn huge crowds of people to local parks after hours... Officers say they have responded to several calls about the crowds. “They are very peaceful, they’re not causing problems, but it is in a public area – in public parks – and people who live in those areas do deserve to have their rest at night,” said Maj. William Nebus of the East Providence Police Department. “Our parks do close at 9 p.m. and just to have 200 people lurking in overnight hours is not peaceful to the residents.”

Law enforcement in Michigan ticketed players with misdemeanors after late-night, 12:30 a.m. game play. Nearby property owners have found players intrusive. There are two implications. First, it's important for players to understand and comply with local town ordinances and hour restrictions. Second, taxpayers will likely absorb the additional costs of park maintenance, clean-up, and law enforcement patrols to address the increased foot traffic in local parks.

It's critical for players to remain alert. In somewhat weird news, a gamer kept playing after being stabbed by a mugger. And a North-Texas teenager was bitten by a venomous snake while playing. In Missouri, criminals staked out known PokeStops and robbed players. A gamer in Riverton, Wyoming found a dead body.

While some gamers play on foot, others drive their vehicles. As you've probably guessed, there have been auto accidents. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported:

"A driver, distracted by a Squirtle or a Zubat, caught a tree, instead of a Pokemon. That collision occurred last month in Auburn, N.Y., near Syracuse. A few days later, a 28-year-old driver on a highway near Seattle told officials he was focused on the hunt for Pikachu when he ran into the rear end of a Chevrolet. Another distracted driver in Baltimore smashed into a police car. A parked police car."

Like any game, some gamers play by the rules while others don't. An entertaining video listing the ways players cheat has more than 6.7 million views. Niantic highlighted its policy toward cheaters:

"Your account was permanently terminated for violations of the Pokémon GO Terms of Service. This includes, but is not limited to: falsifying your location, using emulators, modified or unofficial software and/or accessing Pokémon GO clients or backends in an unauthorized manner including through the use of third party software."

Soon after the game's debut, privacy risks were discovered:

"Security researcher Adam Reeve noted that when some users sign into Pokemon Go through Google on Apple devices, they effectively give the game and its developer full access to their Google account; this means, that at least in theory, Niantic... can access players' Gmail-based email, Google Drive based files, photos and videos stored in Google Photos, and any other content within their Google accounts. From a technical perspective, Niantic could potentially send emails on your behalf, or copy and distribute your photos. This is obviously concerning. Perhaps even scarier - and more eye-opening - is that users are accepting such permissions en masse without regard for the risks."

Since then, Niantic and the Pokemon Company notified Engadget that it fixed the bug in a subsequent update. Regardless, the Offensive Privacy blog warned players who have signed up using their Google credentials:

"... to review Google's guide on controlling and revoking app access to your account and check your account to see what permissions the game has. If it still has full access to your Google account, you can simply revoke access, then sign-in to the game again using your Google account. Your data will be safe and you can ensure your Google account is safe as well."

The Offensive Privacy blog offered privacy tips given the game's usage of smartphone cameras:

"While it's a bit outlandish to think that Niantic collects the video streams from every device, it is always a possibility that cannot be completely ruled out. This means anything your camera sees could, in theory, be stored by Niantic... I suggest some common sense tactics that apply to all cameras and video streams when using the AR mode of the game: 1) Never allow the camera to see personal ID such as your license, passport, or other sensitive document; 2) Never let the camera see a license plate or government building. This is especially true for those working in high-security environments; and 3) Avoid letting the camera see street signs, your house, house numbers, etc. It's also possible that metadata could be embedded in the image and made available if the image is shared publicly..."

Regular readers of this blog are already familiar with the privacy issues associated with metadata collection. Some players may be surprised that tips to maintain privacy while playing requires effort.

Yes, security researchers have already found malware embedded in a rogue version of the Pokemon Go app. So, shop wisely at reputable sites and follow these tips to avoid the malware.

One measure of popularity are parodies. There is a porn parody of the game titled, "Poke-mon Ho!" Depending upon your lifestyle, you might categorize this as "good." Yes, the parody reportedly is NSFW. No, I haven't seen it.

