Slashdot Mirror
DoubleClick Settles Privacy Investigation
guttentag writes "DoubleClick ended the 30-month probe into its business practices with an agreement to pay $450,000 for the investigative costs of the states and 'consumer education.' It also agreed to allow a third-party to audit it for compliance with its privacy policy for four years and give individuals access to their profiles. However, it will continue to use to track users with cookies. The Washington Post also has an article, but it is conspicuously missing the standard disclosure statement that informs readers of The Post's business relationship with DoubleClick." Well, let me be sure to point out then that Slashdot also serves Doubleclick ads. If you recall, this all started when Doubleclick merged with a database company and announced plans to merge its online and offline databases.
What? Are they like Equifax and the other credit agencies now? "Access to their profiles". Let me guess, this will involve making 10 phone calls, waiting on hold. Where's the URL man!?
exactly how much companies will pay for good information.
Reminds me of the Simpsons episode where the toy company bought the school for their market research...
... that I get prompted by mozilla before I accept cookies.
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
Thats small compared to what they made.. and they will "continue to track users with cookies"
Says what... if audit takes 4 years they can do what they do for 4 years.
Their privacy policy is a big joke... but who cares anyways. Whats about cost to "users".
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
"It also agreed to allow a third-party to audit it for compliance with its privacy policy for four years and give individuals access to their profiles."
Where will we have access to our profiles? What will it be looked up by? Our cookie? Our email address? I will be interested to see just what information is linked to me personally.
I don't think we will be able to see everything. Only time will tell.
Chris
www.talkingtoad.com
Doubleclick will sell to anyone, and I can't believe that some people buy into it. For example, I have an account with Bank Of America, and one day while I was checking my account balances I noticed that mozilla was loading something from doubleclick. I looked at the page and there were no ads to be seen. I checked out the HTML source and sure enough they were loading a 1x1 transparent gif from doubleclick. Now, could someone please explain to me why Bank of America would be interested in doing that? The only possible reason they could be doing this is:
1) Doubleclick is paying them an assload of money to do it.
2) BOA is receiving browsing profiles for their banking customers.
Those are the only possible benefits I can see from this whole thing. Any comments?
its so nice to just block all cookies. Then when a website tells me that I need a cookie, or a shopping cart doesn't work I go back and accept it. I have yet to see a cookie that serves a dual purpose of tracking you and doing something useful, like a shopping cart. It seems that doubleclick and other ad companies always use separate cookies from that of the site advertised on.
So until they find a better way to do it, I don't think they are going to get me.
As for all this stuff they are doing. Allowing users to view profiles. Paying for "education" etc. It's all just the usual. They do a few things to make themselves not look like a horrible evil. Whoever is pestering them has to lay off for a bit, and they continue business as usual.
Does anyone know if doubleclick is currently profitable? I mean considering how banner ads don't work, how can a company that relies on them still exist?
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
"However, it will continue to use to track users with cookies"
You mean they dare to track who goes to their site? Thats an outrageous intrusion into my privacy! Imagine what would happen in high-street stores kept details of who bought what! What about governmental agencies? We must fight this threat to our freedom before its too late!
Slashdot also serves Doubleclick ads
Yeah, I know. I find it really amusing when the topic is the typical MS bashing post and there is a huge ad for Visual Studio.net
Live web cams
'Correct' your profile to be a 80 year old trans-gendered, trans-racial, Alaskian arc-welder living in New York with a disposible income of $125,000.
That aught to cause a few people to pause.
Or just change your address to match double click's...
Remember- the data is only as good as you give it.
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
I redirected all doubleclick.anything names to localhost long ago. Problem solved! (Of course there's always junkbuster too)
...what doubleclick do about multi-user PC's?
:o)
Loads of people use my PC, my family when the come round to visit, my friends etc. And they all surf the web taking advantage of my broadband connection
Their profile of "me" must be a right mess. I think they're taking advertisers for a ride when they say they can target people who visit "this" sort of web page, when there is no guarantee that the person using the computer at a given time is the same person that visited "that" web page.
I'm sure there's more to it that i'm missing (like linking up with email addresses on forms etc), but i'm still not sure I really understand what / how they're profiling.
PHB.
Use Mozilla, selectively block Doubleclick cookies (as I do) and laugh all the way through the web page that serves Doubleclick adds :)
D.
Well, IP address for a lot of dialup users are reassigned each time they connect. For AOL users, this means millions of possible address. Given that AOL has something like 40% market share in the US, IP based tracking won't work that well.
:P
On the other hand, cookie based systems work well, and are linked to user accounts on specific computers.
Opting out is done by setting the double click cookie to zero or something, and it seems to work pretty well.
I remember opting out and starting to see ads for feminine hygiene stuff. Maybe it was really a kind of punishment
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Most of the time, when more then one person uses a computer frequently, multiple user accounts are set up.
Under windows (as well as most unix installs) A persons cookies will be linked to their user accounts, not the PC itself.
