Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FTC Investigating Google-DoubleClick Deal

Posted by Zonk on from the somebody-attracted-somebody's-attention dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The New York Times is covering FTC interest in Google's purchase of the DoubleClick service. The investigation is in response to privacy group concerns over the amount of information Google will have available to it via its ad service and DoubleClick. Between a few days and a week from now the FTC should either declare the all clear, or elevate the process to a 'second request' stage. That would indicate more serious issues the federal body has an interest in. Google stated it was confident the purchase would hold up under scrutiny. 'In the complaint, the groups noted that Google collects the search histories of its users, while DoubleClick tracks what Web sites people visit. The merger, according to their complaint, would give one company access to more information about the Internet activities of consumers than any other company in the world.'"

8 of 81 comments (clear)

  1. If your worried by CastrTroy · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you're worried about how much data Google and doubleclick are collecting, then just block them from you firewall. If you never connect to their servers, they can't collect any information. If enough people start to do this kind of thing, they will have to start to find a new way of doing business.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    1. Re:If your worried by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you want to control google run this http://www.customizegoogle.com/ on top of firefox in preference to the google toolbar.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    2. Re:If your worried by badasscat · · Score: 3, Informative

      But how do you really stop Google from storing all this data.

      With a law.

      How do you control what data they are allowed to store.

      With a law.

      Is yahoo somehow exempt from this because they receive less traffic?

      No, Yahoo is exempt because they do not collect the same type of information. Laws only affect those who undertake the actions defined within the law.

      The problem here is that how do you define too much, and what's the difference between google collecting a whole bunch of data, and your government census department collecting a whole bunch of data, and making it a crime if you don't respond to the census.

      The difference is the law. Provisions for the census are in the US Constitution. It was the law of the land long before you were ever born and most likely long before your family even arrived here.

      I mean, I know the /. crowd leans towards the libertarian side of things, but some people act as if they've never even heard of the rule of law around here. I guess given our current administration, that's probably not too surprising - but the fact remains that there's no inalienable right that says Google should be allowed to collect all this data on its users, which means there's no reason not to make it illegal if that's what's determined to be in the public interest.

      Who makes these determinations? The people we elect specifically for that purpose. This is why we have a congress. You can call them incompetent, you're free to dislike your representatives, but it's not like it's some big mystery who gets tasked with drafting laws in our governmental system. That is your congressperson's job. If you don't like the job they're doing, then vote for somebody else next time - but this is what they're there to do, and as long as they're there, you should use them.

      I think there is also a tendency for some people to turn fairly simple questions of law into larger philosophical debates. I don't really understand the reason for that. If people don't like the fact that Google is going to be collecting all this data, then we should pressure our congress to draft a law that stops them or anyone else from doing it. It's really that simple. There's no point worrying about whether it would apply to one company or another or why it doesn't apply to government or whatever. Laws are designed to address practical and specific societal issues; they're not designed to address abstract philosophical ethical questions.

  2. Weird wording by niconorsk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The merger, according to their complaint, would give one company access to more information about the Internet activities of consumers than any other company in the world. Wasn't this the case for Google before they bought Google? Not to dismiss their worries(Google freaks me out sometimes), but they could have found a better way to voice them.
    --
    Nothing is impossible. We just haven't quite worked out how to do it yet.
  3. So.. who's number one right now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So they are complaining that this deal will give Google more information about consumers than any other company in the world. Now, I'm all for a healthy dose of tin-foil in my daily diet but someone has to have more information than everyone else. Am I the only one wondering who has the most information right now and why there isn't a complaint against that company already with the FTC?

  4. Well, no wonder by Bullfish · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People lie regularly on the net when answering surveys, filling out forms etc. They can still track you, but other than that, they can only have the information you give them. Survey after survey has found people lie when talking about themselves on-line etc. Not a surprise even if it really isn't all that effective. If you are really concerned, there are things like TOR that can help you be anonymous. Ultimately, people have to accept the web is not a private place. If you can see them, they can see you. Act accordingly.

    I would like to see a FTC stipulation that after infromation has been "aged", it should be deleted. I doubt though that in these paranoid times it will happen though, so I can only say keep on lying and use TOR etc if you don't like the prying eyes.

    As far as google not being evil. They are a business.

  5. Oh no! by Dancindan84 · · Score: 3, Funny

    90% of Google users search for boobies
    90% of DoubleClick's responses are people clicking on ads with boobies

    Combined together, they'll know that 90% of internet users want to find booies! That's just too much power for one company to have!

    --
    "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
  6. My response to the doubleclick deal by Lengyel · · Score: 4, Informative
    My response to the doubleclick deal has to add the following entries to my /etc/hosts file. It's most gratifying to see blank spaces formerly occupied by distracting advertisements. Initially I defined ad.doubleclick.net to be the localhost address in /etc/hosts, and then found the other addresses below at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103807/categories/rant/2 002/04/23.html.


    127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
    127.0.0.1 m.doubleclick.net
    127.0.0.1 img.x10.com
    127.0.0.1 ads.x10.com
    127.0.0.1 www.x10.com
    127.0.0.1 x10.com
    127.0.0.1 ads.addynamix.com
    127.0.0.1 leadgreed.com
    127.0.0.1 www.leadgreed.com
    127.0.0.1 c1.zedo.com
    127.0.0.1 ad.trafficmp.com
    127.0.0.1 media.adcentriconline.com