When Google announced its proposed changes to its privacy policy, it sparked nothing short of an uproar from your privacy advocates to your casual internet user. It even recently drew attention from the European Union, with regulators calling on Google to halt the changes.

Google still hasn’t backed down, and very likely won’t, but that isn’t stopping some from trying to put a stop to it. In fact, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a consumer watchdog group, has now filed a lawsuit in an attempt to block Google’s privacy policy changes.

The group isn’t suing Google directly, however. According to a report by the LA Times:

In an unusual end run around the FTC, the watchdog group is asking a federal judge to issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to compel federal regulators to enforce a settlement they reached with Google last year and protect consumers who will be “left without recourse if the commission fails to enforce its order.”

Last year, Google reached a settlement after being charged with violating privacy laws when it exposed the personal data of Gmail users when it released its now-defunct Google Buzz product. As a result of the settlement, Google was required by the FTC to build privacy protection into its products, and to avoid sharing user data outside the company without express permission from users.

Google denied that the upcoming privacy policy changes violate their settlement with the FTC, saying:

We take privacy very seriously. We’re happy to engage in constructive conversations about our updated privacy policy but EPIC is wrong on the facts and the law,” a Google spokesman said.

Source: LA Times

Group suing FTC to stop Google’s privacy policy changes is a post from: The Inquisitr

Last year, the FTC started their antitrust investigation of Google. Since then, the company has launched their social network, Google+ and just recently changes to search where Google+ is highlighted.

This has sparked more concerns and the FTC is said to be adding the social network to it’s investigation of possible antitrust practices.

Via Businessweek:

“The competition issues raised by Google+ go to the heart of the FTC’s investigation into whether the company is giving preference to its own services and whether that practice violates antitrust laws, said the people, who declined to be identified because the investigation isn’t public.”

Being that Google is such a large and powerful company, it’s no surprise they’re being investigated. They get Billions of searches every month and there’s massive amounts of data that they knowingly have access to.

No evidence of wrong doing has been found as of yet and the investigation is still ongoing. Many people are saying that they’re favoring Google+ in search while it’s public knowledge that Twitter decided to not renew a social search deal and Facebook didn’t want anything to do with it.

Social search is essentially search that pulls in information from social networks or at the current point in time, Google+.

“Adam Kovacevich, a Google spokesman, said in an e-mail, “the laws are designed to help consumers benefit from innovation, not to help competitors. We believe that our improvements to search will benefit consumers.”

Now, if Twitter decides to be put back in social search again and a deal can be made, this would definitely take some of the heat off of Google. Currently there’s no talks about that however.

FTC Adding Google+ To Antitrust Investigation is a post from: The Inquisitr

Facebook tracking has come under FTC and Senate committee fire in recent times as rumors circulate in which Facebook tracks not only logged in users but also non-users who access any Facebook page for any number of reasons.

It was just one week ago that the FTC offered Facebook a settlement over a complaint which stated that users were harmed by changes in privacy settings that were conducted with no warnings from the world’s largest social network.

Under the FTC proposal all privacy changes would be “opt-in” on behalf of users in order for Facebook to collect data about a users internet activities.

FTC officials first started examining Facebook in December 2009 after the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) complained abut their constantly changing privacy settings which caused users to reveal their names, gender and other personal information publicly.

Under terms of the FTC agreement Facebook would have to be given explicit permission to share data and they would be under an annual independent review microscope for the next 20 years.

In the meantime Facebook uses the data they collect to create highly-targeted ads which in turn helps raise revenues, it will be interesting to see what type of compromise the company will accept to continue their tracking campaigns from a targeted ad viewpoint.

Do you think Facebook has overstepped their boundaries with constant changes to their privacy policy?

Federal Investigators Will Monitor Facebook Tracking Practices Under Settlement Agreement is a post from: The Inquisitr

Two years ago the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) accused Facebook of using “deceptive behavior” in an attempt to have site users accept privacy settings that benefited the company but left user accounts open to public scrutiny and now the federal organization is said to be nearing a deal with the world’s largest social network.

