“Verily, with hardship comes ease.” -Qur’an (94:6)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Just needed to get that out.

So, I went to check up on my video from my 1st vlog on YouTube (I’d posted it on three different sites), and to my surprise it was “removed due to terms of use violation”.

What, YouTube? What did I do wrong?

So, I rush to the login page, type in my username and password, and here we go:

This account has been permanently disabled.

What? *Refresh* WHAT?!

I have no idea why this has happened.

(If this happens to you, inquire why here: Suspended account inquiry)

I’ve e-mailed YouTube and they responded with a seemingly sincere human-toned robot:

Thanks for your email. Your “JawaadAhmadKhan” account has been found to
have violated our Community Guidelines. Your account has now been
terminated. Please be aware that you are prohibited from accessing,
possessing or creating any other YouTube accounts.

Then, as I read, in my head I screamed “But WHY!!!!???? WHAT DID I DO!!”

I continued reading:

We are unable to provide specific detail regarding your account suspension
or your video’s removal. For more information on our what we consider
inappropriate content or conduct while using YouTube, please visit…

I responded genuinely asking what was wrong with my video that it caused my account to be suspended. I’ve had trouble with YouTube before (two of my videos were flagged for copyright, but I communicated, deleted and/or fixed both), but this one is just horrible.

(And it happened the day after I decided to regularly produce content, especially for my YouTube channel!).

Well, I digress. Allah’s testing my commitment to this new project. Alhamdulillah.

ACTION ITEMS

1. Keep pestering, I mean ‘contacting’, YouTube about why my account was deleted and how to get it back
2. Keep producing my weekly vlog, publishing on Blip.tv and Vimeo (like I’d planned to do, in addition to YouTube).

Honestly, I began growing weary of YouTube, (the amount of un-beneficial and stupid videos is rapidly growing), and I’m liking Vimeo and Blip.tv better for video hosting (they’re more geared toward serious filmmakers and show producers).

However, I can’t ignore the marketing potential that YouTube offers. (Eventual Last Resort: Welcome to JawaadAhmadKhan2’s YouTube Channel!)

Wasalaamu ‘Alaikum

VoxScrapBox Terms of Use:

The graphics contained in the download packages available on this website are 100% royalty-free for both personal and commercial projects with very few limitations. By downloading a digital package from the VoxScrapBox website, you agree to the following terms and conditions:

YOU MAY alter, resize and recolor these graphics as you see fit, provided your alterations do not violate these terms and conditions.

YOU MAY use these elements in your creative projects, both commercial and non-commercial. They can be used in website design, scrapbooking, card making, creating content and designs for Zazzle, Cafepress, Spreadshirt, Printfection and any other internet based or brick and mortar “print-on-demand” order fulfillment company.

YOU MAY use these graphics for doll making, candy wrappers, crafts, educational purposes, sign making and almost anything else you can come up with, with exception to the following:

Any and all content downloaded in free or paid packages available on the VoxScrapBox website MUST NOT be used in creating any work of hate, racism, pornography, religious or social intolerance, violence or discrimination against any culture, gender or creed.

YOU MAY NOT try to pass these graphics off as your own.

YOU MAY NOT resell or give away these graphics as stand-alone files, as-is or altered, whole or in part, as individual downloads or as part of any graphics, tubes, brushes or clip art collection. If you want the right to earn money from these downloads, you must use them as part of (or elements in) an entirely new and unique creative work. Anyone who attempts to give away or resell these graphics is in violation to the terms of use in which they agreed upon by downloading the(se) digital object(s) and will be served.

YOU MAY NOT upload these graphics to any file sharing website whatsoever! This includes websites like 4shared, Mediafire, Oronjo, Rapidshare, photobucket, picturetrail and all torrent download sites. If you need a place to store your images, please burn them to a disk. Anyone who willingly chooses to violate this will be permanently banned from downloading VoxScrapBox products, free or paid. Please don’t participate in piracy.

YOU MAY NOT use the individual package preview thumbnail images for any reason, personal or commercial. They are only to be used on the VoxScrapBox website, and as an easy personal reference to the contents of your downloaded package. They are part of our website’s design, please don’t copy or distribute them.

