“Facebook asked me to pass this on to you. They require it of all visitors to their facilities. It only applies to things that you might accidentally stumble upon while you are there and covers nothing discussed during our news conference. Please either bring a signed copy or be ready to sign upon arrival.”

Journalists were a little upset needless to say, giving that their journalistic freedom was being, for lack of a better term, stolen. Journalists then got a little pep in their step as two hours later another e-mail was sent to agencies from Sarah Lane, the AG’s Director of New Media, stating.

“I’m writing on behalf of Dan Sytman. You may disregard the nondisclosure agreement that we sent earlier.”

So you may be curious as to what the agreement may have said. Well, partly it entailed:

“You may become aware of non-public information related to Facebook and its products, services, programs, features, data, techniques, technology, code, ideas, inventions, research, testing, methods, procedures, know-how, trade secrets, business and financial information and other activities through disclosure, observation or otherwise in the course of your visit … All Facebook Confidential Information remains the property of Facebook. You agree not to disclose any Facebook Confidential Information to any third party, and to take all reasonable precautions to prevent its unauthorized dissemination …”

The full agreement can be seen below.

If you were a journalist or if you are a journalist, how does this information make you feel? Do you feel it’s right, whether it’s legal or not, to ask journalists and media to pretty much forget what they see? We want to know what you think, leave us comments below.

The group reviewed the privacy policies of 484 online retailers in October and November, examining how well customers were informed about how their information would be used, and how much control they would have over who has access to their personal data.

Sites that did well received "screen door" and "steel door" ratings. Disneyshopping.com and homedepot.com received screen door ratings. Netflix.com, ralphlauren.com and rocawear.com received steel door rankings.

Disneyshopping.com was criticized because its privacy policy is "very technical and lengthy" and may be hard for people to understand, said Tracy Shelton, consumer attorney with NYPIRG.

Homedepot.com was flagged because its policy say personal information can be transferred if the company is sold. In a statement the company said Home Depot "clearly discloses its policies prominently on homedepot.com concerning the potential to transfer non-private customer information in the unlikely event of the sale of the company. This is standard language throughout the industry. We take data security very seriously and have many proactive measures to ensure the protection of customer information."

Shelton advised shoppers to research the privacy polices of the site where they make purchases. "Their personally identifiable information is a big important asset that people have and it should be protected," she said.

“Conversation targeting builds on behavioral targeting, without privacy issues,” he told WebProNews.

Advertising inserted with Buzzlogic’s new feature lets the advertisers focus on a specific site or group of social media sites and blogs. The manager quickly creates an ad group with Google’s AdWords, and drops it into the sites that carry AdSense.

The advertiser can drill down below the influencer sites to see how the conversation flows back and forth, and target those inlinkers from the Buzzlogic interface.

During the private beta test of Conversation Targeting, Parsons said participants have seen their conversions double thanks to the new feature. That should be an effective pitch to make to potential clients.

We notice with Buzzlogic how the product performs a straightforward task – putting ads directly into the places where a receptive audience will see them. Some of the bigger successes seen on the modern Internet follow a simple model, like Google with text ads or Delicious with bookmarking. Buzzlogic is in good company.

Does anyone else smell an oxymoron?  Still, it’s hard to complain about the channel itself – although it’s not exactly entertaining, (Online Video Watch writes, “it makes for some of the driest content imaginable”) it’s there for those who want it, and isn’t required viewing for those who don’t.

On that subject: currently, the Google Privacy Channel has just 22 subscribers and six videos that it can call its own.  It remains to be seen if either number will increase over time, but there are, at least, some “Favorites” and “Subscriptions” that add to the selection.

Will this move win over privacy advocates and Google critics, then?  It’s not likely – you never know what a person (or company) might be holding back even if they’re waving the flag of full disclosure.  Also, Philipp Lenssen has an interesting, reading-between-the-lines interpretation of the Privacy Channel’s launch that won’t let anyone forget exactly what’s at stake.

Oh, well.  This’ll nonetheless be something to keep an eye on – the number and type of videos on the Google Privacy Channel may well serve as an indicator of what sort of problems the company is (or isn’t) having.

In August, the Federal Trade Commission agreed to hear concerns about behavioral targeting in online advertising. This came in response to privacy complaints made by a trio of organizations, who believe Google’s deal will put too much information in one company’s control.

A number of topics will be discussed during the FTC town hall, including a look back at the changes in online advertising over the past seven years. The FTC helda similar public workshop about online advertising back in 2000, where they reported on the impact of profiling Internet users for ad targeting.

