I’m just back from a sweltering week in Washington, DC, convinced that those of us who care about protecting consumers’ online privacy have reason for optimism. There is growing interest in creating a "Do Not Track Me" list and mechanism to implement it.

Sure, it could be that the 95-degree-plus temperatures coupled with humidity nearly as high fried my brain, but I don’t think so. My analysis is based on meetings with Congressional, Federal Trade Commission and Federal Communications Commission staff members, as well as others who follow the issue closely.

Congress is clearly beginning to focus on online privacy. Rep. Rick Boucher, D-VA, has been circulating a draft bill for discussion. His colleague, Rep. Bobby Rush, D-IL, has introduced an online privacy bill.

Meanwhile, the Senate Commerce Committee, chaired by Jay Rockefeller, D-WV, just held hearings on the subject. Those sessions seemed to draw more than token attention from members, perhaps because of the Wall Street Journal’s series "What They Know" that has revealed in great detail just how much of our activity on the Web is monitored by online companies like Google.

At that Senate hearing, FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz mentioned the possibility of a "Do Not Track" function.

Why I’m encouraged after last week is that the idea — something that would be to analogous the tremendously popular and successful "Do Not Call" list run by the FTC — is more than just talk. There is action. Indeed, one reason I was in Washington was to join representatives of organizations like USPIRG, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America and Consumer Action, to meet with staff members for Sen. Mark Pryor, D-AR. They are gathering information because the senator is considering the possibility of introducing a "Do Not Track Me" bill this fall.

A knowledgeable FTC staff member confirmed that the staff is working on how Do Not Track could be implemented. And a meeting with a key FCC aide left me convinced that the commission is putting new emphasis on consumer privacy. Recall that at the Senate hearing Chairman Jules Genachowski testified that the FCC and the FTC have formed a joint task force to develop "effective and coordinated approaches to protecting online privacy."

With the election rapidly approaching can meaningful comprehensive online privacy legislation be passed before the end of the year?

That’s probably unlikely. But a significant step forward — simple "Do Not Track" legislation — that would authorize the FTC to administer a list and implement the mechanism is completely doable.

"Do Not Call" is tremendously popular. People understand it. It’s the same with "Do Not Track." Our recent national poll shows 80% support.

I think it has a good chance of winning bipartisan support. It will take awhile to get comprehensive privacy legislation through Congress, but based on what I saw and heard in Washington last week the time for "Do Not Track" has come and momentum is growing.

–John M. Simpson
Director, Inside Google Project
Consumer Watchdog

A Wall Street Journal article this week details how Google is increasingly moving to maximize profits from the vast amount of personal data it has amassed in its global network of servers at the expense of consumers’ privacy.

The article by Jessica Vascellaro, part of the Journal’s excellent series about online privacy called "What They Know," shows how commercial expediency overcame the reluctance of founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin to exploit users’ data.

Google chairman Eric Schmidt once claimed Google put its money "where our principles are." The Internet giant’s attempted joint redefinition with Verizon this week of "net neutrality" and the Journal’s revealing article showing how profits are triumphing over privacy demonstrate the stark new reality: Google puts its principles where the money is.

So much for "don’t be evil," but then that’s how corporations really are.

Vascellaro begins her piece like this:

"A confidential, seven-page Google Inc. ‘vision statement’ shows the information-age giant in a deep round of soul-searching over a basic question: How far should it go in profiting from its crown jewels—the vast trove of data it possesses about people’s activities

"Should it tap more of what it knows about Gmail users? Should it build a vast ‘trading platform’ for buying and selling Web data? Should it let people pay to not see any ads at all?"

Some possibilities like using search data to target display ads Google sells or exchanging data with marketers for ad targeting, are still under discussion. Others, such as behavioral targeting, which Google prefers to call "interest-based advertising," are rapidly becoming routine. Or as Vascellaro puts it:

"Google is pushing into uncharted privacy territory for the company. Until recently, it refrained from aggressively cashing in on its own data about Internet users, fearing a backlash. But the rapid emergence of scrappy rivals who track people’s online activities and sell that data, along with Facebook Inc.’s growth, is forcing a shift."

No matter what the founders’ original values, corporations as they grow and mature act like, well, corporations. And Google is now a $23 billion global corporate giant. Yes, there apparently has been angst around the Googleplex as the company started to act like all other companies. According to the Journal:

"Tensions erupted during a meeting with about a dozen executives at Google’s Mountain View, Calif., headquarters about 18 months ago when Messrs. Page and Brin shouted at each other over how aggressively Google should move into targeting, according to a person who had knowledge of the meeting. ‘It was awkward,’ this person said. ‘It was like watching your parents fight.’

"Mr. Brin was more reluctant than Mr. Page, this person said. Eventually, he acquiesced and plans for Google to sell ads targeted to people’s interests went ahead."

But that dynamic will continue to play out again and again whether the roles are filled by Page and Brin, or their successors. Google is sitting on a potential gold mine of data. The Journal puts it like this:

"The vision statement describes the company’s immense search database as ‘the BEST source of user interests found on the Internet,’ during a discussion of ways to make ads more relevant to users. ‘No other player could compete,’ it says. Later, the document warns that some ideas range from ‘safe’ to ‘not’ safe.

"The most aggressive ideas would put Google at the cutting edge of the business of tracking people online to profit from their actions. A data-trading marketplace, for instance, would allow personal information from many sources—including Google—to be combined and used for highly personalized tracking of individuals."

So, at the end of the day and the internal debate, Google has our data and will exploit in increasing intrusive and profitable ways as a result of natural corporate pressures.