Link-backs are never required but always appreciated. If you decide to use our free graphics on Zazzle products, all we ask is that you sign in to your Zazzle account and join one or more of the following contributor fan clubs:

http://www.zazzle.com/voxeed

http://www.zazzle.com/voxphotography

http://www.zazzle.com/voxbaby

http://www.zazzle.com/voxpaws

http://www.zazzle.com/voxeedbride

http://www.zazzle.com/voxrox

http://www.zazzle.com/veevoxeed

http://www.zazzle.com/fingerguns

http://www.zazzle.com/anarchyaudio

http://www.zazzle.com/digitaldaynas

http://www.zazzle.com/bionicboys

http://www.zazzle.com/haleyscloset

Thank You

I was eating my lunch at my desk today and thumbing through a new issue of a publication (yes, paper) that I subscribe to. One of the pages had a ‘tech tip’ listed, and predictably, this caught my attention. What I read in the ‘tech tip’ was not at all what I expected to read. The actual tip described in detail the steps to download, save, convert video formats and repost/upload the video content hosted on YouTube to additional websites. Yikes! My internal ‘alarm bells’ to follow the rules (terms of use etc.) and support copyright were going off, especially since the publication is education oriented.

The YouTube terms of use policy specifically states that “Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only and may not be downloaded, copied, modified, produced, reproduced, distributed, transmitted, broadcast, displayed, sold, licensed, translated, published, performed or otherwise exploited for any other purposes whatsoever without the prior written consent of the respective owners.“

In my mind, this is a great example of:  just because you can, and technology makes it easy, does not mean the activity is permitted and/or legal. I see this as a missed opportunity to enlighten the readership, promote ethical use of content and demonstrate digital citizenship. After work, I was sharing my ‘find’ with @hniezen and @rebrouse. We were debating whether or not I would point this out to the editor of the publication. I think we landed on yes, so I will craft an email to explore the situation further.

Related Reading

UK Guardian: digital economy bill
Digital Rights Management in Canada
Internet abuse and ISP liability
Internet Piracy Copyright Law in Canada
Canadian Journal of Communication: Bill C-60 and Copyright in Canada commentary

Enjoy the reading and learning.
~ Mark

almost there

Yesterday, Yong Liu introduced us (Branson, Jim, Scott and Carl (me)) to the Invitation Portlet that we’ve been waiting for. This will allow any member to invite another person into the CoolHub.IMSA community. This is a significant piece of the puzzle in making CoolHub.IMSA operational. Until now, memberships were created by Jim and me through a manual process that included a bug.

Being able to invite anyone into the virtual space brings responsibility along with it. While we have work to do on the Terms of Use agreement that is part of the membership creation process (every member has to agree to the TERMS before a password is generated), please be aware that CoolHub.IMSA is 1) a place for STEM collaboration and 2) has very few walls.

As we develop the thinking and language behind these two design principles, it should become apparent that CoolHub.IMSA is a unique place not only in terms of its purpose (to fast forward the development of innovations in STEM teaching and learning) but also in terms of its members (collaborators who are adults, youth and even children).

We often describe the concept of CoolHub.IMSA as the Facebook of STEM education. There are a number of similarities as well as differences. Like Facebook, there are tools for sharing and social interaction. Space is provided to save conversations, documents, pictures and embed videos. In addition, there are collaborative tools that Facebook does not offer, such as dedicated project spaces, shared concept mapping, real-time video conferencing and much more. We’ll touch on this more in a future blog.

Unlike Facebook, accounts may be created by invitation only. The community will be as strong and healthy as you help to make it. While individuals will invite friends and colleagues (who in turn will invite others) it is essential that the community supports the vision of transforming STEM teaching and learning through a myriad of different projects–this is a place for creativity and innovation after all–and takes an active role in policing the activities that take place in CoolHub.IMSA. CoolHub.IMSA fosters social interaction, but that is for the purpose of STEM action (’social interaction for STEM action,’ if you will).

