UK ISPs To Start Tracking Your Surfing To Serve You Ads

TechDirt has an interesting article about a UK-based company that is trying to work with ISPs to make use of user surfing data to serve targeted ads. "Late last year, we heard about a company that was trying to work with ISPs to make use of that data themselves to insert their own ads based on your surfing history -- and now we've got the first report of some big ISPs moving into this realm. Over in the UK three big ISPs, BT, Carphone Warehouse and Virgin Media have announced plans to use your clickstream data to insert relevant ads as you surf through a new startup called Phorm."

Comments

hmm

[RMH101]

So it's bad when ISPs do this, but OK when Google does it?

Re:hmm

[N7DR]

So it's bad when ISPs do this, but OK when Google does it?

Yes. It's part of the data returned by Google. The ISP has to snoop the data stream and insert its own traffic into it.

ISPs should be forbidden from altering the data stream unless they own the content that's being transferred.

Re:hmm

[corsec67]

Wouldn't copyright law already cover that?

You can't take a copy of my website, insert a little bit, and then serve that. Couldn't google sue any ISP that alters their pages in any way?

Re:hmm

[moderatorrater]

It's the difference between a company advertising to you when you call them (or trying to upsell, etc) and the phone company listening into your calls and breaking in when they have something to sell you. You're dealing with the company on the other side (google, in this case) as an equal. Your ISP holds a lot of power over you, and abusing it's wrong.

Re:hmm

[rolfwind]

I can CHOOSE to use google to surf the net. There are many search engines. I can also use Tor to access Google anonymously if I'm paranoid.

My ISP choices are limited, and I can't change them as fast as a search engine either. Plus once I click onto a site, google pretty much loose track where I am, especially if I block ads.

ISP can know every place I go.

Moreover, I don't pay google to use their service. I do pay an ISP. They have an revenue stream.

So I think your analogy is flawed.

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

ISPs should be forbidden from altering the data stream unless they own the content that's being transferred.

IMHO, ISPs should be forbidden from even snooping on your data stream. They've no more business monitoring your on-line activities than the Royal Mail has opening all your letters.

The data protection implications of this development are alarming, and frankly I don't care what some big accounting firm says about them. The day my ISP (which is not one of the three mentioned) says it will adopt a similar policy will be the day that I start the process of moving elsewhere, and I'd probably send a letter to the Information Commissioner expressing my concern as well.

But hey, if the ISPs are spying on where I go and what I do (actually, they're legally required to record it anyway these days — another draconian privacy invasion, this time mandated by our terrorist-fearing government) and acting on the data they have, presumably that absolves them of any immunity they might otherwise have had when they supply files to copyright infringers, kiddie porn to sickos, and the like. May the money-grabbing lawsuits and company-killing PR sink them quickly.

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I don't think so. Transparently altering data is permissible according to RFC 2616 (the HTTP specification) unless you include the Cache-Control: no-transform header, which virtually nobody has ever heard of. Thus, if intermediate alteration is part of the protocol you are using and you haven't availed yourself of the opportunity to deny that action, it can be argued that the permission is implicitly granted, just the same way it's implicitly granted that they can cache it at all.

ISPUK apparently

[Anonymous Coward]

does this not break privacy laws? for that matter, why can an ISP snoop on what you're doign when the government can not?

Re:ISPUK apparently

[glesga_kiss]

does this not break privacy laws?

I think so! Under my understanding of the UK Data Protection Act (IANAL), this would have to be an opt-in scheme via a tick box on the contract. It used to be opt-out but this was changed.

Under the terms of the law an organization may not share personal data to another party without your consent. It's a pretty decent law, I don't know how the hell it got passed.

So who's paying the extra bsandwidth used?

[trolltalk.com]

After all, if your ISP is serving you ads you don't want, they shouldn't be charging you the bandwidth used ...

Classy, very classy

[FireballX301]

All you have to do is also lower prices, and you'll see how many 'citizens' are willing to sell their privacy.

And it's interesting how three big ISPs banded together like this. It's almost like they're trying to shut out alternatives...

nice

[R3N3G4D3]

so now my family can enjoy the advertisements based on the porn I was watching earlier that week?

Re:nice

[moderatorrater]

Everybody likes horses and other farm animals, right?

Porn ads?

[PIPBoy3000]

So if my wife starts getting a lot of ads for porn, do you think she'll put two and two together?

Re:Porn ads?

[edwardpickman]

So if my wife starts getting a lot of ads for porn, do you think she'll put two and two together?

She may just assume it's because of her own porn surfing?

Power corrupts

[Statecraftsman]

Please oh please, can we start working on an open source(wimax) router with two bands(backbone and local) so we can build our own huge mesh network and say buh-bye to ISPs forever? We don't need your email address, we don't need your antivirus software, we do not need your bills, and finally we don't need you messing with our connections. That is all.

Re:Power corrupts

[FooAtWFU]

Please oh please, can we start working on an open source(wimax) router with two bands(backbone and local) Hooold up there, buddy. Where exactly are you going to get the money to buy the spectrum you need for your precious WiMAX to work?

Mmm bad summary?

[saikou]

When people say "Insert relevant ads" it usually means ISP hacked the page you got from remote server and inserted and ad that wasn't there, or replaced one on the page with something else. Bad thing. Here, they organize new ad platform. Any site that uses it will be showing something Phorm servs up, and it, in turn, will try to figure out what to show by using ALL of your surfing history, no matter what sites you visit. So, if you go to golf sites A, B, C (that serve ads via yahoo, for example), and then to Phorm-using site M that has articles on electronics, site M will show you golf ads, due to your click-stream.

Of course advertisers will be disappointed to find out, that many people actually use one connection for a household. So, while from the point of view of ISP user clicked Cooking A, Cooking B, Valentine's day, Heavy metal band, Banking, Myspace ... in reality it's 2-3-4 individual users. And showing wife an ad for a new heavy album won't make CTR go through the roof. And teenager might actually barf at the sight of the cooking ads.

p.s. ISPs sell the data anyways, not usre how this opt-out would work...

I don't get it

[Dunbal]

So how come it's not okay for the phone company to barge into a voice communication in the middle of a conversation I am having with someone in order to tell me of the sale at my local shopping mall and the low low prices on mattresses, but when it's DATA they feel they have the right to alter the communication between myself and the party I am communicating with?

Plus are the websites going to be compensated for their loss? Because presumably if the visitor is reading a 3rd party ad instead of the ads on the website, the value of the ad space on said website is diminished.