Slashdot Mirror
Advertisers Agree To Privacy Restrictions - Kinda
zookie writes "A story on Yahoo says that DoubleClick and other Internet advertisers have agreed, under strong government pressure, to new privacy restrictions. Those restrictions would require prominent notification of cookie usage, and restrict using SSNs, medical data, financial info, and sexual behavior(!) for targeting ads. Does this mean Yahoo will stop bombarding me with those racy Maxim ads?" Well, except there's no legislation. The government has agreed on "self-regulation" for the time being. It will be interesting to see what happens.Update: 07/28 12:53 PM by E :D. Ian Hopper did point out, however, that if a NAI member breaks the agreement, the FTC can sue them, which is something, at least.
And how would we know the site had advertising by doubleclick.net until we had already visited it once, and therefore already been recorded in their files?
With perfect personalization, ATT can advertise itself as the pro-choice phone company to liberals, and the anti-abortion phone company to conservatives. Or if you prefer, substitute a presidential candidate for Ma Bell. Showing the same ads to everyone puts a limit on how much a company can misrepresent itself.
Adam Smith. You are, of course, aware that the founder of the modern intellectual framework for capitalism recognised that capitalists who refused to be concerned with moral issues would undermine the system that fed their wealth?
AS usual, "they have every right, since they got the money, and you always have the choice not to use their product [you can go live in a cave"
So what's the big deal? So what if everyone has a national ID number? Imagine how difficult life would be without it. In fact, it's so useful, I think they should just tattoo it on our arm, or perhaps forehead. Then everyone will know your number just by looking at you!
Wow! I've never been moderated before. I'm gonna have a beer!
All hail the glorious and meaningless! Starting tomorrow, I'm regulating my consumption of nicotine and caffiene.
If it doesn't work I'll give myself a sound whupping.
Cocaine was not always illegal. And putting it in cookies sold near schools was standard practice. Same with soft drinks. The name coca cola has reasons for having the coca inside.
So coming back to our subject - you do not want to buy more cookies, sure? More coke sure? More userfirendly (which uses doubleclick), sure?
In other words junkbuster rulez. And if you want to specifically allow someone to advertise something to you (as I do allow cmdr taco to spam me with ads) it is your business. And that is the way to drive a... out of business. Not boicotting sites. Boicot the advertisers
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
no, they cull it from that cookie you have. if you've ever signed up for a yahoo anything, you have a yahoo account. they know who you are, or who you at least claim to be.
i browse at -1 because they're funnier than you are.
eh? i assume you actually mean Nick Dalius, and if you do, you're still incorrect. it is originally attributed to Napoleon, in response to an accusation of treason aimed at a subordinate, captain straight-fact.
try a search for Fletcher Pratt's books.
the malicious thing was just a troll cuz i needed a good 'second.'
hand!
i browse at -1 because they're funnier than you are.
So, if you think one of the options is to boycott sites that accept ads from doubleclick, what are you doing here? Slashdot not only serves up doubleclick ads, sometimes the ads include the infamous cookies, too. Other alternative news sites feature doubleclick ads too. TheRegister seems to get most of it's ads from doubleclick (although to their credit, they've never sent me a cookie, unlike Slashdot).
This is what really disturbs me about doubleclick. They have become so ubiquitous that even sites whose creators are almost certainly not doubleclick fans are carrying the ads. Either in spite of or because of their outragous behavior, they are far and away the most successful ad banner company.
You say that if we boycott doubleclick.net sites, we will force doubleclick to rethink their policies. Will they? Or are we just going to cut off the air supply for the sites we DO care about? I have to say, it's hell of a dilema, and I don't see a clear way out.
It's called Junkbusters and a good blockfile.
Linux O Muerte!
-- Michael Chermside
What with all the news lately about Napster vs. RIAA and 2600 vs. MPAA etc, it's good to actually see some genuine good news for a change. Of course, this isn't the end-all and be-all, but I never expect that. As a wise man once said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
---
At least mafia-owned pizzarias make excellent pizza. Compare to Bill Gates.