The Ugly

Some property owners view the game as inappropriate for their locations. CNN Reported in July:

"The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and Arlington National Cemetery, both in Washington, DC area, have both issued appeals for players to avoid hunting Pokemon on their sites. "Playing Pokemon Go in a memorial dedicated to the victims of Nazism is extremely inappropriate," said Andy Hollinger, director of communications at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., in a statement sent to CNNMoney. "We are attempting to have the Museum removed from the game," the statement said... Pokemon Go has a link set up for people to report sensitive locations and contact on its website... According to a statement from The Pokemon Company International and Niantic -- the creators of Pokemon Go -- Pokestops and gyms in the app are found at publicly accessible places. That includes historical markers, public art installations, museums, monuments -- and apparently churches."

I see two problems with the approach the game's developers used. First, the approach seems to have treated all public spaces the same, without considering the unique needs of cemeteries, memorials, and similar places. Game-play isn't appropriate everywhere. Second, Niantic's approach automatically included real-life locations as PokeStops and gyms without first obtaining the property owners' permissions. This approach places the burden on property owners (who aren't players nor participants) to opt-out of the game. Not good. Maybe this was a slick attempt to force property owners to participate. Not good.

Some players have wandered onto nearby private properties. ComputerWorld reported on August 2:

"Jeffrey Marder, a resident of West Orange, N.J., found in the days after the release of the successful augmented reality game Pokémon Go, that strangers, phone in hand, had begun lingering outside his home. At least five of them knocked on Marder’s door and asked for access to his backyard to catch and add to their virtual collections of the Pokémon images, superimposed over the real world, that the game developer had placed at the residence without his permission."

Marder is part of a lawsuit alleging that the game included locations on private properties, without the owners' permissions. The Click on Detroit site reported on August 15:

"Scott Dodich and Jayme Gotts-Dodich, of St. Clair Shores, filed a class action lawsuit against Niantic, The Pokemon Company and Nintendo... The couple lives on a private cul-de-sac and alleges that over several weeks, Pokemon Go players parked their vehicles on their street and blocked driveways. The couple also alleges that players trespassed on lawns, trampled landscaping and peered into windows. The complaint also alleges that when Jayme Gotts-Dodich asked a Pokemon Go player to leave her property, the player told her to “shut up b****, or else... The suit alleges that the intentional, unauthorized placement of Pokestops and Pokemon gyms on or near private property constitutes a continuing invasion of use and enjoyment. Due to the ignored repeated requests for removal, the couple believes that Niantic is liable for nuisance and that all defendants have been unjustly enriched.”

If a disagreement arises between Niantic and a player, that may not be resolved in court in front of a jury of the gamer's peers. The Niantic Terms of Service policy strips gamers of that right:

"ARBITRATION NOTICE: EXCEPT IF YOU OPT OUT AND EXCEPT FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF DISPUTES DESCRIBED IN THE “AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE” SECTION BELOW, YOU AGREE THAT DISPUTES BETWEEN YOU AND NIANTIC WILL BE RESOLVED BY BINDING, INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATION, AND YOU ARE WAIVING YOUR RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY OR TO PARTICIPATE AS A PLAINTIFF OR CLASS MEMBER IN ANY PURPORTED CLASS ACTION OR REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDING."

To opt out of binding arbitration, players must do so within 30 days of sign up. This BoingBong explained how to opt out, and the associated issues. Of course, players should read all game policies in their entirety before sign up. (You did, right?) Regular readers of this blog are familiar with the issues with binding arbitration.

The Future

Given the success so far of Pokemon Go, it seems wise to expect copycats. The Motely Fool speculated:

"Pokemon Go has added a new layer of excitement to a day at Disney World for those who seek that variety of enchantment. Disney is benefiting from the craze, even as non-players shake their heads while swerving around distracted gamers. This also could and should be just the beginning. It's only a matter of time before it rolls out its own augmented-reality app... A Disney app likely also wouldn't include a Pokemon-like battle element, at least not in terms of pitting Pluto against Yoda in combat. However, the Disney gym equivalent could be mini-game stations offering everything from speed Disney trivia matches to Virtual Magic Kingdom-type competitions... There are more than 200 Disney Store locations scattered across North America, and more than 120 overseas. These stores can also serve as character-collecting hubs, giving players a local connection for special events. It would also keep interest active outside of theme park visits..."

You can bet we'll see many more AR games with fantasy or fictional characters; probably with co-marketing agreements between AR games, movies, fast-food restaurants, toy stores, and the few remaining shopping malls. Experts estimate the global AR market to be $117.4 billion by 2022.

