Category results for "Policy"

Policy

Straight talk on consumer privacy from FTC commissioner Brill

October 2, 2015 Chris Pedigo, SVP Government Affairs – DCN

Julie Brill, the outspoken FTC Commissioner, recently gave a stirring summary of how unaddressed consumer concerns have led to the rise of ad blocking software.

From cookies to device fingerprinting and cross-device linking, consumers continue to struggle to understand when they are being tracked, who is tracking them and how to opt out. The problem worsens for consumers when you consider that tracking technologies are becoming nearly invisible and ever more comprehensive. To underscore the concern, the FTC is hosting a workshop on November 16 to examine the practice of “cross device tracking.”

Piling on top of this transparency and education problem, controls for consumers haven’t kept up with the technology developments. And frankly: Ignoring clear signals sent directly from consumers is a perilous path. As Commissioner Brill opined, it’s surprising “the ad tech industry hasn’t been more motivated to offer consumers better tools to protect their privacy, because it has always been the case that consumers could take matters into their own hands.”

Indeed, fighting against better consumer controls has been a major contributor to the rise in ad blocking. Early on, the “cookie” became the boogieman of internet privacy so consumers began to delete them altogether. According to a Pew Research Center 2015 survey, 59% of consumers clear their cookies or browser history – the top method used by consumers to protect their privacy.

A few years ago, Do Not Track (DNT) emerged as a hopeful solution, providing a persistent way to signal consumer choice. But, despite a promise at the White House in 2012, ad tech industry representatives have been fighting a DNT standard for years even though it’s already built into every major browser and the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) recently finished a reasonable standard for how the signal should be sent and how servers should respond. The W3C standard clearly reinforces the distinction between 1st and 3rd parties and importantly makes it clear that companies who straddle the line (e.g. Google, Facebook) require consent before tracking users out of context. So it should come as no surprise that, as Doc Searls notes here, the “hockey stick” rise in ad blocking starts around the same time it became clear that industry wasn’t going to honor DNT signals.

Do you see a pattern here? I do. It’s time for us to get off this merry-go-round of ignoring and then fighting consumers. As Commissioner Brill suggests – let’s “provide consumers with something they clearly want: to see advertising that respects their privacy and that they can trust.”

Perspectives | Policy

Dear ad blocking community, we need to talk.

September 10, 2015 Chris Pedigo, SVP Government Affairs – DCN

Here at DCN, we’ve been actively engaged on the issue of ad blocking software since last year. Unlike many in the industry, we’ve focused on the consumer and what we consider long-term solutions. We don’t think the digital ecosystem can reach its full potential without consumer trust—as we’ve written about here, here, here, here, here and here. Trust is the foundation upon which consumer demand is sustainably built and we’re hard-pressed to envision a digital business that doesn’t need to be built around consumer demand.

Here at DCN, we haven’t focused on how to wage a protracted tech arms race or destroy ad blocking companies. We recognize the value in having the open development community address inherent consumer concerns. In this case, consumers don’t want ads that are annoying, intrusive or drain their device’s battery – and who can blame them? We’re talking about their data plans, their phones, their computers and, of course, their valuable time. Without a doubt, we need to give them great experiences in exchange for their investment. And that applies to advertising too, as Univision’s Kevin Conroy pointed out: better advertising experiences may be exactly what’s called for to stem the tide of ad-blocking adoption.

This is an industry-wide issue and we all need to step up to address it just as we enthusiastically embraced the progression of digital media and marketing. Unfortunately, the race to invest billions of dollars in ad technologies has focused on following consumers all around the web. Instead, perhaps the industry should focus on developing features and tools in ad tech that assist advertisers and publishers in creating consumer-friendly ad experiences (e.g. warnings for excessive animation, latency/heavy load, too many ad calls and hops). To date, consumer privacy and user experience haven’t been given proper consideration. Now consumers are speaking up with software.

It can’t be denied that blocking all advertising could lead to a world where publishers can’t monetize premium content or experiences. This isn’t just an issue of profitability (though certainly that’s why the vast majority of content companies are in the business), it is also a question of supporting the creation of the content people love—and need. Some content companies are trying an approach that appeals to consumers on that basis—often it’s a reminder message on site entry about ads funding the content they are about to—something those combatting content piracy have tried in the past. And while educating consumers is a valuable piece of the puzzle, it fails to address the systemic issues that got us here in the first place. Long term, the industry must clean up the user experience and provide more transparency and controls for consumers.