Google plans to participate in the event. "It’s a good time to explore the privacy implications of new ad technologies, and in an industry-wide way," Google policy counsel Pablo Chavez said.

This charged interest in online privacy comes as approval is expected for Google’s acquisition of DoubleClick. Though significant arguments citing the vast amount of personal information Google could tap have been made, the determination of whether the deal should go through will hinge on competitive impact, not privacy concerns.

Australian regulators have already given the deal their approval, agreeing with Google’s claim that the purchase of DoubleClick for its display ad serving business does not affect Google’s search advertising dominance.

The European Competition Commission has already said they would not look at privacy implications of the deal, and it is thought that Google made changes to how the two businesses would interact based on the Commission’s opinions.

Both Google and industry observers expect the deal to receive approval in the US from the FTC. Though today’s town hall discussions may highlight some of the problems with Google and DoubleClick getting together, it appears they won’t be sufficient to derail the deal.

Microsoft applied for a patent that will drive ads to an even greater level of personalization. Users of the company’s software may find this peek at the future a little more foreboding than usual.

InformationWeek said the patent’s main feature provides context for advertising, and triggers its display. The scary stuff comes from the summary of the application (spacing added for clarity):

An advertising framework may reside on a user computer, whether it’s a part of the OS, an application or integrated within applications.

Applications, tools, or utilities may use an application program interface to report context data tags such as key words or other information that may be used to target advertisements.

The advertising framework may host several components for receiving and processing the context data, refining the data, requesting advertisements from an advertising supplier, for receiving and forwarding advertisements to a display client for presentation, and for providing data back to the advertising supplier.

Various display clients may also use an application program interface for receiving advertisements from the advertising framework.

An application, such as a word processor or email client, may serve as both a source of context data and as a display client.

Instead of waiting for someone to get around to browsing a website served by Microsoft’s adCenter service, they seem to be proposing a way of offering their signature software like Office in an ad-supported fashion.

It’s easy to imagine such a patent being abused, but a couple of reasons make it unlikely. For one, there would be a footrace to the courthouse by Microsoft’s competitors, corporate customers, privacy groups, and attorneys general to sue them for mucking around in local hard drives for ad context.

Google will have access to a lot more information through DoubleClick than it had already.

The CDD’s Jeff Chester, whose first-in-a-series of multitudinous words, begins the complaint to the FCC this way:

In the rapidly expanding world of online advertising, a few mega-giants are dramatically expanding their power, including the ability to track consumers’ online movements, to collect and analyze personal data resulting from those travels, and to craft ever-more-sophisticated digital marketing campaigns based on that analysis. 

The recent spate of mergers and acquisitions in the online advertising industry—led by Google’s $3.1 billion takeover of DoubleClick in April and Microsoft’s $6 billion buyout of aQuantive in May—threatens to undermine privacy, competition, and diversity on the Internet.  Permitting the further growth of these data-dependent unrestrained giants is a threat to personal privacy online. 

Increasing digital media consolidation will also have a negative impact on the diversity of public interest content essential for a civil society (e.g., news, public affairs, and cultural programming).

Yes, that’s only three sentences. And yes, somewhat melodramatic, but it will be up to the Federal Trade Commission to decide it’s merit. The triad of privacy advocates added to their original complaint to the FTC, with EPIC leading the wordy objections.

The 12 Commandments, as taken from the 21-page amendment pdf:

1. Order Google to provide meaningful notification when personal data from two distinct Google services are combined to produce a result that is linked an identifiable user.

2. Order Google to give a user the right to obtain knowledge, in a reasonable and timely manner, of whether or not the data relating to the user is processed and if it is processed, information to the purpose of the processing.

3. Order Google to provide, in a reasonable and timely manner, the logic involved in any automatic processing of data concerning that user.

4. Order Google not to retain user data in a form that permits the identification of data subjects for longer than necessary for the purposes for which the data were collected.

5. Order Google to institute an “opt-in” approach to collecting user information. If Google allows a user to “opt-in” before collecting personal data in order to personalize the search experience, Google should implement the same system with regards to a user’s privacy options.

6. Order Google to allow individuals reasonable access to their personal information, along with the ability to edit and delete that information.