It's not just fantasy characters. Experts have estimated the augmented reality and virtual reality market within healthcare to be $2.54 billion by 2020. Hopefully, more games (and other services) will offer in their policies opt-out mechanisms from restrictive binding arbitration clauses.

What are your opinions of Pokemon Go? Of AR games? What advantages and disadvantages have you found? Does the good outweigh the bad?


Hulu Updated Its Terms of Use And Privacy Policies

Hulu.com, the popular TV streaming service, updated its terms of service and privacy policies. An August 5, 2016 e-mail to subscribers stated:

"... we are continually focused on improving our services and the viewer experience. To address some of the changes in our services, we've updated our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We want to ensure that we keep you informed about our practices, so we've summarized some of the key updates below. This summary is not exhaustive, so we encourage you to review the full, updated versions of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy Privacy Policy..."

The streaming TV service announced in May 2016 that is subscriber base of about 12 million had grown about 30 percent over 2015. Besides its $8 and $12 monthly subscription options, reportedly the service plans to introduce a third, cable-like bundle of channels for about $40 monthly.

The service's email message summarized the changes in its policies:

"Terms of Use updates
Given our constant desire to innovate our service, we clarify that we may experiment with certain features and that the content and services may change from time to time. We provide additional details about our billing practices, including in connection with promotional offers.
We include updated instructions around cancellation and explain that if you sign up and pay for Hulu through a third party (e.g., Apple iTunes) you may need to cancel your subscription or manage your billing through such third party.
We remind you that your interactions with third-party advertisements on our services, including any information you may provide through interactive advertisements, are between you and the advertiser. We encourage you to review any such advertiser's terms of use and privacy policy.
We clarify that we may communicate with you electronically and encourage you to keep copies of our electronic communications for your records.

Privacy Policy updates
We include an updated list of the types of technologies we or third parties may use to collect data from or about you. This data helps improve the content and advertisements provided to you.
We've likewise updated the section describing how we share information with business partners, service providers and other third parties.
We describe that you can choose to share information through sharing features we may offer, for example, through email, text message or social networks.
We provide instructions on how California residents can obtain more information about our data sharing practices in the event we were to share personal data about our users with third parties for their direct marketing purposes.
You have choices with respect to your use of our services and we include an updated and consolidated list of the various options available to you in a new section called "Your Choices, Including Opt-Out Options" (Section 6) which includes instructions about your opt-out choices related to your use of Hulu on websites, mobile devices and living room devices.
We explain that we may work with third parties who help us to establish connections across your related browsers and devices and how your opt-out choices apply."

What is a consumer to make of this? Hulu is clearly both providing notice to and obtaining consent from its subscribers to perform online experiments. Previously, social sites like OKCupid were heavily criticized for performing online experiments without notice nor consent. So, it is good that Hulu provides this advance notice.

Current or prospective subscribers may or may not be comfortable participating in online experiments that affect their usage of the service. To learn more, I read Hulu's Terms Of Use policy. This section seemed key:

"3.10 Modification/Suspension/Discontinuation. We regularly make changes to the Services. The availability of the Content as well as Access Points through which the Services are available will change from time to time. Hulu reserves the right to replace or remove any Content and Access Points available to you through the Services, including specific titles, and to otherwise make changes in how we operate the Services... In our continued assessment of the Services, we may from time to time, with respect to any or all of our users, experiment with or otherwise offer certain features or other elements of the Services, including promotional features, user interfaces, plans, pricing, and advertisements. You acknowledge that Hulu may do so in Hulu's sole discretion at any time without notice. You also agree that Hulu will not be liable to you for any modification, suspension, or discontinuance of the Services, although if you are a Hulu subscriber and Hulu suspends or discontinues your subscription to the Services, Hulu may, in its sole discretion, provide you with a credit, refund, discount or other form of consideration (for example, we may credit additional days of service to your account) in accordance with Section 4 below. However, if Hulu terminates your account or suspends or discontinues your access to Services due to your violation of these Terms, then you will not be eligible for any such credit, refund, discount or other consideration."

So, this revised Terms of Use policy may be the only notice subscribers receive about online experiments. And, there doesn't appear to be an option to decline (e.g., opt out of) online experiments, except to cancel their subscription. Some subscribers may not like that, and/or may want compensation for participating in online experiments.