As ever, our focus at DCN is on solving issues for our valued consumers and working with the trusted brands that comprise our membership, to seek solutions to this significant challenge. We don’t yet know precisely where the line should be drawn, but we’re talking with anyone and everyone about how to continue to create premium content and delightful user experiences in this new world of ad blocking.

One thing that we are sure of: When third parties cut out our messaging to our customers, that’s crossing the line. When a consumer decides to block advertising and visits sites, we need a way to communicate with them so that we can ask for feedback to solve whatever their issue is that ad blocking addresses. If it is an issue of load time, we need to know. If it is offensive or intrusive ad content or ad experiences, we need to know. If it is due to privacy concerns, we need to know. If they’d prefer an ad-free experience, we need the ability to offer them options, such as subscriptions. It’s beneficial to content companies as well as the consumers. Ad blocking tools cut off the ability for content companies and consumers to engage in a healthy, open dialog and search for solutions – principles that the Internet was built upon.

We are the brands consumers trust. We are the content creators, the publishers, the sites they choose to visit. If a consumer is uncomfortable or unhappy with the experience we provide, they can (as ever) go elsewhere. As the first party that not only creates the content experiences these consumers seek out and spend their valuable time with but, in many cases, have developed long-term relationships with—we certainly have the right to educate and engage in a constructive discussion with these customers.

So let’s be clear: blocking messaging from a site to its customers is wrong. Instead of blocking messages that inform consumers about their options for consuming content on the site, let’s work together on long term solutions that will provide our shared consumers with a better experience, thereby building an even stronger digital ecosystem. Give us a ring to discuss– we promise not to block your call.

Perspectives | Policy

Ad Tech: Is opting-out the only way to change things?

August 13, 2015 Chris Pedigo, SVP Government Affairs – DCN

Joanna O’Connell had an interesting reaction to news that a few young publishers have decided to spurn ad tech. Without a doubt, the ad tech space is full of promise – new capabilities, greater efficiencies and deeper audience insights. But, I think Joanna is missing the underlying concerns that publishers have with ad tech and why it feels like we’re reaching a breaking point.

Premium publishers are trying to create a premium experience for consumers: one that is clean, well-lit and where they will visit often and engage for the long-term. Part of creating this premium experience is ensuring that consumers feel safe and that they can trust the environment. One factor that impacts consumer trust is understanding when and why data about them and their online behavior is collected – a fairly significant challenge for publishers to fully understand themselves.

It may seem as if understanding how all of their third party partners are collecting and using data about audiences that visit their sites should be easy, especially when data collection and use restrictions can be baked into contracts. But, contracts only go so far. Some third parties have take-it-or-leave-it terms of use, others are simple start-ups that don’t operate on contracts at all, and some third parties reject any limitations out of hand. There’s also the huge challenge of trying to enforce the terms of a contract down the daisy chain of all of the third parties… and their third parties. It begins to feel like a never ending game of whack-a-mole!

Here at DCN, we’ve written a lot about trust in the last 12 months: Trust between advertisers and publishers. Trust between advertisers and consumers. Trust between publishers and audiences. There is increasing and overwhelming evidence that these relationships are under great strain. Advertisers are understandably outraged that large percentages of their ad campaigns are being “seen” by non-human traffic. Consumers continue to turn on DNT signals, increasingly turning to blunt tools like ad blocking software. And this problem is only on the rise. Just this week, it was reported that Ad blocking grew by 41% globally in the last 12 months meaning that there a whopping 198 million active adblock users around the world.

We couldn’t agree more with Joanna’s point that, at their best, “ad technologies are tools that can make buying and selling smarter, faster and better.” So yes, we agree with Joanna that programmatic is a fast-moving rocket that digital companies are and should be jumping on. But her qualifier – “if used effectively” – is the crucial point. What does “using effectively” entail? We can’t afford to be blind to the impact of “ineffective use” by third parties. We need to keep our focus on the health of larger digital marketing landscape.

The technologies that underpin the digital delivery of content—from publishers or marketers—must behave transparently and ethically and strive to enhance the customer experience or we will lose the audiences we value most. For the internet to function at its full potential, all of these parties need a foundation of trust built on transparency, choice and fair exchange of value.

