Mediaboss Marketing

Americans have had a variety of ways of thinking about privacy over the centuries. Though the word privacy is not used in the Constitution, the idea that citizens are to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures is enshrined in the Fourth Amendment. Before he was a Supreme Court justice, Louis Brandeis proclaimed in a 1890 Harvard Law Review article that Americans enjoyed a right to privacy, which he argued was the right to be let alone. In a landmark birth control case in 1965, the Supreme Court embraced the Brandeis view, ruling that the right to privacy can be inferred from the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and 14th Amendments. More modern concepts have focused on Americans views that they ought to be able to control their identity and their personal information.

This new survey asked Americans for their own definitions of the words privacy and digital privacy. Their written answers were coded into broad categories, and they reveal that across both questions, participants most often mention their concerns about the role other people and organizations can play in learning about them, their desire to shield their personal activities and possessions, and their interest in controlling who is given access to their personal information. By comparison, fewer participants mention third parties and the selling of their information, tracking or monitoring, crime and other threats of illicit activity, or interference from the government.

When asked what privacy means to them, 28% of respondents mention other people or organizations:

Keeping my personal information out of the hands of the big data companies. Man, 34

My personal information is secure. No one knows my credit card numbers, address info, where I have been, my banking info, my health info, etc. People dont know anything about me I do not intend to share. Woman, 51

Around one-quarter (26%) mention control or their ability to decide what aspects of their lives are accessible to others:

I have control of all my personal and financial information, no one else can access without my permission. Man, 50

Personal privacy means everything about me personally is private unless I personally opt-in to allow it to be public. Opt-in means not by default or convoluted user agreement that circumvents the purpose of privacy laws. Man, 57

Another 15% of respondents focus on themselves and their personal possessions, without referring to outside organizations or people:

Privacy is being able to feel like your personal information is safe. Woman, 18

That I am in complete control of my personal information. Woman, 29

When asked about digital privacy, respondents again focused on similar topics as when they were asked about privacy: control, the role of other people and organizations, and themselves and their personal possessions. Some 17% mention only themselves and the protection of their own personal information, making no reference to other people or organizations:

Personal information such as [Social Security numbers], banking information, medical records remain private and secure. Man, 59

I should be able to surf the web and do it anonymously. Woman, 55

And 14% of respondents mention control and the desire to decide which aspects of their lives are accessible to others:

Digital privacy would mean that you could use digital technology without the fear of your information or messages being vulnerable to someone gaining access to it that was not your intended receiver. Woman, 72

Having control and ownership of my online data. Have control and the ability to delete information I have not explicitly given the right to use or disseminate. Man, 60

Another 13% mention the role other people or organizations play in their digital privacy:

Security and lack of ability to easily find information put into the digital world like on the internet (passwords, ability to find social media posts), via phone/tablet, etc. Woman, 34

Activity/data about me and from my interactions with websites and digital services being unavailable to other people. Man, 22

A smaller share of respondents (9%) believe that digital privacy is a myth and doesnt actually exist:

Digital privacy does not exist, in my opinion. Once one puts something on a computer that is connected to the internet, privacy is compromised and no longer private. Woman, 75

Nothing. No matter what type of security you think you have, any hacker that wants in will get in. Just a matter of time in my opinion. Man, 49

Many of respondents written answers about their definitions of digital privacy repeated thoughts that were in answers about privacy. At the same time, words like social media, online, internet and data were more common when respondents described digital privacy.

Large data breaches have become a regular feature of modern life affecting companies like Capital One, Facebook, Equifax and Uber. To that end, Pew Research Center surveyed Americans about how they feel about their own personal data. This survey finds that seven-in-ten Americans feel their personal information is less secure than it was five years ago, only 6% say their information is more secure, and about a quarter (24%) feel the situation has not changed.

Majorities across demographic groups believe their personal data is less secure than it was in the past, but some groups are more likely to feel this than others. Those with higher levels of educational attainment are more likely to believe things are worse. Fully 78% of those with a bachelors or advanced degree say their personal information is less secure, compared with 64% of those with a high school education or less. Those over age 50 are also more likely to think their data is less secure, compared with those ages 18 to 49.

In the midst of this concern, how much attention are Americans paying to privacy issues? Some 57% of Americans say they follow news about privacy very (11%) or somewhat (46%) closely, while 43% say they dont follow it too closely, or at all.

Two-thirds of adults ages 65 and older say they follow privacy news at least somewhat closely, compared with just 45% of those 18 to 29 who do the same. Those living in households earning $75,000 or more a year are also more likely to follow privacy news at the same rate with 60% saying they do so compared with 53% of those with a household income less than $30,000 saying the same.

There is little difference, however, between those who follow news about privacy issues and those who do not when it comes to expressing concern about the way things are trending. Some 74% of those who follow privacy news at least somewhat closely believe their data is less secure than it was five years ago and 64% of those who do not follow privacy news too closely also feel the same way.

