Blog Post #5

Consequences for the Absence of Regulation

Social networking sites, Facebook and MySpace, recently released their proposals for targeted marketing. Both sites will now have banner and flyer ads catered to the specific interests, location and hobbies of the sites' users. The sites' gold mine of information from users is now a means of profit for the companies. 

But how do the sites directly target the users? They collect the users' personal information and monitor it. Is that right? Many privacy advocacy groups like the Center for Digital Democracy don't think so. The CDD has filed a complaint for the Federal Trade Commission to impose regulations for online marketing. (See "New Facebook, MySpace Ad Programs Prompt FTC Complaint")

"New technology has brought extraordinary benefits to society, but it has also placed all of us in an electronic fishbowl in which our habits, tastes and activities are watched and recorded, " New York Governor Eliot Spitzer said when he was attorney general (from Simon Garfinkel's article "Privacy and the New Techonology:What They Know Can Hurt You."  The Internet has remained a free market for all to use as they wish. Most embrace this uncontrolled freedom of speech and typically forget about the consequences that can arise from it. 

The lack of Internet regulation has allowed for businesses to obtain typically private information. And yes, it can be a good thing - like recommended readings on Amazon.com or an ad for the band you like - but does it invade our privacy? The companies do not think so.  And if they can continue to increase profit from collecting and marketing data, they never will. 

Imposing regulations for online marketing would be a tricky issue though. Once government regulation of the Internet starts, it will be hard to stop it. So In Thomas Claburn's article "Privacy versus Personalisation" alternatives such as an opt-out program are described. Claburn said one approach is to allow Internet users control over what information is collected about themselves. Another suggestion is for companies to better inform consumers of companies' privacy policies and what data is colllected.

The CDD and other advocacy groups have called for a "Do Not Track" list similar to the "Do Not Call" list. Claburn said, "Talk of a Do Not Track list is a clear red flag that it's time for online marketers to address consumer concerns about privacy and manipulation. If they don't, others - regulators and legislators - could step in." 

So to keep our freedom of speech safe, we better get used to seeing ads and websites act like they know us and all of our interests. Or we have to continue to find ways to avoid being targeted by advertisers and big businesses looking for more profit. 

Blog Post #4

Open Access to the Internet

The Internet was founded and based upon the principle of open access; however, media mergers and the rise of broadband threaten the history of open access. The current trend is toward closed access to the Internet.

Open access is allowing people to browse, transmit and publish content as they want particularly in regards to being able to chose their Internet Service Provider (ISP).

Pat Aufderheide, author of "The Threat to the Net," started his article with a great point about media ownership: "Who owns the Internet? If you think the answer is 'nobody,' you're right - for now. That's why it has been such an astonishing innovation that has flourished so vibrantly as the grassroots."

With the innovation and placement of broadband into more and more Internet users' hands, cable companies are moving to closed access of the Internet. Aufderheide hypothesized and displayed some examples of the movement of the Internet in his 2000 article, but more examples are frequently occurring in the media.

In "The Threat to the Net," Aufderheide said that the AT&T's ISP, Excite@Home, will not allow more than 10 minutes of video sent at a time. This restriction may enable more people to use the Internet at once, but it also restricts people's freedom to publish and access more graphically intense sites.

More recently, Comcast Cable has acknowledged slowing down the connection between file-sharing computers. On Thursday, November 1, consumer groups and legal scholars filed a petition for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to stop Comcast from interfering in its customer's Internet actions including file-sharing.

This movement toward closed access is happening because, as the Media Access Project described, "for years, the FCC has refused to require cable companies to open their networks in the same way that they required the telephone companies to open their networks to the dial-up Internet."

Some communities such as Seattle and Portland, Oregon have fought against the large media companies for open access. Ron Sims, who worked for open access in Seattle, said it's about control of content, freedom of speech and choice.

Other consumer groups have formed such as the Net Neutrality Squad. The goal of the group is to "help keep the Internet's operations fair and unhindered from unreasonable restrictions."

But it is hard to fight against the evil media empires. AT&T told Portland City Commissioner Erik Sten "We hope you have a large legal budget," when he demanded that AT&T allow "nondiscriminatory broadband access."

For Internet users such as myself, it takes reporting interference to consumer groups for backing, to the FCC, complaining to the companies. We even need to try and get legislators involved. In the end it will be worth the struggle because as Aufderheide said, "too many people have sampled an open information system to settle for less."