Policy

FCC Wading Into Privacy Matters

July 16, 2015 Chris Pedigo, SVP Government Affairs – DCN

In response to growing consumer concerns, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is beginning to dig deeper into consumer privacy issues. And, as with their first foray into these matters, it appears the FCC will take a measured and thoughtful approach.

In its Open Internet ruling (aka “Net Neutrality”), the FCC decided not to waive the Title II privacy rules. Instead, the FCC announced it would hold a separate proceeding to figure out how the old rules in Title II should be adapted for a broadband world. As the FCC rightly noted, “broadband providers serve as a necessary conduit for information passing between an Internet user and Internet sites or other Internet users, and are in a position to obtain vast amounts of personal and proprietary information about their customers.”

The FCC subsequently held a workshop with industry and consumer representatives to learn more about how consumer data is collected, used and retained by broadband providers. Some workshop participants tried to argue that ISPs don’t have access to any special set of consumer data and that apps and websites would have the same data, but common sense would tell us differently. ISPs have a different relationship with consumers than just about any other actor in the digital ecosystem. Consumers constantly choose which websites to visit and which apps to download, but they cannot avoid or shield their activity from an ISP therefore there are different consumer expectations in regards to their data. In fact, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has been very vocal about the different expectations that consumers have with respect to 1^st vs 3^rd parties.

Now, as part of this privacy discussion, Consumer Watchdog is asking that the FCC require adherence to a Do Not Track (DNT) standard to protect consumers. While there are real concerns about how a DNT standard would be administered and whether the FCC has regulatory authority to enforce it, the request isn’t unreasonable. Even though very few companies honor it today, an increasing number of consumers are activating their browser’s DNT signal in an attempt to block being tracked by various parties across the web. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) just this week completed a technical and policy standard for how companies should respond to the DNT signal. Interestingly, the standard is not that different from the industry’s self-regulatory opt-out program and could provide a roadmap for the FCC and companies.

It is heartening to see the FCC take a measured and thoughtful approach to learn more about how privacy rules should be implemented for broadband. There is a real opportunity for the FCC to build upon and even strengthen the fine work of the FTC. This important effort will ultimately enhance consumer trust and grow the opportunities for the brands they love.

Perspectives | Policy | Video

Do You Trust Google to be the Gatekeeper of Your Kids’ Content?

June 25, 2015 Chris Pedigo, SVP Government Affairs – DCN

Google’s YouTube for Kids service is getting some attention recently from regulators and policymakers in Washington, DC. The FTC and now Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) are asking questions about how content is selected for YouTube for Kids and how Google helps young viewers understand the difference between content and advertising. It has been alleged that some content is not appropriate for children and that some advertising in or around the content may not be labeled clearly enough for children and their parents.

While Google has a history of innovation, upending old business models and creating new opportunities and experiences via the internet, their “developer mentality” of breaking things to create even better new things may not work the same when it comes to products targeted to kids.

Parents are coming to grips with the fact that their kids have unprecedented access to digital content and experiences. The number of devices and kids’ ability to use them grows exponentially every year. I cannot wait to see where a generation of digitally native kids takes the internet as we know it today. Yet, while there are exciting opportunities to be realized, parents struggle with providing freedom to explore while also setting appropriate limits. At every point they need trusted partners to pave safe paths and to help them protect their children.

A company like Google has not historically had the same relationship with its customers as content creators. Those in the business of creating content, particularly premium publishers, know that their business relies on developing loyal audiences. For some content brands, these relationships have been built with many generations of families. Others are forging new relationships with content consumers.

For content companies, digital has opened up a channel not just to deliver amazing new content experiences, it offers an opportunity to develop richer customer knowledge and offer deeper and more engaging content experiences. As much as ever, these relationships are built on trust. And frankly, when it comes to content for kids, these trust-based relationships with brands are incredibly valuable.

Google needs to ensure that only kid-appropriate content is flagged for inclusion in YouTube for Kids and they must be careful to clearly label advertising to ensure that it is equally appropriate for these audiences. Allowing parents to flag inappropriate content or advertising doesn’t seem to be enough for a product that is directed at kids. To be sure, the old rules for kids programming on TV may not be quite right for the Internet, so it is incumbent upon Google to find ways to ease parents’ concerns and to educate and protect young audiences. That’s the role that trusted brands have held for decades.

