WebProNews

Tag: Digital Advertising Alliance

  • DAA Pulls Out Of Do Not Track Negotiations

    The Do Not Track negotiations that have been taking place over the last year between advertisers and consumer advocates haven’t exactly gone over too well. The two sides have found very little common ground, and obstacles threatening to destabilize the talks arose more often than not. Now one of the major stakeholders is calling it quits.

    This afternoon, the Digital Advertising Alliance announced that it will be leaving the W3C Do Not Track working group after what it calls “two years of good-faith effort.” The organization says that it believes the working group is no longer “capable of fostering the development of a workable “do not track” solution.”

    The DAA’s departure comes almost two months after the organization’s most recent Do Not Track standards proposal was rejected by the working group at large. The DAA had hoped to limit some definitions and make any Do Not Track proposals more advertiser friendly, but the working group said that the DAA’s proposal didn’t jibe with its original charter.

    At that time, the DAA said that it “remain committed to any consensus process that seeks to keep control in the hands of Internet users.” That commitment seems to have dried up in the past two months as the group became increasingly frustrated with movements within the pro-privacy camp, including Mozilla’s decision to move ahead with its plan to block all third-party cookies before the Do Not Track working group had come to any consensus on the matter.

    So, what is the DAA going to do now that it’s pulled out of the negotiations? The organization said that it will keep doing what it’s been doing – moving ahead with its own standards:

    During more than two years since the W3C began its attempt at a dnt standard, the DAA has delivered real tools to millions of consumers. It has grown participation; enhanced transparency with more than a trillion ad impressions per month delivered with the DAA’s Icon making notice and choice information available within one-click of the ad; educated millions of consumers and provided browser-based persistent plug ins. The DAA has also succeeded in applying its principles to all of the participants in the digital ecosystem. Furthermore, we have expanded these consumer safeguards into 30 countries and clarified how the DAA’s Principles apply in the mobile Web and app environments.

    Going forward, the DAA intends to focus its time and efforts on growing this already-successful consumer choice program in “desktop,” mobile and in-app environments. The DAA is confident that such efforts will yield greater advances in consumer privacy and industry self-regulation than would its continued participation at the W3C.

    Now that the DAA has pulled out, where does that leave the current Do Not Track negotiations? The remaining members could try to salvage what’s left, but the DAA’s departure makes that unlikely. The negotiations are now in more danger of breaking down than ever before, and the threat of federal regulation is looming.

    Back in March, Sens. Jay Rockefeller and Richard Blumenthal introduced a bill called the The Do Not Track Online Act. The legislation, if enacted, would put the FTC in charge of doling out penalties to companies found violating Do Not Track standards. The Do Not Track working group was a chance for the various stakeholders to come together and create a set of voluntary standards they could all agree with.

    With the DAA’s departure and the imminent breakdown of negotiations, the advertising industry and privacy proponents may be left with federal regulations that serve neither side’s interests.

    [Image: Thinkstock]
    [h/t: The Hill]

  • Advertisers’ Proposal Gets Rejected In Latest Do Not Track Negotiations

    Earlier this year, the Do Not Track debate ran into a snag as the advertising groups and privacy proponents couldn’t even agree to disagree on a Do Not Track standard. This led to fears that the talks may just fall apart, but both groups were finally able to issue their own Do Not Track recommendations. Unsurprisingly, privacy proponents didn’t like what the advertisers suggested.

    CNET reports that the Digital Advertising Alliance proposed some changes to the Do Not Track proposal last month that would limit some definitions, including what tracking and retaining data means. The Tracking Protection Working Group, a coalition made up of advertisers, browser vendors and privacy proponents, issued an official response to the DAA’s proposal that outright rejects their suggestions.

    Was it fair of the Working Group to reject the advertiser’s proposal so quickly? Are advertisers getting fair representation in the Working Group? Let us know in the comments.

    The question to the group emphasized that the two texts varied importantly on four issues, with the decision today indicating the group’s subsequent direction on those issues, plus a topic that differs based on the logical implications of the four issues:

    1. Issue 5 – the definition of “tracking.” The DAA text is narrower in what is covered.

    2. Issue 16 — definitions of collecting, retaining, using, and sharing data. The DAA text is narrower in what is covered.

    3. Issue 188 – definition of de-identified data. The DAA text would treat data as “de-identified” in situations where the June text would not.

    4. Issue 199 – limitations on the use of unique identifiers. The June text would prohibit the use of unique identifiers where alternatives are reasonably available, thus limiting collection of user data in those circumstances.

    5. The effects of user choice. Under the June text, the Do Not Track mechanism would opt the user out of its broader definition of tracking. Under the DAA proposal, targeting of advertisements would not be affected by the Do Not Track standard; instead, users would use the separate DAA opt-out mechanism if they wished to limit targeted advertising.

    The Working Group were also unsatisfied with how the DAA’s proposal completely ignored what they feel are the two main pillars of Do Not Track – Do Not Target and Do Not Collect. For the former, they say that the DAA’s own tools don’t prevent users from being targeted, and therefore do no “meet the widely-understood meaning of Do Not Target.” As for the latter, the DAA stripped out a standard that called for advertisers to “not rely on unique identifiers for users or devices if alternative solutions are reasonably available.”