Under the settlement the FTC would be allowed to conduct privacy audits at Facebook for the next two decades in a move very similar to the agreement they reached with Google, Inc.

Under the agreement Facebook will be required to make all new features (material retroactive changes) available as opt-in rather than opt-out as they are current setup.

The FTC probe against Facebook started in December 2009 when the company made user information public by default instead of asking user permission ahead of time with an opt-in setup.

Final approval for the new guidelines are still awaiting FTC commissioners approval but the plan is expected to receive approval and move forward swiftly.

Are you happy to learn that Facebook privacy changes will be opt-in and that the FTC will be performing regular audits of the company’s policies to ensure site users are being protected?

[Image via ShutterStock.com]

FTC May Soon Require ‘Opt-In’ Privacy Policy Setup For Facebook, Routine Company Audits is a post from: The Inquisitr

The FTC haven’t changed their rules for advertising in eleven-years and now the agency is welcoming public opinion to determine how they can change those rules to better adapt to the online environment.

FOC staff are busy updating the “Dot Com Disclosures: Information About Online Advertising” rules which they believe have become outdated with the advent of an “app economy” that’s also full of “pop-up” ads and social network marketing.

At this point the FTC is only “reviewing” their guidelines, however they will more than likely attempt to create new guidelines which protect consumers from unscrupulous marketing practices, which was the main point of the 2000 guidelines.

Public comments on the program will be accepted by the FTC until July 11, a 45-day period. Users can submit their comments electronically.

[Electronista]

FTC Wants To Change Eleven-Year-Old Advertising Guidelines is a post from: The Inquisitr

After ruling that Google Buzz violated it’s own privacy policy the FTC today announced long reaching privacy audits for the company that span more than two decades.

According to the Official Google Blog the company will now “ask users to give us affirmative consent” before they make any changes towards how information is shared. Google went on to “apologize again for the mistakes we made with Buzz.”

FTC chairman Jon Leibowitz says the settlement was a  “tough” one, while adding, “when companies make privacy pledges, they need to honor them.”

Google put in the final word, apologizing to users:

We’d like to apologize again for the mistakes we made with Buzz. While today’s announcement thankfully put this incident behind us, we are 100 percent focused on ensuring that our new privacy procedures effectively protect the interests of all our users going forward.

More details about how Google will ensure user privacy and compliance have yet to be disclosed.

FTC To Audit Google Regularly Following Buzz Investigation is a post from: The Inquisitr

Vitaminwater’s brand concept is a bit brazen in their marketing- remember their “OJ found guilty… of being high in sugar, that is” campaign a few years back?

The no-caps line of flavored waters (which is part of Glaceau, which is part of Coca-Cola) that insinuate you’ll gain energy, clarity or- I don’t know- brighter chakras?- by consuming them is the target of a consumer advocacy group that has complained the brand’s current marketing claims are “dangerously misleading.”

The group has filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission calling out vitaminwater for claims it says constitutes a “public health menace.” The National Consumers League points to these two examples:

A poster ad for “vitaminwater” that states: “flu shots are so last year” and pictures three varieties of vitaminwater under the banners “more vitamin c, more immunity . . .”

A TV ad for “vitaminwater power-c” (read text of spot here) that depicts a woman who has so many unused sick days at work that she can take them to stay home and watch movies with her boyfriend. The ad states “One of my secrets? vitaminwater power-c. It’s got vitamin C and zinc to help support a healthy immune system. So I can stay home with my boyfriend – who’s also playing hooky.”

NCL Executive Director Sally Greenberg went on to say that the FTC should make investigating vitaminwater’s marketing a “top priority,” and sniffed:

“Two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese; the last thing people need is sugar water with vitamins you could get from eating a healthy diet, or by taking a vitamin pill,” Greenberg stated.

You can read the NCL’s entire manifesto here. Are the claims just silly, or do you think they really pose a threat to American consumers?

Vitaminwater under fire for ‘dangerously misleading’ flu claims is a post from: The Inquisitr

FTC Talking To Adobe About Flash Cookie Installation is a post from: The Inquisitr

In a press release this morning Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz has named Ed Felten, Professor of Computer Science and Public Affairs and founding director of the Center for Information Technology Policy at Princeton University, as the new FTC Chief Technologist.