Perspectives | Policy

Bulk Surveillance Needs to Be Checked and Balanced

April 16, 2015 DCN

Ever since the National Security Agency’s (NSA) aggressive surveillance activities were disclosed, there has been a raging debate about the legality of the programs and whether limits should be placed on the government’s ability to collect data about citizens.

NSA advocates point to the efficacy of these surveillance programs, but it is important to note that these programs come at a cost – a cost to our international standing, a cost to the basic freedom of citizens. From my perspective, I also see a cost to consumer trust.

The NSA collects all kinds of bulk data about how people use the internet and interact with other people and organizations. This broad and pervasive data collection undermines consumer trust in the Internet as people assume that the government is watching everywhere they go on the Internet. Another way that the NSA activities undermine consumer trust is through Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which empowers the NSA to force private companies to divulge records about their consumers. Data that consumers choose to share with a company they know is part of the value proposition that consumers knowingly engage in. But, when the NSA forces a company to disclose this closely-held data, the value proposition, the company’s reputation and the consumer’s trust are all undermined.

In January 2014, the President’s Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) questioned whether the NSA has sufficient legal authority to operate the telephone records program under Section 215 and that the program “potentially implicates both the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution.” As for the efficacy of the program, they noted that, “We have not identified a single instance involving a threat to the U.S. in which the telephone records program made a concrete difference in the outcome of a counterterrorism investigation.”

With Section 215 of the Patriot Act set to expire on June 1, it is vital that Congress carefully re-balance the NSA surveillance programs to account for all the costs to our society. The U.S. system of government has long been constructed around an effective structure of checks and balances, which has preserved our freedom, liberty and safety.

Perspectives | Policy

Between Consumers, Innovators and Open Internet, FCC Chooses All of the Above

March 19, 2015 DCN

Last week, the FCC released the details of its Net Neutrality order. Looking past the sound bites from both sides of this debate, the FCC appears to have a struck a delicate balance that will ensure consumers can continue to enjoy access to the digital content and experiences they love and, at the same time, preserve the ability of current and future content creators to innovate.

The crux of the order is the ban on blocking, throttling or prioritizing content. Rightfully, the FCC is seeking to preserve consumers’ unfettered access to content or experiences on the Internet. Just as importantly, however, the order also protects the ability of content creators to reach their audience without having to seek the blessing of the ISPs.

In the absence of this order, future content creators might have to pay ISPs just to receive fair treatment of their content or, worse, find themselves shut out in favor of content created by affiliates of the ISP. To be clear, large and established corporations would probably do very well in a world where broadband providers served as gatekeepers of the Internet – the small and game-changing innovators, well, not so much. The FCC should be applauded for going to great lengths to ensure that the consumer experience and content creators are protected.

Another key component of the order is the requirement that a broadband provider provide transparency about “the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband Internet access services.” This kind of transparency is vital to helping consumers fully understand the internet services they have purchased and whether they are getting full value. This information is also critical to content creators who need to know that new applications, content and services will operate as expected.

The FCC also declined to waive (or “forebear”) the consumer privacy requirements under Title II although they won’t apply them immediately. Instead, the commission intends to hold a workshop to explore how the Title II privacy provisions should be implemented to protect consumer privacy. As the FCC rightly notes, “broadband providers serve as a necessary conduit for information passing between an Internet user and Internet sites or other Internet users, and are in a position to obtain vast amounts of personal and proprietary information about their customers.” As we’ve written about before, and the FCC agrees, consumer trust is critical to harnessing the full potential of broadband internet services.

We argued in our comments to the FCC last summer that the FCC should focus their work on the consumer experience. With this order, the FCC has taken important steps to encourage investment and innovation in content creation for consumers, and ensure that the Internet is an open platform that supports consumer choice and the open exchange of ideas and information.

Perspectives | Policy

The President’s Proposed Consumer Bill of Rights Moves the Conversation in the Right Direction

March 2, 2015 DCN

Last week, the President publicly unveiled a proposed Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights. While the bill language needs some work, the President and his team should be applauded for introducing some good concepts that would improve consumer privacy.