Not every project will be specifically about teaching and learning. Some may become prototypes or actual products and services. Some may give rise to new organizations.  Many may be experimental. But in all of them we will seek a connection to transform STEM education. We do not want to create an artificial wall by excluding projects where we can’t (yet) see the STEM connection. But we do want to learn from the collective efforts of our collaborators and forge new connections.

Also unlike Facebook or MySpace–and what really sets us apart from them—is that children may collaborate in this space with older students and adults. Concerns for safety are paramount and we call on the entire community to work together for the good of all involved. Safety will be a significant part of the Terms of Use agreement. We will do our best to minimize potential abuses of this privilege to collaborate with anyone regardless of role or age. Stepping away from the status of position and age (teacher, student, youngster, career professional, retired, parent, etc.) may be the most disruptive innovation CoolHub.IMSA has initially to offer. Let’s commit to see what good we can do with it.

It will be possible for someone who learns about CoolHub.IMSA but doesn’t receive an invitation to petition for membership. We’re not sure how much investigation that process will involve, but we want to ensure that people who share our values have access to our site and resources.

As we prepare to embark on our Beta release guided by these principles, I encourage your comments and dialogue.

Dear IGDA Members,

Last week we made an unfortunate mistake in our execution of the IGDA Terms of Use policies.  While taking down a large number of reported posts for review, we did not effectively communicate that these posts had been reported (for a variety of reasons) and that the IGDA was reviewing them and determining if they needed to be edited or restored in full.

There was no intent to censor anyone’s speech, and many were restored quickly and many more were restored today.  The IGDA is about free speech, as long as they are within our terms of use. (Terms that are not particularly restrictive, have been posted for several years, and may be found here: http://www.igda.org/terms.php)

There is no reason why the IGDA leadership seeks to suppress posts that have been on-line and readily available for over a month.  Also, great care was taken to hold the positions and maintain the threads so as to make it possible to restore posts as they were reviewed.  The root of this issue was really the volume of reports and an attempt to make final decisions based on these older posts in light of the announcement of the special meeting, which will undoubtedly spark further forum discussions and reports.

In light of the concerns, Tobi Saulnier has asked Coray Seifert to put together a small group to rapidly review these posts and determine their adherence to our terms of use.  You should begin seeing some of the posts being restored as early as today, though any determined to violate the terms will remain down.

There are a lot of things going on at the IGDA right now, and a relatively new set of folks handling the majority of them.  Myself, David, Shelby and Alex have all been with the IGDA for less that 3 months.  Unfortunately, this led to a mistake that created an unfortunate level of controversy, as we were attempting to resolve a backlog of requests before new ones came in.  Rather than censorship, this was an error in communication, and a lack of ability to speedily resolve the post reports.

Sincerely,

Joshua Caulfield
Executive Director

The terms of use page has been updated concerning commercial game use of animations provided on this blog.

So the AP let one of their memos float out of the office window and now everyone is in a tizzy over their plan to not let customers (read: news orgs) put some AP content on their websites — the solution, they say, is just to link directly to the AP website, which strikes me as a big shift for them: they’re done just selling their info to companies to give to their audiences — now the AP wants the audience directly.

Long story short: the AP says sure, the breaking news stuff and regular articles (“utility content,” they call it) are still cool to use just like we always have, but the stuff the AP’s got the corner on (“unique content,” like info-graphics and photos) should stay on the AP website.

Nieman blogger Zachary R. Seward says Srinandan Kasi, AP’s general counsel, says it’s all about buffing up traffic to the AP website, which isn’t something I knew they were looking for.  He quotes Kasi:

…the ability now to be able to make a decision that says, this is not something we want to generically put on the wire and send to everyone to publish everywhere. We instead think this would be useful for people to use as supplemental, to enrich their storytelling. But it’s available for them to be able to point to. And the reason to do that is, then you have a bunch of links that point to a particular piece of content. You have better search outcomes. You have better exploitation of the link value, if you will, to that piece of content. So there’s an ability to think of that piece of content differently because you’re trying to maximize traffic as compared to other content where the benefit is really about getting the initial engagement.

