Slashdot Mirror
Senate Scrutinizes Privacy Issues of ISP User Tracking
Hugh Pickens writes "As companies collect, use, and disseminate data regarding online users, there is concern that tracking individuals' Internet activity and gathering information from online users violates their expectations of privacy. The Senate Commerce Committee will hold a hearing Wednesday to look at the policy issues, and the hottest topic will be proposed systems by which ISPs can watch users and sell information about their surfing habits to advertising companies. The Center for Democracy and Technology has issued a report suggesting that these systems may violate federal law (PDF). 'Advertising per se is not the evil here,' says Leslie Harris from CDT. 'It's the collection of individuals' information, usually without their knowledge, always without their consent, creation of profiles and the complete inability of people to make choices about that.' On the other side NebuAd, the most active ad-targeting company, says its profiles are interest-based, and not personally identifiable. 'We have designed our entire company to make sure that we stay on the opt-out side of those laws and policies,' says NebuAd CEO Robert Dykes. Charter Communications announced last month that it would suspend a trial of NebuAd due to customer concerns about privacy."
I'd say it's great that the Senate is scrutinizing what ISPs do to track people, but this shouldn't be limited solely to ISPs. There should be a lot of scrutiny about what the government does with your information, and I'm talking about all levels of government from the local level up to the federal level. Further, there are millions of businesses around the world, small and large, that gather all kinds of information. It is difficult to scrutinize so many companies, so I would say that the Senate should concentrate on the government first. Because the government collects the most.
McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
Hey, guess what... if a partner in a two-way correspondence chooses to share details of that correspondence, that's their choice (i.e., don't give private info to someone you don't trust). If you choose not to make safe your correspondence from third parties via encryption, that's your problem.
I'm willing to risk some troll or flamebait mods here to make a point:
No correspondence should ever be considered absolutley private. The same tools that allow data aggregation by companies like Google and ISPs give us better access to information and (arguably) a better quality of life. You have to take the bad with the good.
Creation of profiles allow vendors to serve us better. They allow better targeting of ads so we're not bombarded with ads for things we have no interest in (ok, in theory. In practice, this needs further work). They allow people and businesses to target our needs better, so it's easier for me to find what I'm looking for.
As long as we have the ability to anonymize and encrypt our traffic (which isn't a given), I have no problem with profiling. Those who want to opt out can do so easily... and if there is enough demand for it, there will be off-the-shelf tools for joe sixpack to do so.
So my point is this: Allow us to anonymize our traffic. Allow us to encrypt our traffic. Then you can go ahead and profile all you want.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
How ironic that Congress is, in all likelihood, about to pass a telecoms immunity bill which allows them to spy on us... but are giving lip service to the issue of telecoms spying on us.
CongressCritters and Snoozators will soon be making a lot of noise about how they are protecting the public from being spied upon, while at the same time making it legal for us to be spied on.
Nothings changed, just another election year.
1970s: Don't steal. The government hates competition.
2010s: Don't spy on your users. The government still hates competition.
What is needed is a clear separation between those companies that sling bits (ISPs) and those who provide content and advertising. Each ISP should be required to transfer data as fairly as possible with a minimum of interference and monitoring.
Most broadband providers have a monopoly or duopoly, and therefore need to be regulated strongly. Otherwise, customers who object to these invasions of privacy will have nowhere to turn.