Good to know all the major players are all working so hard together to find new ways to restrict my privacy...
The real vladinator has user# 29743, anyone else is an imposter.
--Shoeboy
I love Vlad
Vlad loves me
We love each other
Platonically
So there won't be a hug
Or a kiss from me to you
Aren't you sad?
Now cry boo hoo.
(apologies to Barney the dinosaur)
--Shoeboy
I hate that site, thats why iv firewalled off
doubleclick.net from my LAN. Keeps a lot of
those annoying spammers out too.
I absolutely agree that people shouldn't depend on outside influences to control their privacy when they can help to control it themselves; however, I disagree with your statement that specific legislation in this area won't have long term impact.
The trick is, once a precedent has been set, we have another tool for fighting against these issues. Even if they rename their collection methods, etc, as you described, I would rather keep fighting an even battle then give up on the possibility now that we can win by giving up on legislation.
Excellent post. A small nit to pick:
The expression is, "setting the fox to watch the henhouse". Not the chicken.
Best wishes, and may your karma be ever increasing.
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
"HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox
They are only agreeing to self-regulation to avoid legislation or somebody fixing the flaw.
You are quite right - if you desire to have targeted advertising based on your preferences and desires, than you should certainly have the right to allow that. However, there are those that find the collection of information about themselves, whether relativly trivial or fairly intimate (ie medical history, birthdate...), to be an invasion of their privacy.
There is a world of difference between opt-in, opt-out, and not having a choice one way or the other.
LetterRip
... do they get this sexual activity information? Do they employ people to go around and sleep with as many people as possible to find out useful sexual marketing information? If so I'd like to surrender my sexual activity information post-haste, wheres the phone number?
-- iCEBaLM
Oh goodie. I love it when the govt strong arms an industry into doing what it wants. Don't get me wrong...some legislation in this area is probably needed. Maybe. But something just rubs me the wrong way about the govt coming to these 'aggreements'.
Kinda makes me wish our govt officials would have the balls to just make a law, (like they were elected to do?), instead of threatening and bullying to get what they want.
Still, here's to hoping those evil corporations won't be able to gather information, (via cookies, et al) as easily. That type of info gathering should be left up to the government itself.
Want to get rid of Yahoo's, "racy Maxim ads?"
Change your gender to female. Worked for me.
Seriously, my girlfriend surfs from my computer,
and some of those ads were really creeping her
out. Since I started, um, cross-dressing, I've
been getting lots of health/diet ads, but no
soft-porn.
If you say, "now I'll be modded down because of X", I'll happily oblige.
Merely denying cookies, I suspect, isn't going to hit anybody's wallet. It's still a good idea from a standpoint of them not being able to follow you as you move about the Web, but the people who make money from banner ads are probably counting the number of downloads of a particular banner. As long as your browser is still grabbing the ads, all they need to do is crunch their server logs to determine who gets paid.
To stop this, you'll need an ad filter. Squid-redir works well under anything that can run Squid. If you're looking for something a little easier to set up and you're running Win9x, there's WebWasher.
(I have a more comprehensive list of sites for squid-redir to block here.)
_/_
/ v \
(IIGS( Scott Alfter (remove Voyager's hull # to send mail)
\_^_/
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Next step will be the junkies regulating drug imports, Dracula in charge of the Red Cross Blood bank and politicians & tele-evangelists in charge of moral standards and public deciency.
Alas gallinaceas de urbe bovis volo
imagine those things appearing RL..
You're walking through town, windowshopping.
You stop at a shoe-store. Suddenly a midget appears and shoves a large sign in my face with an ad for shoes. I think a large number of people would at this point decide to buy combat boots and use'em for combat. Poor midget.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
if they used the data right, I wouldn't get ads
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Before you make up your mind about this issue,
you might want to read Simson Garfinkel's new
book "Database Nation". I found it informative
and thought-provoking.
I have no financial interest in the book, don't
know Mr Garfinkel, etc.
No.
