Bits: Privacy Groups Question F.T.C. Chairwomanâs DoubleClick Ties
12656
Two privacy groups asked the chairwoman of the Federal Trade Commission to recuse herself from the commissionâs review of Googleâs merger with DoubleClick.
467454
U.S. Federal Trade Commission Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras is consulting with the agency&#39;s ethics officer to see if she should recuse herself from a review of&#160;Google&#39;s planned acquisition of online ad network DoubleClick.On Wednesday, two technology lobbying organizations called on Majoras to recuse herself, citing her husband&#39;s involvement in the matter. John Majoras is a partner with Jones Day, the law firm that is advising DoubleClick on antitrust issues relating to the US$3.1 billion buyout. Jones Day representatives, including John Majoras, did not immediately return calls seeking comment.Chairman Majoras &quot;has previously recused herself in similar matters for similar reasons where there was a lesser conflict of interest,&quot; representatives of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD) wrote in a complaint submitted to the U.S. regulator late Wednesday. &quot;It is clear that she must recuse herself now.&quot;The chairman is now reviewing the matter with the FTC&#39;s chief ethics officer, Christian White, but an FTC spokeswoman on Wednesday downplayed the possible conflict of interest. John Majoras&#39; law firm has not appeared before the FTC in this matter, according to FTC spokeswoman Claudia Farrell. &quot;We learned only yesterday that Jones Day is representing DoubleClick before the European Commission, not the Federal Trade Commission,&quot; she said.Even so, the Jones Day connection may have influenced FTC staffers or the chairman herself, said Jeff Chester, executive director with the CDD. &quot;There&#39;s no question that there&#39;s a stealth set of influences here that could have shaped the staff opinion,&quot; he said. &quot;We do not know what impact it might have on the chairman.&quot;Jones Day is advising DoubleClick on &quot;international and U.S. antitrust and competition law aspects of its planned $3.1 billion acquisition by Google,&quot; the law firm says in a note on its Web site.The deal has come under scrutiny from regulators in the U.S. and Europe who are examining whether it will give Google too much control over the Internet advertising market and too much data on the online behavior of its users.&#160;
629926
Privacy advocates want FTC Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras to recuse herself from the agency's review of Google Inc.'s planned $3.1 billion acquisition of DoubleClick because of a possible conflict of interest.
599056
The ousted chairwoman of Hewlett-Packard Co. told a House subcommittee today that some of the tactics used by the computer giant in its surveillance scandal are employed by other American companies.
689500
InfoWorld - U.S. Federal Trade Commission Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras is consulting with the agency's ethics officer to see if she should recuse herself from a review ofÂ Google's planned acquisition of online ad network DoubleClick.
445712
When contact info for Republican delegates got posted on the web, the Department of Justice subpoenaed an ISP, but now seems to be backing off. Ann Harrison reports from New York.
167650
The U.S. House Energy and Commerce  Committee will ask wireless company executives and the head of  the Federal Communications Commission to testify Friday on the  use of deceptive measures to obtain personal information, known  as pretexting, the panel said on Monday.
485870
A study released by the Customer Respect Group indicates that telecommunications companies are slipping when it comes to customer privacy, especially in comparison to retail and high-tech industries. A majority of companies surveyed were dound to ask for excessive, inappropriate personal data.
677815
Federal Trade Commission Chair Deborah Platt Majoras is being asked to recuse herself from a review of Google's planned DoubleClick acquisition.
592960
Google has responded to a U.S. congressman&#39;s series of questions about its privacy practices, with the company defending its use of consumer data.Representative Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, sent a letter to Google Chairman and CEO Eric Schmidt Dec. 12, after privacy groups raised questions about the implications of Google&#39;s US$3.1 billion acquisition of online ad server DoubleClick.During an earlier meeting with Schmidt, Barton had &quot;voiced concern regarding the potential consumer protection and privacy implications of the merger,&quot; Barton said in his letter. &quot;I believe Google&#39;s participation in our research into and consideration of the consumer protection implications of a merger of any online search engine and any behavioral or targeted advertising firms is vital to crafting sound national policy.&quot;In response to Barton&#39;s questions about the privacy implications of the merger, Google repeated its calls for Congress to pass a national privacy law that would create a &quot;uniform framework for privacy.&quot;&quot;Concerns about online privacy cannot be solved by one company alone,&quot; said the Google letter, by Alan Davidson, the company&#39;s head of U.S. public policy. &quot;Moreover, both technologies and best practices for protecting privacy are changing rapidly. We therefore encourage you and your staff to ask these questions of other providers of online services.&quot;Barton, ranking minority member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, had asked Google to respond to his letter before Dec. 18, about when the U.S. Federal Trade Commission was expected to complete its examination of the antitrust implications of the merger. Google&#39;s response was dated Friday, one day after the FTC announced it would not block the DoubleClick acquisition. Google hosted Barton&#39;s staff at its headquarters Wednesday and Thursday, however.The FTC approval is the last U.S. hurdle for the merger; the European Union is still reviewing it.Barton&#39;s letter asked several questions about Google&#39;s privacy practices, including how long Google retains search queries, e-mail drafted on Google&#39;s Gmail service and Web histories. Barton also asked why Google needed to retain data.The IP (Internet Protocol) addresses associated with search queries will be partially deleted after 18 months, as Google previously has announced, the letter said. In other services, such as Gmail and Google Web History, the privacy preferences are customized by individual users, the letter said.Google retains data about searches as a way to improve its search algorithms and to improve services such as the spell checking feature on Google search, the letter said. The company also uses the data to fight click fraud and other malicious efforts, the letter said.Barton also asked if Google plans to merge its consumer data with DoubleClick&#39;s after the merger. He asked what was the benefit of the merger if Google did not plan to merge data.&quot;We are new to the third-party display ad serving business, so we have not yet decided whether or how we would merge DoubleClick and Google data,&quot; Davidson&#39;s letter said.The merger would create &quot;numerous efficiencies&quot; not related to DoubleClick&#39;s data, Davidson added. &quot;Acquiring DoubleClick&#39;s expertise in display ad serving will assist Google in its efforts to design an integrated interface for advertisers to manage their texts and display advertising campaigns,&quot; the letter said. &quot;In addition, the acquisition will allow Google to provide advertisers with better metrics for the display ads the place in our advertising network.&quot;
629483
Shhhh! Don't tell anyone, but lobby groups are plotting all sorts of ways to get around the new ethics rules.
