NASCAR and other professional sports are littered with advertisements for beer and cars. But a proposed Indiana law aims to prevent children from seeing these advertisements if contained in an email. Which is it Indiana? Do you not want children to see ads for beer and cars, or do you want to host the Sprint Cup Series?
Remember that Wendy’s commercial asking, “Where’s the beef?” When it comes to proposals for new online privacy laws, we’ve been asking,”Where’s the harm?”
Today we put that question to FTC Chairman Leibowitz after he spoke to the Brookings Institute. Read more
The Rolling Stones said it best, “You can’t always get what you want, but sometimes you get what you need.” But according to a new study, Internet users are getting what they need and what they want.
Res ipsa loquitor means “the facts speak for themselves.” However, for quite some time, it’s been difficult to obtain straight facts on privacy issues since they came from loaded questions. But a new Pew Research Institute study shows that social networking sites provide significant public good, and that if consumers are concerned about using such sites, as privacy groups like Common Sense Media suggest, consumers’ actions do not reflect such concerns.
Their votes to scuttle S. 242 is a welcome reversal of self-destructive behavior from a state that’s become its own worst enemy, in spite of having the world’s only real golden goose — the innovative and empowering companies of Silicon Valley. Read more
Today, a distinguished US Senator who was once concerned that the Internet had become the “number one national hazard” held a hearing on online privacy. During the hearing, Senator John Rockefeller (WV) added these informed judgments on ad-supported Internet innovation and business models:
The comment period just ended for the FTC’s proposed consent decree with Google over privacy violations when Google launched their Buzz social network last year. There were about 30 comments posted, but the most important comment we’ve seen is by reporter Grant Gross in his IDG News piece, “Google Buzz Settlement a ‘killer’ for E-commerce”.
We all know there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Everything comes at a price, including free Internet content and web services, nearly all of which are paid for by advertisers.
Proponents of “Do Not Track” legislation talk about giving consumers what they want, but nobody is asking whether consumers want to start paying the price — if advertisers won’t pay the bills anymore.
We often hear politicians say, “Americans need this” and “Americans demand that.” But before Congress passes new privacy laws to regulate online advertising, let’s be honest about what Americans really want.
As we described in iAWFUL last week,Federal legislation to mandate Do Not Track would cut deeply into the online
advertising revenue that pays for free content and services and funds so much Internet innovation. We need an honest discussion of the impact of Do Not Track. But what we hear from Capitol Hill is politically charged rhetoric and misrepresented surveys and statistics to justify predetermined agendas. Read more
Today we published our March 2011 “iAWFUL” list of bad Internet laws. We identified a surge in state and federal online privacy legislation that is threatening to tie the hands of online innovators. (iAWFUL was already picked-up in CNET, Politico, The Hill, and Siliconvalley.com)