For one, it makes a lot of sense that consumers should understand how their data is collected and used. Reputable companies are transparent with consumers about the ways in which their data may be used and there are multiple ways in which they can (and do) provide consumers with a means to opt-out of various data uses. But there are many companies that aren’t so forthright. Educating consumers is a good first step because the industry won’t fully gain the trust of consumers without first educating them. And without consumer trust, the digital ecosystem can’t flourish.

Another good concept in the Privacy Bill of Rights is the idea of “context,” which again maps back to consumers’ expectations. The bill notes that data collected in one context and then used in another context should be subject to some level of control by the consumer. Depending on the sensitivity of the data and/or its use, this could mean providing the consumer with an opt-out or an opt-in.

By emphasizing the importance of context, the President highlights that fact that every day consumers make conscious and subconscious decisions about whether their favorite websites or digital services provide a sufficient value proposition to continue that relationship. Most consumers are perfectly agreeable to exchanging some of their data for access to free content or to have a more engaging or personalized experience. However the value proposition is eroded when consumers don’t trust that all parties will respect their data–especially if they are not even aware of all the parties that may collect their data. Providing consumers with more controls over unexpected data collection and use would go a long way toward regaining the trust of consumers, which is why we’ve argued for industry to develop a DNT standard.

Finally, the bill notes that de-identified data should be outside the scope of this law. This is an enormously important concept because it allows companies to continue innovating with “big data” sets. By allowing for the use of de-identified data, researchers, scientists and entrepreneurs can better understand how data flows, how it might be used differently and develop new technologies that we cannot even imagine today.

As many have noted–and will no doubt continue to be highly vocal about–the bill has some serious flaws in that some of the definitions are overly broad or seem to contradict the President’s intentions. But there are concepts within the President’s proposal that are well worth discussing. As an industry, we should be taking this proposal very seriously because it’s yet another sign that more work needs to be done to regain the trust of consumers.

Industry-Research | Perspectives | Policy

Truste Looks at Consumer Confidence (or Lack of It)

January 30, 2015 DCN

In case you missed it, Truste released its 2015 Consumer Confidence Index this week. We’ve been one of the louder voices on the importance of trust among consumers, marketers and publishers. We even baked it into our DNA by crafting our Trust Principles. Consumer and marketer trust is the basis of our members’ businesses and we must constantly strive to build and maintain it.

Unfortunately, that trust is a fragile thing and there is much taking place online that undermines it. For example, consider the rampant, untethered growth in the digital supply chain causes a daunting amount of tracking activity like this to happen. It seems likely that this level of tracking and data collection without more meaningful choice will undermine consumer trust

We are clearly not alone in our concern about consumer trust online. Truste calls it “a hot button issue for Americans with 92% concerned about their privacy when using the internet and 42% more concerned than a year ago.” Other of the key data points and takeaway from the Truste report include:

Lack of trust harms publishers: 77% of consumers moderated their online behavior because of privacy concerns. 51% of consumers have not clicked on an online ad because of privacy concerns.
Lack of trust harms advertisers: 86% of consumers took active steps to protect their privacy including deleting cookies, changing settings, turning off location tracking.
Consumers may be confused, but their behavior is telling: 63% of consumers deleted cookies in order to protect their online privacy but only 10% opted out of behavioral ads. Why the difference? Is it because consumers don’t know that they can opt out? Is it because opting out is difficult to do and reliant on cookies?

I hope this data makes everyone stop what they’re doing to think about how we actually grow trust across the media ecosystem. We need to ensure that the consumer and marketer trust in premium brands remains strong. We need to focus on building the future of trusted content, a future in which brands can stand the test of time because we have built a sustainable model based on a foundation of trust.

Perspectives | Policy

Hidden Tracking Undermines Consumer Trust

January 23, 2015 DCN

The recent revelation that healthcare.gov was sending highly personal data about consumers to third parties highlighted two important ways that consumer trust is undermined.

One, healthcare.gov needs to be a far better steward of the direct relationship they have with consumers. Rightfully, consumers have an expectation that websites and services will protect their sensitive data and certainly not recklessly broadcast that data to the world.

Second, there needs to be greater transparency and controls for consumers around what data is being collected and used by third parties. Some companies have a presence on a website simply to help that website operate. See the well-written reaction from Tony Haile at Chartbeat http://blog.chartbeat.com/2015/01/22/chartbeat-healthcare-gov-personal-information/.

