Slashdot Mirror
Google To Monitor Surfing Habits For Ad-Serving
superglaze (ZDNet UK) writes "Google is gearing up to launch cookie-based 'interest-based' advertising, which involves monitoring the user's passage across various WebSense partner sites. The idea is to have better-targeted advertising, which is not a million miles away from what Phorm is trying to do — the difference, it seems at first glance, is that Google is being relatively up-front about its intentions."
Isn't that how Doubleclick made their fortune?
John
I don't get what is so evil about using cookies to determine what kind of advertisements you would be more interested in. I don't mind having ads more tailored to my interests.
At least you can opt-out.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
But of course they are! Just like any good villain, they are telling us all about their evil plans right before they feed us to the sharks with frikkin lasers on their heads. If you ask me, this is absolute proof of Googles pure und utter fiendishness. We're doomed!
"Google, you fiend, do you really expect me to opt out?"
"No, Mr. MadDogX, I expect you to die."
John
I thought the difference was that google is serving its own ads, phorm is replacing other companies' ads with its own.
LOL!!
That's going to be hilarious, if you know my surfing habits. :-)
But more serious, if possible, I'll be blocking this. I don't want anyone to know what I'm reading.
At least you can opt-out.
I set my browser to delete all cookies every time I close down. I guess that means I'd have to go to that page every time I'm on the internet to opt out.
That would be a great add-on. One that, upon Firefox startup, goes and opt-outs for you.
While potentially problematic, this behavior by Google does not rise to the level of Phorm for two simple reasons. First, rather than sitting with your ISP and tracking your browsing regardless of site, this technique will only apply to the (admittedly large) number of sites containing Google ads. Second, the release of a browser opt-out plugin is far beyond anything which would have been allowed for Phorm.
The remaining question for users is: Has someone yet developed a plugin to block google ads entirely? And if not, how long will it take now?
"The new ad-serving system works by downloading a DoubleClick cookie to the user's browser to track their path through various AdSense-using sites"
So, am I right in thinking that if I reject all DoubleClick cookies I'll render this system null and void? I have most of my cookies set to be session cookies anyway (as should most people, since 99.9999999% of all cookies are redundant), so I'm not actually sure how cookie based ad tracking would affect me in the long run?
THE HONOUR OF THE KNIGHTS - CC Licensed Sci-Fi Novel
Now if only I could count. Curse early mornings!
Having no faith in the integrity of Anything on the Web, I choose to block those ads since I won't be purchasing anything, anyway. I use NoScript as well, and don't hesitate to block Google from setting cookies, even though I use their search engine often. Call me a thief, I have no qualms.
http://www.customizegoogle.com/ Removes click tracking, google analytics cookies, and a lot more.
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
why are the only ads I see either for
(1) the fleshlight
or
(2) adult friend finder?
I'm convinced that I have developed a quite sophisticated online ad blind spot. I cannot remember ever having clicked on an add on purpose. As matter of fact, the only ad I can remember is the "how to lose your virginity" ad when googling "world of warcraft"
This is one of the reasons I avoid Google; they know more about statistics than I do (and that's a lot!) ... they have that motto don't be evil for exactly this reason; too much information coming from too many sources, including your personal information, means they can know you better than you know yourself, and thus they can manipulate you to their agenda and the agenda of their advertisers.
Think of it like the "gateway drug" concept; they advertise something you might have bought (but might not have bought) and that puts you over the edge and you buy it. Then they push something similar and you buy it for the same reason. After several iterations, you find yourself buying things you would never otherwise have had interest in. Your friends and family are supposed to have this power. Not a corporation whose first goal is appeasing their bottom line and therefore their customer corporations (whose first goal is selling merchandise to appease their own bottom lines).
To anybody outraged at things like the government accessing your library book list, this is the same thing. Except even if you opt out, Google just got that better at targeting you with ads.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
Good, now when I get infected by a virus, Google will keep selling me Viagra and penis enlarger for the next two years. :)
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
FTFY
Because I really don't want my kids to see what kind of ads my viewing habits produce.
