Consumer Watchdog Takes On Google As Lawmakers Mull Data Privacy Regulation

Consumer Watchdog -- which, as the name implies is a consumer watchdog organization -- is raising alarms over privacy concerns that have been brought to the fore as online search company Google engages in wheeling and dealing before the House Communications and Consumer Protection Subcommittee.

At issue is legislation that might affect Google's practice of "behavioral advertising," the process by which Google serves ads to users based upon personal information gleaned from individual users' browsing habits, which many deem invasive. Potentially, lawmakers could inhibit Google's ambitions in this area by making it possible for users to opt out of Google's meticulous tracking. Worse for the online giant is the possibility that users will have to opt in in order to be tracked in the first place. At the very least, Google might find itself subjected to a "Do Not Google" list, similar to the "Do Not Call" lists that have been applied to the telemarketing industry.

In their press release, Consumer Watchdog notes that their concerns have become magnified with the announcement that Google will be introducing their own operating system:

The question has grown more urgent with Google's announcement Wednesday that it will release a new operating system that moves currently computer-based functions to its proprietary Internet "cloud," said Consumer Watchdog. Congress is considering forcing Google to adopt an opt-in model where users must actively allow Google to collect browsing history and user data.

"The Justice Department should be worried when Google tries to obfuscate its data tracking capacity and reach rather than disclose all of it," said Judy Dugan, research director of Consumer Watchdog. "Congress should demand that Google stop tracking Americans' online behavior without their prior permission."

[...]

Google's new operating system could also comb users' stored documents for information on those "interest categories." The depth of this potential data collection is not mentioned in the Google spin document. ...Instead, it boasts repeatedly of Google's commitment to transparency and "user friendliness" in delivering the lucrative advertising.

In an interview with the Huffington Post, Jamie Court, president of the Consumer Watchdog, was explicit in his concerns: "No one knows more about Americans than Google...The FBI doesn't know as much about us as Google. That has to worry Congress as much as it should worry Americans as they learn about it." Regarding the proposed operating system, Court says, "People just don't get it that your documents are at Google, not on your computer," making those items subject to the same processes that power Google's "behavioral advertising."

To emphasize their point, Consumer Watchdog has obtained a confidential "spin document," thanks to "an anonymous industry insider who has previously provided other Google spin documents." In the first place, yes: "Confidential" "spin documents" on transparency and privacy are awesome monuments to irony. And the document in question, Consumer Watchdog believes, is "associated with a June 18 Congressional hearing that questioned online "behavioral advertising." What makes this better however, is that Consumer Watchdog has done their own "satirical annotation" of this "spin document." And the annotated document is full of fun Google facts, like the byzantine click odyssey one must go on to opt out of being served Google Ads! And the four hours of videos you need to watch to get briefed on privacy!

Story continues below

advertisement

But the important part of the satiric annotation are the questions for lawmakers that are helpfully provided:

1. Why isn't Google's behavioral advertising opt-in rather than opt-out?

2. Why not prominently include a link allowing users to permanently opt-out of Google tracking?

3. 2008: Google says it has no plans to use behavioral advertising... [that] it doesn't work. What changed?

4. Is Google's behavioral advertising really about delivering more interesting ads or is it about expanding its data collection and targeting activities?

And, just for emphasis, they direct people to this video, by the hilarious comedy group The Big Honkin':

[WATCH]

READ THE ORIGINAL GOOGLE "SPIN DOCUMENT," HERE.

READ THE SATIRIC ANNOTATION, HERE.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[planetjeffy]

Why is the Huffington Post free?

Because Google advertising is paying for it. Actually the people clicking on the ads are paying for it. Google wants to provide everything free - your operating system, office suite, GPS and even internet access - as long as they can sell the advertising that goes with it. Kind of reminds me of TV before cable and radio. The more targeted their advertising becomes means advertisers sell more stuff and advertise more. They are competing with Yahoo, Microsoft and a hundred online advertising companies - so they need happy customers.

If you want to keep paying Microsoft a one or two hundred bucks every time you buy a computer or upgrade - plus $400 for MS Office - have at it. Google is looking to make computers cheaper; software and the internet free. If you don't like it, either don't use Google products or turn off your cookies.

[benji85]

Why are they targeting Google? There many other bugs that do the exact same thing, one of the reasons we all get junk mail.

Beside while I rarely ever click on the ad links I would rather see ads to music sites rather than say some new eyeliner.

Also taking away those ads is going to limit many websites revenues.

[amdezurik]

because it isn't a "bug" (do try a dictionary) it is a deliberate design.

[MrBwood]

Why so paranoid? I happen to like the way emails I receive have little ads for stuff on the side. I have nothing to hide. and face it, most of us don't. So you don't like targeted ads, quit watching TV. they have been doing it for decades. We are a nation of whiners, after all

[KriTiKiT]

they suck

[Bitsko]

The Chinese have taught them well.

