Privacy and technology

From the introduction:

“In line with recent changes in European legislation, UK law now requires website operators to ask for a website user’s permission when placing certain kinds of cookie on their devices for the first time. Where consent is required, the law states that it should be ‘informed consent’. This increases the onus on websites to ensure that visitors understand what cookies are and why website operators and others want to use them. This guide aims to help both website operators and website users come to terms with the new law by placing cookies into four categories, based on their function. […] This guide is designed to help website operators to provide information to users in language they can understand and enable users to make an informed choice. Wide adoption of standard language will also, it is hoped, reduce the learning journey of users across websites.”

(Source: dataprotector.blogspot.com)

From the Abstract:

“It is widely known that cookies can be used to track users. However, even privacy-aware users are trackable by the properties the browser sends with every request. Based on information like the browser vendor, plugin versions and the installed fonts, a fingerprint may be created that uniquely identies a browser.”

(Source: computable.nl)

From the Abstract:

“Social media and its main revenue model, advertising, have brought privacy issues along. This deliverable maps the process wherein Personal Identifiable Information (PII) is gathered and commodified as a sellable service.”

(Source: privacynieuws.nl)

From the Conclusions:

“Adherence to the EASA/IAB Code on online behavioural advertising and participation in the website www.youronlinechoices.eu does not result in compliance with the current e-Privacy Directive. Moreover, the Code and the website create the wrong presumption that it is possible to choose not be tracked while surfing the Web. This wrong presumption can be damaging to users but also to the industry if they believe that by applying the Code they meet the requirements of the Directive.”

(Source: hldataprotection.com)

From the introduction:

“These Self-Regulatory Principles for Multi-Site Data augment the Digital Advertising Alliance (‘DAA’) Self Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising (‘OBA Principles’) by covering the prospective collection of Web site data beyond that collected for Online Behavioral Advertising. […] These Multi-Site Data Principles extend beyond collection of data for OBA purposes and apply to all data collected from a particular computer or device regarding Web viewing over time and across non-Affiliate Web sites.”

(Source: mediapost.com)

From the press release:

“To address rising concerns about privacy on the Web, W3C publishes today [14 November 2011] two first drafts for standards that allow users to express preferences about online tracking […] These documents are the early work of a broad set of stakeholders in the W3C Tracking Protection Working Group, including browser vendors, content providers, advertisers, search engines, and experts in policy, privacy, and consumer protection. W3C invites review of these early drafts, which are starting points of work to come. W3C expects them to become standards by mid-2012.”

(Source: futureofprivacy.org)

From the abstract:

“We tested nine tools, including tools that block access to advertising websites, tools that set cookies indicating a user’s preference to opt out of [online behavioral advertising (OBA)], and privacy tools that are built directly into web browsers. We interviewed participants about OBA, observed their behavior as they installed and used a privacy tool, and recorded their perceptions and attitudes about that tool. We found serious usability flaws in all nine tools we examined.”

(Source: futureofprivacy.org)

Abstract:

“The past decade has seen a proliferation of online data collection, processing, analysis and storage capacities leading businesses to employ increasingly sophisticated technologies to track and profile individual users. The use of online behavioral tracking for advertising purposes has drawn criticism from journalists, privacy advocates and regulators. Indeed, the behavioral tracking industry is currently the focus of the online privacy debate. At the center of the discussion is the Federal Trade Commission’s Do Not Track (DNT) proposal. The debate raging around DNT and the specific details of its implementation disguises a more fundamental disagreement among stakeholders about deeper societal values and norms. Unless policymakers address this underlying normative question – is online behavioral tracking a social good or an unnecessary evil – they may not be able to find a solution for implementing user choice in the context of online privacy. Practical progress advancing user privacy will be best served if policymakers and industry focus their debate on the desirable balance between efficiency and individual rights and if businesses implement tracking mechanisms fairly and responsibly. Policymakers must engage with these underlying normative questions; they cannot continue to sidestep these issues in the hope that ‘users will decide’ for themselves.”

(Source: futureofprivacy.org)

From section 4.3.5:

“The internet has made it easier for firms to target advertising to specific consumer groups. Instead of spending large amounts on mass broadcasting, firms can pay for highly targeted activities for select groups of consumers. This activity has become known as ‘behavioural targeting’ or ‘micro targeting’. According to the online advertising industry, this is highly cost effective for businesses because advertisements are targeted at consumers who are most likely to respond to them. In the UK, two thirds of companies report that behavioural advertising performs better than other online advertising […]. As a result, the online advertising industry has observed a trend towards online advertising strategies that increase the relevance of advertisements to potential consumers and hence target ads.”

(Source: solv.nl)