Following its introduction the icon will, in theory, appear alongside or within any online ads targeted using behavioral data, and provide users with mechanisms to opt out of having their information collected for those purposes.

The IAB Europe and its network of national IAB partners have spearheaded the initiative, alongside industry groups including the Federation of European Direct and Interactive Marketing, The European Association of Communication Agencies and the World Federation of Advertisers.

In November 2009 the European Commission passed an amendment to the European Privacy Directive stating the placing of cookies on a user’s machine would only be allowed following “his/her consent, having been provided with clear and comprehensive information.

The initiative – labeled the Online Behavioral Advertising Framework – follows in the footsteps of a similar self-regulatory effort in the U.S. Third party companies Evidon, TRUSTe and DoubleVerify are all certified to enable the placement of the icon in display ads on behalf of advertisers and publishers.

Please click here to read the full coverage from ClickZ.

Buzz, which launched last February, has been plagued with privacy issues. And the communications tool, which lives inside Gmail, has not exactly taken off.

The FTC claims that Google’s “deceptive tactics” when launching Buzz (i.e. not adequately informing users of the privacy issues surrounding the product), violated the FTC act. Specifically, the FTC says that Google didn’t properly inform users of the choice of declining or leaving the social network. For users who joined the Buzz network, the controls for limiting the sharing of their personal information were confusing and difficult to find, says the FTC.

The agency also claims that those who did join the network didn’t realize that the identity of individuals they emailed most frequently would be made public by default within the network. Google also offered a “Turn Off Buzz” option that did not fully remove the user from the social network. Apparently, Google received “thousands of complaints” from users who were upset and worried about the public disclosure of their email contacts which included, in some cases, ex-spouses, patients, students, employers, or competitors.

Please click here to read the full story from TechCrunch.

The fine is punishment for Google mistakenly scooping up personal data from wi-fi networks while taking pictures for Street View.

Google has apologised for the lapse and said it would delete the data concerned.

The data from open wi-fi networks was gathered while Google Street View cars roamed Europe from 2007 – 2010 taking photographs.

Information about the location of those wi-fi networks was intended to be used to improve the location finding ability of Street View and other Google services.

Analysis found passwords, e-mail messages and login names in the data. Google has now stopped collecting data about wi-fi networks.

The furore over Street View and the pictures it takes have led to protests against the service being mounted in many different nations.

For more on the story, please click here to reach BBC’s website.

The most recent lawsuit against deal-of-the-day service Groupon Inc. could have a negative impact on the growth of local mobile advertising and couponing.

Mobile coupons have proven to be an effective tool for brands and retailers, and their popularity among consumers continues to grow, with Groupon’s successful model Exhibit A. However, there is trouble in paradise, as lawsuits have alleged that Groupon and its retail clients issue “gift certificates [that] are sold and issued with expiration dates that are deceptive.”

“Marketers offering discount programs, particularly ones which require an advance payment, must be vigilant in disclosing the terms of use and restrictions, as this has become a heavily litigious environment,” said Andy Lustigman, principal at The Lustigman Firm, New York.

Groupon’s FAQs page provides the following response to the question “What happens if my Groupon expires?”

All is not lost! Once a Groupon reaches its expiration date, it loses its promotional value, but you can still redeem it at the price you paid for the length of time stated by gift certificate laws in your state.

Still, it is an open question as to whether or not that will be enough to protect Groupon and its retail partners, including Nordstom Inc., from pending lawsuits.

Mobile coupon or gift certificate?
Anthony Ferreira filed a class-action suit in the Southern District of California federal court alleging that it is illegal for Groupon to sell gift certificates with expiration dates.

The suit seems to be dependent on classifying Groupons as gift certificates. But are they gift certificates, coupons, vouchers or offers?  Whatever you call them, the court will decide whether or not it legal for them to have expiration dates.

Please click here to read the full story from the `Mobile Marketer.com`

In 2002, Steven Spielberg’s hugely successful film Minority Report set imaginations alight, showing a glimpse of what the world could be like in the not-too-distant future. Its plot revolved around a special police unit named ‘PreCrime’ which would predict when a murder was about to take place, giving police a chance to capture the potential criminal before they could commit the act.

Yet for many, by far the most intriguing ‘invention’ in Minority Report intrusively made itself known as Tom Cruise’s character strolled through a mall. The film was set in 2054, but while we are still many years away from the Minority Report world, a new report suggests that adverts like the ones in the film may be well on the way, and indeed, that some already exist.

Written by the Centre for Future Studies, it predicts an advertising revolution taking place over the next 12 months. Their report – commissioned by 3MGTG, which specialises in digital advertising – foresees the first step to be advertisements that adapt to our moods.

Gladvertising

The tech has been dubbed ‘Gladverts’ by the report’s authors. They envision a world where emotion recognition software (ERS) can tell if you are happy or sad and then serve up an advert based on how you feel.