Now anyone who has followed security blogs for any time the name Ed Felten is extremely well known and most recently was at the center of the e-voting machine controversy that swirled around Diebold and other companies in the business.

As John Paczkowski at Digital Daily wrote about the news:

And then, of course, there were Felten’s various investigations intoelectronic voting machines, the most notorious being the one that revealed Diebolds’ machines could be opened with a standard office furniture key. “The access panel door on a Diebold AccuVote-TS voting machine — the door that protects the memory card that stores the votes, and is the main barrier to the injection of a virus — can be opened with a standard key that is widely available on the Internet,” Felten wrote at the time. “The exact same key is used widely in office furniture, electronic equipment, jukeboxes, and hotel minibars.”

Thank God for Felten, right?

And thank God the FTC has seen fit to hire him. There’s a lot of good he can do there. As Felten described it, “My main job will be to advise the FTC leadership on technology policy issues. My goals are use my technical expertise and knowledge of the tech world to help the FTC make the best decisions on tech topics, and to contribute to building up the agency’s technical capabilities.”

This has to be one of the smartest moves made by the FTC in some time and I would be willing to bet that there are some nervous people in the halls of some of the largest tech companies in the US right now.

Here is the complete press release from the FTC:

FTC Names Edward W. Felten as Agency’s Chief Technologist; Eileen Harrington as Executive Director

Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz today announced the appointment of Edward W. Felten as the agency’s first Chief Technologist. In his new position, Dr. Felten will advise the agency on evolving technology and policy issues.

Dr. Felten is a professor of computer science and public affairs and founding director of the Center for Information Technology Policy at Princeton University. He has served as a consultant to federal agencies, including the FTC, and departments of Justice and Defense, and has testified before Congress on a range of technology, computer security, and privacy issues. He is a fellow of the Association of Computing Machinery and recipient of the Scientific American 50 Award. Felten holds a Ph.D. in computer science and engineering from the University of Washington.

Dr. Felten’s research has focused on areas including computer security and privacy, especially relating to consumer products; technology law and policy; Internet software; intellectual property policy; and using technology to improve government.

“Ed is extraordinarily respected in the technology community, and his background and knowledge make him an outstanding choice to serve as the agency’s first Chief Technologist,” Leibowitz said. “He’s going to add unparalleled expertise on high-technology markets and computer security. And he also will provide invaluable input into the recommendations we’ll be making soon for online privacy, as well as the enforcement actions we’ll soon bring to protect consumer privacy. We’re thrilled to have him on board.”

Dr. Felten currently is a part-time consultant for the FTC. He will start full time as Chief Technologist in January.

Chairman Leibowitz also announced that Eileen Harrington has been named the agency’s Executive Director. Harrington comes to the FTC from a 15-month stint as Chief Operating Officer at the U.S. Small Business Administration. Previously, she served for 25 years at the FTC, starting as a staff attorney and assuming a variety of senior management positions in the Bureau of Consumer Protection, including Associate Director for Marketing Practices, Deputy Director, and Acting Director. Harrington has a long list of accomplishments from her tenure at the FTC. Perhaps most notably, she received the prestigious Service to America Medal for leading the team that created the National Do Not Call Registry.

“This is a very happy homecoming,” said Leibowitz. “Eileen has made an invaluable contribution to the FTC in the past, and her strong management skills, enthusiasm, and creativity will once again be put to use for the betterment of the agency and for American consumers. We are delighted to have her back.”

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

Finally a smart decision from the FTC is a post from: The Inquisitr

Google has been told by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that they can proceed forward with their purchase of popular mobile ad network AdMob.

FTC officials believe that new competition in the mobile market spurred by Apple’s iAd network was good enough reason for Google to purchase AdMob and compete against the world’s most popular mobile device manufacturer.

FTC officials have been cited as saying that regardless of the Google buyout, AdMob is facing tight competition from iAd.

The move gives Google the power they need to implement all of the ad strategies for Google Android 2.2 “Froyo” that they have been discussing this week at Google I/O.