This strikes me as a bigger move than people are saying it is — it signals a huge shift in the AP’s approach to their online presence and, in trying to steer people towards their website, a literal 180 from back in April when they were ready to rumble with Google for passing their links around, thought that’s simplifying a bit.

Seward says this is a move that “upend the consortium’s traditional notions of syndication,” but I think it’s simpler than that: the AP isn’t changing how it syndicates, just what it syndicates.  They’re basically creating two different product streams: the stuff they give to their customers, and they stuff they keep and politely ask customers to link to.

If this secret plan thing comes to fruition, the AP won’t just be feeding news websites, it will be competing with them.  How will this affect AP customers?  They’re going to have less AP content on their websites, thus less material to pull in readers, thus less advertising to sell in a world without much to sell in the first place.  Also, how will this affect the link-sharing culture on news sites?  Places like the WashingtonPost.com are loath to post outside links in their news stories — will they do it for the Associated Press?  And, if they do, why not link out to other websites with good content too?  How about me?

[Side note: Beet.tv reported today that MSNBC.com is doing the exact opposite — they want EVERYBODY to take their content.]

Update, 8/11/09 11:22 p.m.:

Blogger hotshot and all-around dude-who’s-smarter-than-me Jeff Jarvis asks another important question via Twitter:

Big ? re AP plan: Does it monetize its “unique” content & share rev with those sending links, as the link econ demands?

Update, 8/12/09 11:30 p.m.:

Seward posted the actual document [pdf]— and explains in the comments section why he didn’t do it sooner in comment number 23 on the article.

Netflix, Inc., reserves the right, from time to time, with or without notice to you, to change these Terms of Use in our sole and absolute discretion.

Fractional Reserve Banking
http://www.islamic-finance.com/item1_f.htm
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8816304/Kieron-McFadden-The-Origins-of-Modern-Banking

Sweet step-sisters drinking lemonade on schoolyard lawns and

porches w. swings passed down thru generations w. secret

sauce recipes and sin and gin

and whiskey whistlin grandpaws

shoutin dixie girl tunes and dixie cup jingles and

anything but dixie

little confederate flag folded neat away

tucked under toy railorad sets

and books on fisherman’s nots

but where’s the sea?

where our edge? and where’s love ask

3 yearolds on granddad laps

and soon grown up squeezing their

own lemonade and soon so grown up just

drinkin

let the children squeeze

young fools

getting their finger muscles strong

for a good handshave

and shout shouting HAh!

on backdoor steps as silence

spills onto the air after they’ve said their trump and stump and stuck it to the back-turned-a-way-to-get-out-of-this-has

got to be somewhere and some-where

is the sea?

I’ve knotted my shoelaces and got my lunch in a bag so I dont have to be

back home till supper ever

proper winds awaiting finer gentlemen,

for now we’re rouch as trees wood red could bled

I dead

you fed all reading me like the backs of

burning photographs w. scribbled notes not

noticed till the end

I treasure and I burn

and i didnt throw the i ching but i read some of it last night and in my dream last night i dreamt the date was 63-02-09 so i checked the 63rd hexagram and moved the 2nd 6 to a 9 (02-09)

ill tell u later

anyways the point is that 63 is “Already Fulfilled” which sounds good but also everything in I Ching is also very much the opposite so it is very cautious and says to have patience and that everything is cycle so after fulfilled comes not yet fulfilled and technically everything is perfect in the hexagram, all the yin in yin places and all the yang in yang places, water over fire, harmony, but also that means that eventually it will all end / switch so really it seems more cautionary than anything else, also from the moving line, it becomes Needing, which also focuses on patience and on eating and drinking

Summary:  Online advertising has been self-regulated for some time but the FTC has made it clear that it is not happy with the resulting dense legalese of TOU’s and privacy policies.  They set forth new guidelines that they expect publishers to use during the next year–at which time the FTC will consider new legislation.  (Please note:  Various ad industry associations offered their response, which is discussed in the post below at digitaldumonde.wordpress.com/2009/07/23/new-ideas-for-online-data-collection-use-the-industry-responds-to-the-ftc/.)