Perhaps I undervalue my security and privacy, but I keep hoping for an increase in the targeted advertising I experience.
I don't want to refinance my house. I don't want to find relationships online. I don't want to find old classmates. I don't want to earn money by signing up for free trials. Even though I don't want these things, I see these ads a lot.
I like videogames and boardgames. I like anime. I like paintball. I like cooking. I already go out of my way to learn about new products and discounts in these areas.
I would love to surrender information about my interests in order to replace the ads I don't care about with ads that I do care about.
You are awash in a sea of fiercely stated opinions. Obvious exits are: 'File->Quit', 'Reply', and 'Page Down'.
You can easily opt-out or block Google ads. You cannot do this with Phorm as it will still monitor your clickstream regardless of whether you have opted out or not.
Google is a per-user based system. Because you are tracked by cookie, it will serve ads based on YOUR cookie ID only (or maybe your Google account, whatever). Phorm tracks by IP address, so if you share an IP address via NAT (most people do) then it cannot easily distinguish between users. This leads to the possibility that inappropriate ads may be served up (porn, pharma etc).
In any case, what Google is suggesting is not new and basically has been around in one way or another since the dawn of internet advertising. What Phorm is trying to do *is* new and is almost the same as monitoring systems such as the sort of thing ECHELON does (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON).
Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
I don't know about the rest of you but I toss my cookies at the end of every session.
I also change IP addresses, computers, and web browsers.
So good luck tracking me.
Google tracks your interests. If you share a computer with your significant other and look up motel rooms and restaurants, etc. even though you never go there with your SO, you may be in trouble. "Honey, why is Google showing me ads for motels?"
Even the faithful husbands should use another search engine to look for gifts. You don't want Google to ruin the surprise for your wife.
Singles may want to be on the lookout when googling on their girlfriends' computers shows ads for wedding dresses or baby accessories.
At some point, if not already, Google will realize how much power they have. In my experience, companies eventually act primarily in their own interests. I think Google will choose more and more to use that power for their benefit, rather than the benefit of their customers. "Do no evil" indicates they knew their potential power from day one. At this point, if they wanted to "do evil," it would be hard to stop them.
-Ghostis
Computer Science is all about trying to find the right wrench to bang in the right screw. -T.Cumbo?
This is one of the reasons I avoid Google;
So, I assume you also avoid purchasing things with your credit card? Or with any kind of club card? Or interacting with any company that sells any of their business records to third parties (like, for example, car dealerships)? Or generally interacting with the civilized world?
Look, here's the deal: the privacy genie was out of the bottle long before Google was ever conceived of. Companies like Axciom and Experian already know, and have known for decades, what demo you're in, what products you buy, whether or not you have a lease on your car that's about to expire, and probably a million other things I haven't even thought of. In short: they already know you better than you know yourself. So who really cares about Google, honestly?
Oh, and as an aside, with things like social networking out there, even if you try to disengage from the rest of the world, your friends and family probably haven't, and right now, they're posting pictures about you, writing stories about you, and generally divulging things about you that you probably wish they wouldn't. So, if I were you, I'd find yourself a nice cabin in the woods and hide out there, because frankly, I don't see that you have any other option.
they advertise something you might have bought (but might not have bought) and that puts you over the edge and you buy it. Then they push something similar and you buy it for the same reason. After several iterations, you find yourself buying things you would never otherwise have had interest in.
Oooh, I see the problem. You don't actually have an independently functioning brain. Instead, apparently your brain is a slave to the whims of whatever advertisement happens to be presented to you.
So, nevermind. In fact, ignore this post entirely. It probably just confused you.
