Slashdot Mirror


Doubleclick Clear of FTC Probe

innertruth writes "Cnet has an article about FTC dropping its probe into DoubleClick privacy practices. Without the FCC looking over their sholder now we have to wonder what they really will do with all the information they've collected online and that offline database they now have." The FTC's letter ending their investigation has more information. Keep in mind that the FTC has a very narrow mandate: "Is Doubleclick doing something different than what they say?" So as long as Doubleclick states their practices accurately - whether they are or are not linking the household information from Abacus with the click information from Doubleclick's network - then the FTC's role is ended.

29 of 53 comments (clear)

  1. Read the fine print by truthsearch · · Score: 2

    I think this should just be another reminder to read the fine print on web sites. Don't give out private information unless you read a site's fine print and you're willing to have that information shared with many people.

    This goes for offline privacy as well. Don't give out your SS#. If a company asks for your phone number and you they don't really need it, say you don't have a phone...

    1. Re:Read the fine print by dervish121 · · Score: 5

      If a company asks for your phone number and you they don't really need it, say you don't have a phone...

      I tried that, but they didn't believe me. I finally became so pissed off at her insistance that I hung up.

      That was over two weeks ago, and I'm starting to suspect that my pizza isn't on the way...

  2. IP addies? by British · · Score: 3

    What are the domain names, subhosts, etc for doubleclick? I'd like to just opt out completely with a little editing of the hosts file.

    1. Re:IP addies? by jbridge21 · · Score: 3

      this gets called from my main firewall init script: (edit for non-IPChains)

      #!/bin/sh
      #
      # /etc/rc.d/ip.blacklist: IP forwarding blacklist script.
      #

      IPCHAINS=/sbin/ipchains

      ### doubleclick.net sucks arse
      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 63.77.79.192/26 -j REJECT
      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 63.85.84.0/24 -j REJECT
      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 63.160.54.0/24 -j REJECT
      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 63.166.98.0/24 -j REJECT
      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 63.168.198.0/25 -j REJECT

      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 128.11.60.64/26 -j REJECT
      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 128.11.92.0/24 -j REJECT

      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 192.65.80.0/24 -j REJECT

      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 199.95.206.0/23 -j REJECT
      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 199.95.208.0/23 -j REJECT
      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 199.95.210.0/24 -j REJECT

      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 204.94.129.65/32 -j REJECT
      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 204.176.152.248/28 -j REJECT
      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 204.176.177.0/24 -j REJECT
      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 204.178.112.100/32 -j REJECT
      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 204.178.112.160/27 -j REJECT
      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 204.186.74.0/24 -j REJECT
      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 204.253.104.0/23 -j REJECT

      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 205.138.3.0/24 -j REJECT

      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 206.65.181.96/30 -j REJECT
      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 206.65.181.104/30 -j REJECT
      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 206.65.183.0/24 -j REJECT

      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 208.10.202.0/24 -j REJECT
      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 208.32.211.0/24 -j REJECT
      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 208.184.29.0/24 -j REJECT
      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 208.203.243.0/24 -j REJECT
      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 208.211.225.0/24 -j REJECT
      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 208.228.86.0/24 -j REJECT

      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 209.67.38.101/30 -j REJECT
      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 209.67.38.105/30 -j REJECT
      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 209.67.38.150/32 -j REJECT
      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 209.167.73.128/27 -j REJECT
      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 209.249.231.45/32 -j REJECT

      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 216.94.59.64/27 -j REJECT
      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 216.230.65.64/28 -j REJECT

      ### msn
      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 207.46.188.0/24 -j REJECT

      ### quova.com
      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 63.109.88.104/29 -j REJECT
      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 63.102.181.0/24 -j REJECT

      ### virus junk
      # i love you virus
      $IPCHAINS -A output -d 199.108.232.1/30 -j REJECT
      -----

    2. Re:IP addies? by Coward,+Anonymous · · Score: 3

      What are the domain names, subhosts, etc for doubleclick?
      $ nslookup doubleclick.net
      Server: tenerus.speakeasy.org
      Address: 216.231.41.2

      Name: doubleclick.net
      Address: 199.95.206.201

      $ whois 199.95.206.201
      [whois.arin.net]
      (lameness filter violating stuff was here)
      199.92.0.0 - 199.95.255.255
      Double Click, Inc. (more lameness filter stuff here)
      199.95.206.0 - 199.95.209.255


      Looks like doubleclick has 199.95.206.0 - 199.95.209.255.
      You may need to add a -h whois.arin.net or @whois.arin.net to your whois commandline.

  3. My web browser is DoubleClick-free. by AFCArchvile · · Score: 2

    in my /etc/hosts file, I bound ad.doubleclick.net and m.doubleclick.net to 127.0.0.1; therefore, I will never see their stupid banner ads. However, I might have to send DoubleClick a cease-and-desist letter of my own.