Although the guidelines are only just that–guidelines–they should “guide” your revisions to your TOU’s and your privacy policy.  Here is a quick summary.

I.  Introduction.

The staff of the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC)  recently released a report (February 12, 2009) that will directly affect the documents governing the relationship between an online content provider and viewers/consumers-Terms of Use (TOUs), End-User License Agreements (EULAs) and Privacy Policies.  The report also suggests implications for the use of private information.  Please email us atjcrext@globalcaplaw.com and a copy of the report will be sent to you, or you can find it on the site of the FTC.

The report sets forth principles for self-regulation for the online advertising industry relating to online “behavioral advertising.”  (The report defines behavioral advertising, which is set forth below under “Definition”).  Technically, it is a supplemental report, but it has the effect of finalizing the December 2007 draft “Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising.”

It should be emphasized that these are principles for self-regulation for the online advertising industry.  Arguably, this means that they are not binding, and, indeed, the report makes that clear. However (and this is an important caveat), the principles will definitely guide the enforcement actions instituted by the FTC.  Moreover, it seems that the FTC is pre-disposed to initiate legislation in this area, which will probably codify much of what is found in these principles.  And states often look to such reports for guidance on their legislation on privacy.

In reading the footnotes, another point emerges from the report.  The FTC staff appears to believe that those who draft TOUs and privacy policies have not been keeping a close eye on the enforcement actions and decisions that the FTC staff believes to be relevant-and these include decisions that do not involve online matters but do involve clear disclosure for consumers.  In fact, the report footnotes include quotes from FTC commissioners that can be summed up as the following rule:

Policies that bury relevant information and choices for consumers in legalese will do so at the peril of the publisher.

(Please note that the above rule is our language and not that of the FTC or its staff.)

II.  So What?

1.  Clean up These Documents. Dense legalese will probably not “pass muster” with the FTC.  They are keeping a close eye on this area.

2.  Consumers’ Choices Must Be Clear. Just as dense legalese is for the FTC tantamount to unacceptable (and often illegal) “fine print,” obscuring consumers’ choices is frowned upon.  In particular, the report mentions “check boxes” that are already checked–something frowned upon in the report.

3.  Certain Changes to Terms Must Be Affirmatively Accepted. Any material changes or “retroactive” changes (i.e., affecting policies on data already collected) must be affirmatively accepted by the site users.  Prospective changes do not (yet) need such approval but it is pretty clear that the staff leans in that direction.  This possibly means that the common technique of saying “Use of this site means acceptance of the terms” together with the “warning” that changes can be made at any time will not be acceptable by the FTC.

4.   The PII/non-PII Distinction is Diminishing. The US approach has been to try to protect “personally identifiable information” at a higher level than that which is not personally identifiable.  This differs from the European model.  Now, the FTC is moving towards the European model and this is understandable.  The staff understands that PII can often be gleaned from non-PII, which makes the distinction too porous.  In particular, the report wishes to increase the protection of data that can identify an individual machine (PC, mobile phone, etc.), while the earlier approach was to preclude identification of an individual user.

5.   Self Regulation is a Testbed and is on Probation. The FTC simply sidestepped resolving many issues, leaving it to the “industry” to try various methods.  However, one can infer that “industry” has about a year before the FTC moves towards legislation.

III.   The Report.

We have not included the entire (50+ page) Report, but we have quoted almost the entire conclusion, which summarizes the final version of the “Principles” of self-regulation.  The numbering is directly from the Report:

A.  Definition

For purposes of the Principles, online behavioral advertising means the tracking of a consumer’s online activities over time – including the searches the consumer has conducted, the web pages visited, and the content viewed – in order to deliver advertising targeted to the individual consumer’s interests. This definition is not intended to include “first party” advertising, where no data is shared with third parties, or contextual advertising, where an ad is based on a single visit to a web page or single search query.

