DOCSLIB.ORG

From Legi(Macy to Informed Consent: Mapping Best Prac(Ces and Iden

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
From Legi(Macy to Informed Consent: Mapping Best Prac(Ces and Iden From legimacy to informed consent: mapping best pracces and idenfying risks A report from the Working Group on Consumer Consent May 2009 PEN paper 3 About the Working Group The Working Group on Consumer Consent is a project convened by the Information Systems & Innovation Group of the London School of Economics and Political Science and administered by 80/20 Thinking Ltd, based in London UK. The Working Group aims to bring together key industry players, consumer experts and regulators to achieve the following goals: • To better understand the implications of the Article 29 Working Party Opinion on data protection issues related to search engines (April 2008) and its potential impact on the processing of personal information in the non-search sectors. • To foster dialogue between key stakeholders to map current practices relating to notification and consent. • To inform regulators about limitations and opportunities in models and techniques for informed consent for the processing of personal information. • To help inform all stakeholders on aspects of the pending Article 29 Opinion on targeted advertising planned in 2009. Membership The members of the Working Group included: AOL, BT, Covington & Burling, eBay, Enterprise Privacy Group, Facebook, the Future of Privacy Forum, Garlik, Microsoft, Speechly Bircham, Vodafone, and Yahoo! We also sought comments from a number of privacy commissioners and regulators from across Europe. Methodology, Meetings, and Outreach We have been actively engaging with policy-makers and regulators since the creation of the group. This networking not only enhances the quality of the research, but also goes some way to identify and prepare the audience for our discussion papers. We have liaised with Parliamentarians in Europe and in the UK, staff members of regulators offices across Europe, and spoken at more than a dozen conferences and countless meetings since our last update. We have also met with nearly every group member, often on-site, and sometimes involving in- depth discussions regarding privacy practices across their services, to discuss the pressing problems, the key experiences, and lessons. All of the feedback from these experiences has fed into our own work, resulting in our discussion papers. 2 The sections on the Article 29 Opinion and on the general issues relating to online Consent were drafted primarily by the teams at LSE and 80/20 Thinking. The section on ‘informed consent’ was drafted by Speechly Bircham, and the section on children and consent was drafted by Covington & Burling. All drafts were circulated to the full membership for their review and commentary, and comments were fed back into the final versions. 3 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................6 BACKGROUND TO THIS PROJECT ....................................................................................................................8 THE WORKING PARTY OPINION ON SEARCH ENGINES AND INFORMATION SOCIETY SERVICES ...................................8 LEGAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................................................................................9 SUMMARY OF RELEVANT POINTS RAISED IN THE OPINION ..............................................................................................10 CONCLUSIONS ...........................................................................................................................................................................12 SECTION I: PROBLEMS WITH CONSENT ....................................................................................................13 CHALLENGES OF MANAGING CONSENT ONLINE ...................................................................................................................14 READABILITY & USABILITY ...................................................................................................................................................14 VERIFIABILITY OF CONSENT ..................................................................................................................................................15 CUSTODIANSHIP OF DATA .......................................................................................................................................................16 THIRD PARTY ACCOUNTABILITY ............................................................................................................................................18 SIGNALING OF CONSENT .........................................................................................................................................................18 Opt­in versus opt­out ........................................................................................................................................................19 MANAGING CONSENT ONLINE: OPPORTUNITIES ....................................................................................20 FACEBOOK: FROM BEACON TO CONNECT ............................................................................................................................21 ENHANCED OPT‐OUT COOKIES? ............................................................................................................................................22 EBAY: ON AD NOTICE FOR INCREASED USER AWARENESS .................................................................................................23 MICROSOFT HEALTH VAULT: GRANULARITY OF ACCESS ...................................................................................................24 BLUEKAI: USER CONTROL OVER ADVERTISING CATEGORIES OF INTEREST .....................................................................24 GOOGLE DASHBOARD ..............................................................................................................................................................25 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................................................25 SECTION II: KEY PRINCIPLES OF ‘INFORMED CONSENT’ ......................................................................26 INDUSTRY EXAMPLES (COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE) .....................................................................................................29 DISNEY ......................................................................................................................................................................................29 PHORM ......................................................................................................................................................................................30 EXPEDIA ...................................................................................................................................................................................31 ECCLESIASTICAL ......................................................................................................................................................................32 ELECTRONIC ARTS (TRUSTE VERIFIED) ............................................................................................................................33 MSN ..........................................................................................................................................................................................33 SECOND LIFE ............................................................................................................................................................................34 HOME OFFICE ..........................................................................................................................................................................35 PAYPAL ......................................................................................................................................................................................35 PIPEX .........................................................................................................................................................................................35 AOL ...........................................................................................................................................................................................36 ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND ...................................................................................................................................................37 FIDELITY ...................................................................................................................................................................................37 CONCLUSIONS ...........................................................................................................................................................................38 SECTION III. MINORS AND ONLINE CONSENT ..........................................................................................39 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................................39 ‘CONSENT’ UNDER EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK LEGISLATION .............................................................................................39 THE ARTICLE 29
Load more

Recommended publications
  • To E-Commerce EC4E Ch 01 WA 11-23.Qxd 12/10/2007 5:16 PM Page 2
    EC4E_Ch_01_WA_11-23.qxd 12/10/2007 5:16 PM Page 1 PART 1 CHAPTER 1 The Revolution Is Just Beginning CHAPTER 2 E-commerce Business Models and Concepts Introduction to E-commerce EC4E_Ch_01_WA_11-23.qxd 12/10/2007 5:16 PM Page 2 CHAPTER11 The Revolution Is Just Beginning LEARNING OBJECTIVES After reading this chapter, you will be able to: ■ Define e-commerce and describe how it differs from e-business. ■ Identify and describe the unique features of e-commerce technology and discuss their business significance. ■ Recognize and describe Web 2.0 applications. ■ Describe the major types of e-commerce. ■ Discuss the origins and growth of e-commerce. ■ Understand the evolution of e-commerce from its early years to today. ■ Identify the factors that will define the future of e-commerce. ■ Describe the major themes underlying the study of e-commerce. ■ Identify the major academic disciplines contributing to e-commerce. EC4E_Ch_01_WA_11-23.qxd 12/10/2007 5:16 PM Page 3 MySpace and Facebook: It’s All About You ow many people watched the final episode of the most popular American Htelevision show in history, the Sopranos? Answer: about 12 million (out of a total television audience size of 111 million). Only once in American history has a television show drawn more simultaneous viewers—13 million for NBC’s “America’s Got Talent” premiere in 2006. How many people visit MySpace each month? About 70 million. There are now more than 100 million personal profiles on MySpace. Almost 40 million visit MySpace’s closest social network rival, Facebook, each month.
    [Show full text]
  • Auditing Offline Data Brokers Via Facebook's Advertising Platform
    Auditing Offline Data Brokers via Facebook’s Advertising Platform Giridhari Venkatadri Piotr Sapiezynski Elissa M. Redmiles Northeastern University Northeastern University University of Maryland Alan Mislove Oana Goga Michelle L. Mazurek Northeastern University Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, University of Maryland Grenoble INP, LIG Krishna P. Gummadi MPI-SWS ABSTRACT then selling this information to third-parties such as banks, insur- Data brokers such as Acxiom and Experian are in the business of ance companies, political campaigns, and marketers. The collection collecting and selling data on people; the data they sell is commonly practices of data brokers have been the subject of an ongoing pri- used to feed marketing as well as political campaigns. Despite the vacy debate. For example, data brokers typically only make data ongoing privacy debate, there is still very limited visibility into data available to clients who purchase it, and not to the users who it is collection by data brokers. Recently, however, online advertising actually about [20]. Even worse, public-facing web sites run by data services such as Facebook have begun to partner with data brokers— brokers [10] that purport to reveal the data only report a fraction to add additional targeting features to their platform— providing of what they actually have [19, 47]. In fact, outside of a few niche avenues to gain insight into data broker information. areas (e.g., credit reports), people in the U.S. have limited if any In this paper, we leverage the Facebook advertising system—and rights to determine the provenance of, correct, or even view the their partnership with six data brokers across seven countries—in data these companies have on them [38].
