Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Advertisers are Watching You

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the zip-it-up-buddy dept.

pcause noted that the New York Times is running a story about the information being collected about you by internet advertisers. Of course much of this is not news to you, but it's important that the mainstream media is more aware of the issues surrounding this.

9 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. You may be surprised who is involved by Spritzer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sounds like the 4th largest bank in the U.S. exposing me to no less than 12 single pixel tracking images from the likes of doubleclick, ru4, advertising.com etc. when I want to login followed by tracking by an outside source while using the "secure" area of the site(hooray for AdBlock). I complained and complained. I finally received a response from the office of CEO Ken Thompson telling me to piss up a rope. I am no longer a customer.

    1. Re:You may be surprised who is involved by Spritzer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, it was a real letter of all things. Maybe I should scan it and post it when I get home.

    2. Re:You may be surprised who is involved by Spritzer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What was fun was watching the look on the branch manager's face when I explained why I was closing my accounts. After I showed him the letter (he was shocked) he asked me to show him what I was talking about. I had him open the page source and find the huge section "" filled with tracking links. Again, he was shocked. He said, "I sure am glad I work here and can do my banking any time I want. This is crazy."

      Of course, CEO/Chairman/President Thompson believes it to be a secure, nonintrusive essential part of their business model.

  2. Re:Get it over with... by PrescriptionWarning · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe the point is that if everyone used adblock we would't worry ourselves with discussions about online advertising?

  3. Re:Mainstrem media attention not "important" or go by gnick · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My wife refuses to buy anything online because of stuff like this We can't even get our secretary to order things online using the company card - We have to go to another group's purchaser if we want to use a vendor that won't accept phone orders.

    At the risk of straying off-topic, I'd like to see a "mainstream media" story about the different security risks/exposures between internet purchases, phone purchases, and in-store purchases. Tracking behavior is certainly easier online, but cutting people out of the loop does good things for security. Although imperfect, I trust automated billing a lot more than inmates working phone banks or high-schoolers swiping cards at their summer employment and throwing away paper receipts.
    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  4. Re:That may be... by gnick · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Thanks Adblock! I also use Adblock (I'm sure that a lot of this audience does), but try to use it responsibly. If you completely Adblock pages that you like that rely largely in ad revenue to stay afloat, you are ensuring that the level of service will degrade or that other (possibly more invasive) methods of generating revenue will be implemented. For sites you want to keep going (e.g. slashdot), especially ones with well-targeted ads, remember the white-list option.

    Every time you Adblock slashdot, the gods flip a bit on your hard drive.
    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  5. Advertisers Are Watching Me? by flyneye · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Advertisers Are Watching Me?
            And yet I am not watching them as they present no more significance than a sparrow watching me and inspire no more interest than a slug.

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  6. Re:That may be... by gnick · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So why shouldn't I adblock not only slashdot, but every website? I don't recall ever clicking an ad either but, if I blindly speculate correctly, some ad-revenue is generated based on targeted viewing rather than purely click-through.

    Feel free to correct me if anyone has actual knowledge/data. I reject the argument that white-listing is stupid because advertisers suck - I know they do but, if they pay sites I like to provide content to me without forcing me to subscribe, I'll put up with them. But, if white-listing slashdot (et al.) really does not help them at all, then I'll clean out my white-list.
    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  7. Re:That may be... by srh2o · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You do what you want... but don't try to tell me that I'm not using Adblock "responsibly" The advertisers had their chance with me. What I got was pop-overs, pop-unders, drive by installs and more impressions of X10 cameras than I will ever care about. I got ads that blocked the content, that played loud sounds, that floated all over the page. Adblock is a response to irresponsible behavior by the advertisers. I use it and I use it on full. There was content before the ads and there will be content after the ads. There won't be subscriptions, because that is the kiss of death for a content provider on the internet. But by all means go ahead and whitelist if you wish. As for me I'm done with the constant barrage of ads. 90% of them are from spammy, sketchy vendors that I would never buy from anyway.

    Sites that want to make ad revenue work need to rethink their usage and their suppliers. Ads can be successful and desirable. If you doubt that take a look at the average Sunday paper. I purchase that each Sunday and pay more for it BECAUSE of the ads. Talk about a successful model. Content providers are going to need to provide something more than your second hand guilt argument to get me to turn off Adblock and they have no one to blame but themselves.