The point is not getting ads for stuff you like. The point is that I should get to choose what company gets information about me and I should get to choose what information they get. I should not have my personal information taken from me without my knowledge and consent and sold to God Knows Who at the highest price.
For those who are truely paranoid I recommend you use Junkbusters to prevent the ads from ever getting to your pc. It also allows you to change various user-agent information that web sites normally ask for. Best of all it's GPLed.
Because, while it's difficult but possible to get my dad not to forward chain letters, it would be absolutely impossible to get him to learn to manage blocking thru his hosts file or other software.
That and you can't hack public computers (libraries, schools) to set up your blocking stuff before you use them. (not that you'd have much personal information on those anyway)
---
Actually, there is legislation that prevents the FBI from using things like wire taps and carnivore improperly. Does that make you sleep better at night? Didn't think so. Gov't self-regulation is no different from industry self-regulation.
Can your IM do this?
An easier way to do this is to intercept the cookie headers and rewrite them before the browser even sees them. This is what Proxomitron does (among other really nifty filtering type things). I'm sure other proxy based filters can do the same thing, but Proxomitron is the only one that's ShonenWare! (He even names the releases after Naoko Yamano.)
Any sufficiently advanced civilization is indistinguishable from Gods.
Although it is great that they aren't gathering some statistics anymore, I think that we need regulations that tell them what they CAN DO with the statistics, not which statistics they collect. Privacy IMO deals with where the statistics go, who can view them, who they can sell to. I don't care if doubleclick knows what ads I view, I care if my boss can find out what ads I view at home or my neighbor.
-- Moondog
What this would be is a program functionally similar to the many cookie manager programs that already exist - you could designate certain sites that you want to keep the cookies for, for example your bank and your slashdot login.
But any site not on the approved list, when you run the cookie mixer, well that site's entries from your cookie file would be uploaded to a server somewhere, and it would be physically replaced in the cookie file with a new cookie that would be received from the central server.
If it were possible to write to the cookie file while the browser is running (that is, it's not kept open or locked the whole time) then the results of saving cookies on mixer member's machines would be essentially random.
The whole point of saving cookies for the marketers purpose is to track your habits, and this would particularly screw them up. There are legitimate uses for cookies - creating a continuous "session" of browsing so you can be logged in as for non-anonymous slashdot posting or using a shopping cart and it would be easy to make exceptions for this.
I don't think it would even be very hard to write this.
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
It was proven to be a failure in the 1980s.
Abashed the Devil stood,
And felt how awful goodness is
Of course, any kind of data that is collected should only be used for marketing and advertising info, nothing more.
i have a serious problem with the entire doubleclick/abaccus situation.
that's one of the main reasons i'm interested in this stuff, trying to find vendors who do not sell the info itself but research based on it..
that way it's really just demographics, nothing specific to you...
br.
Allow me to play the devil's advocate.
Why would you be so against advertisers gathering data about you based on various criteria and applying it to ads presented to you?
Wouldn't you want to see ads that reflect your interests?
I understand we don't want "Big Brother" to monitor us and judge us, but I really wouldn't mind if the only banner ads i were to see would be for cool electronics, dvd sales, linux products, new tech sites, etc....
I think that the concern people have with the data being collected is not so much that they'll receive tareget ads, but rather that the data will be used in some strange manner to decide your fate (ie, you will be audited next year because you went to site x more than site y).
basically, if the govt doesn't maintain or use the data, why should you worry?
remember, just playing the devil's advocate here, but i am truly interested in people's opinions.
I don't want to talk down our Great American Economic system but some of the things people are apparently willing to do for the almighty buck are getting rediculous. This is one such instance of that and I don't see it getting much better (with or without regulation). Of course this can be always be looked at in another light, that of the American entrepenurial (sic)spirit. If it ain't illegal then it must be legal, right?
Capitalism is all fine and good but an interesting point was brought up a few days ago- if anyone owns personal info it should be the person who's info it is. Thus, we should be the sole license holders of our personal info and advertisors should be paying us if they want to make use of it foe that purpose. They should not have the right to make use of gov't records (in the case of snail mail spam) or info we did not intend to give to them on the web.
