One of the largest network vendors in the world is planning to offer their ISP partners an opportunity to modify HTTP headers to get ISPs into the advertising racket. Juniper Networks, which sells routers to ISPs, is partnering with Feeva, an advertising solutions company, to modify data packets’ header information so that the packets will include geographic information. These modified packets will be transmitted to any and all websites that the customer visits, and will see individuals receive targeted advertisements according to their geographical location. Effectively, Juniper’s proposal may see ISPs leverage their existing customer service information to modify customers’ data traffic for the purposes of enhancing the geographic relevance of online advertising. This poses an extreme danger to citizens’ locational and communicative privacy.
Should ISPs adopt Juniper’s add-on, we will be witnessing yet another instance of repugnant ‘innovation’ that ISPs are regularly demonstrating in their efforts to enhance their revenue streams. We have already seen them forcibly redirect customers’ DNS requests to ad-laden pages, provide (ineffective) ‘anti-infringement’ software to shield citizens from threats posed by three-strikes laws, and alter the payload content of data packets for advertising. After touching the payload – and oftentimes being burned by regulators – it seems as though the header is the next point of the packet that is to be modified in the sole interest of the ISPs and to the detriment of customers’ privacy.
Apple’s entrance into the mobile advertising marketplace was born with their announcement of iAd. Alongside iAd comes persistent locational surveillance of Apple’s customers for the advantage of advertisers and Apple. The company’s advertising platform is controversial because Apple gives it a privileged position in their operating system, iOS4, and because the platform can draw on an iPhone’s locational awareness (using the phone’s GPS functionality) to deliver up targeted ads.
In this post I’m going to first give a brief background on iAd and some of the broader issues surrounding Apple’s deployment of their advertising platform. From there, I want to recap what Steve Jobs stated in a recent interview at the All Things Digital 8 concerning how Apple approaches locational surveillance through their mobile devices and then launch into an analysis of Apple’s recently changed terms of service for iOS4 devices as it relates to collecting, sharing, and retaining records on an iPhone’s geographic location. I’ll finish by noting that Apple may have inadvertently gotten itself into serious trouble as a result of its heavy-handed control of the iAd environment combined with modifying the privacy-related elements of their terms of service: Apple seems to have awoken the German data protection authorities. Hopefully the Germans can bring some transparency to a company regularly cloaked in secrecy.
Apple launched the iAd beta earlier this year and integrates the advertising platform into their mobile environment such that ads are seen within applications, and clicking on ads avoids taking individuals out of the particular applications that the customers are using. iAds can access core iOS4 functionality, including locational information, and can be coded using HTML 5 to provide rich advertising experiences. iAd was only made possible following Apple’s January acquisition of Quattro, a mobile advertising agency. Quattro was purchased after Apple was previously foiled in acquiring AdMob by Google last year (with the FTC recently citing iAd as a contributing reason why the Google transaction was permitted to go through). Ostensibly, the rich advertising from iAds is intended to help developers produce cheap and free applications for Apple’s mobile devices while retaining a long-term, ad-based, revenue stream. Arguably, with Apple taking a 40% cut of all advertising revenue and limiting access to the largest rich-media mobile platform in the world, advertising makes sense for their own bottom line and its just nice that they can ‘help’ developers along the way… Continue reading
We are rapidly shifting towards a ubiquitous networked world, one that promises to accelerate our access to information and each other, but this network requires a few key elements. Bandwidth must be plentiful, mobile devices that can engage with this world must be widely deployed, and some kind of normative-regulatory framework that encourages creation and consumption must be in place. As it stands, backhaul bandwidth is plentiful, though front-line cellular towers in American and (possibly) Canada are largely unable to accommodate the growing ubiquity of smart devices. In addition to this challenge, we operate in a world where the normative-regulatory framework for the mobile world is threatened by regulatory capture that encourages limited consumption that maximizes revenues while simultaneously discouraging rich, mobile, creative actions. Without a shift to fact-based policy decisions and pricing systems North America is threatened to become the new tech ghetto of the mobile world: rich in talent and ability to innovate, but poor in the actual infrastructure to locally enjoy those innovations.
At the Canadian Telecom Summit this year, mobile operators such as TELUS, Wind Mobile, and Rogers Communications were all quick to pounce on the problems facing AT&T in the US. AT&T regularly suffers voice and data outages for its highest-revenue customers: those who own and use smart phones that are built on the Android, WebOS (i.e. Palm Pre and Pixi), and iOS. Each of these Canadian mobile companies used AT&T’s weaknesses to hammer home that unlimited bandwidth cannot be offered along mobile networks, and suggested that AT&T’s shift from unlimited to limited data plans are indicative of the backhaul and/or spectrum problems caused by smart devices. While I do not want to entirely contest the claim that there are challenges managing exponential increases in mobile data growth, I do want to suggest that technical analysis rather than rhetorical ‘obviousness’ should be applied to understand the similarities and differences between Canadian telcos/cablecos and AT&T.
