It looks like Embarq not only doesn't care how end users feel about Nebucrap, but they don't seem at all apologetic about it either.

It might be time to make some rich lawyers richer...

POLÍTICA DE PRIVACIDAD DE EMBARQ

A partir de noviembre del 2007

Publicidad Preferencial. EMBARQ puede usar información como los sitios de Internet que visita o las búsquedas en Internet que usted hace para mandar o facilitar el envío de mensajes publicitarios dirigidos a usted. El envío de estos mensajes será basado en búsquedas en Internet anónimas y no incluirá los nombres del usuario, correo electrónico, números de teléfono o cualquier otro tipo de información personal con la que usted podría ser identificado.

»www2.embarq.com/legal/privacy_espanol.html

NebuAd referred all inquiries to Embarq. An Embarq spokesperson declined to answer whether the company directly notified subscribers about NebuAd, saying only: "We have received the letter from Reps. Markey, Barton and Dingell and are reviewing it for an appropriate response."

the opt out page is gone

This was passed down from a Embarq tech that I spoke to that was well aware of how Embarq was implimenting this service. Dont shoot the messanger.

We demand full discloser

The House Committee on Energy and Commerce has now issued a second hostile letter regarding NebuAd ad-serving technology, this time to Embarq.

Embarq, which offers Internet and phone service, has tested NebuAd's technology (something we already knew) but has so far avoided Congressional scrutiny. In a letter issued today by John Dingell (D-MI), Joe Barton (R-TX), and Ed Markey (D-MA), the Congressmen want to know more about that test. A lot more.

»arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20···ain.html

---

July 14, 2008

Mr. Tom Gerke
Chief Executive Officer
Embarq
5454 W. 110th Street
Overland Park, KS 66211

Dear Mr. Gerke:

We are writing with respect to a recent test conducted by Embarq to tailor Internet advertising to the web-browsing patterns of individual Embarq subscribers. We are interested in the nature of this test as well as the impact that this test, and the underlying technology it employed, could have on consumer privacy and other issues.

We understand that Embarq conducted a test earlier this year in a select community in conjunction with NebuAd to create consumer profiles for the purpose of serving ads to consumers based upon their search and surfing habits. As you may know, questions have been raised regarding the applicability of privacy protections contained in the Communications Act of 1934, the Cable Act of 1984, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and other statutes, to such practices.

In particular, we are concerned that Embarq may not have directly notified the subscribers involved in the test that their Web use was being analyzed and profiled. We therefore request that you answer the following questions in order for us to better understand the nature of the test conducted, its impact on consumers, and the broader public policy implications of this technology.

1. In what community was the test conducted and how was that community chosen?

2. How many subscribers were involved in the test?

3. How did Embarq notify subscribers in the affected community of the test? Please provide a copy of the notification. If Embarq did not specifically or directly notify affected subscribers, please explain why this was not done.

4. Did Embarq conduct a legal analysis regarding the applicability of consumer privacy laws on the service used in the test? If so, please explain what that analysis concluded.

5. Please explain why Embarq chose to conduct the test allowing consumers who objected to “opt out” rather than first asking customers to “opt in.”

6. How did Embarq notify subscribers in the affected community of their opportunity to “opt-out” of the test? If Embarq did not specifically or directly notify effected subscribers of the opportunity to “opt-out,” please explain why this was not done.

7. How many subscribers in the affected community opted out of participating in the test?

8. Did Embarq conduct a legal analysis regarding the adequacy of the “opt-out” notice and mechanism employed to allow consumers to effectuate this choice? If so, please explain what that analysis concluded.

9. What is the status of the consumer data collected during this test? Has it been destroyed?

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. We respectfully request a response by Monday, July 21, 2008.

Sincerely,

s/John D. Dingell
Chairman
Committee on Energy and Commerce

s/Joe Barton
Ranking Member
Committee on Energy and Commerce

s/Edward J. Markey
Chairman
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet

cc: The Honorable Cliff Stearns, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet

»www.publicknowledge.org/node/1654

NebuAd has also been deployed by WOW!, Embarq, Broadstripe, CenturyTel,
Metro Provider and others.

But because of the way web cookies work, that cookie can only be read by NebuAd.com, or a website that includes content served from that domain. There's no technical way for NebuAd's sniffer to access the cookie and know not to log and analyze an opted-out user's web usage.

Indeed, it is possible that the cookie system works to prevent opted-out users from receiving the third-party ads, and it could stop NebuAd from sharing a user's profile with third-party ad networks -- assuming those networks include a NebuAd image file, or some other embedded code, in the ads they serve on the web. But NebuAd's claim that you can opt-out of the surveillance itself remains unexplained.

Opt-Out is Complete

your opt-out choice cannot be honored if the cookies on your computer(s) are deleted

I don't care who they are logging it for. It might be their network, but it's my personal information and data, being created by me, and is of a very proprietary manner, and might even be considered my copyright.

Wouldn't that be funny.

Although I've always been less worried than most about private sector privacy violations (as opposed to law enforcement privacy violations), operating under the belief that few companies are smart enought to do bad things with the overwhelming snarl of data they receive, lately I've received some eerily targeted ads and feeds that are clearly based on things about myself that I consider private

Because online advertising supports free Web content and other benefits, the choice by consumers not to participate in behavioral advertising could reduce the availability of these benefits. The FTC is seeking comments from all interested parties on the proposed principles, including the costs and benefits of offering choice for behavioral advertising. Comments can be sent to BehavioralMarketingPrinciples@ftc.gov .

"The New Jersey Supreme Court is the first in the nation to recognize a reasonable expectation of privacy when using the internet anonymously," said Trenton-based attorney Grayson Barber, who represented six privacy rights organizations as a friend of the court.

And after The Washington Post discovered two Internet providers it works with — Embarq and Wide Open West — those companies have refused to answer any questions about their relationship with NebuAd.

At Embarq, Debra Peterson, the company spokeswoman, e-mailed this statement, saying she would entertain no further questions:

Like other companies, we are evaluating behavioral marketing tools, but we have not decided whether to move forward with them. Our Privacy Policy anticipates and alerts customers to possible future use of these tools, and offers customers the opportunity to simply and quickly opt out. EMBARQ takes its customers privacy very seriously and we take every precaution to ensure information about our customers remains secure and anonymous.

The official word from NebuAd is that its partner ISPs are required to DIRECTLY NOTIFY CUSTOMERS via letter or email before its hardware is turned on