Helping Surfers Sidestep Site Registration

netbuzz writes, "PrefPass, a startup debuting at DEMO today, is looking to do for the onerous Web site registration process what Amazon has done for shopping: one click and you get the goods. If it catches on, sites requiring full registration may feel the heat." Looks like sites will have an incentive to implement PrefPass; it's not antagonistic to their interests in the way Bugmenot is.

Comments

Attempted before?

[daveschroeder]

Hasn't this been attempted before, with the likes of PassPort, and other numerous "universal" single-signon type things that have attempted to partner with commercial sites, and so on?

It says it's different from PassPort, and I agree, but I fail to see why this would have any more success.

Re:Attempted before?

[MBCook]

If you read the article it explains the difference. While Passport is a full login (that can hold things like Credit Card numbers and such) this just holds information about what you like and your name, stuff like that. For all intents and purposes you are still anonymous, but they can customize content so that you are more likely to read it using the information you provide.

Compare that to Passport who is basically giving a site a biography on your if you use it.

Re:Attempted before?

[Red Flayer]

It's the one-click feature -- no userID, no password.

Basically, one aggregate cookie for each person that displays (limited to PrefPass participant sites) browser history. The reason this works better than Passport for a lot of sites is that the website is provided with marketing info, not just a validation of the user. So the participating sites don't need to request the info, they don't need to worry about storing the info (if they do so to make sure non-cookie-accepting-visitors still get tracked), etc.

Another way to think about it is meta-tagging applied to websurfers for the use of websites they visit.

Re:Attempted before?

[mastergoon]

I'm not here to plug on my own site, especially because I don't even really maintain it anymore (no time or interest really), and there are probably other, better solutions out there. However, I will mention it because what you are saying is what I was trying to do.

I'm talking about MyUID [slashdot article]. I set up a site where you created a profile, which could be read over sites that participated in using our API. You specified what public information you wanted to provide, your privacy was up to you. However, I think most people missed that point and I mostly recieved a flood of complaints about privacy concerns.

I hope a site like this can succeed some day.

Re:Attempted before?

[KillerCow]

this just holds information about what you like and your name, stuff like that. For all intents and purposes you are still anonymous

I think that your definition of "anonymous" is different from most people's.

Re:Attempted before?

[John Hasler]

anonymous@example.com is a member. His "fav" site is www.example.com

Don't the sites want the demographic info?

[khasim]

I thought (correct me if I'm wrong) that the reason those sites want your age / sex / location was for demographics (for marketing and such).

If they just want to personalize your page, a cookie should be sufficient.

So, if this tool allows me to login to multiple sites, but with faked info, I don't see the sites going for it.

Re:Don't the sites want the demographic info?

[kfg]

So, if this tool allows me to login to multiple sites, but with faked info, I don't see the sites going for it.

This tool does not help you log into the NYTimes by providing their registration process with fake info. It helps you log in to sites that have opted in to the program and agreed to take less info about you during registration.

Sites obviously don't want fake info; it doesn't simply affect their interactions with you, very small amounts of fake info can completely fuck the validity of the statistical inferences that they make from it (and you should think about that the next time you read some study conducted by phone survey). Less info is better than fake info.

So how do the participating sites get targeting and statistical information out of you from this system?

Ahhhhhhhh, well, ya see, there's the rub. The central outfit stores some info about you and the site gets that info from their server. They keep your site cookie. What's in that cookie? A browsing history.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

Anyway, the information the sites get with which to target advertising and play with numbers is your history of browsing participating sites. Go to L.L. Bean and they know you're a potential Land's End customer, but probably don't have much interest in Deb or The Limited.

KFG

Registration for what?

[TheWoozle]

I hate sites that require registration to access "free" content. Either publish your content to your "free" website, or charge me for it. I shouldn't have to tell you anything about myself to get access.

I know I'm jaded and cynical, but how much of the information that is entered into web site registration pages is genuine, anyway?

Re:Registration for what?

[windowpain]

When the checkout chick at Linens 'n Things asks me for my phone number I always answer, "What's the use? You'll never call me. You never do. I wait by the phone night after night hoping and praying but it never rings. Stop teasing me."

Re:Registration for what?

[daeg]

It doesn't matter to the websites what info you give us. In fact, your fake information helps us more than your real information? Did you say you're 80 years old? Awesome. The stats are skewed similar to the way that election polls are. Certain groups are known to be under-represented so the information is skewed appropriately. While not entirely accurate, it helps.

Again, the websites that pull the info generally couldn't give a shit about your info. The advertisers do, though. Enough people provide real information to make it worth the hastle.

And content isn't free, per se. Freely available, yes, but the expectation is that you read our content and in exchange look at our advertising. No advertising revenue would mean you would only have access to jaded blogs written by 13-year-olds who haven't yet realized it's down the highway, not across the street.

Re:Registration for what?

[hankwang]

I hate sites that require registration to access "free" content.

What's even worse is if they let in the search engine spiders (Googlebot etc.) but require registration (and sometimes even payment) from human visitors. Whenever I encounter such a site, I report it to http://www.google.com/contact/spamreport.html as a cloaked page. If enough people do this, maybe Google will do something about it.

oh well, fake registration...