Another section current and prospective subscribers may want to read closely is the "13. Arbitration of Claims" section. While this clause is not new, it is important since it describes how disagreements are resolved between subscribers and Hulu. Basically, most disagreements would be resolved through binding arbitration Individually, and not in court nor through a group action:

"... If we do not reach an agreed upon solution after our discussions for at least 30 days, you and Hulu agree that any claim that either of us may have arising out of or relating to these Terms (including formation, performance, or breach of them), our relationship with each other, or use of the Services must be resolved through binding arbitration before the American Arbitration Association using its Consumer Arbitration Rules, available here. As an exception to this arbitration agreement, Hulu is happy to give you the right to pursue in small claims court any claim that is within that court's jurisdiction as long as you proceed only on an individual basis... you and Hulu agree to begin any arbitration within one year after a claim arises; otherwise, the claim is waived. You and Hulu also agree to arbitrate in each of our individual capacities only, not as a representative or member of a class, and each of us expressly waives any right to file a class action or seek relief on a class basis..."

Regular readers of this blog are familiar with the issues about binding arbitration. Companies in several industries have inserted "binding arbitration" clauses into their terms of service policies with consumers. The Public Citizen website lists the banks, retail stores, entertainment, online shopping, telecommunications, consumer electronics, software, nursing homes, and health care companies that use these clauses.

Bankrate reported on March 11, 2015:

"This week, the CFPB released new research showing that banks' practice of forcing customers into binding arbitration has a wide range of downsides for consumers... The exhaustive 700+ page CFPB report shows that arbitration clauses have a broad range of negative consequences for consumers. They discourage individual consumers from pursuing claims. The CFPB found that the number of arbitrations filed by individual consumers was much lower than one would expect given the number federal lawsuits filed by those who still have that option... They squelch legitimate class-action lawsuits. Arbitration clauses generally prevent customers from joining together in class-action lawsuits... They reduce consumer protections. The way that many consumer protection laws are enforced is through civil litigation. By blocking civil suits brought by customers, financial institutions effectively give themselves an end-around against these protections... They confuse consumers. In surveys conducted by the CFPB for the report, relatively few customers understood what arbitration was, whether they were subject to it and how it works in practice... They don't lead to lower prices. The big selling point for arbitration has always been that reducing legal costs by blocking customer lawsuits would result in lower prices for consumers. But that hasn't been the case, according to the report..."

Current and prospective subscribers may or may not be comfortable giving up these rights.

The Hulu Privacy Policy is important for several reasons. It lists the technologies the service uses. The service obtains information about its subscribers from several sources: data subscribers submit into their profiles, third-party affiliates, data brokers, and the technologies used. These technologies may conflict with the privacy settings consumers use in their Web browsers. Some technologies apply specifically to phones/tablets versus laptops/desktops:

"... One technology we use is called a cookie. A cookie is a small data file that is transferred to your computer’s hard disk. We may use both session cookies and persistent cookies to better understand how you interact with the Hulu Services or Hulu advertising published outside of the Hulu Services, to monitor aggregate usage by our users and web traffic routing on the Hulu Services, and to customize Content and advertising... We may collect information through other kinds of local storage (also referred to as "Flash cookies") and HTML5 local storage, including in connection with features such as volume/mute settings for the Video Player. Because these technologies are similar to browser cookies, they are sometimes called "browser cookies," even though they may be stored in different parts of your computer... Please note that disabling cookies or deleting information contained in cookies or Flash cookies may interfere with the performance and features of the Hulu Services, including the Video Player... we may use other technologies such as web beacons or pixel tags, which can be embedded in web pages, videos, or emails, to collect certain types of information from your browser or device, check whether you have viewed a particular web page, ad, or email message, and determine, among other things, the time and date on which you viewed the Content, the IP address of your computer, and the URL of the web page... Mobile Device Identifiers and Software Development Kits ("SDKs"). We may use or work with third parties including our business partners and service providers who use mobile SDKs to collect information, such as mobile identifiers (e.g., "ad-ID" or "IDFA") and information related to how mobile devices interact with the Hulu Services. An SDK is computer code that app developers can include in their apps to enable ads to be shown, data to be collected and related services and functionality to be implemented. A mobile SDK is in effect the mobile app version of a pixel tag or beacon..."