Google does give you a preference ("SafeSearch") which you can set at three different levels. And yes, I understand that it probably fails sometimes. But I believe that can happen even if you didn't search for porn the previous night. Ergo, children's use of the net needs to be supervised in some way, IMO. (Appropriate to the parents' beliefs and the situation of the child, of course.)
So essentially, they give you what you want by telling you that it's what you want?
I think that puts them in direct competition with the US Government, no?
Link To Opt Out Page
> By visiting Google's ad-preferences page, the user can opt out of having their surfing
> habits tracked...
The user can also opt out of having their surfing habits tracked by blocking Google and DoubleClick cookies.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
FTFTFY
This sig is intentionally left blank
http://adblockplus.org/en/faq_project
http://adblockplus.org/blog/sorry-filtersetg-but-it-is-time-for-you-to-go
http://easylist.adblockplus.org/
I've upped my standards, so up yours.
Yes, I avoid such things. My credit card is for emergencies and rare online purchases (though sometimes I use Simon Gift Cards for anonymity except for the whole delivery address thing). I opt out of information sharing when given the option (this is usually a legally required option). What's wrong with cash? When they ask you for address or zip information in the store, you can always say "no thanks."
I disagree. Corporations have been collecting data, but at a snail's pace, and largely on far less sophisticated equipment. This limits the relational and learning algorithms that are economically feasible. Even today, few corporations have the penetration and computing power (and engineering prowess) to collect that volume of data and pull off massive statistical crunching like Google. Also, those other corporations don't read your email, monitor what you read on a word-for-word basis, or tap your television (youtube) and phone (gtalk). Google does. The internet is instantaneous and all-encompassing, whereas mail-order, phone order, and physical shopping doesn't give anywhere near the same level of detail, and the little detail it yields is very slow-flowing.
My friends and family have been respectfully asked not to post photos of me. So far, this has worked (for the most part). I don't have an account on centralized blog sites like livejournal, and while I do have accounts on slashdot and even facebook, they don't say too much about me personally. I understand that we're losing our privacy, but I want to control how that happens and limit its damage, specifically as it pertains to how I am targeted through advertising. Your friends must be jerks if you think like that.
Oh, good. Now we're throwing around insults. Recall how I said I know a thing or two about statistics. I also know about brand-building and marketing in general. I date a psychology PhD. Let's just say that nobody's brain functions independently; we are all biased by our environments. If you like, I can obtain a dozen peer-reviewed papers that present compelling evidence to that fact. Just consider: why do companies advertise? why do those advertisements often do nothing but say the company name? The answer is that they are building a brand, which equates to trust.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
I disagree. Corporations have been collecting data, but at a snail's pace, and largely on far less sophisticated equipment.
Wow, you really have no idea. Look, I've seen the Experian categories. The level of granularity in their data is staggering. And a little disturbing. Trust me, they know more about you than you ever realized.
Even today, few corporations have the penetration and computing power (and engineering prowess) to collect that volume of data and pull off massive statistical crunching like Google.
ROFL! Guys like Experian have been doing this for *decades*. Google are mere babes in the area of data crunching when it comes to those guys.
Go do a little research. You might find yourself surprised.
I understand that we're losing our privacy, but I want to control how that happens and limit its damage, specifically as it pertains to how I am targeted through advertising. Your friends must be jerks if you think like that.
Not at all. They just don't have the same values you or I do. Me, I'm a little jealous about my privacy (although clearly not as... err... protective as you). But many people I know will become "friends" with complete strangers on Facebook. They'll post pictures and details about their lives that I'd never even consider. Unfortunately, that sometimes means divulging information about *me*... and once it's out there, it's too late to take it back.
If you like, I can obtain a dozen peer-reviewed papers that present compelling evidence to that fact. Just consider: why do companies advertise? why do those advertisements often do nothing but say the company name? The answer is that they are building a brand, which equates to trust.
