Technology360

Watching What You See on the Web

You better not pout,
Better not cry,
Better be good,
I'm telling you why:
Santa Claus is coming to town!

He's making a list,
Checking it twice,
Gonna find out who's naughty or nice.
Santa Clause is coming to town!

He knows when you've been sleeping,
He knows when you're awake.
He knows when you've been good or bad,
So be good for goodness sake!

[Chris Isaak: "Santa Claus Is Coming To Town"]

Back in February of 2006 I wrote a short essay here called The "new Hoover" and attention metadata about privacy concerns relating to our ability to collect metadata about our Web browsing.  Usually, these metdata enhance our Web experiences as in the case of a site like Amazon which gets smarter about our preferences as we revisit the site.  But this technology has also been used for government snooping.  Again, I'm sure most of us don't mind when that's used against child porn distributors or real terrorists, but on the principle that "if it can be done, it will be done," it doesn't take too great a dose of paranoia to imagine less beneficial uses.

Now comes Bobby White of the Wall Street Journal with a distrubing story about companies (NebuAd, FrontPorch and Phorm are mentioned) that are supplying technology to Internet Service Providers to monitor your surfing and target ads to you based on the metadata it collects.  Since your ISPs already have your name, address, phone number and payment information, it's a small step to associating you with the metadata.  White writes:

... This technique -- called behavioral targeting -- is far more customized than the current method of selling ads online. Today, it's an imperfect process: companies such as Revenue Science Inc. and Tacoda Inc., which was recently bought by Time Warner Inc., contract with Web sites to monitor which consumers visit them, attaching "cookies," or small pieces of tracking data, to visitors' hard drives so they are recognized when they return. The targeting firms feed the data to Web site owners, who use it to charge premium rates for customized ads. But the information is limited, since the tracking companies can't monitor all of the sites an individual visits.  ¶  The newer form of behavioral targeting involves placing gear called "deep-packet inspection boxes" inside an Internet provider's network of pipes and wires. Instead of observing only a select number of Web sites, these boxes can track all of the sites a consumer visits, and deliver far more detailed information to potential advertisers. ...

Link:  Wall Street Journal.

According to the article, NebuAd says it "doesn't track traffic to sites related to sex, health or politics."  Sure.  How does it know you're headed there unless it's tracking some aspect of that?  [See clarification from NebuAd CEO in Comments section below.  It does sound like that company is making a good faith effort to protect privacy, but I feel that the following paragraph is still generally valid.  --Dennis]

All this stuff is subject to subpoena and press scrutiny.  Or, perhaps under the Patriot Act that's not even necessary.  Ask a librarian.  All this is extremely troubling and goes to the core of the value of information exchange to us all.  These ISPs and technology companies want us to trust that they're not abusing this  (the article notes that some ISPs are permitting consumers to opt out).  OK, but we've gone far enough down the road of constitutional erosion in this country that it's not them I'm worried about.  --Dennis

Who Needs LPFM? - Why Not Just Expand the FM Band?

Says David Oxenford, who writes:

At last Tuesday's FCC meeting, the Commission adopted a controversial order, over the objection of two Commissioners, that could limit the processing of some applications for improvements by some full power FM stations, and would restrict translator applications, all in the name of encouraging Low Power FM (LPFM) stations to provide outlets for expression by groups that cannot get access to full-power radio stations (see our summary of that action here). In recent weeks, two ideas have received some publicity providing an alternative outlet for these prospective local broadcasters - and both provide a simple solution (one more immediate and ad hoc than that other), but both leading to the same result - why not just extend the FM band by using TV channel 6? ...

Link:  Broadcast Law Blog.  No matter how much sense this makes -- and I think it does -- I don't think it has much of a chance.  But I'm concerned that politics is out-pacing science here and that Congress will never adequately fund the FCC to take on the regulatory mess that LPFM brings along for the ride. 

Also see his, FCC Meeting Adopts Rules Favoring LPFM, Restricting Translator Applications, and Possibly Impeding Full Service FM Station Upgrades.  Link:  Broadcast Law Blog.

