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."

Comments

I thought they'd been doing this for years

[plover]

Isn't that how Doubleclick made their fortune?

Re:I thought they'd been doing this for years

[avdp]

It is. In fact, Google owns Doubleclick, which I am sure is no coincidence.

http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/pressrel/20080311_doubleclick.html

evil?

[tritonman]

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.

Re:evil?

[vishbar]

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.

Re:evil?

[Onaga]

I would rather have tech and sci-fi books marketed to me when I go to Amazon. The big sale on may actually be the price tipping point for me to buy that. I don't really care about a big sale on that blue gem pendant necklace with 18k chain links. So yes, targeted marketing seems good.

The other side of the fence says, "ZOMG, there is a database with my surfing habits that can be accessed by the government and companies with money willing to pay for it." Some people may not care. Others think that this will allow Big Brother to build a fluff case against them. The middle group just thinks it is a private activity that should not be monitored by others.

I'm in more of the middle group. I have conversations with my wife all the time that are private. Nothing shameful or perverse, but just amicably intimate. I want them kept private, not indexed. I believe that is the heart of most of the objection.

Re:evil?

[vishbar]

Hahaha....actually I found that out the hard way. I bought something to...enhance...my relationship with a girlfriend (now an ex girlfriend). Every time I sign in I get suggested items for body chocolate, kama sutra tapes, and dildos that look like weapons.

Re:evil?

[Darundal]

You can tell amazon not to use an item you have already purchased to suggest other items.

Re:evil?

[vishbar]

When they're doing a report on vegetation in China and they Google "Asian bushes" there might be an issue.

Maybe not so bad.

[AltGrendel]

By visiting Google's ad-preferences page, the user can opt out of having their surfing habits tracked, or input their own preferences for the subject matter of ads they would like to see.

At least you can opt-out.

Not as bad as Phorm for one simple reason

[vincanis]

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?

Re:From the article...

[blueg3]

(as should most people, since 99.9999999% of all cookies are redundant)

There's a word in English, "most", appropriate for this situation. It's not necessary or helpful to invent obviously-made-up-numbers to illustrate "most". I doubt you have data to back up that only one in one billion cookies is useful.

Google != Phorm

[Dynamoo]

There are several key differences between Google and Phorm. Google will use a cookie-based system to track you as you visit sites with the relevant Google Ads. Phorm take the data directly out of your clickstream.

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).