7. Order Google to stipulate to never engage in behavioral tracking.

8. Further order Google not to sell personally identifiable information.

9. Order Google to implement a functional and secure system of anonymizing stored user data. Anonymized data remains traceable to the individual user, as demonstrated when America Online inadvertently leaked the search records of 658,000 Americans. Google must implement a technique that truly anonymizes this data, either by erasing more the last octet of the IP address, erasing the IP address completely, assigning randomized numbers to the data, or developing an alternative technique that will render tracing the data back to the individual source impossible.

10. Order Google to cease storage of IP addresses. The search engine functionality would not be impaired if a search engine did not store any user information at all.

11. Condition the merger on Google and DoubleClick maintaining separate databases of user information. Order Google to craft, disclose, and implement a security plan that will maintain, protect, or enhance the privacy, confidentiality, or security of all personally identifiable information.

12. Order Google to implement remedies and a system of accountability in the event of a breach, and to disclose to the public the extent to which it cannot or will not protect the privacy, confidentiality, and security of all personally identifiable information.

Participants in the study used a Carnegie Mellon search engine named Privacy Finder, which can evaluate a site’s privacy policies and display the results on the search page. The study led by Lorrie Cranor, director of the Carnegie Mellon Usable Privacy and Security (CUPS) Lab, found that consumers were more likely to make a purchase from online retailers with good privacy policies.

Some consumers express concerns over deceitful online retailers who might misuse credit information, target spam to their email addresses or violate their privacy. Some studies have found that consumers do not actively protect their privacy online. For example some people are willing to provide private information in return for lower prices or a monetary reward.

"Our suspicion was that people care about their privacy, but that it’s often difficult for them to get information about a Web site’s privacy policies," said Cranor, an associate research professor of computer science and of engineering and public policy.

"A Web site’s policies may not be readily accessible, can be hard to interpret and sometimes are nonexistent, Cranor said. "People can’t act on information that they don’t have or can’t understand," she added.

In a new “Personalization Survey” from ChoiceStream says that there has been a 24 percent increase in the number of people willing to share demographic information over the past year bringing the total to 57 percent of all respondents.

The survey also revealed that consumers are willing to allow Web sites to track their clicks and purchases showing a 34 percent increase over last year.

“Consumers are overwhelmed with the vast array of content and choices coming at them every day online. They want guidance, even though they want the freedom to make their own choices and to explore the data if they want to,” said Esther Dyson, editor of the blog Release 0.9 and an advisor to ChoiceStream.

Concern over security and privacy still exist among online consumers. The survey showed a one percent decline in 2006 with 62 percent saying they were concerned about their personal information online.

“Even though they still have concerns about the safety of their information, [consumers are] increasingly willing to let vendors know more about them in exchange for the convenience and relevance of personalization,” said Ms. Dyson. “Of course, for this model to work, it’s critical that the vendors make it clear what’s going on, so that the personalization feels friendly rather than creepy.”

Consumers desire for personalization is moving beyond the desktop. 47 percent of consumers would like to have personalized TV programming as 45 percent of respondents said they are dissatisfied with their current onscreen TV program guide because of the amount of time it takes to scroll.

“The results of the 2006 Survey indicate a shift in consumers’ perceptions of their electronic devices. It’s no longer enough for devices to simply provide consumers with access to content. They have to offer guidance to help consumers find the right content for them-whether it’s ringtones to download, merchandise to buy, or even other people to connect with,” said Steve Johnson, CEO of ChoiceStream. “We live in an age of superabundance where we’re overwhelmed with choice. The brands that deliver a personalized experience to consumers are the ones that earn consumers’ loyalty and, ultimately, spending power.”

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit | Furl

Mike is a staff writer for WebProNews. Visit WebProNews for the latest ebusiness news.

A recent article on Internet Day (http://www.InternetDay.com) revealed an interesting statistic. It explained that 64% of online orders are abandoned at some point before being processed. In other words, people will visit a site, decide that they want what it offers, proceed to the ordering page, and provide all the relevant details. But over half will abruptly end their purchase the moment they are confronted with the dreaded “submit” button.

Concerns about security and privacy are definitely at the root, for people fear that their information will be shared or misused. It is therefore exceedingly vital for an online business to not only communicate a certain level of credibility but also a certain assurance that potential clients are not abused in any way. In fact, some recent statistics prove this undeniable truth.

According to a recent survey conducted by the folks at AT&T Laboratories, research suggests that “a combination of privacy policies and seals of approval significantly raise people’s confidence.”

It also found that people are willing to provide simple information such as their names and even their email addresses to a certain extent. But when it comes to unique identifying information such as their age, phone numbers, postal addresses, credit card numbers, and social security numbers (or social insurance numbers for us Canadians), they run away.

