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.

Comments

FTC has no power (yet) regarding privacy

[Masem]

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.

FUD and Doubleclick

[Metal Machine Music]

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.

Re:Read the fine print

[dervish121]

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...