Latest Casualty Of NSA Spying Revelations: Web Advertising Based On Tracking Users

from the collateral-benefits dept

As we've noted before, Edward Snowden's revelations about the globe-spanning spying being conducted by the NSA are have all sorts of interesting knock-on consequences. Here's another: people are starting to worry about being tracked by online advertisers, and taking action to avoid it, as this story in Adweek explains:

Now that consumers know that NSA spooks are reviewing their every click, online privacy has become a much bigger concern.

After seven weeks of steady media coverage, the percentage of Internet users worried about their online privacy jumped 19 percent, from 48 percent in June (when the story first appeared in The Guardian and Washington Post) to 57 percent in July, according to Annalect, Omnicom Media Group's data and analytics company.

The findings have huge implications for the targeted advertising because the more concerned Internet users are about privacy, the more likely they are to change settings and block tracking.

Some might think that a pro-active approach to privacy protection is a good thing, but it's deeply problematic for the online advertising industry that has largely built its business model around tracking people's online habits. Further evidence of the growing unease about privacy issues is provided by this advertisement from the Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA) [pdf], which was run in Advertising Age recently:

Rather bizarrely, this accuses the Mozilla open source project of "hijacking the Internet" because the former wants to give users greater control over tracking by advertisers. I've discussed elsewhere why such a claim is particularly ridiculous -- Mozilla has probably done more than most to free the Internet, rather than hijack it. And as the Adweek story indicates, it's Mozilla rather than the DAA that is in tune with the general public's concerns at the moment, so attacking the open source project for trying to help users to block unwanted tracking and have more control over their own information is hardly going to win the online advertising industry many friends at a time when it needs them.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: advertising, cookies, ed snowden, nsa, nsa surveillance, privacy

DailyDirt: Who's That Kid With The Oreo Cookie?

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

We've seen a variety of Japanese Kit Kats that are localized with numerous limited-edition flavors, so it shouldn't be too shocking to see that other snack-makers have adopted similar strategies for their products. Here are just some interesting takes on the Oreo cookie.

• Chinese Oreos are NOT what you'd expect if you grew up in the US. Kraft localized Oreos for the Chinese palate, and Chinese Oreos can be found with green tea flavored filling.. and in rectangular-shaped cookies. [url]
• There are a bunch of recipes for homemade Oreos on the internets. Rolling your own Oreos allows you to make them any size you want... (and vegan if you wish). [url]
• The Oreo turns 100 years old this year on March 6th. That's a pretty long history of "twist, lick and dunk" -- and Kraft is celebrating with a limited edition of Birthday Cake Oreos. [url]
• To discover more food-related links, check out what's floating around in StumbleUpon. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can also recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Filed Under: birthday, china, cookies, homemade, japan, kit kat, oreos
Companies: kraft

EFF Condemns Google For Circumventing Safari Privacy Protections

from the but,-i-thought-they-were-a-mouthpiece... dept

One of the common statements that we heard time and time again from SOPA/PIPA supporters in the last couple months was that all of the many civil liberties groups that worked against the bills were really "Google fronts." The key target in these attacks was almost always EFF -- a group which is pretty widely respected. It's also kind of strange, because looking over the EFF's most recent (public) financial statement (pdf), there isn't much evidence of Google support. Not only is corporate funding only about 15% of EFF's total budget, but Google isn't even listed as a company sponsor in the listing of companies which donated.

Either way, I'm curious how those who continue to insist that EFF is a Google front have to say about EFF's extremely pointed, open letter to Google for its latest privacy failure -- circumventing Safari's privacy settings for millions of users to track web browsing habits of people who specifically opted-out of such tracking.

For what it's worth, this does appear to be a pretty big screw-up on Google's part -- and knowing how quickly some Google haters assume any privacy issue is nefarious and make a big deal of it, I fully expect that Google is going to end up having to pay big time for this mistake. It's worth noting, of course, that at least three other ad companies, including giant WPP, were spotted using the same technique to get around restrictions. But since there's been so much focus on Google and privacy, Google-haters will certainly make quite a lot of noise about this particular issue.

I also absolutely agree with the EFF's statement that Google not only needs to acknowledge that it can do a better job on privacy issues, it should, in fact, be expected to do a lot more concerning privacy issues (though I'm not convinced the "Do Not Track" is really the proper solution). Google's privacy efforts often seem to lag behind its open and consumer-first focus on other issues. I think that's unfortunate.