B.  Principles

1.  Transparency and Consumer Control

Every website where data is collected for behavioral advertising should provide a clear, concise, consumer-friendly, and prominent statement that (1) data about consumers’ activities online is being collected at the site for use in providing advertising about products and services tailored to individual consumers’ interests, and (2) consumers can choose whether or not to have their information collected for such purpose. The website should also provide consumers with a clear, easy-to-use, and accessible method for exercising this option.  Where the data collection occurs outside the traditional website context, companies should develop alternative methods of disclosure and consumer choice that meet the standards described above (i.e., clear, prominent, easy-to-use, etc.)

2.  Reasonable Security, and Limited Data Retention, for Consumer Data

Any company that collects and/or stores consumer data for behavioral advertising should provide reasonable security for that data. Consistent with data security laws and the FTC’s data security enforcement actions, such protections should be based on the sensitivity of the data, the nature of a company’s business operations, the types of risks a company faces, and the reasonable protections available to a company.  Companies should also retain data only as long as is necessary to fulfill a legitimate business or law enforcement need.

3.  Affirmative Express Consent for Material Changes to Existing Privacy Promises

As the FTC has made clear in its enforcement and outreach efforts, a company must keep any promises that it makes with respect to how it will handle or protect consumer data, even if it decides to change its policies at a later date. Therefore, before a company can use previously collected data in a manner materially different from promises the company made when it collected the data, it should obtain affirmative express consent from affected consumers.  This principle would apply in a corporate merger situation to the extent that the merger creates material changes in the way the companies collect, use, and share data.

4.  Affirmative Express Consent to (or Prohibition Against) Using Sensitive Data for Behavioral Advertising

Companies should collect sensitive data for behavioral advertising only after they obtain  affirmative express consent from the consumer to receive such advertising.

Summary:  With congressional and administrative attention now on the online advertising industry, the industry is responding with “principles” to continue self-regulation.  Whatever the outcome of the debate now underway, TOUs and EULAs will change.  To the business side of digital companies, these are boilerplate:  To the lawyers, they should be seen as what they are–binding agreements with end users and that have serious consequences if they are too one-sided.  You can read the entire report atwww.iab.net/behavioral-advertisingprinciples.

The online advertising industry has responded to the February 2009 FTC Staff Report on the topic (which is called “behavioral advertising”).  That industry created a report on “principles” for managing these data.  These principles represent an attempt to maintain the self-regulation structure now in effect–something that has not made regulators happy (rightly or wrongly).

You can read the report at the URL above.  Here is our take on the principles:

• Ad Industry Mobilization–the mere fact that disparate industry associations have gotten together is good news, because these people have great experience and expertise to apply to a topic that is really pretty nuanced.

• No More Fine Print–well, everyone can dream.  It is not so much that the industry will eliminate dense legalese in TOUs, but that the language is supposed to be drafted to be transparent–providing genuine guidance that end users can understand.

• Actual Innovation–The report includes one innovation:  an “approval” toolbar on browsers.

• De-identification of data–this is the one we like the most.  Finally, the ad industry is beginning to recognize that the data can be extremely valuable in their aggregate form, without recourse to knowing about the actual individuals.  Pay attention to this one.

• Sensitivity–This principles recognizes that not all data are created equal and some are more sensitive than others.  Think of medical records.

• Material Changes–gone will be the days of unilateral retroactive changes to TOUs.  Actually, this is just a recognition that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will win on this point and that courts are moving in that direction, as well (See blog on Blockbuster case).

So What?

From a legal perspective, this will add more pressure on companies to change their TOUs, but from a strategic perspective, it is one more piece of the evidence of the growing appreciation–not of the data themselves but of their complexity and vast value.  In other words, it is no longer an either/or debate:  either the industry gets to collect everything or nothing.

Therefore, think about what kinds of data your company wants about use (and not necessarily about each end user).

(See some TOUs, etc., we have drafted: www.npbn.com and www.photospin.com for some examples.)

Summary:  In response to the FTC Staff Report (on which we blogged earlier), online advertising industry associations joined together and came out with their own principles to improve the data collection and use principles of the online experience.  In essence, it is a last-ditch effort by the industry to keep its role of self-regulation.  You can read the entire report atwww.iab.net/behavioral-advertisingprinciples.