[frantaylor]

They purchase the technology from us.

[Puffin16]

Hey, I'm sure those of you who have been to an "adult" site have seen some unwanted pop-ups appear on your screen! It's the same idea...you showed an interest and they are giving you more of what you asked for.

[flurryup]

How do you know about popups on the porn sites?????????????

[Puffin16]

I have teenaged sons! : )

[HelixScanr]

Just image that in a real-world scenario like a clothing store or in an adult s.ex shop. Also any staff member at that "adult" site could possibly abuse that monitoring data. Hey it has already happened with hospital employees. It's the human beings - not the computer algorithms - that are the real problem.

[HelixScanr]

Google is my nosy neighbor - LMAO

[MrBwood]

I hate to say this, but they don't care about you that much. Only enough to target some ads for stuff you might be interested in. Media has been doing it for ever, and not nearly as well. get over it

[NedroidPrime]

Wow, fearmonger much?

[frantaylor]

Stalkers and collection agencies take advantage of this stuff all the time to hunt down their victims.

[frantaylor]

And also identity thieves.

[NedroidPrime]

.... I would have to explain the nebulous nature of IP addressing to you, and the fact that your PC cannot read your mind in order to set you straight... Unfortunately, i'm about out of time for the day.

If they were tracking MAC addresses, then I would be concerned. Otherwise, nah...

[NedroidPrime]

What everyone missed was my point:

This is anonymous information, that would require using multiple resources to identify you. Namely accessing the logs of your ISP, contacting your bank (only if you access their site, or enter your card number), or something to that extent.

To paint it as being a grave threat to society is fear mongering. Learn how to use the web properly, and you have no worries.

Now the banks and credit agencies are what you have to worry about...

[plzchuteme]

So, Google places ads based on my inquiries and browsing habits? I wouldn't know because I never, ever, even glance at the ads that are on any web page visit. I couldn't even name one current advertiser on any of the Huffington pages under threat of death. I use a home page from my ISP that I end up on perhaps 30 times per day, everyday. It contains a few advertisers, but I couldn't name one. I employ every method at my disposal to thwart any connection between myself and any other internet user or provider. It's hard enough to hold Microsoft at bay. It's time consuming and a royal pain, but I do the best I can to remain anonymous except at my choice. I can't imagine ever using the new Google OS. I don't believe they have my best interest at heart

[frantaylor]

If you can actually see the ads then you are NOT doing enough. You are still downloading the ads and google is still getting paid.

If you really want to do it right, install ad-bliocking software like Privoxy. Then you are not downloading the ads and google does not make any money for the ads.

[plzchuteme]

You are right, of course, but being the selfish person I am, training myself to not see the ads works for me, and enough money changes hands to keep much of the content free.

[Charra]

I'd rather get ads about stuff I'm interested in than about stuff I'm not already looking for.

Maybe someday Google can help me stop getting emails about blankets with sleeves.

[BrAdams]

I work in the industry (online marketing/web analytics) and people need to understand that the data being used for targeted advertising is anonymous. That might sound strange, how can data that is based on my behavior be considered anonymous? The explanation is that there is no way to tie the identified behavior back to a specific, identifiable person. The technology is largely based on information stored in browser-specific but non-identifiable cookies. So when you go to a site, the software will "read" your cookie to look for specific behaviors. "This cookie has the 'sports fan' flag so display ad Sports0001." All that software knows is that cookie AJK3243XLM43 belongs to a sports fan. It doesn't know that AJK3243XLM43 is associated with John Smith from Tulsa, Oklahoma. The industry has very strict guidelines around what is called PII (personally identifiable information) such as names, e-mail addresses, social security numbers, etc. And besides, as other commenters have noted, the Internet is funded by advertising, so wouldn't you rather see advertisements that are relevant and potentially of interest to you?

[frantaylor]

Boy are you naive. Folks like google have all the bits and pieces they need to string together a whole lof of information about you. You can't do it because you are just seeing a small part of the whole stream.

[frantaylor]

You are REALLY wrong about this: given an IP address, it is TRIVIAL to tell what town the surfer is in. Ever heard of GeoIP?

[SuperBenFranklin]

Okay, fine, but how can I opt out?

You can't. That is the problem.

[eMJayy]

Actually you can to a certain extent. The information would be stored on cookie files that are being held in your browser's cache. If you're using alternative browsers like Firefox and Opera, you can actually set them to delete all cookies that were sent to your PC during the current usage session every time you close the browser. Normally, browsers are set by default to keep cookies for very long periods (up to years) and some of these cookies keep track of aspects of your browsing habits. This has been a feature of the Internet for more than 15 years now. Tracking cookies (which are just one variety of cookies) don't have the abitlity to provide personally indentifiable information to web servers, just anonymous usage patterns based on your use of a particular browser installed in a particular PC - unless you set your browser to keep deleting them after each session. Google can't get around this because cookies don't record your computer's IP address. To get a more complete understanding of cookies, read the wiki article below -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_cookie

[kendraro]

I notice the ads that are targeted towards what I've just been searching on, and I think it's kind of creepy. However, when they get so subtle I don't realize what's going on, then I will be worried - and I'm sure we're headed there because the majority of people are oblivious.