And that does *not* equate to "buying things you would never otherwise have had interest in". *That* is brainwashing, and is a far, far cry from brand building. Now, if you can find a peer reviewed journal that demonstrates that advertising can induce someone to buy something they "never otherwise have had interest in", I'll be very impressed. I'm sure the advertisers would be, as well.
Everywhere I go, I am getting pitched Orange Juice by Lesbians - hot damn! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5947258203209581672 Google clearly knows what I want.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
http://www.google.com/ads/preferences/
if only you'd RTFA
New mod option wanted: -1 DrunkenRambling
This "you" you speak of is a remarkably weak person. Might it be yourself?
> Except even if you opt out, Google just got that better at targeting you with ads.
No. I "opt out" by blocking all their cookies: they know nothing about me. And even if they "target" me with ads I never see them due to Privoxy.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Google is being pretty forth coming about this. I would much rather have google be forthcoming about it then just secretly do it like DoubleClick originally did and most websites do...they just don't tell you about it. Just look at beacon, Phorm, etc.
I mean google is coming right out and saying that they are doing this and they are making it as painless as possible to opt-out. Such as using browser plug-ins. Frankly you can't blame them for not making it opt-in, after all then no one would do it and it would defeat the whole purpose of it. I never like companies tracking browsing habits but if they have to do it do it the right way and be transparent about it.
Hopefully when other companies do it they will take Google's lead and be as transparent as they are.
I was looking for the tin foil hat reference at the end of this comment. I think you forgot to put that in and as such got moderated interesting instead of funny.
for(b=(a=0)+1;;b+=(a+=b))print(a+"\n"+b+"\n");
So you don't use any internet search engine then right? They all need to get their metrics somehow to determine if a ranking algorithm is working. Otherwise we're all back to dmoz and browsing
use a browser that allows good control over cookies , flush your cookies and cache regularly , do not put up with this crap , the web is for information not advertising .
I don't think you have to worry about google showing porn ads when your kids are visiting disney.com
I'd be more concerned about Disney.com showing ads for movies published by The Walt Disney Company itself. These include Sex, Lies, and Videotape, Pulp Fiction, Halloween 6, Gangs of New York, and Kill Bill.
If I choose to browse porn while my kids/wife/whatever are asleep, I don't want Google keeping a record of that (and showing my kids a "targeted" advertisement for Hairy Hardcore Latinas Gone Loco 3.5).
Then log in as you and have your kids log in as themselves. Web browsers use a separate set of cookies for each profile, and they automatically create a separate profile for each operating-system-level user account. Besides, I'd bet there's some sort of TOS restriction against showing erotic ads on sites that haven't opted in to erotic ads.
I set my browser to delete all cookies every time I close down.
Turning off persistent cookies would appear to make online banking much more inconvenient due to new machine identification features that depend on persistent cookies. If you don't have Chase.com's cookie in your browser, for instance, Chase won't let you look at your account until you reactivate your account through e-mail, phone, or SMS.
This reminds me of facebooks beacon system in many ways. I did not hate beacon for what it was trying to accomplish. It was how it went about accomplishing this. For starts there should not be any way for a third party to access cookies and read them. The data being read might be private since I don't know exactly what every site stores in their own cookies or what each site is accessing from cookies. Also, this could also be used as a vector for phishing scams to become more personal. I for one delete everything after every session for this reason alone. If this was more transparent then sure I would enjoy this. Secondly, I hate it when people say, "well there is an opt-out". If there has to be an opt-out option it should be an opt-in option because it is impossible for you to notify every single person affected of the changes and allow them to opt-out at their descression.
They possibly tried to resist, or at least to warn us, but once they stop reciting the "Don't be evil" mantra... it won't be good. Truth is a dangerous thing.
The good, the evil and the vacuum tubes.
