May 16, 2008 9:06 AM PDT

Charter's Web monitoring draws intervention from Capitol Hill

Two prominent members of the U.S. Congress are asking Charter Communications to hold off on its plan to monitor its customers' Web browsing and deliver relevant advertisements.

In a letter to Charter chief executive Neil Smit, Reps. Ed Markey and Joe Barton say the monitoring plan may violate federal privacy laws and ask that the company "not move forward" until "we have an opportunity to discuss" it. Markey is the Democratic chairman of a House Internet subcommittee and Barton is the senior Republican on the House Energy and Commerce committee.

Charter did not immediately respond on Friday to our questions about whether it would delay its monitoring-and-advertising plans as a result of the letter. Although Markey and Barton have no legal authority to order a halt, they could make life difficult for Charter by convening hearings and lambasting the company for alleged privacy violations.

Charter is planning a trial of what it calls an "anonymized" ad-delivery system for its customers, who are able to opt-out by setting cookies. In an interview with us on Thursday, a Charter executive said hardware from NebuAd would be placed on the company's network and allowed to monitor what URLs its customers visited.

The letter from Markey and Barton says that federal law regulating cable TV providers--Charter is the third-largest in the United States--may restrict its ability to monitor customers' activities with the intent of serving up more relevant advertisements. In other words, they argue that an opt-in mechanism is necessary instead of an opt-out one.

That section of federal law, 47 USC 551, says: "A cable operator shall not use the cable system to collect personally identifiable information concerning any subscriber without the prior written or electronic consent of the subscriber concerned." Charter has sent notices to customers who may be affected once the trial period begins, but a mere notification (that may never be seen) may not amount to actual consent.

Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, D.C., says there's an even better argument that Charter would violate federal wiretapping laws because it wouldn't have obtained legally-valid consent from all customers. "I'm sure Charter will argue consent (was obtained)," Rotenberg said. "But I think they'll run into a very real problem in saying that people can grant consent to open-ended snooping on their communications when Congress has given broad privacy protections."

Recent posts from The Iconoclast
Housing bill and fingerprint registry encounter Senate setback
Judge sets Facebook hearing status to 'private'--hmm
Verizon offers details of Usenet deletion: alt.* groups, others gone
ISPs: We're limiting our own Usenet groups, not blocking others
Secretive D.C. firm says corn growers' anti-Google letter is legit
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 10 comments (Page 1 of 1)
by rcrusoe May 16, 2008 11:56 AM PDT
An Opt Out cookie is a joke in a world where it is common practice for security conscious users to delete all cookies each time they close their browser. If these "spy on your customer" practices are such an advantage to the user they should be Opt In only.
Reply to this comment View reply
by May 16, 2008 2:07 PM PDT
I received the "web enhancement" letter from Charter earlier this week. The first two calls I made to their tech support were to people that had no idea about the letter. After a couple more calls I finally got in touch with someone who knew about the letter. She gave me the web browser cookie answer. After telling her that using cookies was nutty, I've got several computers and sometimes clear cookies, and its offensive that Charter would alter Internet data and call it an enhancement. She said there was a non-cookie opt-out site at charter.net/onlineprivacy but nope, that's the cookie opt-out site. She also had no corporate complaints number, no complaints email address etc. If only there was an alternative to Charter for me. It's outrageous that Charter would try to re-label spying and altering of Internet traffic as an enhancement. I can't believe they would expect their customers to be anything but upset about it. Chris
Reply to this comment
by krinsh May 16, 2008 3:26 PM PDT
I use one of their higher end cable internet products. If I, for one minute fraction of an instant, receive a targeted ad - MOST ESPECIALLY if I do not receive a "we are monitoring you" banner every single time I connect - but sincerely if I ever get one single ad intruded into my connection I will terminate my service immediately. Profiting from the sales of advertisement does nothing to enhance a service I AM ALREADY PAYING FOR. Now I'll take all the ads within reason they want if my 10MB connection becomes free...
Reply to this comment View reply
by Gayle Edwards May 16, 2008 9:31 PM PDT
Actually, cookies CAN be useful... But they can (and frequently ARE) also be used to track and thereby abuse web-surfers. Furthermore, most security-procedures include regularly-deleting cookies for both, security, and general system "clean-up", purposes (frankly, I dont know a single computer-professional that doesnt regularly delete "cookies"). Thats NOT "paranoia", its just the intelligent thing to do if you maintain a computer system. Honestly, in my opinion, anyone who says otherwise just does NOT know what they are talking about. And finally, we use "Charter"... and their little DNS-redirect for bad IP-names (another of their, unwanted additional ad-revenue-driven "enhancements", which also uses "cookies")... It is a colossal PAIN (it plays havoc with normal surfing, on a wide variety of WEB-browsers... and simply cannot, actually, be turned-off). But, "Charter" has proven, time and again, that they simply do not care about customer complaints.
Reply to this comment
by AppleSuxLeo May 17, 2008 3:45 AM PDT
TOR !
Reply to this comment
by chuck_whealton May 18, 2008 6:17 AM PDT
That they would even considering doing this shows a clear lack of ethics in their upper management.
Reply to this comment
by drhamad May 18, 2008 12:02 PM PDT
OK I'm confused... exactly where would Charter show me ads? We don't use Charter Cable - had it back in like '98, but switched over to SBC DSL... but just from a general standpoint... where exactly is Charter going to show ads? I don't go to my ISP's websites, so I'm confused?
Reply to this comment
by nelsondr May 18, 2008 3:41 PM PDT
Allowing me to opt-out by setting a cookie on my browser is ludicrous. How am I supposed to set a cookie on my TiVo or on my Wii? There are so a many different devices that now connect to the internet without the use of a "browser" that this would be impossible to fully opt-out of being tracked. Also are these ads going to steal revenue from other sites? There's too much unknown about this. Charter shouldn't do this, they are going to be opening a can of worms that will have more than Capital Hill coming down on them.
Reply to this comment
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement
  • About The Iconoclast

  • Declan McCullagh has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C. for over a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says: "We oughta have a new federal law against this."

Add this feed to your online news reader
Google
Yahoo
MSN

Most popular stories

  1. Photos: Top 10 newly discovered species

  2. Photos: Army designates year's best inventions

  3. Photos: Cracking Open the Apple Macintosh Classic

  4. Photos: Top 10 reviews of the week

  5. Source: Protective order will keep Viacom out of sensitive YouTube user data

Latest tech news headlines

Featured blogs

Beyond Binary by Ina Fried

Coop's Corner by Charles Cooper

Defense in Depth by Robert Vamosi

Geek Gestalt by Daniel Terdiman

Green Tech

One More Thing by Tom Krazit

Outside the Lines by Dan Farber

The Social by Caroline McCarthy

Underexposed by Stephen Shankland

advertisement
On TV.com: KIM KARDASHIAN is hot hot hot
Advanced
search
Advanced
search
Visit other CBS Interactive sites