 

Updated 2 December 2007:
Joel Rose covers the story for National Public Radio.  --Dennis

Unlicensed broadband devices in TV spectrum "white space"

Broadcasters (MSTV, et al.) have been fighting the introduction of unlicensed broadband devices in the spectrum they occupy citing interference concerns.  Both sides have been conducting tests.  The New America Foundation's Wireless Future Program  has been an advocate for this more permissive use of the TV spectrum and it has issued a new policy brief by Sascha D. Meinrath and Michael Calabrese, The Feasibility of Unlicensed Broadband Devices to Operate on TV Band 'White Space' Withoug Causing Harmful Interference: Myths & Facts.  Link:  New America Foundation (see attached pdf).  --Dennis

Cable gets a win at the FCC

Ted Hearn writes:

... After an 11-hour delay to the start of its monthly meeting, the FCC voted 5-0 at about 10 p.m. to require cable systems to distribute local TV stations that demand carriage in both analog and digital formats for a three-year period starting Feb. 18, 2009. That’s the day after all 1,756 full-power TV stations must turn off their analog signals and rely exclusively on their digital feeds. Cable systems that are all-digital are exempt from the FCC’s dual carriage mandate.  ¶  [Chairman] Martin’s [original] plan called for dual must carry without the 2012 sunset, which the FCC did reserve the right to extend. Lobbying pressure from the National Cable & Telecommunications Association forced Martin to yield not only on perpetual dual carriage but also on a second priority: Requiring cable systems to transmit “all content bits” in a digital TV signal, thereby eliminating the use of signal compression and statistical multiplexing that husband bandwidth. ...

Link:  Multichannel News.

Also see Brooks Boliek's, Analog, digital a must for cable.  Link:  The Hollywood Reporter.

Update 13 September 2007:
Here is the FCC news release.  Link:  Word  PDF.  --Dennis

Details on the Noncommercial Filing Window

For only a week this October, the FCC is opening up its first window for filing new noncommercial FM stations in several year, leading to a flurry of activity for many licensees (including my own organization) looking to protect FM translator frequencies or provide new services.  Davis Wright Tremaine has a good overview.  Link:  Broadcast Law Blog. 

Also see More Information on October Filing Window for New Noncommerical FM Radio Stations.  Link:  Broadcast Law Blog.  --Dennis

Digital must-carry vs. faster IP-over-cable Internet access

Michael Harris makes the following proposal:

... Not surprisingly, MSOs and cable programmers continue to cry foul over broadcast digital must-carry and the possibility of multicast carriage. They well should. (See Cable's All-Upset Over All-Digital.)  ¶  But what the cable industry has failed to articulate is an alternative plan for the use of the spectrum that would be wasted under digital must-carry requirements.  ¶  Here's a suggestion. If the FCC deep-sixes digital must-carry, MSOs pledge to use the spectrum to rollout 100-Mbit/s Internet access nationwide. Move the argument into the marketplace, and empower consumers to pressure politicians still under the spell of broadcast lobbyists. ...

Link:  Cable Digital News.  I'm not advocating a position here, but we broadcasters might think about whether having a 100 mbps pipe to consumers might be better for our business model in the long run than trying to monetize more linear channels on already over-stuffed cable systems.  --Dennis

New Digital Radio Rules Effective Sept. 14th

Brendan Holland has a summary of the new FCC rules concerning "HD Radio."  He writes:

• FM stations may commence digital operations without prior authority from the FCC and may use separate antennas for the digital and analog signals without the need for an STA.
     
• Stations may operate in extended digital hybrid mode, permitting additional capacity.
     
• AM stations may operate during nighttime hours.
     
• FM translators, boosters, and LPFM stations may operate digitally.

These new operational rules will become effective on September 14, and along with them the following rules regarding policy issues will also go into effect:

• Stations that chose to broadcast in digital must provide a free digital stream that simulcasts the programming of the analog channel.
     
• Stations have the flexibility to provide multiple programming streams, provide data services, or provide the highest quality audio service.
     
• Stations may lease the unused portion of their radio spectrum to third parties.
     
• The existing rules, such as EAS, political, sponsorship ID, and station identification, are extended to all the free streams of programming provided by a station. ...
  

Link:  Broadcast Law Blog.  --Dennis

The "new Hoover" and attention metadata

Last month, I posted a short comment called Attention metadata and subpoenas that was inspired by a recent Justice Department subpoena of search data from Google, MSN and Yahoo relating to child pornography. The more recent story about NSA eavesdropping on the communications from U.S. citizens to and from foreign countries also raises concerns about the privacy of attention metadata (data based on your actual usage that track to what you pay attention; for example, Amazon’s tracking of what you’ve purchased in the past).