And yes, most families really do have seperate user accounts set up.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
DoubleClick panics
To be cool like microsoft
Pretend innocence
Users profiles
Now open to the public
Cause mob to delete
What would be better than making you "sign up" to view your profile? Just for authentication, you know, to make sure nobody else accesses it "by mistake". Then, they'd have names and email addresses to go along with browsing profiles, if they don't have a match for every one already. Neat trick, if you ask me.
My .sig beat up your honor student
Any computer which is used by more than one person (A family, say. My wife doesn't read Slashdot, and I rarely use EBay.)
If you think you can do user tracking just by using the IP address of the connecting computer, then I'm glad that this isn't 1999 anymore. You could have made millions with that poorly thought out business proposition.
So this screen we sit in front of has some machinery behind it that can track our activities and behaviors? You say it's merging like crazy consolidating databases? Nice. How very 1984.
Would it be possible to write a program that feeds disinformation to doubleclick? If 5000 people would download it (I might) and run it on theire xDSL modem... How fast would theire database be turning bad? And if their statistics are wrong, their business is gone.
How does one wirte such a jammer-program?
-- (:> jms cs.vu.nl (_) --"---
Slashdot: The register's news from yesterday, now with Comments(tm).
It's a pity that slashdot can't (won't) at least link to them - they have good articles, written by people who at least appear to have some common sense, and actually Check The Facts (learn that one, Boys!)
Well, let me be sure to point out then that Doubleclick ads are blocked here. So when my Slashdot page comes up, regardless of whether the Elite Monkeys generate it, or the Random Elephants generate it, or the Barrel of Psycho Mummies generate it, if it has images that refer to any server in the doubleclick domain (and a few others), they come up blank (a 1x1 transparent GIF is substituted). If Slashdot wants to be sure to maximize revenues, it should either be sure it charges for providing the tag, even if the image is never loaded, or make sure a different advertising source is used (which may be hard if the advertiser wants to use doubleclick ... but then, those are going to be advertisers that are not going to generate as much revenue for this very reason). As I edit this comment, I'm seeing a banner ad for OSDN's PriceCompare. I may check it out later when I'm bored.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
But, what about those weasels at servedby.advertising.com?
I must say, I just love it, in a perverse kind of way, when MS actually pays Slashdot to host their own bashing.
:)
Sometimes, life's just too good.
-- B.
This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
Two or three years ago, all the newspaper computer columns were full of "don't worry, be happy" explanations of why cookies cannot be used to identify individuals. They stated authoritatively that there was NO POSSIBLE WAY cookies could be used in this fashion and "explained" the "technical reasons" behind it.
For example, Infoworld columnist Fred Langa says here that "To me, cookies seem pretty harmless. Despite commonly-voiced concerns among the anti-cookie faction, cookies (or the JavaScripts that create them) won't let website owners surreptitiously figure out who you are, for example... My advice: leave cookies turned on; the real benefits far outweigh the very small risks."
Indeed, a Google search on "cookies cannot be used to identify individuals" turns up 21000 hits--mostly in Web site's privacy statements.
DoubleClick's motto: when it comes to invading privacy, we do the "impossible" every day.
I think Slashdot should rethink its connection with DoubleClick.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
One way to not appear in their databases...
# hosts
0.0.0.0 doubleclick.com
0.0.0.0 doubleclick.net
etc., etc. for any adservers that you don't like the look of.
demon
-----
Nothing is ever a total loss; it can always serve as a bad example.
Perhaps all the Cookie Paranoia could be put to rest if there were a mandatory extension to the existing Cookie Protocol which indicated the 'type' or 'use' of a particular cookie, examples could include:
** Session Tracking
** Shopping (Carts etc.)
** Advertisers and Profilers (such as Doubleclick)
And possibly a variety of others.
Once such a system was in place, a user should be able to select whether to Accept, Reject or be Prompted for cookies of each type.
The only problem would be getting the adertisers to use their 'designated' cookie type...
Disclaimer: I meant what I thought, not what I wrote! What? You can't read my Mind? Oh dear!
If you've got Mac OS X, try using OmniWeb. It can block ads and off-site cookies, and you can block all images from any site matching a regular expression (VERY cool).
How is DoubleClick going to cause any problems if their ads don't load and their cookies don't take?
(* from the perspective of the guy putting DoubleClick ads on his website *)
Does this mean that people that rely on advertising dollars are now Double Screwed?
First, Double Click has to generate revenue to pay for this settlement, so I'm sure they're going to take that money from their publishers
Second, now that they can't resell demographics, does this mean they will have an even further revenue shortage?
My question is this: They already don't pay shit to their publishers, so I ask Double Click:
Where's they money gonna come from?
HallmarkOrnaments.Com
Just tried viewing their Privacy statement:
/ pr ivacy/default.asp?asp_object_1=&
http://www.doubleclick.com/us/corporate/privacy
Got a 404... imagine that.
-- Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Does that mean we're going to see 'truth' commericals about web privacy like we see about cigarettes?
