Groups argue for clearer consumer rights, awareness, for online tracking

Online content providers should make it clearer when they track consumers’ online behaviour for marketing purposes, digital rights and marketing groups have told the privacy commissioner. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada is holding consultations on online tracking, profiling and targeting in April, May and June in Montreal, Toronto and Calgary. According to submissions for the consultations obtained by The Wire Report through access-to-information, groups are expressing concerns about interest-based advertising (IBA), also known as behavioral marketing or targeting. Interest-based advertising allows companies to track a user’s online activities to provide targeted advertising. The companies that track the behaviour can also sell the data to other companies, provided they do not transfer personal or identifying information. But some groups argue that, put in the wrong hands, information about a user’s browsing history and online activities could be used to collect personal and identifying information. According to a submission by the Association of Canadian Advertisers’ (ACA), online advertising generates $1.6 billion a year, 10 per cent of which can be attributed to Interest-based advertising. The Canadian Marketing Association’s (CMA) submission says that, in collaboration with TNS Canadian Facts, it conducted a survey of 1,083 people online between Nov. 27 and 30, which found that 50 per cent of Canadian respondents indicated they were uncomfortable with advertisers using their browsing history for IBA purposes. The survey also said 44 per cent of respondents indicated they would sign up for a “do-not-track” registry. The CMA argues in its submission that marketers can address consumers’ concerns by following “the fair information principles” in the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), which outlines how advertisers must approach the protection of personal information. The CMA is one of many organizations calling for increased clarity for consumers to understand how their information is being collected and give them an opportunity to opt-out from data collection. “This opportunity to opt-out should be offered by all ad network organizations,” the CMA says in its submission. “To that end, one very consumer-friendly solution exists in the service already offered by the U.S. based Network Advertising Initiative (NAI) which offers the convenience of a one-stop solution. Consumers directed to the NAI site can easily opt-out from interest-based advertising served by one or all of the NAI member companies.” The Canadian Media Directors’ Council, the Institute of Communication Agencies, the Association of Quebec Advertising Agencies and le Conseil des directeurs médias du Québec Inc. are also jointly asking for a clear opt-out approach. “As long as there is a clear opt-out clause for consumers to permanently delete their usage data, we are inclined to believe interest-based advertising may prove to give advertisers more qualified and better quality leads, while users will now see advertisements which are more relevant to their interests—resulting in a better user experience,” the groups say in a joint submission. The Interactive Advertising Bureau of Canada (IAB) also suggests that an icon be placed on IAB ads or on prominent navigational areas of websites to alert consumers when information is being collected. But the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association (MRIA) argues that consumers would be best served by an opt-in system. “MRIA recommends that … online marketers who engage in consumer tracking, profiling and targeting activity should be required to develop transparent methods of letting consumers know when and how their online activity and web history data will be used, the benefits they can receive in exchange for allowing it to be used; and a clear, easy opt-in mechanism for informed consent,” says the MRIA’s submission. Rogers’ senior vice-president of regulatory, Ken Engelhart, told The Wire Report that the company supports interest-based advertising strategies, but there must be some form of consent. “The general rule with privacy is, the more sensitive , and the more invasive it is, you need to opt-in. As I understand it, location-based advertising, which is something we’re looking at, would be opt-in,” Engelhart said in an interview. Bernard Courtois, president and CEO of the Information Technology Association of Canada (ITAC), said tracking should not be considered “a bad thing.” “If someone is going to use your information for advertising, you should make that choice. You should be informed about that,” Courtois said in an interview. “Social networking and using information to develop proposals for marketing—those are not inherently bad things. They are inherently good things. What’s bad is when it’s done without your consent.” Courtois said there is a need to educate the public on online tracking, and that efforts to offer opt-outs should be made clear. “It’s got to be practical and manageable, so it can’t too much detail. Sometimes the danger is you prescribe too much detail, and then it’s not real consent because people won’t bother to read and understand it,” he said. “So it has to be simple and straightforward.” John Lawford, counsel with the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), agreed, saying companies need to offer clearer consent for tracking. “ aren’t making it easy enough for people to appreciate what is being shared. To that extent they’re not getting real consent,” Lawford said in an interview. PIAC says it is concerned that IBA and its current opt-out system challenges the notion of consent for the collection of personal information, and that it is ultimately a threat to privacy. In its submission, PIAC says that websites like Google often use their own definition of “sensitive personal information” instead PIPEDA’s. PIAC also submits that the opt-out options aren’t clearly identified or explained. “Google relies upon opt-out (implicit) consent which is theoretically obtained by a statement to this effect in the Google privacy policy or any of myriad other privacy policies depending on the service accessed,” PIAC says. “Such a course of action ignores any requirement to specify in any realistic detail what is being collected, used or disclosed by a behavioural marketer … and makes it impossible to obtain an informed consent. “Given that PIPEDA is a complaints-driven regime, it appears to be a cruel catch-22 that consumers are unaware of the extent of behavioural targeting using their personal information gleaned online, because companies refuse to detail this use, thereby precluding any real ability of an individual to formulate a complaint.” kfournier@thewirereport.ca

Groups argue for clearer consumer rights, awareness, for online tracking

Broadcast | April 19, 2010

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us