After the announcement AdMob founder and CEO Omar Hamoui said of the deal:

“We are extremely pleased with today’s decision from the Federal Trade Commission to clear Google’s acquisition of AdMob. Over the past six months we’ve received a great deal of support from across the mobile industry – and we deeply appreciate it. Our focus is now on working with the team at Google team to quickly close the deal.”

You can read Hamoui’s full blog post here.

FTC Approves Google’s Acquisition Of AdMob, Cites Apple’s iAd Competition is a post from: The Inquisitr

Steve Jobs probably isn’t a very happy camper right around now. Word is that the Department of Justice (DoJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are negotiating with each other about which one of them is going to start an antitrust investigation into Apple’s iPad and iPhone applications policy.

Most of remember the uproar over Apple keeping Adobe’s Flash off of the iPad and iPhone as well as forcing developers to make their applications usable only on the iPad and iPhone rather than platform agnostic. Well it seems that the two government agencies involved think that this is anti-competitive and that Apple may have overstepped.

However just because the DoJ and the FTC are trying to figure out who will take the lead in any possible investigation it doesn’t mean that anything will happen beyond the initial inquiry.

An inquiry doesn’t necessarily mean action will be taken against Apple, which argues the rule is in place to ensure the quality of the apps it sells to customers. Typically, regulators initiate inquiries to determine whether a full-fledged investigation ought to be launched. If the inquiry escalates to an investigation, the agency handling the matter would issue Apple a subpoena seeking information about the policy.

Officials at both the Justice Department and FTC declined comment. Apple did not return calls seeking comment.

The threat of Apple being the subject of an investigation would be a remarkable turnabout for a company that has long seen itself as being outside the establishment, and one that has egged on antitrust officials to blunt the momentum of larger rivals.

Source: New York Post

It’s rather interesting to see the shoe on the other foot as Apple has for the most part flown under the radar in these types of things.

Apple could face government watchdogs is a post from: The Inquisitr

There’s a lot of noise being made about the fact that a group of of politicians from the House Energy and Commerce Committee want the FTC to call Google up for some serious question answering in regards to Buzz and the privacy flap in the days that followed its launch. According to John Paczkowski from the Digital Daily blog these politicians have the following four questions that they want the FTC to ask

• How will google revise the Gmail privacy policy, notify consumers, and obtain consent for this change in the company’s privacy practices?
• Since Google Buzz was launched on February 9, 2010, how many consumers are deactivated or opted out of the Google Buzz services?
• To what extent does Google use the consumer information collected through Buzz and other Google services for the purposes of delivering online advertising?
• If the Commission approves Google’s acquisition of AdMob, to what extent will the combined entity use the consumer information collected through other Google products and services for the purposes of delivering advertising?

I agree that Google messed up on the launch of Buzz but if the FTC is going to go after Google on this matter then as Michael Klurfeld from The Next Web points out they should also be calling up Facebook over their recent changes

One might wonder why lawmakers then don’t go after Facebook more often given these privacy concerns. My best guess is that it’s because Facebook is entirely opt-in. Sure, Facebook collects everything you store on its servers and sells it to advertisers, but before you sign up for Facebook, you agree to a privacy agreement disclosing all that. Additionally, Facebook is usually very public about changes it makes to how privacy settings work: when Facebook gave the options of marking status updates public, the default setting was still private.

As Michael points out there is a slight difference in the way the two companies have handle user privacy – or at least there was. As we have seen with the most recent changes regarding Facebook’s privacy policy this is all changing. Once the changes go into effect it will be up to the user to opt-out which is exactly the same reason that Google is being looked at.

So if the FTC is going to haul Google up on the carpet to answer a whole bunch of questions then they should be doing the same to Facebook, because in my opinion what Facebook is doing is far more insidious and manipulative of user privacy than any thing that Google has done to this point.

After all – fair is fair eh.

What’s good for Google should be good for Facebook is a post from: The Inquisitr

When it comes to the Web and the Internet as a whole nothing polarizes people, companies and organization quicker that the subject of Net Neutrality. As the FTC progresses through developing its proposals for regulations meant to guarantee some sort of Net Neutrality in the U.S. everyone is trying to exert whatever influence they might have on those proposals.