Every day, thousands of browsers die due to an overdose of cookies. Friends don't let friends save cookies.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
I've found Ad-Aware to be a great tool for pulling out all kinds of spyware, including Double-Click's and other's cookies.
http://www.lavasoftusa.com/ to download.# cp db.localhost db.doubleclick
# cat << EOF >> named.conf
> zone "doubleclick.net" {
> notify no;
> type master;
> file "/etc/bind/db.doubleclick";
> };
> EOF
This the best thing to happen since Mozilla. http://www.adshield.org/ Freeware ad and popup blocker. FU M$ and your explorer. Learn what people really want.
I always wrap my computers with aluminum foil to prevent aliens and advertisers from sucking personal data about me into their databases. Also wrapping your tv in foil prevents the subliminal messages from the government from taking hold of your thought processes.
if the FBI would give people access to their profiles....
Funny how the US Govt doesnt get fined for the same type of Carnivore related privacy violations.
So whenever my girlfriend uses my computer it will add more fun things to my profile, and I get can breast enlargement ads in addition to penile-enlargement ads? I'm sure most of the information they have on a large amount of users is more-or-less useless...
Hmmm... doubleclick is reading in that a user likes websites about uses for gerbils that certainly aren't sanctioned by my local petstore. Of course, the user was just looking for pet food supplies and found that gerbillove.com isn't actually to do with standard affection for your fine furry friends. That won't stop google though, so now you can enjoy the pleasure of having your email address added to lists such as "gerbilfetish" and "rodentlust" etc etc
And you wonder how they got your email address...
Good lord, what a weak settlement.
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
#block doubleclick.net
block return-rst out on ep0 from any to { 208.32.211.0/24, \
216.73.80.0/20, 208.228.86.0/24, 204.176.177.0/24, 205.138.3.0/24, \
63.168.198.0/25, 63.160.54.0/24, 63.166.98.0/24, 65.167.64.0/22, \
208.10.202.0/24, 64.240.193.64/26, 199.95.206.0/22 }
block in on ep0 from { 208.32.211.0/24, \
216.73.80.0/20, 208.228.86.0/24, 204.176.177.0/24, 205.138.3.0/24, \
63.168.198.0/25, 63.160.54.0/24, 63.166.98.0/24, 65.167.64.0/22, \
208.10.202.0/24, 64.240.193.64/26, 199.95.206.0/22 } to any
loopback host address. I've not seen a doubleclick ad in quite some time. Ad-aware pulls their cookies, so I don't have too....
I've thought of doing a Mozilla (I.E. too, maybe) plug-in that would do the following when loading images:
1) check for untrusted domains...e.g. doubleclick
2) check for images being loaded with some id being appended to the query string (e.g. embedded e-mail images that alert spammers when someone opens a mail.)
This plug-in would disect the number and generate a random number in a similar format and send that number in the cookie or the query string as the case may be.
This would ultimately render doubleclick's business model useless (well, assuming everyone would use such a plug-in). And as far as I see it, it's fair game since I *never* gave them (direct) permission to collect information on me in the first place.
This is the result of two simple axioms: 1) Most software is very bad. 2) You usually get what you pay for.
Now, of course these two are not absolutes, and in particular the validity of number 2 could be questioned on a number of grounds. But companies aren't just paying for the software itself, they're paying for the entire process. And they beleive that if you invest in a process, you can achieve a better result than trying to guess which inexpensive option won't blow up in your face six months down the road.
My DNS server sends all queries for doubleclick.com and doubleclick.net (and some others) over an HTTP/HTTPS server that for any URI requested, always delivers a 1x1 transparent GIF. Bingo, no ads, and nothing tracked.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Says so right here in my hosts file: ads.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ...funny, I don't remember being notified of an investigation.
Ummm, there is a large insert near the beginning of the article stating that the Post's website uses Doubleclick to serve ads.
-N
I've firewalled out doubleclick's stuff a long time ago, but I was wondering how they key the stuff in their database. Is it keyed by the cookie, or something more persistent on the client machine? I.e., if somebody runs Ad-Aware and deletes a doubleclick cookie, then receives another different one the next day on the same client machine, does it break doubleclick's correlation of the prior and later data? Somehow I'd be surprised if it does...
I know there are reasons behind this, but it is very funny to me that DoubleClick's "Cookie Opt-Out" installs a cookie. Rejecting it gives you a error page.
yeah I know I'm not supposed to say that sort of thing here - but they have!
In MSIE6.0 you can block (and I believe it's default) secondary cookies, meaning cookies originating from secondary items like banner ads. This actually blocks doubliclick in the right way. Think about it!
Cookies are a good thing. And people are generally way too paranoid. "I have disabled cookies" is really a sad statement.
I think Slashdot should rethink its connection with DoubleClick.
Once x% of the Slashdot community subscribes, I'm sure Slashdot will do away with ads altogether.
However, until that point in time, we can go fuck ourselves -- we'll take what we're given, and we'll like it.
Personally, though, I haven't seen an ad on Slashdot for quite some time indeed. Oops.
get over it.