Slashdot Mirror
Privacy Option Proposed To Control Behavioral Ads
techinsider sends this quote from Security Week:
"A group of media and marketing trade associations, with support from the Council of Better Business Bureaus, today announced the details of a self-regulatory program designed to give consumers enhanced control over the collection and use of data regarding their Web viewing for online behavioral advertising purposes. The program promotes the use of the 'Advertising Option Icon' and accompanying language, to be displayed within or near online advertisements or on Web pages where data is collected and used for behavioral advertising. The Advertising Option Icon indicates a company's use of online behavioral advertising and adherence to the Principles guiding the program. Similar to a Web site’s privacy policy, consumers will be able to link to a clear disclosure statement regarding the company's online behavioral advertising data collection and use practices as well as an easy-to-use opt-out option."
The ones that let you opt our aren't the ones you need to worry most about...
that the sort of person who would be interested in schooling themselves in companies policies would also be the sort of person who is well aware of how best to block most of these behavioural ads. That said, anything, no matter how small, that reigns bad ads is to be welcomed.
I'm sure this won't be abused at all by the more unscrupulous types of advertisers. You know, those who get paid by the click or the ones trying to distribute malware.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
Didn't we go through this before with the TRUSTe logo of showing if the site only used the information in-house versus sharing with others?
This just seems like more feel good PR fluff, like the P3P stuff about a decade ago. We don't need more "assurances" about privacy. We need the data not to be collected in the first place. No Flash shared objects. No shared objects in Quicktime or other add-ons. No using tricks in a browser to "personalize/individualize" content.
Just generate a history of horrifically devient behavior and they'll take you out of the system out of sheer shame by association. Start by googling zucchini and lubrication.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
If companies want to market ads to me based on my behavior then go for it. I wont click them anyway. Give me something that bans obnoxious (I don't need to explain what these are) ads.
Yes, I can always rely on marketers to honor the "opt-out" feature. And it's always so easy to find and use! This is an obvious fraud designed to avoid pending legislation of some sort. It's a dishonest attempt to appear to honor people's privacy. Only Opt-In truly honors my privacy. My data is MINE.
Currently hooked on AMP
So people like us /.'ers who know ways to block advertisements have little use for this. The rest of the people probably won't know or care enough to utilize it. I suppose there's a middle ground in there something, but I think the bottom line is I'm impressed by how much nothing this accomplishes for the end user.
I suppose it does help cover a business' rear a bit in the legal department.
I've already got one of those. It's called Privoxy.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Let me guess: The Advertising Option Icon will be a 1x1 transparent gif? :-)
I would much rather opt in for stuff I am interested in with Opt Out being the default.
Why should a consumer need to opt out of something they didn't ask for.
Screw this voluntary self-regulation slap-on-the-wrist-at-worst bullshit.
What we really need is legal backing for the right of self-determination over personal data.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Here's how I fight against advertisement:
I never buy anything that has been advertised to me, period.
Advertising is not only annoying, but often it's rather immoral with it's use of "behavior modification" techniques.
Everyone should boycott any product that's advertised in annoying ways.
How do you buy food?
The bakery in your local grocery store wafts the smell of fresh bread for a reason and the sugary cereals sitting on the lower shelves are decorated brightly so the little ones can pick them out more easily. Even at the less devious end of the scale, like a farmer's market, you still need to be advertised to to know the product exists, right?
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
Boycotts don't work. "Everyone" is not a single individual with a single shared interest. It is a lot of separate people, each with their own interests, acting independently. Expecting anything different is doomed to failure.
Unless you can convince people that their individual interest will be served by participating in your boycott (regardless of whether or not other's participate), you can expect the boycot to fail.
You must not use any sites that have been forced to host and embed ads because their readership blocks the advertisers. I would much rather be able to allow or deny ads not just by advertiser (doubleclick can burn in hell), but by site as well. Then I could block all the ads on various slashdot links while still allowing ads at sites I like. Wish someone would do that with adblock/noscript.
-1 raving lunatic; +6 subGenius... Things even out...
A:I eventually had to go down to the cellar.
P: That's the display department.
A: I had to take a torch.
P: The lights must have been out.
A: So were the stairs.
P: But you did find the plans^H^H^H^H^H opt out button?
A: Yes, I found them. In a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory behind a door that said "Beware of the tiger".
P: That's our display department.
--The HitchhIker's Guide to the Galaxy
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
If they defaulted to opt-in tracking and refrained from those obnoxious flash ads, I'm sure there'd be quite a few more people that would be willing to watch the ads. But when ads purposely cover content randomly, crash the browser or track you without permission, that's pretty deserving of being blocked.
I'm not sure about these days, but I did spend a bit of time unsubscribing from spam for a while. It was a junk account that I was going to have to abandon either way. The results were a noticeable reduction in spam messages pretty quickly, then a gradual increase over time. I'm not sure what the actual explanation is, given that most spammers don't have any way of receiving a response to their spam, other than through a store.
47CFR64.1200 (thats the Code of Federal Regulations Volumne 47 section 64 subsection 1200)
or as it is formally known
TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION
CHAPTER I--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (CONTINUED)
PART 64_MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS--
Table of Contents
Subpart L_Restrictions on Telemarketing, Telephone Solicitation, and
Facsimile Advertising
of course you will have a somewhat different actual law but...
if they think you live this far south then you
1 ask for their name
2 ask for the "company they are calling on behalf of"
3 ask them for a call back number (must be a non toll number)
4 bonus points if you are on the CA DNC list
of course 99.999% of the time they will drop the call once you inform them that you are invoking 47CFR64.1200
(of course if you can invoke the CA version thats even better)
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
As another example, I can recall a couple IM programs with an "auto-away" feature, which activates after a certain period of idleness, but automatically deactivates as soon as you move the mouse, regardless of which window has focus. I would choke that program down to receiving mouseclick and keyboard events only. No mouseover, no GetFocus(or whatever the damn API calls it), just the facts.
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!