Of course if you go and fill in forms with correct personal info then you have noone to blame but yourself when you are targetted, by either spam or other unwanted advertisements.
What about my employer and my social security number or my email address? What happens if these were suddenly up for sale? Hey, I could just work somewhere else, right? The problem with this "free choice capitalism" is that eventually you run out of places to go. And that is of course, if you even realize that your privacy is being doled out.... most users of the internet don't know that their information is being given out and so don't have the choice to opt out or block these practices.
In short, yes. Please let the government dictate what sites can and cannot do with my personal information. I would trust them a lot more than joeschmoads.com who was started yesterday and will do anything to make a buck.
Can't you at least get the ASCII drawing to look right if you're going to waste the space?
If companies want to spy on this, that's their right; if we don't like them doing this, we simply don't have to give them any of our money.
Besides the fact that nobody has a right to spy on another, there are several problems with expecting industry self-regulation of privacy issues.
Technical Reasons:
Don't get me wrong, I'm sensitive about privacy too, which is why I have doubleclick.net cookies blocked.
Besides the fact that it is impractical to expect every websurfer to memorize the privacy policy of every website they visit (even though this policies aren't worth the HTML their written in), many people do not have the technical savvy to block cookies and do selective filtering while others while find it too onerous.
Why should people have to jump through technical hoops to stopping people from spying on them...are we at war?
Also Web Bugs can be used to track you without setting off cookie alarms. If you don't believe me see if this page sets off any cookie alarms in your browser. What is your technical response to this? Require everyone use Junkbuster to block all offsite images just so as to browse the web?
Seems like that would make the average person go through a lot of trouble just so that companies doen't spy on them.
Criminal Reasons:
But I'm even more uncomfortable with the idea of the government regulating what websites can and can't do.
But you are comfortable with anyone with forty bucks being able to track other people's addresses, phone numbers, date of birth, social security number, criminal record, credit history and more without regulation? Identity theft is already rather commonplace and it is now possible to get very detailed information about people with the scantiest information (phone number and name) and ruin them for life. I can do a reverse number lookup and get your address, do a lookup and find your birthday, look up your mortgage history, get your social security number and in essence become you. How many places identify people with a social security number and address/phone number combo?
Logical Reasons:
It's no longer news that the dotcomm crash has occured and NASDAQ is now facing a bear market. Off course what this means is that several dotcomms that have spent million$ of VC dollars giving away free or reduced price products are now stuck between a rock and a hard place. Suddenly we have all these companies that have nothing of value to show investors except customer demographic information and eyeballs. Expecting these companies to respect the privacy of these eyeballs is asking the chicken to watch the henhouse. Sites that sell customer information or violate customers privacy in other ways (spam, spam, spam) are no longer the exception but the rule.
PS: You block doubleclick cookies but how many other companies have similar policies that you don't know about? How do you plan to deal with the fact that Netscape's browser tracks all your downloads or the Real fiasco? As long as it is not illegal companies will do everything and anything to violate our privacy. You cannot relying on the fact that some enterprising hacker finds some software spy because for every piece of spyware that is found there are many more undiscovered.
Not goto a site with doubleclick ads on it, thats near impossible, that's at least half the web. Course using an ad filter is a good way to boycot them...
Second, I'm not ascribing malice to anyone. Neither Doubleclick nor the RIAA are acting out of a desire to hurt anyone. Their motive is nothing more nor less than profit. I accuse them of being cavalier, callous, avaricious, rapacious and a host of other sins. But not malicious.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
No, I meant Nick Diamos.
try a search for Fletcher Pratt's books
And this is supposed to indicate what? Even if Pratt wrote about the quote in one of his fictions, it's doubtful that the actual text would be found online. The only reference I could find attributing this to Napoleon was on Jerry Pournelle's page, where a fan incorrectly referred to Nick Daimos as Nick Dalius. Jerry was unable to give a definitive source for attributing the quote to Napoleon, although he insisted it was correct, and suggested it was the kind of incident favored by Fletcher Pratt. The coincidence of confusing Nick Diamos name and references to Pratt suggest that this was your source as well. Perhaps you should do a bit more research, Private Wrong-fact.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Think we could talk the RIAA into allowing the public to self-regulate their use of copyrighted materials?