Yesterday the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) issued a call to arms for people to let the FTC know that any messing with potential regulations by financial impacted companies – especially when it comes to copyrights – isn’t acceptable.

What has the EFF up in arms specifically is what they see as a loophole in the proposed regulations that would require ISPs to become copyright cops. From the email sent out by the EFF:

Tell the FCC: Don’t let Hollywood hijack the Internet

Last fall, the Federal Communications Commission proposed rules for “Net Neutrality” – a set of regulations intended to help innovation and free speech continue to thrive on the Internet.

Buried in the FCC’s rules is a deeply problematic loophole. Open Internet principles, the FCC writes, “do not … apply to activities such as the unlawful distribution of copyrighted works.”

For years, the entertainment industry has used that innocent-sounding phrase – “unlawful distribution of copyrighted works” – to pressure Internet service providers around the world to act as copyright cops – to surveil the Internet for supposed copyright violations, and then censor or punish the accused users.

From the beginning, a central goal of the Net Neutrality movement has been to prevent corporations from interfering with the Internet in this way – so why does the FCC’s version of Net Neutrality specifically allow them to do so?

Source: Network World

There is no doubt that the issue has made for some strange bedfellows and also the requisite backroom dealings and threats. Even companies like Google and Verizon who issued a joint statement on the matter don’t always agree when it comes to the meat of the matter.

They ticked through a variety of things they agree on, such as “encouraging investment and innovation of broadband network” and “providing users with information.”

Sadly, the lawyers who’ve been racking up sizeable billable hours while crafting missives to the FCC couldn’t find common ground on everything. “We continue to disagree on some of these matters,” the companies acknowledged.

That’s a bit of an understatement, judging from the voluminous filings each company made with the agency yesterday.(Google = 98 pages; Verizon = 139 pages)
Noting that the FCC’s proposed net neutrality rules would apply to Internet providers, not companies that offer services over the Internet, Verizon wrote that “it is no mystery, after all, why dominant Internet incumbents such as Google are among the strongest proponents of net neutrality rules – their incentive is to lock in place through regulation advantages they have established for themselves based on today’s predominant business models.”

Google, meanwhile, didn’t slam Verizon by name in its FCC filing, although it noted it believes (unlike Verizon) that wireless networks should be covered by net neutrality rules and that broadband providers should be subject to more oversight.

“At their core, today’s broadband networks are the result of government-sanctioned
monopolies, the grant of public benefits and their attendant enormous market advantages and economies of scale, scope and ubiquity. The government should have a role to ensure that all of these public contributions are put toward serving the public interest,” Google wrote.

Source: Wall Street Journal

It should come as no surprise either that supposedly autonomous agencies are also coming out on both sides of the issues but what is more than interesting as the team at Ars Technica found out is when you start looking at the funding of these agencies and which side of the issue they line up with.

One just has to look to AT&T and their arguing against the FTC involvement with Net Neutrality and then examine some rather unlikely submissions to the FTC hearings to see the match up.

• Kankakee County Farm Bureau
  • but reps from the Farm Bureau, AT&T, and Comcast sit together on the local Chamber of Commerce Government Affairs Committee
• Erie Neighborhood House
  • It also received $10,000-$25,000 from Comcast in 2009, along with $5,000-$10,000 from AT&T Illinois, according to its annual report.
• Downtown Springfield Inc
  • AT&T is a member of the group.
• Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Will and Grundy Counties
  • The Big Brothers/Big Sisters, especially at the local level, aren’t known for having opinions of the innovation effects of government policies in the telecommunications sector… but they do take money from AT&T
• Ministerial Alliance Against the Digital Divide
• Schaumberg Business Association
• Mayor of Chicago

Now while tech companies in of themselves might not seem to have much of a stake in this process the fact is that for many of them Net Neutrality is an important issue.  Google has come out obviously on the side of the users in the issue even though net neutrality would benefit them as well (see video at the end of the post for more on this).