It's evil because it violates your privacy, and there's really no easy way to opt-out. Thankfully we at Slashdot are most likely gifted with the technological acumen to block these cookies...many others, however, won't. If I choose to browse porn while my kids/wife/whatever are asleep, I don't want Google keeping a record of that (and showing my kids a "targeted" advertisement for Hairy Hardcore Latinas Gone Loco 3.5). If it in any way gets into the wrong hands (or Google decides to switch their business strategy/privacy policy) then I could be seriously screwed if I decide to run for public office.
People who share a computer user identity with their kids/wife/whatever forfeit any expectation of privacy from those kids/wife/whatever. In the modern world it isn't just idiotic to share an account for security and privacy reasons, it is a usability problem for non-casual users.
I would like Google to make a "Choose your own Ads" Preference page for ads.
Give me a page filled with categories of advertisements, and create a prioritized list of what I like, as well as which ones to completely remove. Things at the top would be highly probable, things lower down would get a low chance of being shown.
Anyone who would get rid of all ads would probably use something like Ad-Block anyway, and it would let me actually get an ad for my favorite websites that I would *Want* to see (Like new tech stuff or whatnot).
Also, if Google sees that everyone Likes one category more than another, then they can let the advertisers know and we would end up with more interesting, useful ads rather than the "If I scream at you, you will buy this" crap we have now.
I steal signatures. This one used to be yours.
So you don't use any internet search engine then right? They all need to get their metrics somehow to determine if a ranking algorithm is working. Otherwise we're all back to dmoz and browsing
Try scroogle.org - Google's data on a completely anonymous basis.
Experian is a regulated credit monitoring authority. They have done nothing to build up their brand as a trusted source (they are constantly cited for bad service, even). Certainly, are akin to Google in statistical prowess, but Google is the one with direct access to people's lives by quite a few methods that Experian simply does not have. If Experian can do so much with just credit data, think of where Google can go.
As to "brainwashing," that term is an overboard exaggeration of the bias advertising creates. Friends, colleagues, and family all contribute to your social environment, and when you get a recommendation from one of them, or from a media source you trust (reviews, etc), you are quite likely to investigate further. This biases your likes. So far, we're in accepted/peer-reviewed territory.
General advertising is so successful because the saturation of it all ends up having the same effect on some. The more targeted the ad, the bigger its impact. Now enter targeted ads from data miners like Google or Experian. Very large impact on your bias. We're still in charted waters here, though perhaps not peer-reviewed territory.
The next piece of this is more speculative, but easy enough to follow: large portions of what they advertise appeals to their targets, so the products/services are purchased. Owning something and building a relationship with its vendor generally leads to buying similar products; buy a product, like it, buy like products. Over time, purchasing the items promoted by these trusted corporations generally follows the trend of your liking what you are buying. Your mind has been biased a little bit. A far cry from brainwashing, and certainly more effective on the less informed. (Somebody once said that "Individuals are smart; it's people that are stupid.")
"Brainwashing" was your term. I never claimed that degree. I claimed bias. Bias is a far cry from brainwashing, but it can most definitely get you to buy products you were on the fence over buying. Bias can also move that fence. I'm not saying they're going to convert Dems into Reps, Muslims to Catholics, or lead to gold. Well, maybe that last one ;-).
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
I have set up my browser to delete cookies every time I close it down. I won the privacy battle!
Then it doesn't work, because I'm not interested in any of them, yet they keep coming.
I will never respond to unwanted adverts being shoved onto my personal property against my will.
According to these guys: http://www.statowl.com/third_party_cookie_support.php Roughly 9% of Internet usage will not be trackable using 3rd party cookies. I am not really for or against Google's decision. But I think it is interesting to see what percentage of Internet users are aware of tracking mechanisms and are also against being trackable.
That's an interesting way of looking at it. It's not about strongly urging someone to buy a product. It's sufficient to just deflect the few people who almost would buy the product if there was no advertising. If only one in one hundred thousand page viewers makes a purchase because of that advert, it will result in hundreds of purchases if the advert is served millions of times. But if all adverts are more or less targeted, the business model will work much much better. I've tried the StumbleUpon recommendation system and I was astonished how good it is at detecting the topics you are interested in.