This blog has discussed several technologies (e.g., cookies, “zombie cookies,” Flash cookies, “zombie e-tags,” super cookies, “zombie databases” on mobile devices, canvas fingerprinting, etc.) which companies have used to track consumers online. This makes it important to read any service's online privacy policy. Consumers may or may not be comfortable with the tracking technologies used.

Hulu's privacy policy also lists the types of companies and entities it shares subscribers' information with, but (besides Facebook.com and Nielsen) it doesn't disclose the names of specific companies and entities (bold added):

"We work with a number of business partners who help us offer the Hulu Services, including for example our content licensors, distributors, and corporate owners. We may share information collected from or about you with such business partners... When you choose to share information with social networking services about your activities on the Hulu Services, including shows you watch or like on Hulu, information about you and your activities will be shared with that social network... We may share the information collected from or about you with companies that provide services to us and our business partners, including companies that assist with payment processing, analytics, data processing and management, account management, hosting, customer and technical support, marketing (e.g., email, online or direct mail communications) and other services... We may share the information collected from or about you in encrypted, aggregated, or de-identified forms with advertisers and service providers that perform advertising-related services for us and our business partners in order to tailor advertisements, measure, and improve advertising effectiveness, and enable other enhancements. This information includes your use of the Hulu Services, websites you visited, advertisements you viewed, and your other activities online... Our business partners, such as content licensors, as well as our advertisers, seek to measure the performance of their creative material across many platforms, including the Hulu Services. Accordingly, Hulu may permit the use of third-party measurement software that enables third parties (such as Nielsen) to include your viewing on the Hulu Services in calculating measurement statistics such as TV Ratings... If we sell all or part of our business, make a transfer of assets, or otherwise might be involved in a change of control transaction, or in the unlikely event of bankruptcy, we may transfer information from or about you to one or more third parties as part of the transaction, including the due diligence process... Third Parties When Required By Law or When Necessary to Protect Your or Our Rights. In some instances, we may disclose information from or about you without providing you with a choice. For example, we may disclose your information in the following ways: to protect the legal rights of Hulu and our affiliates or partners... and to comply with or respond to the law or legal process or a request for cooperation by a government entity, whether or not legally required..."

It is reasonable to assume that the last group includes law enforcement agencies (e.g., federal, state, local) in the United States, but the policy seems vague about whether those agencies are from other countries, too. Again, (current or prospective) subscribers may want to know the specific names of companies and entities data is shared with.

New at reading online polices? Unsure what to look for? I compiled what I've learned into this blog post: "10 Tips About How To Read Terms Of Use And Privacy Policies." You might find it helpful.

What are your opinions of Hulu's revised policies?

[Editor's note: this blog post is not legal advice. Consumers wanting legal advice should consult an attorney to help them fully evaluate any contracts or legal agreements.]


User Reports Facebook Changed Members' Ad Settings Without Notice Nor Consent

If you use Facebook.com, this is for you.

David Carroll, an associate professor of media design at Parsons School of Design, posted the warning below on Twitter. I checked my Facebook settings and this specific advertisement setting had indeed been changed. So, check yours today. It's fast and easy. It will take at most half a minute to check and change it.

What's driving this activity by the social network? The Washington Post summarized the situation well when it discussed new ad features the site introduced in 2014:

"Things are about to get better for Facebook customers! Not you. You are not a Facebook customer. Advertisers are Facebook customers. You are part of the Facebook product... Facebook, at its moneymaking core, is a system for showing ads to people... why we’re seeing this is because Facebook is not a social network. It is an advertising network... And it seems to be banking on what is always banks on: our unwillingness to change any default settings or think about the flip side of data sharing."

Now, go check and restore your ad settings to maintain privacy.

Tweet by David Carroll. Click to view larger version


Emotional Technology: The Coming Products, Services, And Apps

A reader shared the video below with this comment:

"I don't know George, this sort of creeps me out."