The EFF doesn't mince words on this:

Google, the time has finally come. You need to make a pro-privacy offering to restore your users' trust.

Internet users worldwide have loved your products for years, and we've often praised your stance on free expression and transparency and your efforts to limit government access to users' information. But when it comes to consumer choice around privacy, your commitment to users has been weaker. That's bad for users, for the future of the Internet, and ultimately, for you. We need to create an Internet that gives users meaningful choice about sharing their personal data, and we need your help to do it.

It's time for a new chapter in Google's policy regarding privacy. It's time to commit to giving users a voice about tracking and then respecting those wishes.

Either way, I'm curious how those who continue to insist that EFF is merely a front group for Google respond to issues like this one -- which is probably an even more "core" issue for Google. EFF has been on the opposite side of Google on privacy issues in the past. Isn't it possible that EFF is an entirely separate organization from Google and has its own views on a variety of issues -- some of which align with Google and some of which do not? One would hope that issues like this would put to rest the silly claims that EFF's involvement in the SOPA/PIPA fights were really just about acting on behalf of Google.

Filed Under: cookies, do not track, privacy, safari, settings
Companies: eff, google

DailyDirt: Food By The Numbers...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Some folks are obsessed with numbers. Others are obsessed with food. Combine these two tastes that taste great together and you get: Reese's peanut butter cups infographics about food. Here are just a few random sets of data on food consumption in the US.

• Just as you probably already knew: Thin Mints are the most popular Girl Scout cookies, raking in about 25% of Girl Scout cookie sales. Samoas (aka Caramel deLites) come in at #2 with 19% of sales. [url]
• What does the average American consume in a year? Hmm: 110 lbs of red meat vs 415 lbs of vegetables? Do those numbers sound right to you? [url]
• In a survey of 500 "dudes" (ages 18-35), 90% of them had visited a McDonald's in the last 3 months. It's gotta be the fries -- a surprisingly high percentage of guys just get a drink or fries. [url]
• To discover more food-related links, check out what's floating around in StumbleUpon. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can also recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Filed Under: consumption, cookies, food, infographic, sales, samoas, thin mints
Companies: girl scouts, mcdonald's

Should Governments Mandate Cookie Transparency?

from the is-that-needed? dept

The BBC is reporting on the EU's e-privacy directive that's set to go into effect towards the end of May, which will apparently require that sites using cookies get explicit consent from users before using certain forms of cookies. As some have noted, the BBC's version of this is a bit one-sided, and the details aren't quite as bad as the original report makes it out to be -- but that doesn't mean they're good, either. Basically, this new directive will mean various EU countries have to pass laws relating to transparency around cookies, and those laws could push sites to have to ask before placing tracking cookies. It appears this is mostly limited to cookies that also track info off-site -- so mainly advertising cookies, rather than login or shopping cookies (which likely wouldn't be impacted).

Still, even once you understand the details, I have to question why this is necessary. Asking people to opt-in to any cookies just creates a massive nuisance for everyone. While the supporters of such rules believe that this increases knowledge and transparency, there's little evidence that this is the case. Instead, as some earlier studies have suggested, it seems to just increase the nuisance factor. People who are regularly presented with a popup asking them for permission to proceed just get into the habit of clicking to make the box go away, rather than understanding what they're clicking. That's because when they go to visit a site, they don't care about the cookies and don't want to be interrupted.

I'm sure the politicians supporting this move think they're doing something good, but it really does the exact opposite of what they really want. It won't make people care any more about their privacy. It'll just make them more annoyed about the overall process. The way to make people more concerned about their privacy is to educate them and make it their choice in how they deal with these things. There are already plenty of easy-to-use tools on the market for users to set up preferences via browser extensions. Mandating rules for websites is just going to cause a hassle for everyone else.

Filed Under: cookies, transparency

Bakery Claims Trademark On Smiley Face Cookies; Sues Competing Cookie Firm

from the where's-that-cookie-diet? dept

Mark Montgomery alerts us to yet another case of trademark law being taken to ridiculous ends. Apparently a restaurant/bakery is claiming a trademark on putting a smiley face on a cookie and is suing a cookie store for selling similar cookies:

A key ingredient of Eat'n Park's case is the lawsuit's Exhibit A, which shows a circle with two round eyes, a dot for a nose and a perky smile.

Time to start selling cookies with sad faces, and saying it's all Eat'n Park's fault that the cookies are so sad.