The Internet was designed to empower users. Its open, “end-to-end” architecture means that users – not network providers or anyone else – decide what succeeds or fails online. It’s a formula that has worked incredibly well, resulting in mind blowing innovation, incredible investment, and more consumer choice than ever.

Source: Google’s Official Public Policy Blog

Then thrre are tech companies that could be impacted by any decisions made by the FTC. One such company is Skype:

Evidence suggests that carriers have the incentive and ability to harm innovation in the real-time communications application market, such as that made possible by Skype, either by outright blocking or more subtle forms of discrimination. Because these applications offer consumers additional choice and savings, they should not be delayed, obstructed or throttled by broadband access providers.

Source: GigaOM

Of course this is all happening during the time when the entertainment industry and their many trade groups are pushing hard, on a global level, for the adoption of ACTA. It has even gotten to the level where the US is using trade threats to force other countries to accept trade agreements that either include ACTA or mimic it.

Costa Rica is discovering this type of negotiating when it comes to trying to get final approval of the Central American Free Trade Agreement pushed through Congress

Reports from Costa Rica indicate that final approval of the Central American Free Trade Agreement with the United States is languishing in the Legislative Assembly due to concerns over the copyright provisions.  The CAFTA copyright provisions are similar to those found in the other major U.S. trade agreements concluded in recent years: DMCA-style protections, ISP liability, and copyright term extension are all part of the package.

In this case, it is the responses that are most noteworthy. Within Costa Rica, the article reports that the copyright provisions in the trade treaty have set off a wave of student protests over what it means for education.  Meanwhile, health officials are concerned that the provisions on pharmaceutical products “would bankrupt the public health system.” The response from the U.S. is important as well.  It is delaying market access to sugar from the developing country until the copyright reforms are in place.  Until that time, Costa Rican sugar producers will not be able to sell their product in the U.S.

Source: Professor Michael Geist

At the root of all these discussions going on, whether it be US centric Net Neutrality regulations to trade negotiations with the US, the wholesale gutting of existing copyright laws; both in the US and sovereign countries, in order to benefit the US entertainment industry.

image via vBeta.pl

Net Neutrality is a good thing as long as it screws with copyrights is a post from: The Inquisitr

The FTC has hinted in an interview with Daily Finance that the rules about fairly disclosing comps in blog posts doesn’t apply to people who happen to be awash in a sea of free goodies.

Yes, you, poor mommy blogger, must disclose a sample of baby wipes you didn’t pay for, but people who are important and better than you like Gwyneth Paltrow deserve nice things and thusly don’t have to abide by FTC disclosure rules. While celebrity endorsement has way more pull than your average blogging nobody, details like that don’t matter much to the FTC- Rich Cleland, associate director of the Federal Trade Commission’s ad division, explains the spotty logic behind the favoritism:

The average consumer, Cleland said, might well be aware that celebrities of Paltrow’s stature often receive free clothing, trips and other swag. “It is one of the issues where celebrity endorsements are a little different than person-on-the-street endorsements,” he said. “Would consumers understand that celebrities are always getting free stuff? It’s a factual question.”

Back in October when the new rules became a blogging issue, Steve suggested celebrities might be in trouble considering the new guidelines, but we can all rest easy. People like Gwyneth Paltrow can continue trading their heavily weighted words for “ridiculously lavish” vacations. Sadly, it seems the regulations do only exist to marginalize independent bloggers. Because unfair advantages cannot be allowed to stand.

[via Gawker]

FTC admits celebrities can blog for freebies, no disclosure needed is a post from: The Inquisitr

A group that advocates for internet privacy has filed a complaint (PDF) with the Federal Trade Commission over Facebook’s new wide-ranging recent privacy changes.

Calling the action “the most significant case now before the Federal Trade Commission,” the Electronic Privacy Information Center, or EPIC, said in a statement:

More than 100 million people in the United States subscribe to the Facebook service. The company should not be allowed to turn down the privacy dial on so many American consumers.