    [Show full text]
  • Up Acquisitions: Introducing the Economic Goodwill Threshold Test Andrew Mclean
    Series A Financial Capitalism Perspective on Start- up Acquisitions: Introducing the Economic Goodwill Threshold Test Andrew McLean Centre for Law, Economics and Society CLES Faculty of Laws, UCL Director: Dr. Deni Mantzari Founding Director: Professor Ioannis Lianos CLES Research Paper Series 2/2020 A Financial Capitalism Perspective on Start-up Acquisitions: Introducing the Economic Goodwill Threshold Test Andrew McLean July 2020 Centre for Law, Economics and Society (CLES) Faculty of Laws, UCL London, WC1H 0EG The CLES Research Paper Series can be found at https://www.ucl.ac.uk/cles/research-papers All rights reserved. No part of this paper may be reproduced in any form without permission of the author. ISBN 978-1-910801-31-4 © Centre for Law, Economics and Society Faculty of Laws, UCL London, WC1H 0EG United Kingdom A Financial Capitalism Perspective on Start-up Acquisitions: Introducing the Economic Goodwill Threshold Test Andrew McLean1 Abstract This paper discusses the acquisition of start-ups by major technology firms. Such transactions pose a significant anticompetitive threat, yet often escape competition scrutiny because they fail to trigger merger notification threshold tests. Alongside a financial analysis of historic acquisitions by Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft, the paper introduces a new threshold test—the economic goodwill test. The economic goodwill test is a concerned with the value of a target’s net tangible assets as a proportion of total transaction value. The difference between these figures largely represents the gains an acquirer expects to realise from a strengthened competitive position, therefore reflecting the logic driving the mass acquisition of technology start-ups.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise of Data Capital
    MIT TECHNOLOGY REVIEW CUSTOM Produced in partnership with The Rise of Data Capital “For most companies, their data is their single biggest asset. Many CEOs in the Fortune 500 don’t fully appreciate this fact.” – Andrew W. Lo, Director, MIT Laboratory for Financial Engineering “Computing hardware used to be a capital asset, while data wasn’t thought of as an asset in the same way. Now, hardware is becoming a service people buy in real time, and the lasting asset is the data.” – Erik Brynjolfsson, Director, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy as retailers can’t enter new markets and security. The pursuit of these Executive Summary without the necessary financing, they characteristics drives the reinvention Data is now a form of capital, on the can’t create new pricing algorithms of enterprise computing into a set of same level as financial capital in terms without the data to feed them. In services that are easier to buy and of generating new digital products nearly all industries, companies are use. Some will be delivered over the and services. This development has in a race to create unique stocks of Internet as public cloud services. implications for every company’s data capital—and ways of using it— Some corporate data centers will be competitive strategy, as well as for before their rivals outmaneuver them. reconfigured as private clouds. Both the computing architecture that Firms that have yet to see data as a raw must work together. supports it. material are at risk. New capabilities based on this new Contrary to conventional wisdom, The vast diversity of data captured architecture, such as data-driven data is not an abundant resource.
    [Show full text]
  • View Annual Report
    TO OUR SHAREHOLDERS, CUSTOMERS, PARTNERS AND EMPLOYEES: This is a unique letter for me – the last shareholder letter I will write as the CEO of the company I love. We have always believed that technology will unleash human potential and that is why I have come to work every day with a heart full of passion for more than 30 years. Fiscal Year 2013 was a pivotal year for Microsoft in every sense of the word. Last year in my letter to you I declared a fundamental shift in our business to a devices and services company. This transformation impacts how we run the company, how we develop new experiences, and how we take products to market for both consumers and businesses. This past year we took the first big bold steps forward in our transformation and we did it while growing revenue to $77.8 billion (up 6 percent). In addition, we returned $12.3 billion (up 15 percent) to shareholders through dividends and stock repurchases. While we were able to grow revenue to a record level, our earnings results reflect investments as well as some of the challenges of undertaking a transformation of this magnitude. With this as backdrop, I’d like to summarize where we are now and where we’re headed, because it helps explain why I’m so enthusiastic about the opportunity ahead. Our strategy: High-value activities enabled by a family of devices and services We are still in the early days of our transformation, yet we made strong progress in the past year launching devices and services that people love and businesses need.
