Slashdot Mirror
Privacy Groups Mull 'Do Not Track' List for Internet
Technical Writing Geek writes with a Reuters story about a collection of privacy groups looking to set up a 'Do Not Track' list online, similar to the 'Do Not Call' list meant to dissuade telemarketing. "Computer users should be notified when their Web surfing is tracked by online advertisers and Web publishers, argue the Consumer Federation of America, the World Privacy Forum and the Center for Democracy and Technology, among other groups in a coalition promoting the idea. Rather than burying privacy policies in fine print, companies should also disclose them more fully and provide easier ways to opt out, the groups said. The organizations submitted the proposals to the Federal Trade Commission, ahead of the consumer watchdog agency's workshop on Nov. 1-2 to study the increasing use of tracking technology to target online ads.
Anyone else see the problem here?
OK, let's set up a "Do Not Track" list. How are they going to know not to track you? By figuring out who you are, then checking to see if you're on the list.
Oops.
A better idea would be a standardized opt-out system where your browser tells every server, "Do not track me," then set up web applications to honor that choice.
Maybe set up an X-DontTrackMe header for HTTP requests. Or a standardized DontTrack=true cookie not linked to a domain. Something that has no unique information and gets sent to every website. Then turn it on and off in the browser with a checkbox.
Something like that could be tested as a Firefox extension or IE browser helper (if I'm remembering the terminology correctly) to start with, then added to browsers themselves.
The 'Do Not Call' list works - to a degree - because people who ignore it run the risk of legal action, due to all being inside the country they're calling. I can't see many companies going to the extent of running offshore telemarketing companies due to the high cost of international calls.
This problem obviously does not exist on the internet - the cost of serving up those banners to millions of people clearly doesn't eat into the profits of these companies, so there's no reason for them to stop, and if laws are passed forcing them to stop, they'll simply be replaced by foreign companies advertising either on behalf of the same companies serving up the ads now, or set up by the advertising companies to circumvent the laws.
This won't work.
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
Exactly.
My first reaction to this story was to add the "futile" tag.
I think we all have to get used to the thought that if there is any information out there, that is publicly accessible in plaintext, it will be cataloged, author identified, and data-mined ad infinitum. Given the technological capability to collect, organize, and process data... as well as the prolific availability of said data, we cannot reasonably expect any privacy laws to deter usage of this data, whether it be by private companies for profit, or government entities for censorship and oppression.
The way I see it, the only way to ensure any real privacy, is to personally ensure anonymity at any point where it seems necessary. With this, there will come more and more tradeoffs in terms of conveniences, and ultimately perhaps even one's place in society... but this is a choice we're all making right now, and will certainly have to make in the future.
This "do not track" group is a bunch of die-hard IE users. Since MS refuses to add reasonable privacy tools, they are looking for legislation. Idiots. This is a browser problem, not an advertiser problem. Considering that the wonderful US Congress can't even get a reasonable anti-spam law in place and instead created one that makes the problem WORSE, I don't know what the hell they are thinking Congress will do. Most likely we will end up with a law that outlaws privacy tools like Firefox / Adblock and instead mandates a stupid list that only US based companies are obliged to obey.
This is the Internet equivalent of having a 'Kick Me' sign stuck to your back.
I already 'opt out' of website advertising - I add the advertiser to my do not advertise list. It's called adblock. It's gold.
Mods, the GP was indeed humorous but its writer deserved mod points (you don't get points for "funny"; mod me however you want, my karma's excellent so "funny" is fine). His point in the admittedly humorous post was that these lists would be completely worthess, as there is no possible way to enforce them.
This is completely unlike the "do not call" lists; these are country-specific. If I spam your phone and you're on a do not call list, we're most likely to share the same government (at least so far) You can be prosecuted.
OTOH, the AC's post above this one should be modded funny. Oh, right, tough room...
This post void where prohibited by law
-mcgrew
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Right this way, sir. Our company has set up a database to help manage your email marketing experience. And it won't even cost you a thing! Just confirm your valid email address via a script, and...
The sad thing is, I know this would collect a LOT of valid emails. (Probably from folks who would buy things from spammers, too.) Unfortunately, I'm not quite evil enough to bring myself to do that. It's too bad, really.
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
Obviously such a list would not contain the actual addresses, but some type of checksum for each address. Then the onus would be on the sender to make sure that any email addresses they already know about do not hash to a value in the list.