The online advertising industry has responded to the February 2009 FTC Staff Report on the topic (which is called “behavioral advertising”).  Here is a summary of the main principles in our words (not theirs):

• The Education Principle—an 18-month campaign to educate consumers.
• The Transparency Principle—which mandates clear and easily accessible data collection and use practices and changes to websites.
• The Consumer Control Principle—enhanced options for determining which and how data are collected.  It is expected that a “data consent” toolbar will be created for a broad range of online providers (ISPs, browsers, publishers) that will enable consumers to consent to data collection.  There will also be steps to “de-identify” the data.
• The Data Security Principle—essentially a data security and retention policy to improve security of the data and limit the period such data are retained.
• The Material Changes Principle—requiring consumer consent to any material changes to privacy and use policies.  If successful, this will address one of the principal concerns of the FTC, which is the now-current practice of empowering online providers (e.g., publishers) to change their TOUs, etc., with retroactive application.  This is something courts have now found invalid in such online agreements, too.
• The Sensitive Data Principle—addresses concerns for data from sensitive groups—e.g., children—and sensitive data—e.g., health and financial records.
• The Accountability Principle—should be the implementing programs for these principles and disciplinary procedures.

So What?

One thing is clear:  the online agreements that govern the use of websites are now in the crosshairs—meaning that those agreements should be revised now.  The FTC Staff Report provides pretty good guidance on what to include and what to exclude.

The industry report is something more abstract but it also has some gems that can provide some great innovations for new practices.  Among them, the “data consent” toolbar is a good idea.

In addition to that idea, we really like the idea of steps to “de-identify” the data.  In fact, we think that this is probably the most important step forward.  Those data can be tremendously powerful in that form.  That is the fulcrum point—and where fortunes will be made.   And some lost, too.

(See some TOUs, etc., we have drafted:  www.npbn.com and www.photospin.com for some examples.)

Summary:  In response to the FTC Staff Report (on which we blogged earlier), online advertising industry associations joined together and came out with their own principles to improve the data collection and use principles of the online experience.  In essence, it is a last-ditch effort by the industry to keep its role of self-regulation.  You can read the entire report at www.iab.net/behavioral-advertisingprinciples.

The online advertising industry has responded to the February 2009 FTC Staff Report on the topic (which is called “behavioral advertising”).  Here is a summary of the main principles in our words (not theirs):

• The Education Principle—an 18-month campaign to educate consumers.
• The Transparency Principle—which mandates clear and easily accessible data collection and use practices and changes to websites.
• The Consumer Control Principle—enhanced options for determining which and how data are collected.  It is expected that a “data consent” toolbar will be created for a broad range of online providers (ISPs, browsers, publishers) that will enable consumers to consent to data collection.  There will also be steps to “de-identify” the data.
• The Data Security Principle—essentially a data security and retention policy to improve security of the data and limit the period such data are retained.
• The Material Changes Principle—requiring consumer consent to any material changes to privacy and use policies.  If successful, this will address one of the principal concerns of the FTC, which is the now-current practice of empowering online providers (e.g., publishers) to change their TOUs, etc., with retroactive application.  This is something courts have now found invalid in such online agreements, too.
• The Sensitive Data Principle—addresses concerns for data from sensitive groups—e.g., children—and sensitive data—e.g., health and financial records.
• The Accountability Principle—should be the implementing programs for these principles and disciplinary procedures.

So What?

One thing is clear:  the online agreements that govern the use of websites are now in the crosshairs—meaning that those agreements should be revised now.  The FTC Staff Report provides pretty good guidance on what to include and what to exclude.

The industry report is something more abstract but it also has some gems that can provide some great innovations for new practices.  Among them, the “data consent” toolbar is a good idea.

In addition to that idea, we really like the idea of steps to “de-identify” the data.  In fact, we think that this is probably the most important step forward.  Those data can be tremendously powerful in that form.  That is the fulcrum point—and where fortunes will be made.   And some lost, too.

(See some TOUs, etc., we have drafted:  www.npbn.com and www.photospin.com for some examples.)