    [Show full text]
  • Secret Consumer Scores and Segmentations: Separating Consumer 'Haves' from 'Have-Nots' Amy J
    University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications 2014 Secret Consumer Scores and Segmentations: Separating Consumer 'Haves' from 'Have-Nots' Amy J. Schmitz University of Missouri School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/facpubs Part of the Law and Society Commons, and the Legal Remedies Commons Recommended Citation Amy J. Schmitz, Secret Consumer Scores and Segmentations: Separating "Haves" from "Have-Nots", 2014 Mich. St. L. Rev. 1411 (2014) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. SECRET CONSUMER SCORES AND SEGMENTATIONS: SEPARATING "HAVES" FROM "HAVE-NOTS" Amy J Schmitz* 2014 MICH. ST. L. REV. 1411 ABSTRACT "Big Data" is big business. Data brokers profit by tracking consumers' information and behavior both on- and offline and using this collected data to assign consumers evaluative scores and classify consumers into segments. Companies then use these consumer scores and segmentationsfor marketing and to determine what deals, offers, and remedies they provide to different individuals. These valuations and classifications are based on not only consumers 'financial histories and relevant interests, but also their race, gender, ZIP Code, social status, education,familial ties, and a wide range of additional data. Nonetheless, consumers are largely unaware of these scores and segmentations, and generally have no way to challenge their veracity because they usually fall outside the purview of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
    [Show full text]
  • A Case Study on Merger of Skype and Microsoft
    European Journal of Business, Economics and Accountancy Vol. 8, No. 1, 2020 ISSN 2056-6018 VALUATION OF TARGET FIRMS IN MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS: A CASE STUDY ON MERGER OF SKYPE AND MICROSOFT Nguyen Vuong Bang Tam Thu Dau Mot University VIETNAM [email protected] ABSTRACT Mergers and acquisitions have become the most popular used methods of growth for the company and it’s one of the best ways to make a shortcut to get the success. They create the larger potential market share and open it up to a more diversified market, increase competitive advantage against competitors. It also allows firms to operate more efficiently and benefit both competition and consumers. However, there are also many cases that the synergy between acquiring company and acquired company failed. The most common reason is to not create synergy between both of them. In recent months, the merger between Microsoft and Skype is a very hot topic of analysts and viewers…etc. This acquisition presents a big opportunity for both firms, Skype give Microsoft a boost in the enterprise collaboration. To exchange for this synergy, Microsoft paid $8.5 billion in cash for Skype, the firm is not yet profitable. Skype revenue totaling $860 million last year and operating profit of $264 million, the company lost $6.9 million overall, according to documents filed with the SEC. Is that a good deal for Microsoft? Many analysts have different point of view but most of them have negative perspective. Research was to provide the analysis of Skype’s intrinsic value with an optimistic view of point about Skype’s future, Microsoft overpaid for Skype.
    [Show full text]
  • Microhoo: Lessons from a Takeover Attempt Nihat Aktas, Eric De Bodt
    MicroHoo: Lessons from a takeover attempt Nihat Aktas, Eric de Bodt, and Richard Roll This draft: July 14, 2010 ABSTRACT On February 1, 2008, Microsoft offered $43.7 billion for Yahoo. This was a milestone in the Microsoft versus Google battle to control the internet search industry and the related online advertising market. We provide an in-depth analysis of this failed takeover attempt. We attempt to identify the sources of overbidding (signaling, hubris-overconfidence, rational overpayment) and we show that the corporate control market has a disciplinary dimension but of an incidental and latent nature. Our results highlight the existence of takeover anticipation premiums in the stock prices of the potential targets. JEL classification: G34 Keywords: Overbidding; Competitive advantage; Rational overpayment; Latent competition Aktas de Bodt Roll Univ. Lille Nord de EMLYON Business UCLA Anderson France School 110 Westwood Plaza ECCCS Address 23 av. Guy de Collongue Los Angeles, CA 90095- 1 place Déliot - BP381 69130 Ecully 1481 59020 Lille Cédex France USA France Voice +33-4-7833-7847 +33-3-2090-7477 +1-310-825-6118 Fax +33-4-7833-7928 +33-3-2090-7629 +1-310-206-8404 E-mail [email protected] eric.debodt@univ- [email protected] lille2.fr 1 MicroHoo: Lessons from a takeover attempt 1. Introduction Fast Internet access, software as a service, cloud computing, netbooks, mobile platforms, one-line application stores,…, the first decade of the twenty-first century brought all the ingredients of a new technological revolution. These new technologies share one common denominator: the Internet. Two large competitors are face to face.
    [Show full text]
  • Law Enforcement in the Age of Cloud Computing IACP 2012
    IACPIACP 2012 2012 Cloud Panel | Discussion in Detail Law Enforcement in the Age of Cloud Computing How the Cloud is Revolutionizing the Way Agencies Manage their Digital Evidence IACP 2012 This IACP 2012 program focused on cloud computing and how it relates to law enforcement. Leading visionaries in law enforcement shared their thoughts on the cloud, how they’ve used it, and their insights about the technology revolution that is on your door step. This paper provides the basic transcript of the panel presentation in a readable format. 119th Annual International Association of Chiefs of Police Conference and Law Enforcement EducationIACP and Technology2012 Cloud PanelExposition 1 10/1/2012 IACP 2012 Cloud Panel | Discussion in Detail Table of Conents 2 Introduction 3 Main Discussion 3 Keith Trippie 11 Robert Davis 16 Chief Frank Milstead 18 Chief Jeffery Halstead 20 Tom Streicher 23 Rick Smith 26 Richard Beary 28 Hadi Partovi 30 Security 31 Total Cost of Ownership 31 Conclusion IACP 2012 Cloud Panel 1 IACP 2012 Cloud Panel | Discussion in Detail Introduction This IACP 2012 program focused on cloud computing and how it relates to law enforcement. Leading visionaries in law enforcement taught about the cloud, how they’ve used it, and their insights about the technology revolution that is on your door step. Speakers Richard Beary Robert Davis Jeffrey Halstead Frank Milstead Hadi Partovi Rick Smith Tom Streicher Keith Trippie IACP 2012 exposed a trending change in law enforcement technology: Using “the cloud.” IACP 2012 brought together thought leaders across all areas of Law Enforcement. This year the event showcased 783 Exhibiting companies.