My comments appear below the video:

My thoughts and reactions to the video:

  1. It should creep you out. Do you want technology between you and your spouse? During very private, intimate, face-to-face conversations? I think not.
  2. We consumers are already experiencing the beginnings of emotional technology. To make that tech work, companies must collect data about our moods and emotions. Some examples of this data capture: a) Facebook's expanded list of emojis; b) Facebook saves your unpublished and unedited comments and posts before final posting,
  3. Consumers decide when and where you want technology in your relationships. That line is already blurred. (Examples: devices with voice-recognition interfaces, such as Amazon Echo and Hello Barbie, that listen 24/7/365.)
  4. If I was a data broker, of course I'd want to capture your moods and emotions and link them to certain geo-locations and at times of day. Why? It's an opportunity to make more $$$ by selling to advertisers that emotional data so they can serve up supposedly relevant ads responding to your moods in those locations and/or times,
  5. Wearables, fitness trackers and smart homes outfitted with certain Internet-of-things devices will perform this mood data capture.
  6. Whenever somebody uses technology to offer convenience, watch out. There is usually are accompanying data capture, tracking, and privacy issues (e.g., notice, consent) embedded. Will companies adequately protect emotional information from data breaches? How will your government and law enforcement acquire, archive, and use moods information?

What are your opinions?


CPNI Privacy Notices: A Review Of AT&T's And What You Need To Know

AT&T postcard notice in March 2016 about CPNI

Last week, my wife and I received the above postcard from AT&T, which provides our mobile phone service. All telecommunications companies in the United States provide these notices -- by snail mail, email, or both. If you receive a notice, don't toss it in the trash. Read it closely because your privacy depends upon it.

AT&T logo The text of our postcard read:

"AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE ABOUT THE PRIVACY OF YOUR CUSTOMER PROPRIETARY NETWORK INFORMATION (OR CPNI)

The protection of our customers' privacy is of utmost importance to the employees and management of the AT&T family of companies (AT&T)*. Please take a moment to read the following important message about the privacy of your customer information.

AT&T companies that provide telecommunications and interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service (which permits VoIP customers to both send and receive calls to/from customer with traditional telephone/telecommunications service) would like to share your customer proprietary network information (CPNI) within the AT&T family of companies for our own marketing purposes, including using theat information to offer you additional products and services.

What CPNI? Your CPNI includes the types of telecommunications and interconnected VoIP services you currently purchase, how you use them, and the related billing for those services. CPNI does not include your telephone number, your name or your address. Protecting the confidentiality of your CPNI is your right and our duty under federal law. As an AT&T customer, you can restrict the use of your CPNI even within the AT&T family of companies.

To allow AT&T to use your CPNI, no further action is required. AT&T and our authorized agents will not sell, trade or share your CPNI with anyone other than those who are in the AT&T family of companies or are AT&T authorized agents, unless required by law. If at any time you would prefer that AT&T not use your CPNI to offer you additional products and services, you may:
- Submit an online form at att.com/ecpnioptout; or
- Call 800.315.8303 24 hour a day, 7 days a week and follow the prompts; or
- To speak to a service representative call 800.288.2020

Your decision to permit or restrict the use of CPNI will remain in effect until you decide to change it, which you can do at any time without charge. Restricting our use of your CPNI will not affect the providion of any AT&T products or services to which you currently subscribe, nor will it eliminate other types of marketing contacts. Thank you for choosing AT&T. We appreciate your business.

*The AT&T Family of Companies are those companies that provide voice, video and broadcast-related products and/or services domestically and internationally, including the AT&T local and long distance companies, AT&T Corp., AT&T Mobility, DIRECTV and other subsidiaries or affiliates of AT&T Inc. that provide, design, market, or sell products and/or services."

What does this notice mean? What's really going on?

First, AT&T is already sharing your information. Anytime you read a corporate notice that says you can opt out (e.g., unsubscribe) of a marketing or advertising program, that means you are already included. You'd think that programs would work the other way: you are never included in a program until you subscribe (e.g., opt in). That would be easy for consumers. You're only in programs you want to participate in, and there's no burden to (constantly) opt out of unwanted programs.

Sadly, other telecommunications companies have similar marketing programs with CPNI and opt-out mechanisms. Why? Marketing and advertising programs that automatically include all customers are the easiest and fastest way for companies to collect and share as much information as possible about as many customers as possible. So, you're included in programs whether you want them or not, with the hope that you won't take the time to read and opt out (unsubscribe).

That's definitely not consumer friendly.

Second, the notice fails to explain exactly what CPNI is. The description seems to have been written by lawyers for lawyers -- and not for consumers. A clearer notice would list the specific data elements collected and shared, with examples. I checked AT&T's CPNI website page to see if it provided a more details. It doesn't. It provided the same vague text. Compared to a postcard, there's plenty of more room on a web page to share details. I guess AT&T really doesn't want to share details about CPNI.

