<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Digital Daily &#187; cache</title>
	<atom:link href="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/tag/cache/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com</link>
	<description>by John Paczkowski</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:11:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>EU Recommendation Would Make Google AdSense NonSense</title>
		<link>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20080407/ip-privacy/</link>
		<comments>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20080407/ip-privacy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 21:32:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Paczkowski</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Digital Daily]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Paczkowski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Microsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Yahoo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cache]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[data]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[European Union]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet Protocol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP addresses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[search]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[search engine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Web]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20080407/ip-privacy/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If the major search engines took the privacy of their users as seriously as they claim, they wouldn&#8217;t hold onto their personal search data for so long. That&#8217;s the opinion of Europe&#8217;s Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, which today recommended that the European Union require search engine providers to &#8220;delete or irreversibly anonymize data [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If the major search engines took the privacy of their users as seriously as they claim, they wouldn&#8217;t hold onto their personal search data for so long. That&#8217;s the opinion of Europe&#8217;s Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, which today recommended that the European Union require search engine providers to <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7335359.stm">&#8220;delete or irreversibly anonymize data once they no longer serve the specific and legitimate purpose they were collected for.&#8221;</a> The Working Party figures that ought to be about six months.</p>
<p>That will no doubt come as a shock to Google (GOOG), Yahoo (YHOO) and Microsoft (MSFT), who all retain search data for a year or more. But it can&#8217;t be nearly as shocking as the Working Party&#8217;s recommendation that IP, or Internet Protocol, addresses be protected as personal information, a requirement that, were it to be implemented, could interfere with their ability to deliver relevant ads.</p>
<p>From<a href="http://www.cbpweb.nl/downloads_int/Opinie%20WP29%20zoekmachines.pdf?refer=true&amp;theme=purple"> the Working Party document</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>
A key conclusion of this opinion is that the Data Protection Directive generally applies to the processing of personal data by search engines, even when their headquarters are outside the EEA, and that the onus is on search engines in this position to clarify their role in the EEA and the scope of their responsibilities under the Directive.</p>
<p>&#8220;This Opinion concludes that personal data must only be processed for legitimate purposes. Search-engine providers must delete or irreversibly anonymize personal data once they no longer serve the specified and legitimate purpose they were collected for and be capable of justifying retention and the longevity of cookies deployed at all times. The consent of the user must be sought for all planned cross-relation of user data, user-profile enrichment exercises. Web site editor opt-outs must be respected by search engines and requests from users to update/refresh caches must be complied with immediately. The Working Party recalls the obligation of search engines to clearly inform the users upfront of all intended uses of their data and to respect their right to readily access, inspect or correct their personal data.&#8221;
</p></blockquote>
<span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsPreviousSiblings"></span><span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsChildren"></span>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20080407/ip-privacy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Damn You, Google Cache!</title>
		<link>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20071214/googleclick/</link>
		<comments>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20071214/googleclick/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:17:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Paczkowski</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Digital Daily]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Paczkowski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cache]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Center for Digital Democracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Deborah Platt Majoras]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DoubleClick]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Electronic Privacy Information Center]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[European Commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Trade Commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jones Day]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[merger]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[search]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Web]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20071214/googleclick/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ironic, isn&#8217;t it, that Google has played a key role in the investigation of the family ties that could prevent Federal Trade Commission Chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras from voting on its proposed merger with DoubleClick.
Yesterday, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the Center for Digital Democracy filed a petition with the FTC demanding that Majoras [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ironic, isn&#8217;t it, that Google has played a key role in the investigation of the family ties that could prevent Federal Trade Commission Chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras from voting on its <a href="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20070415/google-buys-doubleclick/">proposed merger with DoubleClick.</a></p>
<p>Yesterday, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the Center for Digital Democracy filed a petition with the FTC <a href="http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9833156-7.html">demanding that Majoras recuse herself from voting on the Google-DoubleClick deal</a> because her husband <a href="http://www.jonesday.com/jmmajoras/">is a <strike>equity</strike> partner at Jones Day,</a> the law firm representing DoubleClick in the merger. Moreover, Majoras herself was once a partner at Jones Day as well. &#8220;A reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would question the chairman&#8217;s impartiality in this matter,&#8221; the two consumer advocacy groups said in the filing (<a href="http://www.epic.org/privacy/ftc/google/recusal_121207.pdf">PDF</a>). &#8220;The direct and predictable financial interest is on the spouse of the chairman, whose firm does not simply represent a party before the commission but who himself is directly responsible for the firm&#8217;s business development in Washington, D.C.&#8221; (In a <a href="http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2007/12/google.shtm">statement issued by the FTC today</a>, Majoras corrects what she calls &#8220;key factual errors&#8221; in the petition and lays out her case for fulfulling &#8220;the duties entrusted to me when I was appointed and confirmed.&#8221;)</p>
<p>Now, the FTC claims that Jones Day is advising DoubleClick only on the European Commission&#8217;s review of the merger. &#8220;We learned only yesterday that Jones Day is representing DoubleClick before the European Commission, not the (U.S.) Federal Trade Commission,&#8221; FTC spokeswoman Claudia Bourne Farrell told News.com. &#8220;Jones Day has not appeared before the FTC on this matter.&#8221;</p>
<p>But a page on Jones Day&#8217;s Web site seemed to say otherwise&#8211;at least until <a href="http://www.jonesday.com/experience/experience_detail.aspx?exID=S11555">it was deleted.</a> But while it may have disappeared from jonesday.com, it did not disappear from <a href="http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:E-jDZ1Fu2N8J:www.jonesday.com/experience/experience_detail.aspx%3FexID%3DS11555+joe+sims+doubleclick&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;cd=5&amp;gl=us&amp;client=firefox-a">Google&#8217;s cache</a>.</p>
<blockquote><p>
Jones Day is advising DoubleClick Inc., the digital marketing technology provider, on the international and U.S. antitrust and competition law aspects of its planned $3.1 billion acquisition by Google Inc. The proposed acquisition will combine DoubleClick’s expertise in ad management technology with Google’s Internet search and content platform. The transaction is currently under review by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and European Commission.&#8221;
</p></blockquote>
<p>Now why would Jones Day pull that page (and beyond that, why would it be so ignorant of the dangers of Google&#8217;s cache)? It was &#8220;confusing,&#8221; the firm says. &#8220;The language in the posting apparently was confusing, since EPIC cites it as evidence JD is representing DC at the FTC, and we never have,&#8221; <a href="http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9833512-38.html">Jones Day partner Joe Sims told News.com.</a> &#8220;So we took it down and will rewrite it to eliminate the confusion.&#8221;</p>
<p>The FTC is currently reviewing the matter with its ethics officer. </p>
<span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsPreviousSiblings"></span><span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsChildren"></span>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20071214/googleclick/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