    [Show full text]
  • Microsoft Acquires Massive, Inc
    S T A N F O R D U N I V E R S I T Y! 2 0 0 7 - 3 5 3 - 1! W W W . C A S E W I K I . O R G! R e v . M a y 2 9 , 2 0 0 7 MICROSOFT ACQUIRES MASSIVE, INC. May 4th, 2006 T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S 1. Introduction 2. Industry Overview 2.1. The Advertising Opportunity Within Video Games 2.2. Market Size and Demographics 2.3. Video Games and Advertising 2.4. Market Dynamics 3. Massive, Inc. ! Company Background 3.1. Founding of Massive 3.2. The Financing of Massive 3.3. Product Launch / Technology 3.4. The Massive / Microsoft Deal 4. Microsoft, Inc. within the Video Game Industry 4.1. Role as a Game Publisher / Developer 4.2. Acquisitions 4.3. Role as an Electronic Advertising Network 4.4. Statements Regarding the Acquisition of Massive, Inc. 5. Exhibits 5.1. Table of Exhibits 6. References ! 2 0 0 7 - 3 5 3 - 1! M i c r o s o f t A c q u i s i t i o n o f M a s s i v e , I n c .! I N T R O D U C T I O N In May 2007, Microsoft Corporation was a company in transition. Despite decades of dominance in its core markets of operating systems and desktop productivity software, Mi! crosoft was under tremendous pressure to create strongholds in new market spaces.
    [Show full text]
  • Online Platforms
    EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 25.5.2016 SWD(2016) 172 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Online Platforms Accompanying the document Communication on Online Platforms and the Digital Single Market {COM(2016) 288 final} EN EN Table of Contents I. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 II. Characteristics of online platforms ............................................................................................. 1 2.1 Economics of online platforms .................................................................................................. 1 2.2 Europe’s position in the platform economy .............................................................................. 8 2.3 Increasing economic and social role of online platforms .......................................................... 9 III. Online platform business models ........................................................................................ 16 3.1 Marketplaces and e-commerce platforms ..................................................................... 16 3.1.1 General description .............................................................................................................. 16 3.1.2 Business models ................................................................................................................... 16 3.1.3 Main players ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • JOLT Template
    NORTH CAROLINA JOURNAL OF LAW & TECHNOLOGY VOLUME 10, ISSUE 1: FALL 2008 PRESERVING COMPETITION IN MULTI-SIDED INNOVATIVE MARKETS: HOW DO YOU SOLVE A PROBLEM LIKE GOOGLE? Kristine Laudadio Devine 1 The unique characteristics of the search advertising industry encourage the development of anticompetitive monopoly power, facilitating the rise and dominance of companies like Google. First, the search advertising industry is subject to multi-sided network effects that create a positive feedback loop. An increase in the number of customers on one side of the market attracts increased numbers of customers on the other side, enabling dominant firms to entrench their market power. Second, and relatedly, the search advertising industry operates in an innovative market where firms compete not to outdo competitors on price but rather to displace one another’s products entirely. In such a market, a dominant firm can acquire potentially displacing (but not substitutive) technology and thereby control future innovation, freeing itself from the burden of innovating further to maintain competitive advantage. Current regulatory enforcement, informed by traditional antitrust analysis, does not adequately account for the impact of multi-sided network effects or innovation-to-displace on competition. Retooling the regulatory regime governing merger enforcement, allowing the agencies tasked with enforcement to broaden their inquiries when investigating anticompetitive behavior of these firms, is therefore necessary to preserve competition in multi-sided innovative markets. I. INTRODUCTION On April 13, 2007, Google, the leading provider of online text- based advertising services, announced its intention to acquire DoubleClick, the leading provider of online display advertising 1 Latham & Watkins, LLP. Juris Doctor, Northwestern University School of Law, 2008.
    [Show full text]