In Japan, technology company NEC has already developed a system which can work out a person’s gender, estimate their age, and serve up adverts suited to that demographic.

In the further future, this targeted advertising may go a step further by not only knowing your mood, but also information such as age, sex and interests, possibly powered by social networking profiles. As Anderton walked on, his world was a blur of noise and distraction emanating from adverts all over the room.

Concerns in Privacy Issues

These high-tech developments have got privacy campaigners worried. “We feel that it is an industry that has so far gone unchallenged and because of this they are developing some scary stuff,” Alexander Hanff from Privacy International told the BBC.

“We have a situation where the boundaries between our online and offline worlds become even more blurred and we currently have no regulatory or legislative regime in place to deal with these dangers.”

One key concern for the public will be how personal data is collected, and by whom. One floated suggestion is to use publicly available social networking information. Another is to tap in to existing market research.

Also, suggests Mr Hanff, the interactive nature of ‘Gladverts’ may offer a service in return for information – a trend already seen with public Wifi hotspots which require assorted personal details before use.

‘Out of date’

Concerns over the amount of data collected by firms operating online has lead to Recent changes to the EU’s ePrivacy Directive, tightening controls on the types of digital kept.

But Mr Hanff, who says Privacy International will be taking a very close look at the issue in this year, believes that the changes are not strict enough.

“”New regulations are focused on browser controls and third party tools to protect the public (a self regulatory approach) and completely fail to see the wider issue such as apps, street level commercial surveillance (such as digital signage) and device tracking.

“The changes to the ePrivacy Directive are already woefully out of date,” said Mr Hanff.

Dr Shaw says the industry will now need to undertake a fresh wave of research into ‘gladvertising’ to learn exactly how the public may react, and what their worries may be. “Naturally there are going to be anxieties and concerns about intrusive behaviour, about security issues and so on,” he said.

“Don’t forget, we have this wonderful invention called the off button!”

After LimeWire shut down its file-sharing business in October last year, the trouble for the company was far from over. Record labels and music publishers kept chasing LimeWire demanding compensation for the losses they claim the file-sharing service operator had caused.

One of these lawsuits has now been concluded with EMI, Warner Bros., Universal, Sony and several other major music publishers reaching a settlement agreement with LimeWire. No details on the deal have been released, except the court filing which note that both parties “shall each bear its own costs of suit, including attorney’s fees.”

Please click here to read the full story from TorrentFreak.

Even though the rate of divorce in the US has remained largely stable in recent years, American divorce lawyers and academics have joined Middle East analysts in picking out Facebook as a leading cause of relationship trouble, with American lawyers now demanding to see their clients’ Facebook pages as a matter of course before the start of proceedings.

“We’re coming across it more and more. One spouse connects online with someone they knew from school. The person is emotionally available and they start communicating through Facebook,” said Dr Steven Kimmons, a clinical psychologist and marriage counsellor at Loyola University Medical Centre near Chicago.

Please click here to read the full story from the Guardian’s website.

Lawyers for civil rights organisations appeared before a judge in Alexandria, Virginia, battling against a US government order to disclose the details of private Twitter accounts in the WikiLeaks row, including that of the Icelandic MP Birgitta Jonsdottir, below.

The move against Twitter has turned into a constitutional clash over the protection of individual rights to privacy in the digital age.

Clinton, in a speech in Washington, cited the positive role that Twitter, Facebook and other social networks played in uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt. In a stirring defence of the internet, she spoke of the “freedom to connect”.

Please click here to read the full story from the Guardian.

Together with its law firm ACS: Law, MediaCAT had signed up a number of copyright owners who gave it permission to pursue people it accused of file-sharing based on data it had collected. Then, it sent letters to people identified as downloading content without paying for it, asking them to pay a one-off fine or face being taken to court.

Consumer watchdog Which? highlighted a number of cases where people claimed they had been wrongfully accused. However, the 27 people who chose to take their cases to court have found themselves caught up in a series of high-profile and dramatic court hearings.

Almost as soon as the cases were brought, MediaCAT decided it wanted to drop them. But Judge Birss said granting permission to discontinue the cases was not a simple matter, due largely to the fact that the actual copyright holders were not in court.

Judge Birss will deliver his ruling on Tuesday. ACS: Law could be liable for legal costs, thinks Deborah Prince, head of legal affairs at Which?.

The issue was made worse for Crossley and ACS:Law after the personal details – including names, phone numbers and addresses – of thousands of Britons leaked online via an attack on the company’s website. Many also saw their names or postcodes linked to pornographic films which MediaCAT was claiming they had illicitly downloaded. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) was investigating the breach, and could have levied a file of up to £500,000 if ACS:Law were found to have been holding the information insecurely. It is unclear whether that case can be continued against Crossley as an individual or whether it lapses with the company’s closure.