Back in January 2008 I met with a couple of guys from the behavioural advertising company Phorm. Shortly after, I wrote a pretty rosy blog post about their proposition.
Positivity about Phorm has been, and continues to be, unpopular, but I haven't worked in display advertising for over a year now (I moved into paid search) and so I hadn't given much thought to my one-sided initial appraisal of Phorm since writing it. (Some will suggest that I didn't give it much thought at the time!) Last week, however, twitterfeed suffered a technical 'hiccup', and all my blog posts were accidentally automatically tweeted about, as if they were new posts. My old post about Phorm was brought back to the attention of my twitter followers, and to that of anyone who was searching twitter for Phorm-related tweets.
As you might imagine, I've since received one or two twitter mentions of criticism. I owe many thanks in particular to @zootcadillac who suggested I revisit the topic, and who sent me a link to this recent (October 2009) report of the All Parliamentary Communications Group.
In the report, evidence submitted by Phorm makes a forceful case for the legality of their system, and for their principles of collecting and storing as little data as possible (much less than Google, for example). Testimony from Gill Davison, on the other hand, suggests that allowing Phorm's proposed interception of ISP data would be akin to allowing one merchant to covertly listen in on a customer's phone call as they ordered services or goods from a competing merchant. Needless to say, as Davison points out, this kind of practice is not permitted in telephone communications.
Imagine a world where covert communications surveillance was allowed, and indeed was commonplace. If one merchant could do it, without repercussion from the consumer, no doubt all would do it; a level playing field would result. Davison's analogy may not be totally damning then.
However, such a world would not be right (and will never exist). It's not the merchant's rights we have to worry about, it's the consumer's. As the All Parliamentary Communications Group concludes, Phorm's proposed system is an opt-out one, and one that cannot be allowed. Worse still for Phorm, they have already conducted secret trials of their technology, where even opting out was not possible. They have been condemned for this, and rightly so.
With cookie-based behavioural targeting systems, the consumer is in complete control of their participation. If they want to disassociate themselves from any targeting profile that has been established, they merely clear their cookies. Moreover, together the IAB and Google provide facilities for the consumer to actively prevent a lot of cookie-based behavioural targeting from operating on their browser.
The interception of ISP data in ad targeting systems would allow the consumer considerably less freedom. As the All Parliamentary Communications Group report points out, Phorm will not be operating in the UK in the foreseeable future.
Take a look at the report and form your own opinion. It addresses a number of hot topics, in addition to behavioural targeting. Thanks again to @zootcadillac for sending me the link.