[cruzy]

I'm not diminishing anyone's privacy concerns about using Google; however, this is an issue that the consumer NOT the government should handle. If using Google's new operating system and storing your personal data in a "cloud system" makes you uncomfortable about the privacy or integrity of your data, then quite simply DO NOT use it. Google is open about its privacy policy, if you don't like it, then DO NOT use their products. Quite simply, there is neither a right nor a need to use any of Google's products, including its popular search engine. Just 10 years ago, Google didn't even exist and everyone got along just fine without it.

I am tired of "consumer advocate" and government agencies interposing themselves into affairs best handled by individual consumer decisions. This is not a case of a car company selling exploding cars. Google offers software and computers services, which are useful, but not necessary. The company is open about their privacy policy. As long consumers are not at risk of being injured or deceived, then the government has NO business getting involved. It's time people stop acting like helpless victims and just take responsibility for their own lives. If you don't like Google or their products, then DON'T USE them, just don't waste precious tax money that should be going to pay for important public services, like healthcare, on stupid "nanny state" regulation.

[Ides]

Google has an army of lawyers whose sole purpose is to achieve semantic advantage over users. A mediator that allows Google the power to engage in fair market practices while making sure it is clear what users are getting involved in is often necessary to balance these disparate power relationships.

[plzchuteme]

I agree that it should be handled by consumers first and foremost. Government regulations always contain loopholes that end up being exploited, and because they are "sanctioned," almost impossible to circumvent. It is sometimes worse than having no regulations at all. That being said, so many of the objectionable practices are done in stealth. I think the government, being more powerful and with more resources, can have a place in monitoring and disclosure. If I know what I am up against, it allows me to be able to make the choices necessary to protect my privacy at a level I am comfortable with.

[vcalzone]

It astonishes me that so many people are so clueless about what this is and why Google is not a privacy risk. First off, nobody forces you to use Google's products. There are no products that they offer that are not available elsewhere. Oh, you don't want to store your documents on Google where they are constantly searchable? Me either. So I don't.

Google is a gigantic company that uses a TON of resources. I have no idea what it costs to run thousands of servers constantly parsing every single bit of data that comes through them AND constantly searching for more data to include, but I know it's an astronomical sum. Even leaving out YouTube, Google Maps, Google Earth, etc.

You want to take away Google's ability to sell precisely targeted ads? Well, not only does that mean you'll be faced with a bunch of unrelated nonsense when you see ads, it also means that their key competitive advantage has vanished. And all of a sudden, all the stuff you get for free isn't free anymore.

And I can't emphasize this enough, TARGETED ADS ARE NOT A BAD THING!!! Not in the way Google does it. I can't believe so many people, faced with the choice between advertising that is relevant and to them personally or advertising that has to leap through hoops to grab your attention in any way possible... would decide they want the annoying animated ads that currently litter websites like, well, the Huffington Post.

[JBS]

Huffington Post has animated ads? No problem.

Google "hosts file".

[Ides]

So let Google install a few dozen cookies (translation: logging files) on your computer or simply keep track of your entire web browsing history to sell you stuff without you knowing about it?

No one is preventing Google from doing anything. At most, this would force Google to clearly ask your permission to take your privacy information. Why are you protesting so heavily to not let users even know what Google is doing? Why are you fighting for Google's right to spy on and track you?

By the way, Google's privacy rules?
http://www.google.com/

Guess which font is the smallest on that page.

[eMJayy]

This is truly amazing. Tracking cookies have been a part of the Internet for more than 15 years and all advertisers use them. Google just happens to be get the largest share of online ad revenue because everyone uses at least one of their services. What's more, cookies can be deleted and the most modern browsers, eg. Firefox and Opera, give you the option to delete all cookies, and then delete all new subsequently added cookies each time you close your browser. This has been a browser feature for years. So it's not an issue that users don't have some measure of control - instead the real issue is that typical users don't know enough about their browsers' features to know that they had control all along.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_cookie

[deeppeace]

It's not a problem until you google 'herpes' or 'how to kill your wife.'

And I browse with firefox, which lets you turn off flash. No more motion.

[yodaveg]

The goal of behavioral targeting is hardly devious. It's to make sure that the advertising you are exposed to is the most relevant to you. This saves advertisers money by targeting the best prospects. And it saves you from reading the least relevant ads.

Remember that the Web isn't free. It's paid for by advertisers. Wouldn't you rather be exposed to the ads you might be remotely interested in? Your browsing behavior is not tracked beyond this, except in aggregate.

And to those of you who think there should be no advertising on the Web: Fine. How much are you willing to pay for your content subscription?