When asked about three different types of data breaches or identity theft, 28% of Americans say they have experienced at least one of them in the past 12 months. About one-in-five adults (21%) say someone has put fraudulent charges on their debit or credit card in the past year, while smaller shares say someone has taken over their social media or email account without their permission, or attempted to open a line of credit or apply for a loan using their name.

Black adults (20%) are roughly three times as likely as their Hispanic (7%) or white counterparts (6%) to say someone has taken over their social media or email account in the past year. Black Americans are also more likely to say someone attempted to open a line of credit or applied for a loan using their name in the past 12 months, compared with smaller shares of white and Hispanic adults who say the same.

Read the rest here:
1. How Americans think about privacy and the vulnerability of their personal data - Pew Research Center

Theres a reason Facebook doesnt provide granular brand safety controls for news feed it doesnt think theyre necessary.

We dont believe ad adjacency matters in certain environments and we designed the platform with that in mind, said Erik Geisler, Facebooks director of North American agency partnerships, speaking Thursday at 614 Groups Brand Safety Summit in New York City.

In Facebooks view, people dont associate the ads they scroll past in their feeds with the content they see above or below. Geisler referenced internal research that apparently proves this thesis, but Facebook declined to share any specific numbers or supporting data.

Its a convenient viewpoint considering how difficult it is to protect for brand safety in environments that rely heavily on user-generated content, like the news feed.

Since Facebook doesnt think ad adjacency is an issue in the news feed, the controls advertisers have there are basic. Although Facebook recommendsautomatic placements as the default, buyers can choose to opt out of ad placements on Facebook, Instagram and/or Messenger.

Its a different story for Audience Network placements, ads within publisher content (aka, Instant Articles) and pre- and mid-roll video on Watch all places where adjacency does matter, Geisler said.

And so advertisers have a few more controls in those environments, including inventory filters, block lists, access to a pre-campaign list of potential publishers where ads could run and publisher delivery reports they can see after the fact. Advertisers can also just decide to opt out of a placement completely.

Context is a nuanced affair, so theres an argument to be made for enabling brand safety controls on a sliding scale depending on where an ad is running.

People may feel differently about the relationship between a standard display ad and the article in which its embedded than they do about a pre-roll ad that appears before a video, which could look more like an implied endorsement, said Jed Hartman, chief commercial and strategy officer at Channel Factory and former CRO at The Washington Post.

But not everyone is down with what they view as a lack of robust brand safety controls in the news feed.

I cant say I agree with that at all, said a media executive at a large brand who asked to remain anonymous because it is in the process of negotiating with Facebook for more control.

Ad adjacency is just as key in the feed as anywhere, the executive said. And we need our media to work really well on these platforms especially when were investing as much as we are."

Go here to see the original:
Facebook Has Fewer Brand Safety Controls For News Feed Ads On Purpose - AdExchanger

ACT leader David Seymour also voted against the legislation, but only because of ACT's policy to oppose Government Bills unless the Government asks for support, in which case he would consider doing so.

The purpose of the proposed law is to "ensure the security of all involved in APEC 2021, as well as the security of media and members of the public".

The legislation - which would expire at the end of November 2021 - says foreign protection officers would be able to "apply for the authority to carry and possess a specified weapon during the leaders' event period, along with a permit to import the weapon".

Ghahraman said a time when New Zealand is reforming domestic gun laws it "doesn't make sense to move the other way for this meeting".

"We know that both here and overseas, force is most commonly used against persons of colour, so certain communities are going to be put at most risk."

The Bill's sponsor, Deputy Prime Minister and New Zealand First leader Winston Peters, said the temporary law would support New Zealand's security preparations for hosting the event, last held in Auckland in 1999.

"Up to 20,000 visitors are expected throughout the year, including world leaders, ministers and international media," Peters said.

"This Bill will ensure the New Zealand Police has the resources it needs, as well as provide temporary security and safety measures around key meeting locations during the leaders' event."

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern confirmed last month that APEC will still be held in Auckland, despite the destruction caused by a massive blaze at the New Zealand International Convention Centre.

The Greens' refusal to support the APEC Bill is reminiscent of last month when the party didn't at first support a proposed anti-terror law that would give police the ability to impose control orders on returning Kiwis involved in terrorism.

The Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill began in a similar way to the APEC Bill, with Labour, National and New Zealand First supporting it and the Greens opposed.

But negotiations broke down between National leader Simon Bridges and Justice Minister Andrew Little and its first reading was initially delayed.

The Greens were then in a position to negotiate the changes they wanted to the legislation and the Justice Minister was willing to give them want they wanted.

Ghahraman told Newshub the situation is different this time because National decided to support the APEC Bill as a caucus and there were no sour negotiations, therefore Labour and NZ First don't need the Greens' support.

"If the National Party pulled their support, we do have very serious concerns about the APEC Bill as we did about the control orders Bill," Ghahraman said.

But she said it's a bit more black and white this time.

She said the Greens would only support the Bill "if we don't allow restricted weapons held by foreign agents who are not trained by us and don't work in our communities".

"Our position on the APEC Bill is that New Zealand's own security laws and policing are enough."

