The Internet advertising industry appears to be in denial about the growing momentum behind Internet privacy -- and it should start to prepare for more protection of data through global privacy legislation.

As I noted last week, the European Union is moving toward privacy policies, most notably with the "cookie directive" which would require all advertisers to obtain opt-in to place cookies in user browsers.  In addition, we are in the early stages of new privacy legislation in the United States which would introduce tighter Internet privacy.

All of these powerful new regulations are likely to put signficant pressure on Internet media, most notably the ecosystem of ad networks and data exchanges.

The "Net Neutrality" debate has taken a interesting turn this week, triggered by Verizon and Google's joint statement to move toward more tiered services on the Internet.

Here's where I am on net neutrality: It's not black or white. It's gray. Yes, we need to preserve an element of freedom to access applications over broadband. But also, the definition of net neutraility needs to leave some wiggle room to help telecom and media companies roll out some newer premium appications that make money.

I think the recent developments are actually exciting, because there is now a catalyst for change and the debate is out on the table. Verizon and Google getting together is kind of like the executives of the Boston Red Sox and New York Yankees coming to the table on a stadium-sharing deal. But this shows how crucial the issue is, if two of the most powerful corporations in the world are willing to come to the table to talk about it.

As the net neutraility fanatics grab their pitchforks and fire up their blogs, ready the roast the big evil corporations that are trying to swipe away their YouTube Internet, they're being naive if they think things can stay as they are. Stuff's gonna change.

Oh, this is fantastic, Oracle is suing Google. Larry Ellison vs. Eric Schmidt -- the Alpha Male vs. the Science Geek. This is going to be very interesting!

Oracle says in a press release that Google "knowingly, directly and repeatedly infringed Oracle's Java-related intellectual property." What's interesting is that it involves Java technology, which Oracle acquired when it bought Sun Microsystems earlier in the year. Hmmm, did Oracle lawyers know something that Sun lawyers didnt?

I'm sure you'll be reading more about that in the days ahead. On to some more news:

• IBM is buying software company Unica for $480 million (ZDNet). Unica helps retail sellers target marketing efforts and predict consumer behavior. I bet they can't predict my behavior.
• Sequoia is backing Airstrip, a software company that makes mobile patient monitoring applications (VentureBeat).
• WePay raises $7.5 million for group payment systems (TechCrunch).
• Retail sales rise less than estimated (Bloomberg). Hmm, just a theory here, but does that mean everybody spent their tax refunds?
• China mudslides kill more than 1,000 (CNN).
• Russian fire spreads near nuclear facility (Bloomberg). No, they don't mean it's come close to Boris Yeltsin.
• Google defends net neutrality plan (PCWorld).
• New Google apps extend the cloud (InformationWeek).
• Citizen scientists, using their computers in the Einstein@Home project, have discovered a rare star (BBC).
• Belgium is looking to get greener -- by liquifying corpses (Greenbiz.com). Ewwww.
• Liberals start "F*ck Tea" party compaign (CBSNews). Now, that's kind of funny.

The Internet privacy movement appears to be gathering steam and leading to growing paranoia (warranted) among those who have the most to lose: Dozens of venture-backed ad networks and advertising data companies.

What's going on? Well, certainly the Wall Street Journal series on data privacy didn't help. This may be the high-profile media piece that tips public opinion toward the privacy advocates, who have been quietly ramping up their assault on the free-and-easy exhange of Internet advertising data.

What should be scaring the Internet marketing companies: The ideas are starting to gain traction in Washington, D.C. Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Joe Barton (R-Texas) recently issued statements that "that the price of consumers' daily use of the Internet increasingly is surrender of their personal information."

At the same time, you have other escalating assaults on the Internet advertising marketing machine. Let me name just a few examples:

• Europe is ramping up on Internet privacy, including cracking down on cookies. In fact, the EU has issued on opinion that all behavioral advertising must be opt-in. Why aren't more people talking about this?
• The U.S. Senate is prepping online privacy legislation!! (Washington Post)
  
• Facebook's privacy errors continue to boggle the mind (Christian Science Monitor)
  
• Other countries aren't happy with Google's Street View. South Korea recently seized Google's computers in an office raid.
• The media is starting to question free-and-easy Internet ad data. This may only be the beginning.
• The solid privacy series in the Wall Street Journal woke a lot of people up to reality. Maybe this will start to tilt public opinion in the direction of more legislation?
  

This potentially huge development doesn't seem to be getting that much play. Over the past few years, the venture capital industry has funded hundreds of ad data and ad network companies, all of them based on the premise that ad data would be freely acquired, exchanged and even traded. One such company is Blue Kai, a company I've followed on this site, which has their entire business model based on the exchange of anonymous ad data. There are dozens more. What happens to companies like that if powerful privacy legislation is passed?