    --
    "Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
    1. Re:My web browser is DoubleClick-free. by QuantumG · · Score: 2

      yes it will.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  4. I wonder... by WickedClean · · Score: 3

    How much did Doubleclick have to pay the FTC to drop the probe? Hmmmm...maybe somebody at doubleclick used their privacy violation skills to dig up some pics of the FTC director's wife with a 12 year old Guatamalan boy.

    --
    ...All I can say is that my life is pretty strange...
  5. FTC has no power (yet) regarding privacy by Masem · · Score: 4
    As the summary of the articles suggests, all the FTC can do is say if DoubleClick and Abacus were legal in aggregating information. As of this time, the US Congress has not given the FTC any power to restrict or hound companies that do not violate privacy rights, save in the case that if promise the user one thing and do another (the classic toysmart.com case) then they can step in, but only under the guise of untruthful business practices.

    Now, if we DO get a privacy bill, I would suspect that it would give the FTC the power to say where to draw the line at collecting personal information and/or aggregating it. If we had such a bill now, I would have expected that the FTC would have come down hard on DoubleClick. Fortunately, privacy may be an issue with the Dubya adminstration, so we might see such a bill soon.

    --
    "Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
    "I can see my house from here!" - ST:
  6. Is online info really worth as much these days? by Urban+Existentialist · · Score: 2
    It seems to me that identity is fluid and changing in the age of the Internet, far more than it ever was. Who is the real me? Everyone has multiple personas that they use online, and in real life. 21st century man has dropped all principles and ideas of identity, and can morph himself to fit the prevailing prejudices of society.

    People fluidly move between jobs, bank accounts, homes, towns, cities, countries. The online experience is even more ill defined and structureless. I would wager that the information collected by doubleclick, while disturbing, is not really such an invasion of privacy, for they are not invading the privacy of real people, but merely our avatars.

    The modern fluid identity provides information easily, but that information is false in a very short time.

    You know exactly what to do-
    Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-

    --

    You know exactly what to do-
    Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
    I think of little else but you.

    1. Re:Is online info really worth as much these days? by jafac · · Score: 2

      I don't know, I started out this Jafac identity as "Just Another Fucking Anonymous Coward". After a while (150 karma points later), I decided I wanted to stick with this persona.

      I don't read Jafac's spam.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  7. FUD and Doubleclick by Metal+Machine+Music · · Score: 4

    I always hear things about how evil Doubleclick are. For example, I run a website with advertising from Doubleclick. I have received a lot of flames from readers of the site about how evil they are, but I just can't see it myself.

    What are the allegations against them?

    That they collect data on customers in order to target advertising at them.

    Wow! I mean big whoop.

    This is not evil. If I get an ad targeted to me I'm pleased - I'd far rather have an advert for a nice geek product than one of these untargeted plastic pearl ads.

    So then what's the problem. The sum total of the evil is that you get good ads. This is not bad. I like buying things off the internet because it's cheap and convenient, and if I get a good offer I'm pleased.

    Furthermore, this means things are cheaper for you, which is also good, because companies spend less on advertising and sell more because of the targeting.

    Even if you do object to good offers then you should be used to companies monitoring you because *get this* it happens already! Everything you buy, those store cards, and even the man interviewing you in the street goes to data organizations. People make such a fuss just because the internet's involved. Do you notice polling organizations getting investigated?

    Of course not. This information's not even personal. It's information about people, not you.

    Still further, lest you forget, you're not just having these people coming into your house and spying on you. It's not like that. You give the information voluntarily - you don't have to go to these sites.

    Finally, what do you think would happen without this? Do you think the journalists on these ad-funded sites live on air? Of course they don't. It's time people realize that things have to be paid for - and unless you want to pay for the sites you visit, you better realize how good you got it - getting an improved consumer experience, cheaper products and free journalism. Sometimes I think these people don't like the internet, because they're doing a lot to kill it by trying to stop these sites funding themselves.

    1. Re:FUD and Doubleclick by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > Everything you buy, those store cards, and even the man interviewing you in the street goes to data organizations.

      When I buy things, I can use cash. I do.

      When I'm given a "warranty registration card", I can throw it away. I do.

      When I walk into a grocery store, I can buy things without using the grocery card. I do.

      When the man in the street asks me to take a survey, I can ignore him. I do.

      When Doublelick tries to serve me an ad to track what web sites I view - be they pr0n or news, Slashdot or microsoft.com - I can firewall them.

      I do, and I will.

      The problem with Doubleclick is that the Average Joe knows something about how he's being tracked by all those other forms of demographic data harvesting. He generally does not know that Doublelick wants to file his name against "into sheep pr0n, Natalie Portman and gr1tz."