    Do you think the DAA was right in narrowing Do Not Track definitions? Or was the Working Group at large right to reject it? Let us know in the comments.

    In the end, the Working Group says it can’t move forward with the DAA’s proposal simply because it doesn’t fulfill the criteria that was laid out in the group’s charter:

  • 1. Consistent with the group’s charter. The charter says that a standard should define “mechanisms for expressing user preferences around Web tracking and for blocking or allowing Web tracking elements.” The DAA Proposal does not use the DNT signal to address either Do Not Target or Do Not Collect, and so does not fulfill the charter.
  • 2. Significant change from the status quo. The DAA Proposal data hygiene provisions address how to conduct market research and product development, but multiple comments state there is no significant change from the status quo. The overall comments indicate that the June Draft more clearly meets this criterion.
  • 3. Easy to explain why DNT:1 reduces tracking for participating sites. Based on discussions in the Group, and comments submitted, it is difficult to explain to users how the DAA Proposal reduces tracking for users who select DNT. Retargeting and profiling would continue unchanged. Collection would be unchanged, and the principal changes would be to how data is handled internally by companies after it is collected.

    • As you would expect, the advertising industry isn’t exactly happy with the Working Group rejecting its proposal:

    The broad industry proposal not selected by Professor Swire reflected the marketing and advertising community’s commitment to developing a working Do Not Track model that is true to our 2012 White House agreement and provides real choice to consumers, while at the same time protecting the economic engine of the Internet.

    Our organizations remain committed to any consensus process that seeks to keep control in the hands of Internet users.

    Unfortunately, the Do Not Track signal, as currently configured, does not and cannot reflect the real choices of Internet users. The signal has proven to be far too easy to hijack, allowing self-appointed intermediaries to turn DNT signals on, often without any knowledge, consent or input from users.

    The Working Group will continue to debate within the context of its original June proposal, but some players are already jumping the gun on implementing its own standards. Mozilla has been in the crosshairs of advertisers for most of this year as it moves ahead with a plan to block all third party cookies in Firefox. The non-profit recently shared a new plan that would allow it to target third party cookies without affecting the cookies that users are fine with, but advertisers say that Mozilla’s plan still negatively affects the ability of many small online businesses to serve targeted ads to consumers.

    All of this will likely come into play later this month as the Working Group meets to discuss changes to its current draft of standards. After that, it will work with browser vendors on how to best implement the agreed upon standards into Web browsers. Advertisers are likely to resist, but they might just end up agreeing with the Working Group at large in the end. It’s better to agree to voluntary standards than to invite government intervention – a fate that neither side wants.

    Do you think advertisers will go along with the Working Group at large to approve voluntary Do Not Track standards? Or will the government have to get involved? Let us know in the comments.

  • Does Anyone Actually Agree on What Do Not Track Means?

    If you’ve been following issues regarding online privacy for the past year or so, you most likely have read or heard people talking about Do Not Track, the proposed utility that permits internet users to indicate to third-party data collectors that they do not wish to have their information tracked. In brief, the problem with third-party data collectors is that you never really know who they are or what info of yours they have (or even how much) and so Do Not Track would theoretically permit internet users to increase the amount of control they have when it comes to sharing their information with third-party companies by allowing internet users to tell these companies, “Hey you, get offa my cloud.”

    Before reading further, do you actually know about Do Not Track? If so, do you or will you be using the feature, or do you plan to just go about the internet as usual with no great concern about what third-party companies learn about you? Let us know how you feel in the comments section.

    Nobody seems to like the practice of businesses tracking their browsing habits across the internet; at least, that much seems apparent given multiple studies have shown an overwhelming majority of people are concerned about the practice. How to actually honor those consumer preferences seems to be a bit of a morass, hence the introduction of Do Not Track and the contention that followed among affected and involved parties.

    Microsoft set off a row last month when it announced that its upcoming Internet Explorer 10 will be released with the Do Not Track feature already on by default. Oddly, Microsoft’s justification for making Do Not Track the a default feature was that it gives people the right to decide if they want their information kept from third-party data collectors. However, if consumer preference were truly the issue, you would imagine that Microsoft would have included Do Not Track with IE10 but not as a default feature, thus allowing users to decide whether or not to turn it on, i.e., choose for themselves. The implication Microsoft seems to be trying to make is that third-party data collectors should naturally be distrusted.

    Understandably, the Digital Advertising Alliance, a group that represents online advertisers, took issue with Microsoft’s decision to make Do Not Track a default setting. The thing is, when the Federal Trade Commission endorsed the anti-tracking feature back in March, the agency stopped short of actually requiring that browsers include Do Not Track because the FTC still believes that the online advertising industry can sufficiently self-regulate itself.

    Amusingly, the DAA is now in the difficult situation of arguing against Microsoft’s decision to automatically opt-in Do Not Track on IE10 without actually coming out and saying, “But most people who use the internet won’t have any clue about how to turn off Do Not Track.” Calling consumers dim-witted isn’t exactly the best approach to winning their confidence, yeah?