AT&T’s Lorrie Faith Cranor, the author of the above study, mentioned that people are willing to give information — although with a certain degree of trepidation. But what mostly concerns them the most is the sharing of that information. To be more precise, knowing what a site will do with one’s information is at the heart of the issue. Says Cranor: “Information to be shared with other companies or organizations is more sensitive. While respondents were concerned about the kind of information they provided to a web site, how it would be used, and whether it would identify them, the most important factor was whether it would be shared with others.”

The crux of the survey is the fact that people felt most pessimistic about a site’s use of “cookies,” which are pieces of data that a web site uses to “brand” a user’s computer in order to identify them throughout the site let alone other sites on the Internet. “52% said they were concerned about cookies,” Cranor points out. “And most people said they had changed their browser settings to something other than accepting all cookies without warning.”

In comparison to an earlier study conducted in 1998, the numbers have increased significantly. While the percentage of consumers online have tripled in less than a year, concerns about threats to their personal online privacy rose to an astonishing 87%. In a comparable Georgia Tech study, called the “Graphics, Visualization, and Usability” study (or GVU, for short), researchers found that 62% of respondents valued privacy over convenience when in comes to buying online (see http://www.gvu.gatech.edu/user_surveys). In other words, privacy is a key determinant in the number of online purchases.

According to the TRUSTe organization (http://www.truste.org), the Internet privacy gurus, consumers’ fears about privacy impede online sales and therefore limit ecommerce growth. In fact, they mention a recent BCG Consumer survey, which found that 70% of respondents worry about making purchases online and that, if their privacy concerns are successfully addressed, the likelihood that they will buy will multiply immensely.

Consequently, having a clear, straightforward privacy statement on one’s web site is undoubtedly becoming an essential component of continued online commerce success. A user’s proclivity to buy online increases dramatically when a site describes what information is being collected, how it is collected, and how that information is being used.

Here are a few guidelines to follow when developing your privacy policy. By simply looking at the “what,” “why,” “who,” “where,” “when,” and “how,” you can start defining the necessary elements of an effective privacy pledge. For instance, here are some the questions that your privacy statement should answer (keep in mind that this is an example and not ‘the’ example):

1) WHAT information is being collected

Do you gather IP addresses, browser tags, and user origins?
Do you collect demographic data (e.g., age, income level, etc)?
And do you retrieve contact information (such as addresses)?
If so, what is being collected without the user’s consent?

2) WHY the information is being collected

Do you need the data to administer your site?
Do you use it to customize the user’s experience?
And do you keep it in order to communicate with the user?
If so, how exactly is it being, and will it be, used?

3) WHEN that information is being collected

Do you collect the information through online forms?
Do you use cookies or any other persistent identifiers?
And do you gather the data in specific locations?
If so, where specifically is the data retrieved?

4) WHO will be using that information

Will you sell, lease, or share the information gathered?
Will partners, affiliates, or suppliers have access to it?
And do you supplement it with data from third parties?
If so, who precisely is sharing or will share the information?

5) WHERE the information is actually stored

Is the information kept onsite or on any other server?
Is it sent by email or maintained on a certain database?
And are there any security measures in place to protect it?
If so, for how long is the information kept?

6) HOW to remove or modify that information

Can a one manage, modify, or update one’s information?
Can one opt-out of any future communications or services?
And does one have a say in how that information is used?
If so, what options does one have in doing so?

For added convenience, you can have it done for you with a neat wizard supplied by TRUSTe at http://www.truste.org/bus/pub_resourceguide.html. And if you would like to use specific tools to enhance your site’s privacy practices, The Privacy Page at http://www.privacy.org/ offers many online tools, such as web, email, telnet, and data encryption resources. And there are many others, such as the Online Privacy Alliance (http://www.privacyalliance.org).

Ultimately, your goal as an Internet marketer is to increase your online sales. And the most effective way to do so is to ease your prospect’s buying experience. On top of that, by catering to their privacy needs you will likely increase not only your sales but your repeat and referral sales as well.

In short, make a privacy pledge and they will take the purchasing plunge.

Michel Fortin is a direct response copywriter and consultant dedicated to turning sales messages into powerful magnets. Get a free copy of his book, “The 10 Commandments of Power Positioning,” when you subscribe to his free monthly ezine, “The Profit Pill.” See http://SuccessDoctor.com/ now!