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
I know I might get flamed for this, but who cares about targeting? I mean you go to Ralphs and flash your card, they know who you are, where you live, and what you buy! They then send ads to you based on that info. Does this mean that they need to follow the dame rules? It just seems to me like the is whole privacy issue is just targeting the 'net! Why are the online providers such a huge target instead of the old-school people who have been using the same tactics for a very, very long time?
kick some CAD
What sort of protection, exactly, is this supposed to provide? For instance, from the article:
What, exactly, is so bad about using data to determine what sort of ads you see? I thought that the main point behind privacy laws and advocacy was that personal information might be used for nefarious purposes. Is having banner ads targetted at you nefarious?
Also, most of these privacy innitiatives seem to have the attitude "most people don't know anything about computers and privacy, so we're appointing ourselves their protectors". Frankly, using the government to protect people from their own ignorance of computers makes me a little uneasy. If the advertisers (or whomever) engage in fraud when gathering or distributing personal information, there's already legal measures in place to deal with that. To deal with the rest of the stuff, that might be unsavory but not illegal, I'd prefer to have some non-governmental thing like MAPS deal with it (though I don't know how something like that might work).
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose that you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day, but set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
- Your AltaVista query is encoded and shipped to DoubleClick's "adult" department.
k w=sex;tw=530;th=180;tn=2;tsw=70;to=h;szs =260x140,200x140;ord=1701993088? - A single-pixel transparent GIF is read from Akami. Unclear why, but the URL is http://a12.g.akamai.net/7/12/282/9e258e204c1159/w
w w.altavista.com/i/px.gif
So much for "voluntary compliance".http://ad.doubleclick.net/adf/adult.av.com/links;
This is an excellent effort, but unfortunately technology moves too rapidly for specific legislation to make any significant long term impact. Granted, most information gathering takes place without the knowledge of the user, and this may help stop that. But if companies really want this information (and they almost certainly do) they will find a way. They will rename their collection methods, maybe or maybe not inform customers of what they are collecting (really, how many of us would know, first hand, that our info is going into a database unless someone told us "x site collects y information" and how they do it?) The only way to prevent this kind of data collection is to stay off the internet. And yes, that's possible. If that's not acceptable, then reject cookies, tighten security restrictions, and don't depend on the law to stop this kind of thing. Depend on youself. It works better.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
We may not be blocking cookies, but we are not authorizing them either. How is having cookies placed by banner ads used to track movement, any different from reading the history file off the hard drive?
But to extend this, what about SPAM? They are sending commands to a SMTP server that is designed to transfer (without permissions) SPAM data to a mail client to be stored on your local machine.
It might be a stretch, but I'd like to see the law applied to those areas.
Fight Spammers!
At this point, I take it I'm supposed to trust these bastards? I think that I'll continue merrily on my way with my Proximitron(sp?), my HTTP[S]? and FTP proxy route through Stanford, and continue filling out all forms requesting personal information with perverted obscenities involving animals and the President.
Oh well.
If I'm looking for something, I love being targeted.
When I'm going about my daily business, I don't want to be snared by the targeted ads.
Really, I'm distratcted enough during the day. I don't need to keep getting Maxim and FHM ads shoved into my face (and *ahem* distracting me even more).
What next? Target alcohol and tobacco ads to alcoholics and chain smokers?
We wanted pictures of thumbs for a product, did image:thumb on altavista. Wondered why we got porn ads until we clicked on the first, a porn Thumbnail site.
Also looked for an old mp3 called Fantasy Girl on lycos, can you guess what kind of ads they showed me?
Um, isn't the non-governmental use of the SSN, and even a number of those, illegal?
I never give out my SSN online, ever. I also restrict access to it in the real world as well. No Privacy Act Statement? No number. Simple.
In space, no one can hear you moo.