      Doubleclick isn't a threat to be because I have their IP blocks firewalled. (w00h00, all g0atz, all da time, and Doubleclick don't know sheeeeit! Carnivore's another matter ;-) But they remain a threat to the privacy of the Average Joe.

      > unless you want to pay for the sites you visit, you better realize how good you got it - getting an improved consumer experience, cheaper products and free journalism.

      Advertising does not improve my consumer experience. Nor, in my experience, do links between news sites and advertisers increase the quality of the journalism I read. If anything, there's a negative correlation; in general (both online and on TV), the more reliant the editor is on advertising, the less trustworthy the journalism.

    2. Re:FUD and Doubleclick by iso · · Score: 2

      They now have a way to link that trail to you personally, not as just a unique user ID but to your name, address and phone number.

      bullshit! where are they getting your name, address and phone number? Doubleclick tracks you by a number, and that's it. this is hardly an invasion of privacy, it's market research!

      i agree with the original poster: i would much prefer targeted avertising than random advertising. advertisers are more likely to get the impressions they want and consumers are more likely to get the advertising that will interest them. advertising is not inherently evil, despite what some people here are inferring, and neither is market research.

      i've read Doubleclick's terms of service and they seem quite reasonable: they're in the business of market research, and sell their database to advertisers. now that the FTC has assured us that they're doing nothing outside of their terms of service, i'm completely satisfied.

      - j

    3. Re:FUD and Doubleclick by interiot · · Score: 3
      1) They're not up-front and completely open about it. Most people (esp. non-geeks) have certain expectations when dealing with banner ads, and doubleclick does something more, without informing them. While not illegal, people like it a lot more when companies refrain doing unexpected things to them.

      2) The privacy intrusions aren't equitable. In other words, they get to see 10% more of what we do, but we don't get to see 10% more of what they do. This is one proposed standard that I've seen for deciding if a privacy intrusion is acceptable, and it scales nicely to the Transparent Society. But in the monetary sense, it might be equitable, in that the site gets money for violating your privacy, and in turn, you get more costly services for free. *shrug*

      3) They've tried to make the information personally identifiable before, so why should we trust them with our data? I expect that soon, a company will emerge that will properly anonymize such information and still target ads, and will eventually be accepted by the public as a good thing (in that companies can respond to desires more quickly, so consumers get what they want faster). Such a company will have to do everything possible to make sure that its end users trust that company, because the collected data is more easily abused than most. Doubleclick has done just the opposite.
      --

  8. Does it strike anyone... by RareHeintz · · Score: 2
    ...as an odd coincidence (or at least as a dark omen) that less than a week after Baby Bush was installed in the Oval Office, the FTC coughs up a decision this friendly to a shitsack business interest? Maybe one really has nothing to do with the other, but it's hard not to infer a correlation.

    Just my US$2e-02.

    OK,
    - B
    --

    1. Re:Does it strike anyone... by QuantumG · · Score: 2

      Have you noticed recently that the price of coke has gone up and the number of fights breaking out on Jerry Springer has increased?! Maybe one really has nothing to do with the other, but it's hard not to infer a correlation. I tell ya man, you should be a psychologist with the complete lack of scientific skepticism that you show before drawing correlations.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Does it strike anyone... by RareHeintz · · Score: 2
      Well, unlike your oh-so-carefully-constructed example, there could actually be a cause and effect. Our new Nitwit-in-Chief has control over appointments at the FTC, and with a cudgel like that can probably pretty much get them to behave as he pleases. Given that his party is generally the more friendly of the two toward predatory businesses, it doesn't seem so far out.

      I tell ya man, you should be a television critic with the complete lack of depth with which you view something before deciding to attack it...

      OK,
      - B
      --

    3. Re:Does it strike anyone... by QuantumG · · Score: 2

      oh wait.. so you're not just noticing a correlation, you're actually claiming causation too! Wow, you must have some serious evidence to back this up. It is a well known fact that more coke is drunk during Jerry Springer than any other television show and that said television show is a lot more popular when there are fights. So, obviously, there has to be a causation here. Could it possibly be that the FTC just didn't have anything to pin on doubleclick because they hired a shitload of lawyers to construct their privacy policy and make sure that their business practices conform to the letter of the law? Isn't this just a little bit more plausible?! After all, dubya has been in office a week now? Has the appointments to the FTC even occured yet? Do you think they have even moved into their office and started sharpening their pencils yet? And do you really think that the first thing on their agenda was to get this pesky Doubleclick case off the books? Tell me, when exactly was the last time that a politician kept his promises so promptly? When was the last time you knew a public servant to act so swiftly? At least try to make your conspiracy theory somewhat feasible.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  9. Probe?? by tartanboy · · Score: 3

    By probe, they do mean anal probe right? That is what the FTC does, isn't it? If not I wonder who the gentlemen who came to my door the other day were...