Filed Under: cookies, smiley faces, trademark

A Case That Has It All: Kim Kardashian, Twitter, Libel, Cookie Diets... And The New FTC Sponsorship Rules

from the i-want-a-cookie dept

Oh boy. Here's a fun one. You had to expect that there would be more defamation lawsuits about Twitter following the first one involving Courtney Love, but this one is quite impressive, considering of all the twists and turns that must be followed. It involves some company promoting something called "The Cookie Diet" (which appears to be exactly what you would think) suing Kim Kardashian for libel. If you don't keep up with pop culture, Kim Kardashian is one of those people famous for being famous. The details of the lawsuit, though, are somewhat complex, and it's difficult to figure out who to side with in this trainwreck in progress (and, yes, it seems pretty likely that the whole thing is a publicity stunt for all involved, but that doesn't mean it's not worth covering).

So, basically, the story is that this "cookie diet" supposedly has some fans in Hollywood, and a variety of media have covered the story. Some of those media reports claimed that Kardashian (among many others) were fans of the diet. The Cookie Diet people -- like you would expect -- have a page on their website that links to news coverage, including a story (which they had nothing to do with) that said Kardashian used the diet. At some point, they also sent Kardashian's publicist a box of the cookies.

At some point towards the end of last year, Kardashian saw the link on the website and got upset, posting two Twitter messages saying the following:

• "Dr. Siegal's Cookie Diet is falsely promoting that I'm on this diet. NOT TRUE! I would never do this unhealthy diet! I do QuickTrim!"
• If this Dr. Siegal is lying about me being on this diet, what else are they lying about? Not cool!"

After that, her lawyers sent the Cookie Diet people a letter demanding that it remove the link to the story. It's unclear on what legal grounds the demand was made, as the diet company insists it had nothing to do with the story, did not supply the information and, in fact, had no knowledge that Kardashian had tried the diet. However, they did remove the link. It was only then that they noticed the Twitter messages and... then we get the lawsuit.

OK. So far we've already got some confusion about whether a link to a news article is actionable, combined with a Twitter libel claim. But then the story gets even more bizarre. You see, there's been a lot of talk lately about Kardashian being the most high profile client of some company that gets people to post sponsored Twitter messages. In fact, reports claim that some companies are paying her $10,000 per sponsored message. This may or may not be true, but if it is true, then the companies paying that money are likely getting seriously ripped off because they don't understand how Twitter works and how follower counts are grossly inflated.

So, what does this have to do with the cookies? Well, the cookie people are noting in the legal filing that Kardashian is paid to promote QuickTrim, but that she failed to note this. How does that become important? Well... you may recall last year's kerfuffle over the new FTC "guidelines" about paid endorsements online. While the cookie people don't specifically bring this up, it's certainly implied that Kardashian's paid sponsorship had something to do with her messages against the cookie people.

It's hard to see either side as being worth defending here, but sit back, grab a cookie and enjoy watching the legal arguments fly.

Filed Under: cookies, diets, disclosure, kim kardashian, libel, sponsorships, twitter

EU's Cookie Law Should Crumble

from the not-a-good-situation dept

A bunch of folks have been sending in versions of this story about new EU cookie rules that will require anyone placing cookies on your computer to first get consent. This is the sort of law that is passed by people who don't understand the technology at all, and misinterpret "cookies" as automatically being malicious. This is the sort of thing that people who were first understanding the web got concerned about a decade ago, until they realized it was nothing to worry about. Except... it appears some people haven't quite figured that out yet, and tragically, they make laws in the EU.

Filed Under: cookies, eu

Girl Scouts Teaching The Wrong Lesson By Banning Online Sales

from the unfair-competition? dept

Way back in 2002 and 2003 we discussed how the Girl Scouts of America prohibit selling their infamous cookies online. It seemed strange back then, as the entire purpose of the program is (supposedly) to teach the girls entrepreneurship skills, including "personal responsibility and how to manage money." I hadn't heard much about it since then, but here we are in 2009, and once again, business-savvy Girl Scouts are running into trouble selling cookies online.

Some have argued that since it's supposed to be about doing something in your community, selling online goes beyond that -- though, I'd argue that an online community can be just as much of a community as a local one. Anyway, in the case described in this article, the sales were limited to local residents anyway -- but the Girl Scouts are still upset about it. Mainly, the argument seems to be that it's somehow "not fair" for the other girls, but if the goal is to teach kids entrepreneurship skills, telling them that some big organization is going to make sure to keep others out of your market isn't exactly sending the right message.

Filed Under: cookies, girl scouts, online sales