Slashdot Mirror
ISP Embarq Monitors User Traffic
Deli Korkmaz writes "The Washington Post reports that Sprint-Nextel spin-off Embarq, currently the US's fourth largest DSL provider, monitored Internet activity on some 26,000 customers in Kansas using deep-packet inspection technology NebuAd in order to deliver targeted advertising to users' desktops. CNet provides coverage as well. The House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce is investigating whether any privacy laws were broken. Users were informed of this test and invited to opt out only via Embarq's online Privacy Policy; a mere 15 subscribers did so."
All up into a dude's business just to sell ads. Disgusting.
The truth about Led Zep should never be told on
was this deep packet "inspection", or did they actually alter traffic? Like modifying web pages to insert ads, or change IP addresses of banners?
Or something more hands-off like monitoring customer browsing and using it to deliver better targeted ads when the customer browsed their own web pages?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
If we can get web servers to support TLS (for multi-domain encryption on a single IP vs. SSL), and create a non-identity framework for encryption, we should just start encrypting everything end to end. ISPs are asking for it with these behaviors.
...because the opt out was buried in a 5000 word privacy policy. If anything, this story should lead the house to realize that merely posting a privacy policy on your website doesn't mean the customers are bound by it especially in terms of rights, privacy and willingness to be subjected to monitoring merely for advertising sake.
~ Ron Fitzgerald
I think that very simply worded new legislation is required...
"Opt Out" is the new default for any new program, feature, change of any kind for any kind of product or service provider.
Any new programs or offerings will default the individuals to opt-out status, and require the user to notify the provider (without being hampered by phone calls, e-mails, etc) to opt-in.
Any company failing to comply with this policy shall have all of their assets liquidated and deposited into the bank account of the person(s) they elected to opt-in by default.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
I find the phrase 'deep packet inspection' interesting because it simultaneously describes the technique used and a large subset of the results acquired.
thats the brutal and unfortunate truth. Its not to say that everyone is unaware in areas where there is less exposure to different types of people, which you gain in major cities. For the most part, in large numbers, people will remain ingnorant and complacent until there is some form or ability to organize and invoke change.
I'm going to start randomly pasting this into comments on new stories, it's generic enough to work with almost every story and will probably soak up the insightful mod points.
I might go along with the Insightful were it not for the gratuitous (and most likely inaccurate) use of "middle America." There are a number of things wrong with this:
1) I can think of a lot of places in world (having lived there) where people are at least as technologically clueless as the average American. There is nothing special about Americans - either positive or negative - in that regard;
2) If you meant "middle" as in "middle class" you missed. The most technologically clueful income strata in America is most likely the middle class. One of the things that keeps the poor in poverty is lack of clue combined with means to acquire it; rich people, on the other hand, have middle class people who are paid to do all that stuff for them, and thus don't acquire clue about computers unless they are very interested in them or were once middle class;
3) If you meant "middle" as in "geographic center" it is still likely that you missed. Even in the Silicon Valley area, where I live, computer cluefulness remains largely the province or those who are in the industry or who are computer enthusiasts on their own. Everyone else is as clueless as they are everywhere else. Those who aren't clueless are, again, mostly in the middle class.
If you'd written that the majority of people (everywhere) are unaware, I might have spent one of my remaining mod points to mod you up. As it is, I was tempted to use to mod you troll, but decided to take the time to explain why I consider your post a troll instead.
tom.gerke@embarq.com was the contact for the CEO back in March. I assume it is still legitimate...
Weird slashbug #455
That started long before Reagan.
We had this problem with the credit card industry before. People were signing up and had no clue what they were agreeing to because the most important terms weren't properly exposed. Then we got a law that made the current interest rate and the formula by which it is computer and how it may be changed in regulated-size type.
Time for a format for privacy policies to match that...
Frankly, I'm surprised by the number of people who opted out. For something that was done to ~30 thousand people, disclosed only in the byzantine back layers of some policy somewhere(I'm guessing this is one of those policies that get to change without notice) and, so far as I know, not previously known to the geek news sources at large, 15 opt outs is pretty high.
Obviously there is no good way to do this experiment; but I'd be quite interested to see an estimate of the "expected baseline opt-out rate" for various sorts of disclosure, calculated by disclosing a ludicrously and absolutely unacceptable term or condition and seeing how many people opt-out. From that, you could then more accurately gauge the real level of unhappiness that a given opt-out percentage implies(For example, what percentage of people would opt-out if a term authorizing the CEO and the board to seize subscriber's assets at any time, for any reason, in any quantity appeared deep in the privacy policy? That value would, in effect, constitute the 100% opposition value.)
Or, we could just do the easier thing and make opt-in absolutely mandatory, perhaps with brutal mob justice for violators.(a man can dream, can't he?)
Please be careful with the terminology.
Opt-out means that you're in and you have to opt-out to stop your membership/subscription/whatever.
Opt-in is what you want: it's your choice to subscribe/join/whatever, and if you don't, there is no membership/subscription/whatever.
For example: The do-not-call list is an opt-out scheme. Unless you take action and put your name on the list, they're allowed to call you. Most newsletters are opt-in: You only receive the newsletter if you subscribe. Spam is neither opt-in nor opt-out: You get spam without doing anything. If you try to opt-out, you get more spam.
... in my opinion, because not only do they *know* that not many people out there even read the terms of service (or Privacy policy for that matter), but on top of that they are compulsively "opting" everyone in.
To me, it looks like unilaterally changing the terms of a lease, after the fact, to allow me to go into your apartment an install cameras on every room.
I'd be switching providers right about... now.
That started when the education system was introduced.
Whenever you have to search long and hard to find new 'features', this can only mean one of several things:
Even more on-topic are these quotes from the Wiki article (provided by spinkham above):
According to Nebuad's sales pitch less than 1% of users opt-out. One ISP expects to earn at least $2.50 per month for each user (..) Generally, NebuAd provides an additional income stream to network operators, which may maintain or lower consumers' internet access bills.
As we've all known for a long time, ordinary people's surfing habits are worth money. What when you'd ask people up front: "Do you want your surfing habits to remain private, or give up this privacy in exchange for a discount?"
I'm afraid the vast majority of people would go for the discount. The anything-connected-to-everything world of today has gotten us so used to data breaches and 'unknown parties' snooping through our private info, that we just don't seem to care anymore. Which seems strange: the less (privacy) you have left, wouldn't you value those last remains more than you used to?
Sure, pick on a dead guy that can't defend himself from ridiculous charges. Looking at my property tax bill, I see that about 56% percent goes to "education". Fifty six percent! Education outweighs all other government expenditures in my county, roads, police & fire, medical, everything. I'd say they're getting plenty of money to do their jobs, and have always been getting plenty of money, but would rather build little local empires than teach students properly. None of that can be laid at Reagan's (or even George Bush's) feet.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
So, in this day and age, why the *&^#@!&* isn't all traffic encrypted between my browser and the destination server? We're long past the days where there should be anything but https: in front of urls. Are the big guys not really able to handle the encryption overhead?