Bell Canada will Use Network Usage Information for "select purposes"

Bell Canada is going to use its customers (starting with mobile subscribers) data usage information for a number of purposes, including the controversial behavioral advertising. The way it is done (with opt-out option only, see below) brings back past incidents in the UK (Phorm) and US (Nebuad) - all  ended up with lawsuits (see "Paper: The Use of DPI for Behavioral Advertising (Case Study: Nebuad and Phorm)" - here).

In addition, Bell say it may share information that identifies customers personally with its affiliates (a very wide defenition, usually). 

Bell's web page "How does Bell respect my privacy?" (here) explains that "Your privacy is an important priority at Bell, and so is providing an experience that best meets your needs .. Today we want to tell you about some important updates relating to new uses of information".

"Starting on November 16, 2013, Bell will begin using certain information about your account and network usage for select purposes, such as continuing to improve network performance and product offers through new business and marketing reports, making some of the ads and marketing partner offers you see more relevant to you, and providing increased levels of fraud detection and prevention. We will not share any information that identifies you personally outside of Bell Canada and its affiliates.

Initially, this applies only to Bell Mobility customers but we look forward to expanding it to tv and internet customers in the future. Remember, no customer is required to participate. If you don't want your data used for relevant advertising, we won't use it.

Network usage information, such as:

• Web pages visited from your mobile device or your Internet access at home. This may include search terms that have been used.
• Location
• App and device feature usage
• TV viewing
• Calling patterns

If you do not want us to use your information for any of the purposes described above, you can opt out.

Embarq Cleared by US court in Relations to NebuAd Ad Insertion

A recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals in a case against Embarq (now CenturyLink), in relations to the use of NebuAd for behavioral advertising clears Embarq, the ISP (background - here, here).

Judge Harris L Hartz concludes: "The alleged interceptions occurred when Embarq authorized NebuAd, Inc., an online advertising company, to conduct a technology test for directing online advertising to the users most likely to be interested in the ads.  Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the district court’s judgment.  Although NebuAd acquired various information about Embarq users during the course of the technology test, Embarq cannot be liable as an aider and abettor.  And it was undisputed that Embarq’s access to that information was no different from its access to any other data flowing over its network.  Because this access was only in the ordinary course of providing Internet services as an ISP, this access did not constitute an interception within the meaning of the statute".

See here, and below.

Paper: The Use of DPI for Behavioral Advertising (Case Study: Nebuad and Phorm)

  

From time to time we see the return of Behavioral Advertising as a business opportunity for ISPs, despite the loud crash of these services few years ago. 

Recently I reported on several deployments - in Nigeria, Turkey, SaskTel, Marriott Hotels, Orange France, Romania and more. Today's deployments are usually based on an opt-in service, a very different model from the "we dont tell you what we do" model that failed the earlier players - Nebuad and Phorm (which is still there - see "Phorm's New Chinese Operation Valued at $155M" - here and behind some of the above deployments). 

A new research by Andreas Kuehn and Milton Mueller (pictured), Syracuse University, School of Information Studies, examines the political issues behind this service.

Abstract: 

 
This paper examines the use of deep packet inspection (DPI) in online advertising, and analyzes the effects public pressure, regulatory actions and judicial and policy-making proceedings had on those deployments. The research is part of a larger project on the effects of DPI on Internet governance which is funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation [see "NSF Funds Research on DPI" - here]. DPI, which allows Internet service providers (ISPs) to monitor the content of data packets in real-time, can be considered a disruptive technology because of the way its use conflicts with pre-established principles and norms of Internet governance. 

In this comparative study, we examine the rise and fall of NebuAd in the U.S. and of Phorm in Europe. We also include some less visible companies and spill-overs to Brazil and South Korea. We conduct a comprehensive analysis of these cases – from the early development and secret trials of the technology to the regulatory actions, business failures and litigation in the aftermath. Looking at a timeline of several years that covers the dynamic technical, economic and institutional interactions at play, the framework contrasts distinct actors, actor constellations and modes of interaction across institutional settings to illustrate similar and divergent policy outcomes. This research is based upon comprehensive analysis of political and legal documents and a series of interviews with DPI vendors, Internet advocates, engineers, and advertisers.

The narrative follows four stages that we have found in similar case studies of DPI deployments: 1) unilateral, secret deployment, 2) uncontrolled public disclosure of the deployment, 3) civil activism around net neutrality and privacy norms, 4) political, legal and regulatory proceedings to resolve the conflicts. This framework highlights the interaction of technical, economic and institutional factors that are at work when politically contested technologies with a disruptive potential are deployed on the Internet. In this case, as in many others, the analysis shows how the deployments ran afoul of established principles and expectations and how the “notification” and “consent” practices so crucial to privacy law failed to bridge the gap between the expectations of Internet users and the formal legal definition applied by the courts. We show how this gap led to intense political pressure and market exit of DPI-based advertising platforms in both countries.

