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.

Comments

Do not spam?

[ACS Solver]

So when will I be able to add my email to a "do not spam" list?

unrealistic goals

[User 956]

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.

Also, they want world peace, and a pony.

Re:unrealistic goals

[morgan_greywolf]

Agreed. Completely unrealistic. If you want to opt out of being tracked by advertisers, here are the only steps you need to perform:

• Download Firefox
• Install the Adblock Plus and NoScript extensions
• T
  
• Go to Edit | Preferences or Tools | Options (depending on platform) and go to the Privacy tab. Uncheck 'Accept cookies from sites'.
  
• Click Exceptions. Add in all the sites that you use that need cookies to work right (online banking, Slashdot, etc.)

Tada! You're done. Now you can't be tracked (unless you specifically want to be).

Re:unrealistic goals

[TheMeuge]

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.

Anyone else see the problem here?

[Kelson]

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.

Internet != Telephone

[One Childish N00b]

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.

on a "do not spam" list

[khallow]

The largest lesson in emal spamming has been that they'll send spam to anything resembling an email. They don't care where it came from or how and why they got it. So as I see it the only value of a "do not spam" list is that it will contain a lot of active email addresses. That is gold to spammers and I think anyone who believes such a list will reduce spamming (rather than have the opposite effect) is sorely deluded.

Re:on a "do not spam" list

[kinko]

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.

(yawn) Yet another pre-defeated proposal

[Arrogant-Bastard]

Sometimes I find myself idly wondering how many miserable failures of opt-out proposals will be necessary before people get a clue that opt-in offers the only possible way to success.

Then I snap out of it and remind myself that of course some people have a clue, and that's precisely why they continue to put these proposals out (or to enthusiastically back them): doing so serves their purposes nicely. It allows them to proudly say that "they've taken the lead in protecting privacy" while of course they're doing everything they possibly can to do the opposite. (They do this, of course, because they're well aware that few people would opt-in to have telemarketers bother them, or to have spammers clog their mailboxes, or to have their personal data collected.)

This situation is unlikely to change in the forseeable future. Just as it's given us ineffective anti-telemarketing measures, just as it's given us ineffective anti-spam measures, the outcome of this process will inevitably give us ineffective anti-privacy-invasion measures.

Which is why it's probably best to just ignore this nonsense and instead use technological means to either deny data to invaders or feed them bogus data.