What’s the solution? Google, I’m sure, would say, "Trust us." Clearly that won’t work. People have and after some "angst" at the Googleplex and reports of raised voices in meetings, Google is putting principles where the money is.

The real answer: Regulation of online advertising. Congress, perhaps because of things like the revelations in the Journal’s "What they Know" series, is the mood. Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Il, has introduced a privacy bill and Rep. Rick Boucher, D-VA, is circulating the draft of another.

The Senate Commerce Committee just held hearings on the topic where FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz discussed the idea of creating a "Do Not Track" list similar to the FTC’s "Do Not Call" list.

In fact I’m in Washington this week and am meeting with Senate staff members to discuss the possibility of legislation to create just such a list.

Such an approach has overwhelming popular support. Our recent national poll conducted by Grove Insight Ltd. found 90 % favor "more laws that protect the privacy of your personal information; " 80% backed creation of a "Do Not Track" list.

No matter their beginnings, companies ultimately put their principles where the money is. It’s the responsibility of legislators and regulators to act in the marketplace to protect consumers. The good news now is that as Google is rapidly — even cynically — adjusting its principles in pursuit of profits, there are signs that Congress and the FTC will act to protect consumers privacy.

– John M. Simpson
Director, Consumer Watchdog’s Inside Google Project

Follow Inside Google on Twitter.

Follow John M. Simpson on Twitter.

For the last three years, Google cars and vans have been trolling the world’s cities and towns taking pictures of our houses, businesses and neighborhoods for Google Street View.

As it turns out, the whole time, they have also been Wi-Spying. They gathered data from private WiFi networks — including, quite possibly, the one you’re using right now.

We need your help. Sign our petition and demand that Google comes clean about the Wi-Spy scandal. Demand that Congress hold hearings immediately into the question of why Google thinks it’s OK to gather our private data and what they plan on doing with it. Google must also explain its relationship with the National Security Agency.

Sixty-nine percent of those responding to our national poll on Internet privacy agree on the need for a hearing.

Congress needs to act on what is potentially the biggest illegal wiretapping violation of all time. Just as BP’s CEO Tony Hayward had to testify before Congress to explain the Gulf oil spill, Google CEO Eric Schmidt must testify about the information spill the Internet giant caused.

Google claims its Wi-Spying was a "mistake." They claim they did nothing illegal. But they’re also spending millions of dollars to lobby Congress.

Are those lobbying dollars stopping Congress from doing the right thing? Please sign our petition.

Google refuses to reveal the nature of the private data they collected. Even worse, they refuse to say what they did or are planning on doing with it. Instead Google just keeps saying: Don’t worry. Trust us.

Do you trust a company that has been secretly collecting our private data to do the right thing?

It’s time for Google to come clean! It’s time for Congress to take action and investigate potentially the biggest wiretapping scandal of all time.

Please sign our petition.

–John M. Simpson, director Consumer Watchdog’s Inside Google project

A significant majority of Americans are troubled by recent revelations that Google’s Street View cars gathered communications from home WiFi networks, and they want stronger legal protection to preserve their online privacy, according to national poll commissioned by Consumer Watchdog.

While Google received an overall 74% favorable rating among tech companies tested, nearly two-thirds of those polled (65%) say the Wi-Spy scandal is one of the things that “worries them most” or a “great deal” with another 20% saying it “raises some concern” when considering Internet issues.

This poll shows that the Wi-Spy scandal is a political minefield for both Google and Congress, and it has the power to scar both. The Internet giant and the government need to come clean about how Google is cooperating with the National Security Agency.

Here are the poll’s topline results and you can learn more about our Google Privacy and accountability project at Inside Google.

Our poll found a solid majority (55%) is also bothered (“one of the most” or “great deal”) by Google’s cooperation with the National Security Agency without saying what information is being shared. Even more voters call for Congressional hearings on “Google’s gathering data from home WiFi networks and its sharing of information with U.S. spy agencies like the National Security Agency, the NSA” (69% favor, 19% oppose).

We have repeatedly called for Congressional hearings focused on Google’s Wi-Spy activities.

The public also shows deep support for a broad range of strong Internet privacy protections. In fact, when asked whether it is “important” to have “more laws that protect the privacy of your personal information” nine in 10 (90%) support this notion. Of these, two thirds (67%) say it is “very important” and there are no real differences based on age — meaning voters under 50, including those ages 18-29, are just as likely to say more privacy laws are needed as those over the age of 70.

When asked specifically what laws they would like, a stronger ability to block tracking of personal information is in strong demand, the poll found. In fact, every proposal that included the word “tracking” receives support levels that were 70% or greater.

A “make me anonymous button” (86% favor, 9% oppose) tops the list, followed by preventing online companies from tracking personal information or web searches without your explicit, written approval (84% favor, 11% oppose).

It’s time for Congress to act on these issues and for Google and the government to deliver real privacy protections like a make me anonymous button or a do not track list. These privacy protections are ripe for ballot initiatives in states like California if Congress and statehouses won’t act.

There was also a warning in the results for members of Congress who fail to act. Voters appear to be in a punishing mood for those who refuse to hold hearings, especially if donations from Google are in their campaign coffers. Nearly six in 10 said they would be less likely to vote for their member of Congress if they took campaign contributions from Google and then refused to hold hearings on the Wi-Spy scandal.

Rep. Rick Boucher, (D-VA) chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet, has been dismissive of the need for Wi-Spy hearings. He has received $18,000 from Google’s political action committee, Google Inc. NetPAC, since it was founded in 2006.