The EPIC complaint alleges that far more data belonging to users is available both generally and to third-party Facebook app developers and cites massive outrage and coverage of the move in the media and in the blogosphere. Amusingly, the complaint also references the newly created Facebook groups “Against The New Facebook Privacy Settings!” and “Facebook! Fix the Privacy Settings.”

EPIC has been joined in the complaint by American Library Association, the Consumer Federation of America and the Center for Digital Democracy.

Privacy group files FTC complaint against Facebook for new privacy settings is a post from: The Inquisitr

One of the big topics today that I have picked up from my morning reading is the news that Amazon is going to help you become a Twitter spammer.

Yup now you will be able to populate your Twitter stream with links to items in the Amazon stores that you can sell as an affiliate and make money. Now to be sure there are probably a great number of people who will be totally ethical and above board when it comes to posting this type of stuff to their Twitter stream.

However I am willing to go out on a limb here and say that this kind of transparency will be extremely rare.

This idea is ripe for misuse and will do nothing more than provide a mechanism for affiliate marketers to start flooding Twitter with seemingly legitimate offers disguised as friendly recommendations. I wouldn’t be surprised if by the end of the week that this takes off to the point that previous hijacking of accounts will start happening again with links to Amazon products being the end game for supplied links.

The other big problem, which services like Magpie and SponsoredTweets have addressed is the matter of disclosure – especially with the upcoming changes as proposed by the FTC. In what I have read so far nothing is mentioned about the requirement of some sort of disclosure being a requirement of posting  Amazon affiliate links to Twitter. In fact by all appearances you are totally left to your own ethics as to how you write up the Twitter message in your affiliate link message.

As Sarah Parez quite rightly pointed out in her post about this on ReadWriteWeb this is becoming nothing more that Twitter product placement or as she puts it – a hidden advertisement

The problem with this sort of “hidden” advertising, though, is exactly that: it’s hidden. This is the internet’s version of “product placement” – subtle advertising in plain sight yet never clearly identified as such. Was your favorite TV star using a Macbook? Was he drinking a Coke? Already commonplace in Hollywood, these almost subliminal advertising messages permeate our consciousness every time we turn on the TV. Now that same sort of hidden ad will soon show up in the Twitter streams of your favorite tweeters.

Sorry but with no guidance regarding disclosure, or even making it a requirement, this new idea for Amazon is exactly the reason why the FTC is getting involved. So much for self-regulation.

Amazon to help you be a spammer while painting a bullseye for the FTC is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) has gone into bat on the side of bloggers, calling for the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to withdraw its new rules forcing disclosure of financial relationships on blogs.

The IAB says that the rules “unfairly and unconstitutionally” impose penalties on online media for practices, while exempting traditional media. Randall Rothenberg, the IAB’s president and CEO, says the FTC’s distinction between offline media and online media is “constitutionally dubious” by invoking the First Amendment right to free speech. Release

“What concerns us the most in these revisions is that the Internet, the cheapest, most widely accessible communications medium ever invented, would have less freedom than other media,” said Mr. Rothenberg, “These revisions are punitive to the online world and unfairly distinguish between the same speech, based on the medium in which it is delivered. The practices have long been afforded strong First Amendment protections in traditional media outlets, but the Commission is saying that the same speech deserves fewer Constitutional protections online. I urge the Commission to retract the current set of Guides and to commence a fair and open process in order to develop a roadmap by which responsible online actors can engage with consumers and continue to provide the invaluable content and services that have so transformed people’s lives.”

On the subject of review copies, of which “there is a longstanding practice in traditional media of providing products and services to journalists including freelancers, for the purpose of reviews” he writes “They—and we—are not arguing that bloggers and social media be treated differently than incumbent media. After all, most newspapers, magazines, radio stations and television networks, in recognition that Americans are embracing new forms of social communications, have established their own blogs, boards, Facebook pages, Twitter feeds, and the like. Rather, we’re saying the new conversational media should be accorded the same rights and freedoms as other communications channels.”

IAB Labels FTC Blogger Rules Unconstitutional is a post from: The Inquisitr

While a lot of attention surrounding the new guidelines being issued by the FTC is regarding bloggers there is also another who section of advertisers that is going to get hit hard by these new guidelines. Ignoring the fact for now that newspapers are being given a clear path to maintain their current status quo of self-regulation guerilla marketers are going to have a very hard time doing business under these guidelines.

