Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Online Ads, Privacy Remain In FTC Crosshairs

Posted by samzenpus on from the tracking-is-the-governments-job dept.

AC95 writes "The FTC wants to give users a browser-based tool for opting out of online behavioral tracking, a proposal that has privacy advocates cheering and online advertisers up in arms. A key issue, says FTC attorney Loretta Garrison, is that while most consumers know they're tracked online, they don't fully appreciate how much information is collected. Tim O'Reilly, founder and CEO of O'Reilly Media, worries about knee-jerk legislation criminalizing mistakes that are an inherent part of applying any new technology."

7 of 95 comments (clear)

  1. An orgy of data by Itninja · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you can't fight it, exploit it. I have actually gotten some pretty cool (free) stuff by misrepresenting myself to various sites online (up to the legal limit, of course).Everything from free Amazon gift cards, to free electronics. I even got a free mobile phone (with service paid for 6 months) once because I claimed I had a business with over 100 employees and that I made over $100K yearly (that was back in 1998 when phones were pricier and I only made about 1/3 of that). Free magazine subscriptions, free enterprise web hosting, free lawnmowers, it's all there for the taking for those willing to game the game.

    --
    I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
  2. Very Muddy Waters by Swanktastic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's hard to be objective about whether to want to protect my privacy or not given I have zero idea of what Google's profile of me looks like. I imagine everyone has some threshold level where they say "Enough is enough, I'm not willing to sacrifice THAT info for free services." I would guess we all probably fall into two camps- either dramatically underestimating or dramatically overestimating the level of information stored in the profile. Without better specifics in the hands of the populace about the level of personal details, it doesn't seem to me that a fair level of regulation can possibly be drafted by public officials.

  3. Re:blast by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wrong! You are confusing just plain advertising with "behavior tracking".

    I have no problem with advertising, Google's or anyone else's. You can still visit websites that advertise. It's the TRACKING that is at issue here.

    It's not either/or. Companies can (and have for hundreds of years now) advertise without user tracking. Besides, poll after poll have shown that most people do not want "targeted" advertising anyway!

  4. How's this different from a do-not-call list? by lavagolemking · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Advertisers didn't like the idea of a do-not-call list to restrict telemarketers from calling/harassing consumers who didn't want to be bothered either, but people are still pretty happy with it. Now advertising companies are collecting (and even selling) a lot of personal data about consumers who don't even know such data exists, and advertisers are upset that the government might give them a way to opt out of their system. How is this any different? Also, I know this isn't how things are done in Washington, but in a democracy shouldn't the government be answering to its concerned citizens instead of just focusing on what makes things easy/profitable/convenient/one-sided for large corporations?

  5. Don't accept cookies? by ynohoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I only accept cookies from sites I trust. Yes this sometimes causes problems on untrusted sites - which gives me further reason to not trust them! If a web designer does not anticipate "no cookie" users, their intention is to give your privacy a good shafting.

    --
    need a free COBOL editor for Windows?
  6. Stop Following Me Around, Club Med by speedlaw · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I got a taste of this when I went looking online for vacations. I saw "club med" ads on every page I went to for a good two weeks. It got really creepy after a while. I went away but NOT to Club Med.

  7. How would a Do-Not-Track system work? by scdeimos · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm all for the FTC/government cracking down on behavioural tracking, but how would such a system work and how could it even be policed?

    In the case of the Do-Not-Call system:

    • Individuals must register their telephone number with the government (in Australia, at least, you have to repeat this registration every 12 months)
    • The government then exports the list to the advertisers/marketers on a regular basis.
    • Advertisers/marketers are expected to integrate the list with their systems and honour its content.
    • If advertisers/marketers call a number on the Do-Not-Call list it's still up to the individual to complain to the government about it, and the government is expected to pounce on the advertiser/marketer if the number was registered more than 30 days ago.

    How would such a system translate to the web? (And I say the web as opposed to the internet as a whole, since the web seems to be where the battlefront is at the moment.)

    Possiblities:

    • Individuals have to register their IP addresses: fails because of dynamic IP address assignment at most ISP's.
    • Individuals have to create a special Cookie: fails because Cookies are only sent to their origin domain - you can't set one for *.com, *.edu, etc.
    • Special "X-Do-Not-Track: Yes" HTTP header: this could work but may be stripped by certain proxy servers enroute, rendering it useless. All browsers would have to be updated to include a UI preference that turns this on and off as well.

    What about enforcement? How can you tell if someone is tracking you? How can you provably report it to the government so that they can do something about it?

    Unfortunately it sounds like a bit of a pipe dream to me.