See and download from "Profiling the Profilers: Deep Packet Inspection and Behavioral Advertising in Europe and the United States" - here

Ad Insertion - Recent Ruling Concerning NebuAd Technology

   

Last week, the District Court in Montana, ruled (here) in the case of in Mortensen v. Bresnan Communication, concerning a class action suit against Bresnan for inserting personalized ads, using equipment from the late NebuAd.

See analysis of the ruling by Jonathan Klinger - "NebuAd, The Public Interest and Enforceable Agreements" - here and Eric Goldman (picture) - "Deep Packet Inspection (NebuAd) Litigation: Court Dismisses ECPA Claim but CFAA Claim Continues" - here.

To summarize (from Jonathan's post): "..the ISP raised a claim that its users are subject to an agreement that allowed it to inspect their traffic, and therefore the Electronic Communication Privacy Act claim (ECPA) should be denied. The court accepted most of the ISP’s claims and ruled that apart from the question of whether injecting the cookie was consensual, the remainder of the lawsuit should be denied".

Behavioral advertizing gets some attention recently, and we may experience a comeback, assuming that the business model will still show an opportunity even if done on an "opt-in" basis.

See also:

• [WSJ] Carrier Ad-Insertion Returns! - here
• Sandvine Spins-off Simplicita as Xerocole - here
• Japan - ISPs May Use DPI for Behavioral Advertising - here

[WSJ] Carrier Ad-Insertion Returns!

 
While the FCC goes back to its Net Neutrality plans (see "FCC Moving on Net Neutrality?" - here), the Wall Street Journal had a front page (at least in its iPad edition) story on ad-insertion, or behavioral advertising, a revenue generation opportunity for carriers

I covered this space in the past, about companies that disappeared (Nebuad & Phorm - here and here) and those that are still there (Xerocole - here, Kindsight - here). The basic concept was targeted advertising, based on subscribers’ behavior with revenues shared by the vendor and the carrier.

DPI is needed for the ad-insertion process in order to analyze subscribers' traffic and make it more efficient by re-directing only relevant traffic to the behavioral processing. Privacy problem, and lack of disclosure made some of the players go away - and brought an investigation against BT that was secretly using Phorm back in 2006 (see "BT's Phorm trial lands UK Government in court" - here).


Source: Wall Street Journal



Now, the Wall Street Journal (see "Shunned Profiling Method On the Verge of Comeback" - here) reports that business sees a comeback (following Japan? - here). I guess the choice of the word "profiling" (not allowed in the US) shows the authors' sentiment for the move. Some quotes, from a rather long article:

Now, two U.S. companies, Kindsight Inc. and Phorm Inc., are pitching deep packet inspection services as a way for Internet service providers to claim a share of the lucrative online ad market.

Kindsight and Phorm say they protect people's privacy with steps that include obtaining their consent. They also say they don't use the full power of the technology, and refrain from reading email and analyzing sensitive online activities Two large ISPs in Brazil—Oi, a unit of Tele Norte Leste Participacoes SA, and Telefonica SA—currently have deals with Phorm 

Mr. Gassewitz [top picture] says six ISPs have tested Kindsight's security service on subscriber groups as big as 200,000. Mr. Gassewitz says, "There was no profiling occurring, no advertising occurring, no data collection occurring."

Oi's Mr. Pedro Ripper, Oi's strategy and technology believes that the technology's time has come. "The Internet is becoming more and more a platform to deliver very targeted messages," he says. As for deep packet inspection, "Everyone is going to get there. It's just a matter of timing"

Japan - ISPs May Use DPI for Behavioral Advertising

 

Japan's asahi.com reports (english - here) that a working group from the Japanese Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, published a report concluding that DPI may be used by ISPs for behavioral advertising.

See coverage by Asiajin, here.

Behavioral advertising, offered in the past by US based Nebuad and Adzilla, and UK based Phorm, was not accepted well in their home countries, mainly because it was deployed without disclosing it to subscribers.

The business case was to share advertising revenues between the ISP and the these companies. The ISP provides the facilities and subscribers base and Nebuad/Phorm the networking equipment that track the subscriber's activity (usually "anonymously" - without keeping record of the subscribers activity) and relations with advertisers.

However, the business case could be only justified with large volumes - so if the subscribers are required to opt-in (register) for the service - there just not going to be enough traffic, clicks and therefore revenues. Opt-out could be a better way, possibly leaving enough subscribers exposed to the process.

According to Asiajin, the Japanese report - "concludes that such technology cannot be used without constituting a breach of private communications if it does not first receive approval from the user (p. 58). However, elsewhere in the report it is stated that an opt-out mechanism must be in place (p. 59), suggesting that the system need not be opt-in." (the report is here, in Japanese).

Related posts:

• DPI Deployments - Part2: Why Hiding?  - here
• DPI Deployments - Part4: UK - Everybody is Doing it ! - here