For those not familiar with the term guerilla marketing it is a type of marketing where for example sake you are sitting at the bar having a nice cold beer and some-one you don’t know sits down beside you and you both start talking about brands of beer and why you like certain ones. This person beside you starts really talking up the brand of beer, one you’ve probably never tried because it’s new, their are drinking and then offers to buy you one, or two.

That is what is commonly referred to as guerilla marketing.

To the FTC this type of advertising would require full disclosure

A young man signs up to be part of a “street team” program in which points
are awarded each time a team member talks to his or her friends about a particular
advertiser’s products. Team members can then exchange their points for prizes, such as
concert tickets or electronics. These incentives would materially affect the weight or
credibility of the team member’s endorsements. They should be clearly and
conspicuously disclosed, and the advertiser should take steps to ensure that these
disclosures are being provided.

(page 81)

As I said earlier the only medium not covered by any of these new guidelines is the traditional print media – anyone else … well you’re fair game.

FTC guidelines take aim at guerilla marketing as well is a post from: The Inquisitr

As I delve further into this whole FTC mess and their new guidelines, which you can download and read all 81 pages yourself, one thing is clear – celebrities are screwed. Now whether or not the FTC guides were this blunt before I can’t speak to all I can do is point to what the document refers to as being new.

From the FTC document (page 19 and page 20)

The Commission is not persuaded that a celebrity endorser’s contractual obligation to
read the script he or she is given should confer immunity from liability for misrepresentations made in the course of that endorsement. The celebrity has decided to earn money by providing an endorsement. With that opportunity comes the responsibility for the celebrity or his or her legal representative to ensure in advance that the celebrity does not say something that does not “reflect [his or her] honest opinions, findings, beliefs, or experience.” See 16 CFR 255.1(a).

Furthermore, because celebrity endorsers are liable for what they say, not for the rest of the
advertisement, their lack of control over the final version of a commercial does not warrant the
immunity sought by the commenters. Nor are they required to become experts on the product or the industry, although they may have an obligation to make reasonable inquiries of the advertiser that there is an adequate basis for assertions that the script has them making.

So in other words all those celebrity endorsers of products or services can’t hide behind “they were just reading a script” as a protection from any potential lawsuits or fines from the FTC.

I wonder how many celeb lawyers are going over all those million dollar contracts right now hoping that they comply with the new guidelines?

FTC to celebs: you are responsible for what you’re hawking is a post from: The Inquisitr

With the US Federal Trade Commission now forcing bloggers to disclose anything that may have any influence over what they are writing, many are now offering their FTC disclosure upfront.

Mark Rizzn Hopkins (disclosure, Mark occasionally writes a post here) and Mark Cuban are two disclosures I’ve just read. Although I’m not American, this site now lives on the Rackspace Cloud in possibly multiple data centers in the United States so may be exposed to US law, so just to be on the safe side, here’s mine.

Mineral Sands

My wife, as a former employee of Iluka Resources still has a number of shares in the company. Those shares were given to employees partially for free. Although those shares aren’t in my name, I may be influenced by her having them.

Iluka is the largest producer of zircon in the world, with an approximate market share of 34% and the second largest producer of titanium dioxide minerals with an approximate market share of 18%. Zirconium metal is used in nuclear reactors due to its neutron absorption properties, and many of our readers in the United States get their power from nuclear energy. The more they read, the more Zircon is needed, and the more we profit. Titanium dioxide is used in paint, and I’ve previously encouraged people to paint things on my person blog.

Water

My wife currently works for the main supplier of water where we live (name not disclosed for privacy reasons.) I drink piles of the stuff every day as I write this site, although we don’t get a subsidy for it. However, I recently attended an open day at a reservoir where I was given two sausage sandwiches. Not only where they delicious, they were free. If I advocate drinking water, there may be a direct and indirect influence

My FTC Disclosure, and have you done yours yet? is a post from: The Inquisitr