U.K. Parliament Debates ISP-Based Behavioral Targeting

At a parliamentary roundtable event in the House of Commons yesterday, Members of Parliament, Lords, and industry experts met to discuss the privacy implications concerning ISP-level behavioral targeting from companies such as Phorm and NebuAd. The intention of the session, which was hosted by Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesperson, Baroness Sue Miller, was to “inform parliamentarians” on the issues surrounding the controversial practice.

Other MPs present included Conservative civil liberties campaigner, David Davis, and senior Labour MP, Alun Michael.

Although the event was not intended to single out individual cases, the majority of conversation focused on ad-targeting technology firm Phorm, which is currently the most advanced U.K. player in the ISP-based behavioral ad space. The company announced in February 2008 that it would partner with three of the U.K.’s largest ISPs in order to sell and target ads based on user’s online interaction data. Although a number of Phorm executives were present at the event, the company was refused a place on the panel, according to CEO Kent Ertugrul.

A handful of networking and privacy experts were offered the chance to express their views regarding behavioral advertising, but no representatives from the advertising, media, or ISP sectors were represented. The majority of the panelists took the opportunity to express concerns, focusing on legal and moral issues surrounding both privacy and data protection.

Introducing the subject, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, director of the World Wide Web Consortium, stated plainly that he was opposed to any ISP monitoring users for commercial purposes. “There should be no snooping on the Internet; it’s the equivalent of wire tapping, or opening a person’s mail,” he said. “I’m here today to defend the integrity of the Internet.”

Richard Clayton, treasurer for the Foundation for Information Policy Research, agreed that ISPs had no business in intercepting user communications, stating, “Providing better ads is not the role of the ISP. It’s not lawful.”

Meanwhile, Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, argued the practice would “undermine our confidence in governments to preserve our basic human rights,” and suggested that commercial pressures would eventually lead to richer, potentially more revealing data being utilized.

Attempting to balance the discussion, Earl of Hay Merlin Erroll, a non-party-affiliated appointee to the House of Lords, pointed out that only one side of the argument had been addressed. “Phorm assures us it can anonymize the information. If I only get ads for things I’m interested in, then I support that,” he said.

Visibly frustrated by the discussion, and the fact that he was denied the ability to sit on the panel, Phorm’s Ertugrul commented from the floor, stating, “A number of things that have been said patently misrepresent what we do. We have created something that reconciles privacy and commerce.”

Ertugrul went on to suggest the future of the media was in jeopardy without targeting technology such as Phorm’s; he presented the example that traditional news publishers, such as The Guardian are already making use of behavioral targeting technology from firms such as Audience Science.

Berners-Lee countered by narrowing his argument to ISP-level targeting only. “I don’t have a problem with behavioral advertising, I think it’s an improvement, but there are so many ways to do it without ISPs snooping,” he said.

This argument was furthered by fellow panelist Robert Topolski, a aoftware wngineer and U.S. Federal Communications Commission panel member. He argued that the cookie-based technologies used by firms such as Audience Science were within user control, and very different to what Phorm is proposing. “Bring me more relevant ads, but not at risk of everything I do online being monitored,” he said.

U.S. legislators including the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation have also inspected behavioral ad targeting and its data security and privacy implications. The Federal Trade Commission also recently unveiled revised behavioral ad principles.