Enter a search term such as “mobile analytics” or browse our content using the filters above.
That’s not only a poor Scrabble score but we also couldn’t find any results matching
Check your spelling or try broadening your search.
Sorry about this, there is a problem with our search at the moment.
Please try again later.
We are all sharing more data than ever before with other organisations in our emerging Big Data Society. Sharing lets us use our resources much more precisely and produce completely new services.
But misusing customer data risks destroying customer trust. Still, we all need that missing piece of the Big Data puzzle, so we all need to share more.
For more than a decade, companies in the United States operating websites that collect data from children have been required to comply with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).
At the time COPPA was implemented, the internet ecosystem was far less mature, and the law didn't cover all of the parties that today frequently collect data from children. So yesterday, the FTC published a proposal (PDF) with the intent of modifying COPPA to ensure that parties not currently governed by COPPA's rules are covered.
The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued a comprehensive online privacy report calling on the industry to offer consumers a simple opt-out mechanism, i.e. a universal "do not track" setting on the browser. So what will the FTC think of the digital fingerprinting businesses a new crop of tech firms are trying to launch: targeting ads by tracking users' individual devices.
The promise is more accuracy and better targeting than cookies. But will the business model creep consumers out more than cookies already do?
A new battle is being waged in the online targeting wars. Privacy specialist Joseph Malley filed three lawsuits this month against online ad serving companies that use something called "zombie cookies." Defendants include brands like MTV, Disney and Quantcast.
And while the practice might not be widespread, it could be another blow against Adobe, since it involves advertisers using Flash to track consumers, even after they have deleted their cookies.
Zappos knows what you did last summer. Or maybe what you did last time you were on the Zappos website. The shoe seller is just one of many companies that tracks customer activity online to serve more relevant advertising.
Such tools have has the ability to make product searches much easier online. But they also creep some people out. And behavioral targeters need to figure out the difference before regulators really start paying attention.
Apple has found a new way to get people to agree to online tracking: withhold applications from them if they don't. This week Apple is launching a new iPhone. And with that comes a new operating system and the company's new advertising platform.
With all the negative attention that Facebook has received for its privacy approach recently, the media — and regulators — are especially sensitive about online privacy right now.
But there's another kind of site that is raising privacy flags. People search. These sites compile personal data without consumers' knowledge. It's just the kind of thing that is sure to draw regulators. But lumping these sites in with online marketing efforts is a mistake.
As Congress mulls a recently proposed online privacy bill draft, advertisers and privacy advocates are making the case for their competing interests on the matter. But a new study from two marketing professors argues that any privacy regulation will negatively effect the utility of online advertising.
According to the study, called "Privacy Regulation and Online Advertising," forcing users to opt-in to online tracking can have a negative effect on advertising efforts — reducing effectiveness by 65%.
Facebook's recent 'instant personalization' has the blogosphere buzzing, and the privacy implications haven't gone unnoticed. Some believe that privacy is effectively dead online, and that individuals simply need to "get over it."
But is that really the case? Is privacy dead? For those of us who are active online, maintaining privacy can be a difficult task, but it's not impossible.
Privacy advocates and online advertisers alike have long awaited a bill from Congress that will tackle the issue of behavioral advertising online. Today, Reps. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) and Cliff Stearns released (R-Fla.) a "discussion" draft of the bill (pdf here) that requires advertisers to allow consumers to opt-out of online tracking.
Considering that is already standard business practice, it appears that the online ad industry's efforts at self-regulation have been initially successful. But privacy advocates are not going to take this setback lying down.
Privacy issues have been the bane of behavioral targeters' existence for awhile now. But how much impact have privacy advocates had on the industry? According to a new study from the Ponemon Institute, marketers now use behavioral targeting 75% less than they would like.
That should be enough to strike fear in the hearts of behavioral targeters. As if there weren't already enough reason to be bearish on the future of BT.
Online advertisers are working hard to self-regulate and avoid the wrath of the Federal Trade Commission when it comes to behavioral targeting. To help with those efforts, spam management company UnsubCentral launched a new tool that gives people more control over the ads they see online. PreferenceCentral lets consumers decide what kinds of behaviorally targeted advertising they do and do not want to recieve.
If individuals (and online advertisers) start using it, UnsubCentral could play a big role in serving more relevant (and welcome) advertising online. Trouble is, there's no way to know that will happen.