Huh? Erotic pictures of thumbnails? Hot Teenage Fingerprints Show It All Just 4 U? Free Lesbian Hangnail mpegs? Lefty and Rightys' First Time Ever? All Nude Mud ThumbWrestling?
Yes, I know. I'm just being silly.-Dead Lesbian Witches! Think about it!
It's true to an extent... I've seen some 2-ways that would pass that test and others that would fail miserably. You might want to try that one out yourself the next time you're in a department store dressing room. ;-) It's just a shame you got moderated down for that one. It involves privacy. Maybe we should start self-regulating our moderation. :-)
actually, not many "great thinkers" agree with you. the definition of "rights" that is used, for instance in the Bill of Rights, are rights that cannot be signed away. You can't sign away your right to free speech, you can't sign away your right to vote, you can't sign away your right to an attorney. You may waive your rights (choose not to exercise) at certain points, but you can always change your mind.
The 14th Amendment (anti-slavery, or "involuntary servitude") would be meaningless if employers could make you sign away your rights to freedom in order to get a job.
Too bad this doesn't mean anything...there are still plenty of bigger name online advertising groups that AREN'T on that list. Hell, bCentral (ie LinkExchange) uses the info it's obtained through Hotmail addresses (being a part of M$) to obtain Geographical information and apply that to the cookies that it uses for there banner adverts.
Sounds like these few groups are just trying a few last ditch attempts at being "morale" to save their wortheless stock.
Too late. I block any ads not based on the server serving the webpage itself. Anyone supporting those companies will not make a $0.003-piece from me until they change their ways. I encourage everyone else to do the same. Blocking ad sites will not be the "death" of the commercial internet, they just need to allow content providers to host their own ads. Then all this tracking/privacy bs will be out the window.
---
I am the dot in slashdot.org
Hmm, I haven't clicked
I'd rather be pepper-sprayed by a mountie,
I'd rather be pepper-sprayed by a mountie,
There are few things that more clearly state the stupidity of ad-matching than searching for "sexually transmitted diseases" (for a project, i swear) and getting a banner ad "Hot Sex Kittens want your LOVE!"
sell your certainty and buy bewilderment
What the hell? I expected just a little more from the rest of the \. community. You are begining to sound like the rest of the cattle. Moo! Ironic that this big fiasco with Carnivore & your ready to Sell your soul to Corporations. Didn't just this morning Hypothermia relate what happened to his Site & how NVidia legally manipulated him. Legally & professionally dicked him around. Sheep!
This isn't sig. it's banner for advertising.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sensitive about privacy too, which is why I have doubleclick.net cookies blocked. But I'm even more uncomfortable with the idea of the government regulating what websites can and can't do. Look at COPPA -- that's supposed to protect children's privacy, but it's preventing them from using ICQ or visiting Thomas The Tank Engine's web site. And the people who don't care about their privacy shouldn't be forced to have privacy just because other people wnat it.
We don't really have rights unless we have the right to sign those rights away.
But look at the wonders that self regulation has done for cleaning up the airline industry and for getting sex and violence off of television!
Self-regulation sounds a lot like the FBI saying they'll be completely fair with their use of Carnivore. This doesn't mean jack to me until there is legislation preventing these sites from gathering this kind of information. Until then, surf anonymously or just give up the right to privacy.
Self Regulation is a non-story... The 'industry' has been talking about self-regulation forever.. Thats where we are today.. We'll see how much good this 'agreement' does us.
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
Vices - what I lack in originality, I make up for in volume.
Yes! You are very creative! You 'Want your info out there', and you post as an 'Anonymous Coward'..
Try Again.
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
Vices - what I lack in originality, I make up for in volume.
Since we can't always count on the government to do the right thing (if we even want them to something in the first place), don't forget about personal measures such as Doubleclick's OptO ut.
There are other measures you can take. Take privacy into your own hands.
I have just installed a new program, it allows the RIAA, MPAA, ACLU, NAACP, NRA, CREEP (and a whole bunch of other acronymns ;) ) to opt out of me downloading something.