[gd23ka]

But when I do let you know something about me, then know that even though I'm a high school dropout
I am also a 22 year old 5"4 athletic blonde female and I just love the sex older men can give me and I'm
interested in dating and romance. I like Billy Graham, Zachariah Sitchen but I hate Prince Phillip and
I earn more than a hundred thousand dollars a year working as a pharma whore.

PrefPass for PrefPass

[MojaveHigh]

Can I use PrefPass to avoid registration for PrefPass?

Re:PrefPass for PrefPass

[WoLpH]

They invented BugMeNot for that ;)

Bugmenot link?

[paulproteus]

For some reason, the article omitted a link to bugmenot. There's a Firefox extension that automates the process.

If you don't know what this is, it's a user-maintained list of usernames and passwords for sites that "bug" you for registration. Some sites block Bugmenot-listed usernames and passwords but most don't.

Re:passport?

[jjeffries]

I know it's weird, but...

I love the way you say "passport".

C'mon, won't you say it again?

mmmmmm.... passport... it's just such a beautiful word...

passport...

passport!

No password?

[CurbyKirby]

A Web-based service, the PrefPass registration itself requires only two pieces of information from a user: an e-mail address and the URL of a first Web site or feed in which the user is interested.

So if you're only identified by an already public identifier (that being your email address), what's to prevent people from messing around with other people's preferences? Cookies can be lost by the legitimiate user and spoofed by an attacker. IP-based filering doesn't work for different users behind a common firewall. I wonder how they can get by without some sort of password. I wish they had a technical FAQ to go along with their press release.

No surprises here

[rts008]

Just another vehicle to serve up even more advertising.

FTA: "In exchange, users agree to let PrefPass sites access their pref lists, thus allowing them to customize the experience, as well target advertising to the user."

I'll stick with BugMeNot, thank you.

Re:Submitted by NetBuzz?!?!

[Verdict]

Note that the submitters email address is "@nww.com" which resolves to networkworld. How much does it cost to get your product listed on slashdot these days?

Wrong Name for it!

[misterhypno]

PrefPass should be something like PassTheInfo, HandItOverToHackers or, maybe TARGET.

Because that's what it's going to become if the public and the corporations actually start using this thing.

One Big Target. Hackers start your engines...!

Lee Darrow, C.H.

You may wish to RTFA...

[Penguinisto]

Umm, unless your email addy and bookmarks list is enough for someone to take out credit in your name, I sincerely doubt that...

I honestly don't see an easy way for spammers to cull this thing (unless they bust into the PrefPass servers, I suppose).

/P

To Hell with What They Want

[PopeRatzo]

I could not care much less for what sites want when they try to collect my demographic information. More often then not, it is directly the opposite of my own desires and preferences. I go to a site to read an article, check a price, or a score, or the day's news. I will look at an advertisement under protest, but I will not willingly give them ammunition to bother me outside of my interaction with their site.

When a site asks for my personal information just so I can see their advertisements on my way to reading the morning's news, I have no problem at all about lying to them. I give a fake name, a fake zip code and a fake email.

If they require an email authorization, I use a spamcatcher account that is created with fake information.

Since when are we required to acquiesce to the wishes of the corporate world just for the privelege of purchasing and using their products? Since when do I have to provide correct personal information just to get the day's weather forecast?

It's the same thing when I go to a Best Buy or Radio Shack and they ask for my zip code or last name. Maybe down the line if they figure out that people are lying to them they'll stop asking.

I'm starting to believe that the next few decades will be marked by the traditional business/customer relationship being replaced by a much more combative, adversarial interaction between the individual and the corporation. It will be to nobody's benefit, but it seems that there are few ways to discourage real assholes. I'm sure those of us who still believe in the primacy of the individual and privacy in general will become inventive in coming up with more ways to thwart these "business" people who believe they have ownership rights over our lives. It's time to balance the scales a bit, I think.

My Thought...

[Kaenneth]

There could be a standard HTTP header field defined.

Call it 'X-Demographics'

Contents would be of the form

"X-Demographics: Age/28, Location/Seattle, Sex/Male, Occupation/Programmer"

All free-form and user selected, with browsers offering a dialog where users can set common information, and choose when/where to send it.

Servers must not require the info, and must accept invalid data without dying ( "Age -1/Location The Moon/Sex Yes Please" ) but if provided, they can customize their content/advertising.

Sure, users might deliberatly provide false data, but they would do that anyway with a 'log on' form; and if you don't want to provide it, you don't (default in a browsers should be nothing sent without user approval) and browsers should be able to control which sites get sent what data. Even a simple mechanism, such as the first time you visit a site, do not send data, but if you return to the site later, then send it.

Details of parsing are trivial (I know, not really), once a standard basic layout and header field name is chosen, I'm going for something like the 'Accept:' field format.

I don't mind reasonable advertisments, but as an example, as a guy, I really have no interest in tampon ads, and I doubt the tampon companies want to spend their advertising dollars on me.

Mailinator

[cs96and]

Whenever a site asks me to register before I can access content (and I don't mind my username/password being made public), I use http://www.mailinator.com/. You basically make.up.an.email.address@mailinator.com, and then head over to the site, type in your made up email address, and it shows you the last 5 (probably spam) messages it has received. Of course its totally unsecure (but that's sort of the point), so be careful what you use it for.