  10. Man the data they must have on Steve Jobs by QuantumG · · Score: 3

    is it just me or does everyone put "Steve Jobs" into "name" fields on online forms?

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Man the data they must have on Steve Jobs by iso · · Score: 2

      i always put the name "Jim Green" with the email address jim@aol.com. i'm not exactly sure why i started using that name, but it's been at least five years now.

      i imagine Jim isn't terribly impressed with the amount of spam he's received over the past few years though. oh well, better him than me, and it serves him right for using AOL ;).

      - j

  11. Dubya by truthsearch · · Score: 2

    The Dubya administration had better make privacy an issue. If they do what they're expected to do with corporations, we'll probably have our lives more controlled by corporations than ever before.

  12. Not over yet by Alien54 · · Score: 2
    Well, it is not over yet:
    "There are still literally dozens of lawsuits from state attorneys generals and class-action litigants against DoubleClick," said Jason Catlett, president of privacy group Junkbusters.

    "And they're not all going to give up just because the FTC closed their investigation."

    The FTC's letter outlines steps that DoubleClick will take to update the next version of its privacy policy. The makeover will include information on the company's use of clear GIFs, or Web bugs; clarification on the opt-out cookie; and modifications to its Internet Address Finder Web site privacy policy that include more up-front guidelines on how data is sold.

    I have no particular problem with demographics. but it is one of those things where "We must use for GOOD, not EVIL"

    Who determines just what is good here? I swear, some marketers would not mind if we all tranced into being their trendy marketing slaves, or something, where you HAVE to purchase something as a matter of law?. Or Advertising becoming the next food group

    "Make sure to get your daily dose of advertising today!" or "SPAM brand advertising is Better for YOU"

    If we all become a slave of the marketeers (I Love Spam!), then everyone becomes a slave.

    like the old song: "If you're happy and you know it, clink your chains...."

    feh

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  13. Alta Vista ad on /. by truthsearch · · Score: 2

    Did anyone happen to notice that one of the ads on Slashdot, AltaVista Search Engive v3, is a link to ad.doubleclick.net?

    1. Re:Alta Vista ad on /. by interiot · · Score: 2
      Yes, I've brought this up several times, each time I've been modded down.

      Most people don't see it as a problem because... Slashdot has exclusive editorial control over its stories, and Andover has exclusive control over the advertisements. So no two-faced stuff going on really. Maybe hypocritical in that CmdrTaco is making money that comes from DC somewhere down the line, but it unrelated enough and it's such a small percentage of the ads that he probably manages to find a way to sleep at night.
      --

  14. Doubleclick stats by spudboy · · Score: 3
    It turns out that the cookies Doubleclick issues are hex numbers in sequence, so if you get enough, you can tell how many are being issued and other fascinating statistical facts.

    ddccss, the Distributed DoubleClick Cookie Snarfing System, now has more than 15 million DoubleClick cookies in its archive.

    Also, there's a Fucking Retards Guide to Blocking doubleclick.net.

    --
    -- Real free software sites don't use GIFs.
  15. Good! by Morphy3 · · Score: 2
    Let me ask all of you guys this... do you reeeeeeally want the Federal Government to regulate privacy? Start a War On Ads? When has the government ever intervened and helped anybody in recent history?

    Rather than give some unknowledgable bureaucrat the authority to say who can and cant use what ad system and when, why don't you organize a boycot of websites that use doubleclick. The liberal media would love to cover it. You will either see a competitor to doubleclick with a privacy agreement rise up, or websites will yank 3rd party ads off of their website. Most webmasters would prefer to see them go anyway.

    Just because something is 'bad' (drugs, medical bills, salary, investments), it is not going to get better with government regulation. The internet is where it is because the government stayed away from it for quote some time. Good!

    And remember... faceless corporations are an easy target for FUD because they seem inhuman or uncaring. But behind that faceless corporation are thousands of employees and investors... people with families, people who hire others, VC firms that feed other businesses, a replenishing fountain for the economy. In this case, our 'faceless' corporation supports hundreds of thousands of websites, which in turn are our new foundation of free speech and communication.

    Don't create a 'golem' by unleashing an Imperial Federal Government with the power to control what DBA's can or can't store. You will never get the monster to go back to where it came. Vote Libertarian.

    --
    ------
    I have not yet begun to procrastinate!
  16. How much do they pay you??? by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 3
    You are missing a few things here!

    They are not paying me for storing their cookies! They have not asked me for my permission top collect information about me.

    On your site, do you have a user approve their computer be used for storage before the storage of the cookie is done?