    And so, in a hearing on online privacy protections, the DAA argued to Congress last week that self-regulation has been working. Adding to the debate is Firefox-distributor Mozilla, which told Congress in the same hearing that it doesn’t think the Do Not Track policy has been developed enough so as to be effective. Alex Fowler, representing Mozilla, said that self-regulation could work but only if it’s “a multi-stakeholder process that reflects the views of all of the relevant parties involved in data transactions.”

    So let’s tally this up: the DAA says self-regulation works, Mozilla thinks self-regulation can work but only if there is a mutually beneficial understanding between all parties that won’t disrupt the online advertising ecosystem, the FTC would like to see self-regulation work, and Microsoft doesn’t care about that self-regulation because it’s going to deploy Do Not Track for all of Internet Explorer’s users anyways.

    The Do Not Track debate tends to illuminate one troubling reality: this anti-tracking feature is purely symbolic and, worse, confusing. Currently, third-party data collectors aren’t legally obliged to respect Do Not Track. They can still collect your information whether you have Do Not Track turned on or not. That’s the part of self-regulation that the DAA says online advertisers will respect, and so far the online advertisers say they plan to play along with consumers preferences on data-tracking. The DAA doesn’t want the FTC to actually intervene directly, and the FTC would really like to see this matter resolved without its intervention.

    Make no mistake, nobody should be tracked around the internet and unknowingly have their information collected from them. That’s where the transparency of the internet has been one big whopping failure, and so “Do Not Track” sounds great for protecting consumers in that regard. But really, what does Do Not Track even mean?

    For one, I would confidently bet that most of the people who use the internet have no idea what Do Not Track is, have never heard of it, and probably aren’t even completely aware of how their information is gathered from data collectors. I bet you a dozen Happy Meals that I could walk across the street to a McDonald’s and ask any random 50 people if they know about the Do Not Track issue. I wouldn’t be surprised if exactly 50 people reply with blank stares and shrugs.

    Further, even within the sub-culture of people who are aware of Do Not Track and follow online privacy issues, what does Do Not Track mean to them? Thomas Roessler, a domain leader with the World Wide Web Consortium, questions if there’s any confidence in those three words. “I do think you will see a lot of contention going forward about what ‘Do Not Track’ means,” he said earlier this year, suggesting that the legal interpretation of the phrase could undergo some gymnastic flexibility if it becomes contested in a court.

    Doc Searls, a privacy expert and fellow at the Center for Information Technology & Society, told Network World that Do Not Track may not even be plausible in 2012 and that the concept is somewhat misguided.

    “I don’t think we need Do Not Track legislation,” Searls says. “I think it’s a bad idea at this stage, because we don’t have the technical solutions to the problem, the problem basically being that we got stuck at client/server in 1995 with the first Web servers and especially with the invention of the cookie, and we have this normative system in which almost all the power resides on the server side and not on the client side.”

    So if Do Not Track isn’t even meaningful in our current era of internet, why are these companies spending so much of their resources arguing about what it means for the ecosystem of online advertising, or consumers, or tech companies, etc.?

    Although Do Not Track may not even be an effective anti-tracking policy, methinks that Microsoft’s stake in the debate is to largely distinguish itself from Google by re-creating itself as more pro-consumer privacy than Google (again, more symbology than reality). Mozilla’s call for a “multi-stakeholder process” follows Searls’ recommendation of developing a more direct line of communication between online businesses and consumers so as to improve relations and targeted advertising.

    Do Not Track is a great idea, but I fear that it will be executed poorly. In fact, maybe poor execution of Do Not Track should happen so that all parties – data-collectors, tech companies, the FTC, and, consumers – can reevaluate this issue and conjure up a pro-consumer, don’t-track-me-if-don’t-want-it policy that actually does put internet users first.

    Do you think Do Not Track is actually a good idea, or is it really just a bunch of sound and fury signifying nothing? What kind of alternative to Do Not Track would you propose? Let us know in the comments.

  • Digital Advertising Alliance Supports Privacy Bill Of Rights

    Digital Advertising Alliance Supports Privacy Bill Of Rights

    The CEO’s of the member organizations of the Digital Advertising Alliance have issued a statement in support of the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights announced by the White House this morning. The DAA expressed appreciation at the administration’s acknowledgement of the organization’s efforts to protect consumer privacy through self-regulation of online advertisers.

    The DAA emphasized that the administration’s proposal was not the end of the story, but rather that it marked the beginning of collaborative efforts among various organizations – including businesses, consumer organizations, and the government – to ensure the continued health of the free internet and consumers’ continued trust in the companies that do business on the internet.

    The DAA was created in 2007 to advocate for responsible advertising behavior by online businesses. It consisted initially of four member companies – the American Association of Advertising Agencies (4As), the Association of National Advertisers (ANA), the Direct Marketing Association (DMA), and the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB). The original four companies were joined by the American Advertising Federation (AAF), the Network Advertising Initiative (NAI), and the Council of Better Business Bureaus.