In the days of the old Hoover – J. Edgar Hoover that is – government eavesdropping was selective. An official wanting to wiretap a person suspected of something nefarious would find a friendly judge to authorize, someone would install pair of clip leads on the suspect’s telephone line, and a tape would roll or a technician would sit and monitor communications. Sometimes it was a racketeer who was monitored. But sometimes, as when the then-sainted President Kennedy permitted the wiretapping of the now-sainted Martin Luther King, it was for reasons of politics or public order.

[I promise to bring this back to the web/media realm, but bear with me for a bit.]

As information about the NSA eavesdropping on the overseas communications of U.S. citizens has been revealed, it’s been interesting to watch the assumptions about its nature change in press accounts. When the story first broke, I think that most people imagined it was the same situation that took place in the days of the old Hoover. Indeed, the legislation that established the FISA court seems to have assumed this model of surveillance.

But as the story has unfolded, it’s increasingly obvious that a new kind of Hoover is involved in the NSA surveillance, one similar to the Hoover you use to vacuum your living room. The government has understandably revealed little about what’s going on, but several published analyses and the reason stated for not going to the FISA court for specific permissions – not enough time – reveal that the NSA is vacuuming up all communications leaving the country and running them through various computer algorithms designed to detect speech, verbal or written, that provides the clues they’re seeking. That’s why they don’t have time to authorize each individual case – it’s happening in real or near-real time and often they don’t know the target in advance.

So when I talked to my brother in Kenya using Skype the other day, an algorithm – not some bored guy in a panel truck with coffee and doughnut – was listening. When I email friends and relatives in Norway almost daily, an algorithm is reading it. The algorithm is listening when I ask my brother if he and his family are OK; it’s reading when I’m exchanging genealogy information or torturing the Norwegian language by email; it’s listening to tender conversations between military spouses in Idaho and Iraq, adult children asking if a dying parent had a good day, sensitive business matters revealed between colleagues, and thousands of other interactions. Presumably, they have the same search, relational and attention tracking technologies as exist on the commodity Internet, so they should be able to construct quite powerful profiles of the really bad guys – or of any one of us.

In the vast majority of cases, the algorithm finds nothing of interest and moves on. We are told: “If you’re not doing anything wrong, don’t worry. Trust us. This is about our safety and security.” It probably is this time.

Algorithms are procedures written by people to achieve objectives. The people who are doing this are appointed by people we elect, so we democratically gave up this privacy, right? Did MLK knowingly give up his privacy when he presumably voted for JFK in 1960?

Algorithms can be tweaked or changed at will, so when we elect new officials we should expect new algorithms. Turn the algorithm’s dial to the right and the new Hoover detects things that violate someone’s sense of morality (this is happening in China and elsewhere today). Had the technology existed in the 60s and 70s, we would have found the algorithm tuned to civil rights and Cold War keywords. Turn it to the left and the people who want government to be the Great Nanny of Us All can tell if you’re visiting the Hummer web site more often than the Prius web site and have that trigger a "green" pop-up message.

The new Hoover wants to know your thoughts and to keep or discourage you from acting on them. The point of surveillance is to keep you from doing what you would otherwise do if you weren’t monitored.

This finally brings us back to web/media applications. Tracking attention is perhaps the most powerful web and media development since the invention of the browser. There are very good reasons why not only providers but consumers should consent to having their attention tracked.

Organizers of the Attention Trust are doing important work, particularly around issues of the ownership of attention data. I happen to agree with them. But I think we need to also extend awareness of the concept from the commercial realm to the Fourth Amendment realm. Attention metadata seem to me an even richer cache of information for reading our thoughts than are metadata collected by the new Hoover of our email and conversations. The ratio of useful to non-useful stuff is much greater.

At a minimum, if we want meaningful Fourth Amendment protection, web and media operations that collect attention metadata should also permit individual users to selectively destroy metadata associated with their attention just as one can delete his or her browsing history.  Ownership of attention data without destruction rights isn't ownership. That destruction will inevitably interfere with the commercial interests of the provider, the surveillance interests of the government, and the consumer interests of the user, but without it, the Fourth Amendment right to privacy will soon sound as quaint as our Third Amendment right to give consent to housing soldiers in our homes.

Trust me.  --Dennis