The role of some third parties, however, is far less clear or even apparent to an average consumer. Revelations like this one with healthcare.gov highlight the need for a more effective and simple tool for consumers to express choice over how their data is collected and used. Given the explosion in the complexity and capability of the Internet and the different relationships that consumers have with various companies on the web, it is more important than ever for industry to develop a reasonable Do Not Track (DNT) standard that will give consumers a meaningful choice over how their data is collected and used by companies with which they have no relationship.

FCC Close to Revealing New Net Neutrality Regulations

January 9, 2015 Chris Pedigo, SVP Government Affairs – DCN

FCC Chairman Wheeler is expected to unveil a new plan for Net Neutrality regulations in the coming weeks. If reports prove correct, the new rules would reclassify broadband as a Title II service, applying regulations to broadband and mobile internet that some have called “utility-style”.

The cable industry has vigorously opposed this approach for years, arguing that Title II would constrain the development and deployment of broadband. Meanwhile, wireless carriers believe Title II would be wholly inappropriate for mobile. At the same time, with a newly won majority in the House and Senate, Republicans may even try to proactively move legislation to head off the FCC’s efforts.

While the FCC’s intent is to require ISPs to treat all web traffic equally, with no blocking and no throttling, and to ensure that consumers have unfettered and non-discriminatory access to the internet – a laudable goal. The Chairman’s proposal is not likely to be black and white. The FCC could broadly apply Title II while also providing specific relief (or “forbearance”) from certain requirements and exempting certain parts of the ecosystem. Indeed, the FCC is widely expected to grant forbearance with regard to pricing – meaning they won’t regulate or set prices for broadband internet access. Also, the FCC has suggested that there may be instances in which prioritization of certain content may be acceptable. We would also suggest that–as we argued in our comments to the FCC–the regulations should not extend to websites or edge providers since the federal government should not be in the business of regulating content creation or distribution.

The FCC should carefully craft rules that will allow the Internet to continue serving as the open platform that has been its defining characteristic. It is critical that the FCC rules allow for the next generation of content creators to flourish and ensure that consumers can continue to enjoy access to all the content and services they demand and expect.

Innovation | Perspectives | Policy

Trust and the Future of The Internet of Things

December 10, 2014 DCN

Earlier this week, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) released its 10 Policy Principles for Unlocking the Potential of the Internet of Things. While the report touts the enormous potential for a connected world, it unfortunately misses the point that industry needs to do more to build transparency and choice around data collection before this next component of our digital world becomes ubiquitous. The ability to capitalize on all of the amazing benefits from new technology won’t happen without consumer trust.

One of the potential consumer applications of The Internet of Things (IoT) that the ITIF study outlines in its report is a “smart ‘onesies’ with embedded sensors that help parents monitor their infants’ health.” I doubt I’m the only parent who would be uncomfortable with a company using data about my newborn without very clear and transparent rules. As a parent, there is no way that I would buy that onesie without some more information about who else could see that data. And, if I started to receive targeted advertising based on my son’s sleep schedule, I would be a little freaked out.

The Internet of Things has the potential to alter our lives in amazingly positive ways. However, as with many promising technologies, our industry must set rules of the road for responsible and ethical uses of data. And, we must find ways to provide consumers with transparency and choice about how their data is being collected, used and shared. This is going to be particularly challenging for “devices” that don’t have a screen where consumers can be educated at the time their data is being collected.

As a cautionary tale, take a look at digital advertising. Click-through rates for digital ads are astronomically low. Fraud is abundant. Consumers don’t trust that advertisers are using their data ethically. And, increasingly, consumers are going to great lengths to stop it – Ad Block Plus is one of the most popular Android apps and consumers are activating Do Not Track even though there’s no industry standard yet. Advertising isn’t inherently bad and data can be used in powerful ways not only to improve its effectiveness, but to make advertising more relevant and valuable to consumers. However, people have a right to know when their information is collected and in what ways it may be used. That transparency helps build trust.

As we seek to take the power of data and the connectedness of the internet and extend it into a wide range of “things” — to make them smarter, better and more effective — we must put trust first. Without trust-based consumer relationships we risk never fully realizing all of the benefits of the world of IoT.