Touche.
Can you say "honeypot," boys and girls?
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
I think Google's also recently implemented some method of tracking time/activity on their sites too. Not just whether you've visited or not. I've been noticing some kind of annoying refresh-related flicker in my browser whenever I leave a tab on one of their sites. I don't remember those sites doing that not too long ago and it's not just me imagining stuff, is it?
A lot of people seem instinctively disturbed about advertising, or at least it details. Yup, advertising involves collecting as much information about you as possible, by any means, to sell you as much stuff you wouldn't otherwise buy. It doesn't involve rooting for or against the downfall of society or privacy or anything. It's not immoral, it's amoral. Which is always a little creepy to hear about. But if you think that's bad, trying learning the hoary, gory details about your favourite food.
But like food, it's kind of important. Without advertising, *effective* advertising - there's no web, guys. Thank your lucky stars for that tiny, tiny fraction of surfers who've been clicking on un-targeted ads all these years, and thus providing the rest of us with free information, entertainment, and in many cases, jobs. I'd thank them publicly, but they're also the same dolts who respond to unsolicited email...
Yes, we should resist attempts by advertisers (or anyone) which involve violations of our privacy for any reason. As many have pointed out, Google isn't looking at anything you haven't let them. And for the others, keep in mind that on the whole, you're just not that freakin' interesting, OK? You know how much work it takes to figure out what the hell you did just last week - imagine how much money it takes a Carnivore like company. You're not worth it. Nor am I.
Of course, if someone wants to stalk you, or black mail you - well, there's plenty to be worried about. But it ain't cookies.
Experian is a regulated credit monitoring authority. They have done nothing to build up their brand as a trusted source (they are constantly cited for bad service, even)
Oh, no no, they're *far* more than that. They take their credit ratings data, along with data from a whole host of other sources (such as club cards, etc), and then for every individual they have information on, they categorize them in terms of age, income, gender, and a whole raft of other metrics. They then sell this information to advertisers for a pretty penny who use that data for direct mail campaigns and various other advertising. Trust me, between them and Acxiom, an advertiser can find out all kinds of things about you, personally. Heck, Experian tells you so right on their website:
Hell, Experian thinks their data is so good they believe they can help fight terrorism.
And they've been doing this for decades.
So, I maintain, if you're so worried about Google, you're far *far* too late. The horse is already out of that barn.
"Brainwashing" was your term. I never claimed that degree. I claimed bias. Bias is a far cry from brainwashing, but it can most definitely get you to buy products you were on the fence over buying.
And *that* is a far cry from buy things you'd "never otherwise have had interest in". So, can I assume you're backpedaling on that statement, now?
I absolutely hate all online marketing and use Ad Block to remove as much as is possible. I will never knowingly click on a displayed advertisement on the web. If I want to purchase something I will go to the site I want to use to make my purchase. I am a marketing executives worst nightmare because I will actively refuse to purchase from anything with obtrusive online ads. Don't even get me started on ads in computer games.
I have backpedaled on nothing. Over time, that fence you sit on moves as biased by the products they've convinced you to buy so far. After a large number of iterations of this, you would be buying products that were once never considered.
I never claimed Google was the only company potentially dangerous from their vast volume of data. They merely have a new kind of it. Google's stat-crunching comes from a different (and less regulated) direction as Experian's, and thus learns other things. The two of them likely share some common customers. I may be more worried about Google while you're more worried about Experian, but we should both be worried about those corporations utilizing both data sets.
As to fighting terrorism ... Google is probably better equipped to track such activity and come up with something directly useful (like the content of a message) than Experian, who might figure out what is being purchased or where they are. Add this up and you have a powerful tool. However, were Google to reveal that they can do this, the community might not respond so favorably when considering that this can be done to everybody else, too (in the name of fighting terrorism or otherwise), without any regulation or oversight.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.