Read the original post:
APEC 2021: Greens oppose law letting foreign security agents carry restricted weapons - Newshub

A majority of Australians oppose harvesting of their personal information by apps and websites, with three-quarters reporting they are uncomfortable with the on-sale or government provision of their data to businesses.

The Essential poll of 1,075 respondents found that a majority were also uncomfortable with the government providing other agencies with information for national security purposes (58%) or facial recognition to restrict access to content not suitable for children (56%).

The poll found that just 19% of users claim to have fully read and understood the terms and conditions of websites they use and about the same number (18%) say they never read the terms, they just accept them.

Most users are somewhere in between, reading the terms but not understanding the implications (21%) or reading the terms sometimes depending on the website (38%).

The majority of respondents were uncomfortable with commercial platforms selling their data (76%) and the government providing their data to businesses (74%).

About two-thirds of respondents were uncomfortable with the government (66%) or commercial online platforms (65%) offering products and services based on [their] personal information and behaviour.

The most likely to object use of personal information for national security reasons were Greens voters (65%) or other voters for minor parties or independents (70%), with facial recognition for age verification also the most unpopular among those groups.

Across age groups, people aged 18-34 were less likely to report being uncomfortable with all forms of data collection than those aged 35-54 or 55 and above.

The results, released on Thursday, mark the launch of the Australia Institutes new Centre for Responsible Technology, to be headed by the Essential Media executive director, Peter Lewis.

Lewis said the results reflect increased public distrust at the data models at the very heart of the business strategies of big tech organisations like Facebook and Google.

They also show a breakdown of trust in the government to collect information in the public interest, he said. What is most confounding about these results is that the public is uncomfortable with the use of data in the precise ways they routinely consent to it being used.

The centre aims to develop a set of rules and standards to control how organisations handle personal information and to help people make choices about how their information is used.

In July, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission digital platforms report recommended the Privacy Act should be updated to give users greater control over their personal information, the ability to move the data from one company to another, to have the data destroyed and to require greater levels of consent from users before personal information is collected.

In responding to the report, the treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, said: There is no option other than to put in place the right regulatory and legislative regime to protect the publics privacy.

What this report finds is that so much personal data is being collected without informed consent, he said.

In October, the joint standing committee on intelligence and security told the government it needs to rethink its plans for a national facial verification database built with photos from passports and drivers licences, citing privacy concerns.

A parliamentary committee is currently considering whether to use facial recognition to verify users age before they can access pornography.

Read this article:
Most Australians oppose data harvesting and sale by apps and websites Essential poll - The Guardian

To prevent this, platforms could end the practice of allowing advertisers to bring external data to their ad systems entirely. The downside is that this would eliminate good uses of these tools in addition to the troubling ones.

Alternatively, platforms could require political advertisers to move away from data opacity and toward data transparency by permitting only certain types of verified targeting lists, such as lists of all registered voters of a certain party in a certain district. More transparency would incentivize good practice, and platforms could take steps to verify audience lists and perform random audits to improve enforcement and ensure accountability.

Second, targeting categories and the advertising auctions and algorithms that deliver ads based on those categories should not make it easy for advertisers to undermine the platforms own stated goals, whether it is Facebooks desire for social cohesion or Twitters goal of healthy discourse. Just as all major platform companies have voluntarily put in place verification processes for political advertising and created political digital ad archives, instead of banning political ads they can set further limits on the categories political advertisers can target (such as geographic region, interests, ideology, race and ethnicity, or gender). Platforms could review their existing categories to ensure they do not enable targeting that can undermine their missions, circumvent community standards or is likely to facilitate illegal activity.

Third, platforms should introduce product solutions that facilitate counter-speech. For instance, when a platform publishes a political ad in its ad archive, it could enable verified rival campaigns to publish ads to the exact same audience. This approach would be a privacy-protective way of ensuring that there is an opportunity for counter-speech, since platforms could enable the functionality without passing audience details or strategic information to rival campaigns.

Finally, companies repeatedly state that political advertising doesnt have a material effect on their bottom line. If thats the case, instead of banning political ads they should put their political advertising money where their mouth is, and commit to donating all revenue from political advertising to nonprofits and researchers focused on election integrity. Or invest that money directly in the development and improvement of their election integrity products.

In the face of intense pressure by the press, activists and policymakers, tech platforms should resist blunt solutions that greatly narrow the possibilities for expression for those vying for public office and contesting public issues. Blanket bans on political ads especially harm those without pre-existing large audiences and challengers to established elites. By putting changes in place that shine a spotlight on targeting practices, we can address some of the worst abuses of political ads technologies, while also leaving space for speech thats critical for a robust democracy.

Daniel Kreiss is a principal researcher at the University of North Carolina Center for Information, Technology, and Public Life and an associate professor at the UNC Hussman School of Journalism and Media. Matt Perault is the director of Duke Universitys Center for Science & Technology Policy and was formerly a director of public policy at Facebook.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

The rest is here:
Four Ways to Fix Social Medias Political Ads Problem Without Banning Them - The New York Times