If you want to know exactly what CPNI is, the FCC provides this definition:

"Your local, long distance and wireless telephone companies, as well as your Voice over Internet Provider (VoIP), collect information such as the numbers you call and when you call them, as well as the particular services you use, such as call forwarding or voice mail. These companies collect this customer information, also called Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) so they can provide the services you have requested and send you bills for them."

While petitioning the FCC for greater privacy protections in 2007, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (Epic) and other advocacy groups said:

"CPNI is the data collected by telecommunications corporations about a consumer’s telephone calls. It includes the time, date, duration and destination number of each call, the type of network a customer subscribes to, and any other information that appears on the customer's bill."

So, CPNI includes metadata about your call and online activity. That's sensitive personal information... which leads to the next point.

Third, treat the security of your CPNI data seriously. Last year, AT&T paid a $25 million penalty after data breaches in three of its offshore call centers that included stolen CPNI. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) investigated after unauthorized employees in call centers in Mexico, Colombia, and the Philippines accessed sensitive personal information of about 280,000 U.S. customers: names, full or partial Social Security numbers, and CPNI data. The employees transferred the stolen information to "unauthorized third parties" (e.g., criminals) to unlock stolen phones and other acts. So, criminals understand the value of CPNI data. You should, too.

Fourth, the notice seems slanted. It uses the term "restrict" as if that is bad, but never provides examples of the benefits for consumers. How are consumers to make informed decisions if a company fails to clearly explain the program?

Fifth, the AT&T CPNI Optout page mechanism is poorly designed. The form, which asks customers to enter an account number and ZIP Code:

Image of AT&T CPNI Opt-out page

This works okay for accounts with a single person. It is problematic for accounts with multiple persons (phones), like family plans -- which my wife and I have. The form's lack of flexibility means that the account holder decides for everyone on the account. Individual persons can't selectively opt out. You'd think that AT&T would have designed the mechanism with flexibility to accommodate this, but it didn't. Everything seems driven by the sharing of information on monthly bills.

Sixth, the confirmation page copy seems vague. It isn't clear if the customer has opted out or not. If the processing isn't complete, then messaging should explain what happens next and when. See:

Image of AT&T CPNI Opt-out Confirmation page

Seventh, if you opted out of the CPNI data sharing program, you're not finished. The AT&T Choices and Controls page lists about six behavioral advertising programs. It is time consuming and crazy-making to have to wade through so many programs and opt out of each one.

So, I was underwhelmed by the CPNI opt-out mechanism. A long time ago, AT&T publicly promised to do behavioral advertising the right way. It's not there yet. Not even close.

What else might be happening here? AT&T executives probably have watched the 'supercookies' investigation and settlement agreement involving Verizon Wireless. Supercookies are unique identifiers inserted into mobile users' data streams to track their online usage. The identifiers, which are really difficult for consumers to delete, help provide advertisers with the robust information they desire. The FCC found that Verizon Wireless didn't inform its customers about its use of supercookies with data sharing, and didn't provide its customers with an opt-out mechanism. Bazinga! $1.35 million fine for privacy violations and a three-year compliance program. Verizon has since updated its policies and opt-out mechanism.

C/Net reported in 2014 that AT&T lagged Verizon in using supercookies:

"Verizon, the largest mobile carrier in the US, uses information gleaned from its supercookies to understand your interests and concerns by tracking the websites you visit and links you click on. It then supplies that information to its advertisers so they can craft finely targeted advertising campaigns. About 106 million of Verizon's consumer customers have been tracked this way for over two years by the company's Precision Market Insights program... AT&T tracks fewer customers, but only because the company says its program is still being tested."

Will AT&T ramp up its supercookies development? That bears monitoring. I expect privacy advocates will keep watch. Meanwhile, consumers can assume that CPNI includes everything on their monthly bill for whichever telecommunications products and services you use. Make your opt-out decisions based upon that.

What are your opinions of the CPNI privacy notice by AT&T? By other telecommunications companies?


Verizon Wireless Settles With The FCC Regarding 'Supercookies' And Online Tracking

Verizon logo Yesterday, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced a settlement agreement with Verizon Wireless regarding the company's use of "Supercookies" to track mobile users. The FCC alleged that that Verizon Wireless inserted:

"... unique identifier headers or so-called “supercookies” into its customers’ mobile Internet traffic without their knowledge or consent. These unique, undeletable identifiers – referred to as UIDH – are inserted into web traffic and used to identify customers in order to deliver targeted ads from Verizon and other third parties."

