Slashdot Mirror


Consumer Groups Advocate for 'Do Not Track' Registry

eldavojohn writes "Consumer groups are asking for a 'do not track' registry to be implemented, similar to the successful and popular 'do not call' registry. Tracking companies are asking for examples where tracking has caused harm, and would rather the industry stay self-regulated. 'In December, the FTC approved Google's purchase of advertising rival DoubleClick over the objections of some privacy groups. At the same time, the agency urged advertisers to let computer users bar advertisers from collecting information on them, to provide "reasonable security" for any data and to collect data on health conditions or other sensitive issues only with the consumer's express consent.'"

8 of 146 comments (clear)

  1. What's with all these registries? by Otis2222222 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Do Not Call, Do Not E-mail, and now Do Not Track?

    Something I really don't understand here is why ANY reasonable person would not opt-out of any of these systems? (Granted, only the first one is actually coded into law) And how do you enforce them for companies based outside the USA? And for that matter, what's to stop companies from outsourcing their tracking offshore to skirt the laws?

    Where is the"your post advocates a..." for this?

    1. Re:What's with all these registries? by MarkGriz · · Score: 4, Funny

      "What's with all these registries?"

      Yeah. Why not just create a "leave me the fsck alone" registry and be done with it.

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    2. Re:What's with all these registries? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're going to see the ads anyway, why not see ads targeted towards products you're interested in?

      I don't care if Google knows what websites I visit. Oooo! A single 29-year-old male goes to porn sites!! How EEEEEVIL of Google to know this!

  2. Individually register to stay anonymous... by the_other_chewey · · Score: 4, Funny

    What a great concept - for trackers: You individually register and have
    to stay identifiable during all your browsing so trackers know it is you.
    You allow them to track you so they stop tracking you.

    Soundy like a great idea?

    Yeah, to me neither.

  3. Cookies by Gat0r30y · · Score: 5, Funny

    When you outlaw cookies, only outlaws will have cookies..... yum delicious cookies

    --
    Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
  4. Better than CAN-SPAM? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Judging from how much more spam I get since the CAN-SPAM law supposedly outlawed it, I don't think these online registries do anything but register a high-value contact address. The Do-Not-Call list is different, because the telcos control the calls, and there's a lot more legal precedent (teeth) in counterattacking harassing phonecalls.

    It's interesting how despite telcos like AT&T declaring they're going to police the Internet for copyright violation, and otherwise snoop content and traffic as they please, they don't seem to be implementing network spam filters, like with do-not-spam registries. Even though that would be very popular with users, and give the telcos each an excuse to get our contact lists, "to use as whitelists" (or whatever else they want).

    There really should be a major push to enforce protecting our privacy. Every email system should operate with a whitelist by default, so only people you add (and maybe people on their whitelist) can get through to you. What would work even better would be micropayments to the recipient for each email they receive, with payments waived (or charged back in bulk or net) for those on the whitelist. Make the micropayments settable by the user (and variable even in the whitelist). Then spammers could pay me to spam me, if they can afford it, and I can make money off being spammed if I set the micropayments low enough. My associates will get to me for free, and new associates can pay to get my attention, then get it refunded if I accept their new contact (and then put them on the whitelist).

    Otherwise the noise in our messaging systems really degrade their high value, and inhibit our making using them second nature. Just like what would have happened to the telephone if it were as cheap for telemarketers to annoy us as it is for them to spam us.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  5. Re:No, I'm not going to see the ads. by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Gruh, I should have specifically said "no 'I use AdBlock' responses." Yes, we get it, a lot of Slashdot readers use AdBlock. I understand this. I've read the snarky "the web has ads? I use AdBlock so I don't see them" about 50,000 times this month alone! Yes, I know it exists. Yes, I know people use it. Yes, I choose not to as a way of supporting the sites I visit. No, you won't convince me to download it.

    Sorry, those posts are irritating as hell. Please try to respond with original thoughts. Thank you.

  6. Re:No, I'm not going to see the ads. by Original+Replica · · Score: 4, Informative
    Advertising and marketing are a complete waste of human energy at best, evil mind control black magic at worst.

    Advertising in Most first world countries is anti-happiness. As explained by Professor Richard Layard:

    "once people's basic economic needs are met additional income and wealth contributes little to an individual's happiness. What's more a society which encourages a focus on the self and its wants, and heightened individualism, tends to undermine the very things which psychological research now shows are crucial to feelings of happiness: close personal relationships, trust, and security. On top of this consumerism, advertising and the effects of the mass media heightens human beings' natural interest in 'status' and social comparisions. This means that in contemporary society people's lives are overly concerned with work, money, and how they are doing in 'the rat race'. Such a life focus is not intrinsically satisfying and so we have the prosperity paradox that for all the increased wealth in modern society people do not feel happier.

    --
    We are all just people.