423551
The debate over your social capital -- your personal data, how you access it and who owns it -- will be a central topic at the Web 2.0 Summit, the invitation-only web services conference which runs through Friday in San Francisco.
657815
(InfoWorld) - In one telling moment during the recent Congressional hearings onÂ the Hewlett-Packard Co. board scandal, ousted chairman Patricia Dunn offered the "everybody does it" defense. Asked by one legislator about HPâs hiring private investigators who obtained phone records under false pretenses, a practice called pretexting, to identify whoâd leaked confidential information, Dunn replied, "I believe these [pretexting] methods may be quite common at companies around the country." If so, that is chilling to business ethicist Kirk Hanson. "As an ethicist Iâm horrified that HPâs managers relied on the assertion that it was borderline, but legal, and never asked whether it was ethical," says Hanson, executive director of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, in Santa Clara, California. If HP adopted what Hanson called "black ops" as standard investigative practices, he wonders how many other companies have done it. HP, some of its employees and companies it hired to investigate boardroom leaks to news media still face potential civil and criminal liability for their actions. Other companies find themselves in a dilemma over how to control information within the law. Companies may have a moral or legal responsibility to respect peopleâs privacy, but they also have a legal and fiduciary responsibility to protect confidential business information. And under the federalÂ Sarbanes-Oxley ActÂ in effect the last four years, they have obligations to investigate certain leaks, Hanson says. Companies have a right to investigate their own employees if theyâre suspected of leaking information. Employees should presume no right to privacy in their use of company computers, e-mail programs or telephones. One commonly used tactic to probe security breaches doesnât even involve electronic snooping. Companies exclusively give suspected leakers seemingly important but relatively benign information. If it turns up in the media, the company has identified the leaker. But Hanson sees a bright line separating how a company can investigate its own employees and how it can investigate outsiders. The HP reaction to leaks to reporters contrasts with the recent practice of Apple Computer Inc. when proprietary information got out. Although Apple is known for its devotion to secrecy, it went to court rather than to private eyes when confidential information leaked in 2004. Apple, of Cupertino, California, sued in state court to force two Web sites to reveal sources for stories they posted about a possible new Apple product. A state appellate court ruled May 26 that the writers on those Web sites enjoy the same First Amendment rights as mainstream journalists and, thus, were protected by Californiaâs shield law from having to reveal their sources. Apple dropped the case. It did not reply to a request for comment on this story. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires companies to develop a whistle-blowing reporting system so employees can raise issues about improper behavior within the company, said Hanson. That has prompted companies to develop an investigative capability in the event improper or illegal activity is alleged. "So (under SOX), companies have developed much enhanced investigative capability," he said. Companies also have to keep confidential information safe because disclosure could be a criminal act or a breach of fiduciary responsibility, said Rob Enderle, senior analyst at Enderle Group, a technology market research firm. If word leaks that a board is contemplating an acquisition, for instance, the company or people in it could be prosecuted for insider trading if people used that knowledge to make stock trades. Given the potential liabilities, corporate investigations of leaks are "common," said Enderle. "The stuff with the pretexting goes to the extreme, but looking at company phone records or e-mails, that is very common. Hiring an outside contractor is also common." In fact, leak investigations enjoy broad support among corporate directors. In a September telephone survey of 226 board members at publicly traded companies in the U.S., 73 percent said a company's chairman should be empowered to use any legally available means to identify a board-level leaker, according to Ponemon Institute LLC. About 71 percent of the respondents said it would be okay for a board chairman to review the e-mail messages of other members, in addition to other types of confidential data stored on company computers. Fifty percent said that reviewing telephone records of individuals obtained via pretexting is proper as long as that approach hasn't been outlawed. But HPâs tactics of tailing reporters, attempting to install a tracer on a reporterâs e-mail program, pretexting numbers of people outside the company and even considering planting spies in newsrooms as janitors or clerical workers is "bizarre" to Rick Belluzzo. "The reaction by HP was totally out of proportion with the situation," said Belluzzo, chairman and CEO of Quantum Corp., a network storage equipment maker. His rÃ©sumÃ© includes president of Microsoft Corp. and a 23-year stint at HP, where he rose to the position of executive vice president of its computer division. While he understands the importance of keeping certain information confidential and making employees and directors sign confidentiality agreements, HP overreacted to information leaks that are sometimes going to happen anyway. "Itâs an impossible task to control information flow. Some leaks are inevitable," Belluzzo said.
258835
COPPA bracelet America's laws protecting children's privacy online are working just fine, according to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). But just to make sure, it will slap violators with bigger fines.â¦
623031
Hewlett-PackardÂs former chairwoman and its current leader tried to explain why they did not question the legality of an internal spying operation.
78107
Members of Congress plan to grill current and former executives of Hewlett-Packard Co. today about their roles in a surveillance scandal and to determine whether broader ethics or privacy laws are needed to safeguard consumers.
378886
People search that connects users to chat to find answers.