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...
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.
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
Sure, this will be abused by the most unscrupulous types of advertisers. They're unscrupulous for a reason.
However, like the wildly popular Do Not Call registry and a voluntary program for direct mail, these do reduce the annoyance level a bit, because there are advertisers with scruples. The equivalent in the world of phone marketing is that the almost nightly "Do you want to change your long distance carrier?" calls have been replaced by maybe monthly calls from "Cardholder Services" and other obvious scam artists. While not perfect, it's definitely an improvement.
I am officially gone from
Let me guess: The Advertising Option Icon will be a 1x1 transparent gif? :-)
I don't agree. They may be aware of how to block them, but maybe that isn't their choice -- if the site takes their wishes into consideration. Maybe they actually want to support the sites they view, in hopes that they sites will continue to care about having them as a visitor.
I see, on this page, a notice that says "As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable advertising." You know what I do in response? I let them show me ads. Because I like slashdot. I don't want it to start to become targeted at the audience that is not tech-savvy enough to know how to install an ad blocker -- I want it to be targeted at people like me.
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
No, it's an attempt to head off legislation. By making a voluntary "self-policing" system, they get to point at it and say "See, we're doing something" in an attempt to block legislative efforts that would likely be more strict.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
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...
I've more or less been forced to conclude that anybody still calling me here in Canada (we have slightly different rules) is either fraudulent, too stupid to look up the registry, or has been given an exemption (ie they're a charity or something). I even see a lot of bogus caller IDs -- a very high percentage of them actually.
Being on the Do Not Call registry mean that any telemarketer who gets through (and they do) gets a very rude and abrupt "fuck the hell off". As a deterrent to calling me, the registry serves no purpose. Profanity seems to at least put them off their game.
My problem is, there's so many fraudulent callers, I'm forced to conclude that they all are since I have no real way of knowing. So, every telemarketer who calls is presumed to be a lying sack of shit ... it makes the decision tree much shorter. They probably are.
Indeed, here in the US, they've made exceptions for all the people that we really don't want to hear from, ie., politicians. During election season it's terrible. 7 or 8 calls a day, frequently from a robocaller. Charities aren't quite as bad, but still they call frequently enough as to be an annoyance.
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.