Last week Ofcom provided information about its proposed three-strike scheme for punishing those accused of copyright violation. This provision is baked into the DNA of the UK’s newly minted Digital Economy Act (DEA). Out of the information provided, we learn that business interests trump citizen interests in the provision of free and open wifi networks. In the case of businesses:
Where a Wi-Fi network is provided in conjunction with other goods or services to a customer, such as a coffee shop or a hotel, our presumption is that the provider is within the definition of internet service provider.
This can (and should) be juxtaposed against how an individual person/subscriber might experience the legal ramifications of providing an open Wi-Fi network:
We consider that a person or an undertaking receiving an internet access service for its own purposes is a subscriber, even if they also make access available to third parties … Those who wish to continue to enable others to access their service will need to consider whether [to] take steps to protect their networks against use for infringement, to avoid the consequences that may follow.
The ‘clear’ (read necessary, but absurd) response should be for most homes (let’s say any with Internet access) to immediately allocate some part of the house to a ‘service business’ and start up a family business. The services and goods provided can be minimal, and presumably few will actually take homes up on their offers, and by becoming businesses of some ilk that provide ‘free and open’ Internet the home’s occupants will be shielded from the threat of copyright infringement and digital excommunication.
Hmm…perhaps the ‘more clear’ (read: what should be done, and thus is totally unrealistic) solution is to get rid of the DEA and re-write it using an evidence-based policymaking approach that draws on objective third-party studies. Of course, while asking for absurdities like evidence-based policy around copyright, I might as well also add to the list world peace and the end of human rights abuses…
Forrester has come out with a report that, in Susana Schwartz’s summary, “suggests that more should be done to integrate data about [ISPs’] customers’ online behaviours to offline systems.” In effect, to assist ISPs monetize their networks they need to aggregate a lot more data, in very intelligent ways. The killer section of the actual report is summarized by a Forrester researcher as follows;
“By integrating online and offline data, operators and their enterprise customers could add information about customers’ online behaviors to existing customer profiles so that CSRs could more efficiently handle calls and provide more relevant cross sell/upsell opportunities,” Stanhope said. “So much of the customer experience now comes from online activities that there is a huge repository of data that should be pushed deeper into enterprises for insights about interactions; enterprises collect so much data about what people do and see on their Web sites, yet they do little to draw insight.”
The aim of this is to ‘help’ customers find services they unknowingly are interested in, while making ‘more intelligence’ available to customer service representatives when customers call in. We’re talking about a genuinely massive aggregation of data that goes through ISP gateways and a dissolution of Chinese firewalls that presently segregate network logs with (most) subscriber information. Just so you don’t think that I’m reading into this too deeply, Stanhope (a senior analyst of consumer intelligence with Forrester Research) said to Schwartz:
Our clients are starting to plan for and lay the technical foundational by looking at how to bring together disparate environments, like CRM databases and customer databases, and then what they have to do to gather Web data, social media and search data so they can leverage what they already have … Many are now starting to look at how that can be a hub for Web data, which can be leveraged by other systems.
It’s this kind of language that gets privacy advocates both annoyed and worried. Annoyed, because such a massive aggregation and usage of personal data would constitute a gross privacy violation – both in terms of national laws and social norms – and worried because of the relative opaque curtain separating their investigations from the goings-on of ISPs. When we read words such as Stanhope’s, correlate it with the vendor-speak surrounding deep packet inspection, and look at the technology’s usage in developing consumer profiles, there is a feeling that everyone is saying that DPI won’t and can’t be used for massive data aggregation as configured…but it could and (Stanhope hopes) likely will once the time is right.
Canada has a strong regulatory position against the use of DPI or other network forensics for the kind of actions that Stanhope is encouraging. This said, given that ‘research’ groups like Forrester along with other parties that pitch products to ISPs are making similar noises (as demonstrated at last year’s Canadian Telecom Summit) a nagging pit in my stomach reminds me that constant vigilance is required to maintain those regulatory positions and keep ISPs from bitting into a very profitable – but poisonous for Canadians’ privacy – apple.
Linksys has adopted a horrible approach to further monetizing the digital ecosystem; some of their routers now hijack 404 pages to deliver advertising! This leads me to ask: when customers are sold automatic advertising + networking gear should they really be required to pay for the router? It seems like most users (i.e. those who won’t go any further than running the default system to set up their wireless networks) are going to be in a situation where they pay cash for a device AND subsequently have to put up with obnoxious advertisements.
While a freemium model for the sale of hardware (i.e. get the router for free + advertising, and evade advertising with either a one-off or monthly payment plan) is interesting, setting defaults so that people are both paying for a piece of hard and increasing third-parties’ revenue streams by being forced to view ads is just wrong.