And then we have even a bigger story: What about Google? Imagine what could happen to Google's market cap if the legislators initiate sweeping changes to Internet privacy laws.

This story is currently being underreported and underhyped. If you are in the Internet advertising or media industry, you should watch it closely. It could change your life.

It's Friday, so rather than do any real work, I've been soaking in the news, networking, and catching up on all the gossip surrounding the developing sale of Slide to Google for some $182 million + employee retention bonuses.

Slide, you say? What's that? They make "casual games," which is Silicon Valley speak for: goofy cheap stuff you can build quickly then flip. And what's the big technology innovation Slide will leave the world for $182 million? Superpoke! -- the Facebook app. Yipppeeee! In 10 years will anybody give a damn what Superpoke! is?

The gossip is juicy. Credit where credit is due: TechCrunch had a huge scoop here, digging up the story before it was announced and even publishing the amount that everybody will make (or not make) on the deal. Judging from chatter on various message boards, the top employees at Slide make out well but the great-unwashed -- pretty much everybody on down the line below employee #10 -- didn't make diddly.

You have to commend the Wall Street Journal for assigning the resources and churning out the investigative pieces as part of the "What They Know" series. But I thought they missed a lot of things.

For example, didn't they forget Google?

The series of articles goes on at length about cookies, with much detail about data aggregation firms such as BlueKai and [x+1], and the way advertisers target you through your browsing. But there wasn't much in depth about the bigtime data machines like Google or Bing and where that will go in the future -- such as location-based tracking and artifical intelligence. 

Apparently the Wall Street Journal discovered over the weekend that companies can gather lots of data about you on the Internet.

I suppose this is their play for a Pulitzer Prize -- a groundbreaking story that exposes the evil of Internet data collection. Only one problem: The Internet -- and financial industry -- has been mining your data for over a decade. And unless you hide in a cave with Ted Kaczynski, you're not going to escape it.

In fact, everybody mines your data. Think of the credit-card companies or your bank. Or Google. They know everything. I like to tell my wife that, "Google knows more about me than you do."

At the Rayno Report, we are always looking at hot new growth trends. Why not rehab? Charlie Sheen and Lindsay Lohan are doing it.

Now, I haven't done much research on it but I don't think there are too many publicly-listed rehab plays. Maybe there is a private-equity rollup in there somewhere.

What we really need is rehab for Washington D.C. and Wall Street. Now, that's a great idea! Can you see all the Federal Reserve officials, Senators, and Goldman Sachs bankers doing Yoga in California with Lindsay Lohan? Hey, it worked for Michael Milken.

Okay, onto more news:

• Pfizer beats the street and its stock-price hiccups (Reuters). Gets my award as the most boring blue-chip of the last ten years. Maybe it's time to buy that 5% divvy?
• Meanwhile, when's the last time you heard about Pfizer and Proctor & Gamble both listed in the WSJ as "Hot Stocks" (WSJ)?
• For those who think China's now a preeminent global leader: China's Three Gorges dam is imperiled by islands of garbage (Reuters).
• Blackberry threatened by a Gulf states ban (BBC).
• Federal government declares Gulf Spill the "worst ever" (CNN). No report on what they think about Charlie Sheen's shenanigans.
• Pending home sales decrease 2.6% (Bloomberg). Hmm. People are buying houses. Shocking, isn't it?
• Blackberry is introducing it's new touch-screen phone today (Bloomberg). No word on whether you can use it to call Saudi Arabian intelligence officials.
• Remember when the U.S. Dollar was a piece of trash? Well, that's back again... (WSJ). I will trade you dollars for rubles.
• Is Bing outmaneuvering Google? (CNN).
• Corning is trying to bring back "Gorilla glass," a product from the 1960s (AP). Can you call something 50 years old innovation?

The bandwagon story of the day is Google looking into creating a "Facebook competitor" by talking with popular online gaming companies (Wall Street Journal). That's funny, I thought Facebook was a social networking site and not a gaming company. Shows you what I know.

That's also not to mention that Google has already tried to "do" social networking, but looks to be failing miserably with Buzz.

The spin in the Wall Street Journal is that by talking to social gaming companies like Zynga, Google is contemplating creating an alternative to Facebook, where many of the social gaming companies are growing like weeds (e.g. "Scott has acquired a semi-automatic weapon to blow you away in Mafia Wars!").

It had become popular in the mainstream media to popularize the "dying" of Microsoft. This is absurd. What is common with a "dying" company is a deterioration of its financial position and diminishing assets. Microsoft is a money machine.

I'm not saying that Microsoft does not have challenges. I'm just saying that the negative sentiment against the company does not reflect certain business fundamentals.