Internet Privacy Standards (According to Google and Microsoft)

The big news in the tech industry this week is the fight over the future of Yahoo. But there's a sideshow worth watching for those interested in Washington tech policy: Today is the last day of the Federal Trade Commission's public comment period on online privacy principles and behavioral advertising.

Not surprisingly, the two biggest figures in the wheeling and dealing over Yahoo's future play a big role here, too. Both have submitted comments on the FTC rules, and the differences between them may demarcate the future lines of the debate.

First a very quick definition: Behavioral advertising is the collection and use of information about Internet users’ web browsing behavior to target them for advertising purposes.

To use a very extreme example, behavioral advertising could mean that advertising companies could compile databases detailing whether someone visits web sites focusing on religion, medical, or sexual-orientation matters — and then use that information to tailor ads to that person, even after he has moved on to other web sites.)

This sort of use of ostensibly “private” information, even on far less personal subjects, scares plenty of people. (A recent Harris Interactive poll demonstrates widespread unease, and generally the older you are, the less likely you are to think behavioral advertising is a good idea.) Consequently, there's a move afoot in the tech community to look for some form of regulation, either self-imposed or otherwise.

Without getting too deep into Google or Microsoft's proposals (Microsoft just filed today, and all the filings can be viewed here) there are some significant differences. Both are concerned about privacy matters and suggest ways in which the current system could be made tighter, though Microsoft stresses its support for consumer notification, opt-out agreements, or even affirmative consent in many circumstances. Google also supports increasing consumer protections, but is far less proscriptive in its approach and worries that the FTC's definitions of behavioral advertising is too broad.

“We think that if you’re in the data collection business, you’ve got some responsibilities and obligations,” Frank Torres, Microsoft’s Director of Consumer Affairs, says. “From what I can see in the Google comments, they’re saying these principles should be narrowed in scope and may not cover Google’s activities.”

Google, meanwhile, suggested that, before getting deep into the debate over privacy, the government and industry would do well to come up with a clearer sense of what constitutes behavioral advertising and what doesn’t. Here’s Google’s own take on its approach, as presented on the company’s public policy blog:

“Google's comments underscore our support for the Commission's proposed self-regulatory approach, which we believe is the most appropriate method of ensuring innovation, competition, and consumer protection in this space.”

Whatever privacy policy approach ultimately wins out is likely to play a major role in determining how money is made in the online advertising industry — and who makes it. Expect the matter to keep plenty of DC lawyers and lobbyists busy in the coming years.

Comments

[Pete Lowry]

Dear Google,
Historically, power corrupts. Be the exception.
You can afford to be more than the greed.
Serve the people, serve the planet.
Define the higher purpose.