Terms of the settlement agreement require Verizon Wireless to notify consumers about its targeted advertising programs, obtain customers’ opt-in consent before sharing UIDH with third-party companies and affiliates, and obtain customers’ opt-in (or opt-out) consent before sharing UIDH internally among Verizon's companies and business units. The settlement terms also require the company to pay a $1.35 million fine and adopt a three-year compliance plan.

Federal communications Commission logo The FCC's announcement also noted that the company was slow to update its privacy policy (bold added):

"It was not until late March 2015, over two years after Verizon Wireless first began inserting UIDH, that the company updated its privacy policy to disclose its use of UIDH and began to offer consumers the opportunity to opt-out of the insertion of unique identifier headers into their Internet traffic... Section 222 of the Communications Act imposes a duty on carriers to protect their customers’ proprietary information and use such information only for authorized purposes. It also expressly prohibits carriers that obtain proprietary information from other carriers for the provision of telecommunications services to use such information for any other purpose. Section 8.3 of the Commission’s rules, known as the Open Internet Transparency Rule, requires every fixed and mobile broadband Internet access provider to publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband Internet access services sufficient for consumers to make informed choices regarding use of such services and for content, application, service, and device providers to develop, market, and maintain Internet offerings."

The FCC began its investigation in December, 2014. At that time, the concern was:

"... whether Verizon Wireless failed to appropriately protect customer proprietary information and whether the company failed to disclose accurate and adequate information regarding its insertion of UIDH into consumer Internet traffic over its wireless network, in violation of the FCC’s 2010 Open Internet Transparency Rule and Section 222 of the Communications Act."

Verizon Wireless began inserting UIDH into consumer Internet traffic in December 2012, and didn't disclose this practice until October 2014. After acknowledging this practice, the company claimed that third-party advertising companies were unlikely to use their supercookies to build consumer profiles or other purposes. The Washington Post reported in November 2014:

"Verizon and AT&T have been quietly tracking the Internet activity of more than 100 million cellular customers with what critics have dubbed “supercookies”... The technology has allowed the companies to monitor which sites their customers visit, cataloging their tastes and interests. Consumers cannot erase these supercookies or evade them by using browser settings, such as the “private” or “incognito” modes that are popular among users wary of corporate or government surveillance.

Also in November 2014, the Electronic Frontier foundation (EFF) discovered the tracking, and asked Verizon to both notify users and get their consent before using supercookies:

"Verizon users might want to start looking for another provider. In an effort to better serve advertisers, Verizon Wireless has been silently modifying its users' web traffic on its network to inject a cookie-like tracker. This tracker, included in an HTTP header called X-UIDH, is sent to every unencrypted website a Verizon customer visits from a mobile device. It allows third-party advertisers and websites to assemble a deep, permanent profile of visitors' web browsing habits without their consent. Verizon apparently created this mechanism to expand their advertising programs, but it has privacy implications far beyond those programs."

The EFF said that the Verizon Wireless settlement agreement:

"... is a huge win for Internet privacy. ISPs are trusted carriers of our communications. They should be supporting individuals' privacy rights, not undermining them."

The EFF tempered its comments with a warning how ISPs can still secretly track consumers:

"... They can send tracking data only to selected web sites, hindering detection by third parties. ISPs can (and some very likely do) hide tracking data in a lower protocol layer, like TCP or IP, setting fields that are normally random based on an agreed-upon code. Or they could log all user browsing activity themselves and share it upon request. Detecting these more pernicious methods will require ongoing skilled technical work by the FCC and other watchdog organizations.."

This is why both a skilled oversight agency and watchdog groups are necessary. The average consumer cannot perform this technical analysis. FCC Enforcement Bureau Chief Travis LeBlanc said:

"Consumers care about privacy and should have a say in how their personal information is used, especially when it comes to who knows what they’re doing online... Privacy and innovation are not incompatible. This agreement shows that companies can offer meaningful transparency and consumer choice while at the same time continuing to innovate...”

Yes! Innovation and privacy are compatible. Yes, we consumers care... care greatly about privacy. Relevant advertising is not an excuse to do anything without notification and without consent. Kudos to the FCC. View the Verizon Wireless Order and Consent Decree (Adobe PDF).