Ads Alliance on Internet

Just saw

the Digital Advertising Alliance’s (DAA) Self-Regulatory Program for Online Behavioral Advertising.

Multi-Site Data Collection Principles Broaden Self Regulation Beyond Online Behavioral Advertising
WASHINGTON, D.C., NOVEMBER 7, 2011

The new Principles consist of the following specific requirements:

  1. Transparency and consumer control for purposes other than OBA – The Multi-Site Data Principles call for organizations that collect Multi-Site Data for purposes other than OBA to provide transparency and control regarding Internet surfing across unrelated Websites.
  2. Collection / use of data for eligibility determination – The Multi-Site Data Principles prohibit the collection, use or transfer of Internet surfing data across Websites for determination of a consumer’s eligibility for employment, credit standing, healthcare treatment and insurance.
  3. Collection / use of children’s data – The Multi-Site Data Principles state that organizations must comply with the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).
  4. Meaningful accountability – The Multi-Site Data Principles are subject to enforcement through strong accountability mechanisms.

http://www.aboutads.info/principles

The DAA Self-Regulatory Principles

 

The cross-industry Self-Regulatory Principles for Multi-Site Data augment the Self-Regulatory   Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising  (OBA)  by covering the prospective  collection of Web site   data beyond that collected for OBA purposes.  The existing OBA  Principles and definitions  remain in   full force and effect and are not limited by the new  principles.

The cross-industry Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising was developed by   leading industry associations to apply  consumer-friendly standards to online  behavioral advertising  across the Internet. Online behavioral advertising increasingly supports the convenient access to  content, services, and applications over the Internet that consumers have come to expect at no cost   to them.

The Education Principle calls for organizations to participate in efforts to educate individuals and businesses about online behavioral advertising and the Principles.

The Transparency Principle calls for clearer and easily accessible disclosures to consumers about data collection and use practices associated with online behavioral advertising. It will result in new, enhanced notice on the page where data is collected through links embedded in or around advertisements, or on the Web page itself.

The Consumer Control Principle provides consumers with an expanded ability to choose whether data is collected and used for online behavioral advertising purposes. This choice will be available through a link from the notice provided on the Web page where data is collected.

The Consumer Control Principle requires “service providers”, a term that includes Internet access service providers and providers of desktop applications software such as Web browser “tool bars” to obtain the consent of users before engaging in online behavioral advertising, and take steps to de-identify the data used for such purposes.

The Data Security Principle calls for organizations to provide appropriate security for, and limited retention of data, collected and used for online behavioral advertising purposes.

The Material Changes Principle calls for obtaining consumer consent before a Material Change is made to an entity’s Online Behavioral Advertising data collection and use policies unless that change will result in less collection or use of data.

The Sensitive Data Principle recognizes that data collected from children and used for online behavioral advertising merits heightened protection, and requires parental consent for behavioral advertising to consumers known to be under 13 on child-directed Web sites. This Principle also provides heightened protections to certain health and financial data when attributable to a specific individual.

The Accountability Principle calls for development of programs to further advance these Principles, including programs to monitor and report instances of uncorrected non-compliance with these Principles to appropriate government agencies. The CBBB and DMA have been asked and agreed to work cooperatively to establish accountability mechanisms under the Principles.

 

Ajay- So why the self regulations?

Answer- Shoddy Maths in behaviorally targeted ads is leading to a very high glut in targeted ads, more than can be reasonably expected to click based on consumer spending. On the internet- unlike on television- cost is less of a barrrier to OVER ADVERTISING.

 

Software Lawsuits :Ergo

The latest round of software lawsuits makes things more interesting especially for Google. There are two notable developments

1) Google’s pact with Verizon for Even more Open Internet -From

http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-for-open-internet.html

A provider that offers a broadband Internet access service
complying with the above principles could offer any other additional or differentiated services. Such other services would have to be distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband . Internet access service, but could make use of or access Internet content, applications or services
and could include traffic prioritization.

2) Oracle’s lawsuit against Google for Intellectual Property enforcement of Java for Android. ( read here http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20013549-264.html

I once joked about nothing remains cool forever not even Google (see https://decisionstats.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/11-ways-to-beat-up-google/ ) and I did not foresee the big G beating itself into knots on its own.

It is hard to sympathize with Google (or Oracle or Verizon) but this is a mess that is created when lawyers (with a briefcase) steal value rather than a thousand engineers can create value.

Interestingly Google owns the IP for Map Reduce – so could it itself sue the Hadoop community over terms of royalty someday-like Oracle did with Java- hmmmmm interesting revenue stream

All in all I would be happy to see zero tiers on an internet (wireless or wired) and even Java developers to make some money on writing code. Open source is not free source.

Redlining in Internet Access and notes on Regression Models

This is the definition of Redlining Citation- The AD FREE Wikepedia-

Redlining is the practice of denying, or increasing the cost of, services such as bankinginsuranceaccess to jobs,[2]access to health care,[3] or even supermarkets[4] to residents in certain, often racially determined,[5] areas. The term “redlining” was coined in the late 1960s by community activists in Chicago.[citation needed] It describes the practice of marking a red line on a map to delineate the area where banks would not invest; later the term was applied todiscrimination against a particular group of people (usually by race or sex) no matter the geography.

As of today, redlining in financial services is outlawed by the Fair Credit Lending Act which prohibits using variables in regression models which end up red-lining districts. However as far as 2005, redlining was used in Auto Insurance by using suitably disguised zip9 variables ( I carried data for 55 million American Citizens and 88 million Accounts for a major North American Automotive Insurance provider as part of an offshoring contract from Atlanta, GA  in 2005).

It exists today by informal arrangements between internet service providers who carve up territories and districts. Internet access redlining is still not illegal. This is especially true in Austin ( I traveled there as a consultant last year) and Knoxville, Tennessee where I still study as a grad student.

Neither are suitably proprietary insurance and health care claim denial models used for minimizing litigation risk. Litigation risk minimization is the next level of retail logistic regression model just as predictive modeling used by political consultants during elections.