The Ads That Dare Not Speak Their Name

Remember Phorm, the evil data pimps who wanted to collect browsing data on Internet users so that they could deliver targeted advertising?

Well, yes, of course you do. It was only a few months ago that the company effectively folded in the UK, having been battered by a succession of staggeringly stupid PR blunders, leaving their investors seriously out of pocket.

So the world and its dog can breathe a sigh of relief that it's safe from this invidious form of advertising, which threatened to usher in a cataclysm unequalled in the annals of human history, surpassing the plagues of Egypt, the eruption of Krakatoa, the rise of Jedward etc. etc.

Er, actually, no. A little-known Internet firm called Google is doing exactly the same thing, with nary a murmur of discontent from the brave warriors who brought Phorm to its knees. And we're not talking about Google's gentlemanly habit of routinely reading Gmail users' emails so that they can serve them with targeted ads. No, it goes further than that.

Some of our more technically literate readers may know that the world's largest text ad broker has, for ages, served up different search results for users logged into its services, such as Google Calendar or Gmail. These search results are tailored to users' previous browsing behaviour, so if you spend a lot of time on bbc.co.uk/sport, Google search results will place this web page higher up the list when it's asked to search for "sport". This, of course, is an entirely selfless service from Google that helps users gain the most relevant results - and it's only coincidental that it helps them to make more money from behaviourally targeted ads.

No problem with that - Google fanbois presumably read the terms and conditions when they sign up to these services (doesn't everyone?). But now Google is "personalising" search results for any user, anywhere, regardless of whether they're signed in to Google or not, through cookies placed on unwitting users' computers.

We've covered behavioural targeting before and, while we don't think it's inherently evil, we do believe that it requires a delicate approach, along with rigorous adherence to best practice procedures to ensure that users are well-informed and are offered a clear choice about whether they want their browsing profiled. Google haven't gone out of their way to publicise their service; nor to explain how to turn it off (it is, naturally, turned on by default).

If companies continue to implement behavioural targeting in a sly, underhand way - as though it were something to be ashamed about - then one can hardly blame the public for being suspicious of it. Instead of cloaking it in the depths of a terms and conditions form, companies like Phorm and Google should communicate openly on the benefits of targeted ads and offers.

One final question remains: why has privacy campaigner Alex Hanff - the single-handed scourge of Phorm and NebuAd, whose brave and lonely battle against these Internet behemoths ended with a victory that brought dragons and St George to mind - been so silent on this issue? Alex, where are you?

Postscript: Google's CEO Eric Schmidt yesterday trotted out that favourite line of civil-liberties-deniers the world round: "If you have something you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." (©Richard Littlejohn / David Blunkett). How this statement sits with Google Chrome's infamous Incognito function - which hides your porn viewing from other users - remains unclear.

IAB's Guide To Good Behaviour

We're pleased to see that the Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB), the trade body for online advertisers, has finally launched its Good Practice Principles for behavioural advertising.

Drawn up in collaboration with companies like Google, Phorm and NebuAd, the IAB's best practice guide is, remarkably, the first set of self-regulatory guidelines to set good practice for companies that use users' online browsing behaviour to target ads that are relevant to individual users' interests.

An accompanying website, http://www.youronlinechoices.co.uk/, will help consumers to understand what online behavioural advertising does and (crucially) doesn't do.

The core of the Principles is formed by three commitments: Notice, where companies that collect online data must inform users that data is being collected; Choice, which says that companies must provide an opt-out; and Education, whereby they must let consumers know exactly how the information is being used and how they can opt out.

And not before time, think we. The debate surrounding online behavioural advertising has for too long been dominated by single-issue campaigners relying on hearsay, misrepresentation and misinformation to argue that behavioural targeting infringes individuals' online privacy.

That's not to say that some developments (not least BT's secret and most-probably illegal trials of Phorm's Webwise technology without users' knowledge or consent) haven't done real damage to the industry in the eyes of the general public.

That's why we welcome the IAB's Good Practice Principles which, as well as advising on best practice approaches to online behavioural targeting, provide consumers with the information they need to make an informed decision about whether they want to take part in any new service.

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) have voiced their support, saying that 'a joined-up approach to promoting transparency, choice and education makes good sense.'

Getting the thumbs up from the ICO, who know their stuff, is one thing; changing the public's perception of online behavioural targeting is quite another, especially given the bad press that it's garnered over the last couple of years. Whether or not it succeeds in its aim of educating the public about behavioural targeting, the code of conduct is certainly a step in the right direction for the industry.

Taken along with another piece of recent news, we could be seeing something of a fightback from the targeted ad industry. Last week, Phorm unleashed its lawyers on Which?, which had published a press release highlighting opposition to their service. Nothing very surprising there, except that following the legal intervention, Which? immediately pulled the offending release from its website (though not before the story had been covered in several publications). It seems that some of the information in the release was inaccurate enough to be defamatory; Which? is now "working with Phorm" to correct the release.

If consumer champions and all-round experts Which? can't get its facts right, what hope for your average Internet user? That's one reason, at least, to welcome the IAB's new code of practice.