Slashdot Mirror
Online Tracking Firms To Launch Opt-Out Program
storagedude writes "Threatened by the prospect of tougher US online privacy legislation, a handful of data collection companies have banded together to create a voluntary system for consumers to see what information companies have and to opt out of cookies or edit the data collected. The Better Advertising Project's Open Data Partnership is a long way from a viable solution — scores of tracking and big-name online companies have yet to sign on to the effort — but it is nonetheless the first attempt to put all this online tracking data in one place. Coupled with Microsoft's announcement this week that it plans to add a do-not-track mechanism to IE9, it appears that the FTC's call for a do-not-track system may be gaining some traction. The Open Data Partnership will be particularly interesting, as consumers will be getting a good look at the data collected about them. Better Advertising already lets consumers opt out of some behavioral ad targeting, and about 5% of those who click through to learn more actually opt out (PDF, slide 5). It will be interesting to see if the opt-out rate changes after consumers see what data is actually collected."
To be clear, they aren't saying they'll stop collecting the data. They'll just make it available to users and let people opt out of getting ads based on the information, or simply remove anything they don't want shared.
Could that be becuase more people (as in, not us nerds here) don't even know that they are being tracked like crazy or what it can mean to them in the long term when all those little tiny bits of data start getting put together and someone ends up with a perfect picture of that person?
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
While the Open Data Partnership is a start, there are scores of online tracking and major internet companies that have yet to sign on to the effort.
That's where legislation comes in - you can't get 100% compliance without it. All you need is just one company to refuse to join and this opt-out program will fall apart.
Anyway, opt-out?!? Everything is becoming fucking opt-out. And if you don't know about something, how the fuck do you "opt-out:?
Fucking marketing people and their techie sell-out scumbags.
Why should users have to opt out? It would make more sense to make tracking opt in. If tracking is useful for users surely they'd want to opt in.
How do you view other people's data? I mean how do they authenticate that you are you? goldmine.
No ad system will ever be acceptable to me unless it's "Opt In"!
Look, I'm internet savvy and resourceful. I can think for myself. If and when I want some product I will seek it out. None of your "throw your shit in my face" will make me want to buy your product. In fact it alienates me - IOW it has the opposite effect. Get this through your thick skull - people like me who actively use things like AdBlock are not your customers and never will be. We will seek out and buy things using the wonderful internet as a research tool if and when we - not you - determine we need your product. You'd be best to spend your ad dollars on making a stellar product!
So basically companies that use spyware are asking their victims if they want to be put into a database of people who don't want to be put into a database of people. I wonder if this is going to work as good as the anti-telemarketing and anti-spam legislation.
For myself, I'll just continue to not have frequent-flier points. People call me stupid for a reason!
Here is a great niche for free software - module/plugin to throw off tracking. I'm guesing it'd be bit like virus signature chasing, but maybe bit easier.
I would cook up something along this line on my spare time, but I haven't touched webapps/ecommerce for a few years and not familiar with the current tracking techniques...
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
I find it amusing that most of the comments so far are as AC...
FUCK YOU
Charge 5 bucks and auto opt-out from every single tracker there is.
If you do it, I'd like my cut. Thanks.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Anything less then opt-in to be tracked is just plain unacceptable. Theses company will NOT do anything differently unless forced by our government. And the only way to get our government to do what WE want is to send letters,Lot's and Lot's of letters. When i do a search with google i expect there to be ads for the search term i am looking for, anything more by google is just plain unacceptable. When we go groceries shopping we get then store cards KNOWing we are tracked,but we get a very real price break to be tracked. Online advertiser/marketers provide nothing for the tracking they do to us.
Jack of all trades,master of none
I can just picture it...
"""
Please come to our URL, enter your name, address, and and email so we can insert a cookie indicate you do not wish to be tracked to our partners.
Caution: If cookie is deleted, tracking may resume until you opt out again
"""
This measure is utterly hopeless unless it's double opt-in and comes with a measure whereby employees can be rewarded a years salary (at company expense) for reporting violations. Even the do not call lists in the US are an utter failure.
I get lawyers calling me half a dozen times a week trying to collect on the old phone number of the prior user--from FIVE YEARS ago. I have two dozen company's claiming they have a business relationship who refuse to stop calling. People hang up when you say the words TCPA--but will put you on the do not call list. The FTC themself refuses to enforce or take complaints regarding TCPA violations where people leave messages improperly, or call cellular numbers. And the one manager I ever got to reply said I should put my number on the do not call list. This just in--calling a cell number to make sales is already illegal save under very specific circumstances. The laws on the book are already not enforced.
My computers are behind a proxy that blocks certain websites and referrer headers. I use Firefox and block third party cookies.
When there was a story a month or so ago about tracking, it pointed to websites where one could look up what information they held on you. They had no information about me.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
I block everything, don't share things online, am not on facebook, and when i participate somewhere I use fake online ids like "formfeed" or "lonelygirl" instead of my real name Juanita Maria Gonzales.
So WTF?? Do they now scan the city's property registry or what?
The only way to opt out is to not give them the data in the first place. They cannot collect what your computer does not send. And since your computer is under your control(*) you get to chose what information it gives. The tools for this already exist.
(*) Unless you run iOS or Android.
What makes the most sense to me is not that we opt out of cookies, but rather that we all use the same cookies.
We need a repository of tracking cookies and a plugin that sets all of our cookies to the same thing. That way there is no dependence upon the trackers to be good or ill. We just all pretend to be the same "person".
-sh
This is not a political statement. This is not legal advice. It's a frick'n Slasdot post. However: I'm Running For
Speaking of opt-out, does anybody know what happened to Junkbusters? They use to have an open source proxy, as well as other anti-tracking tools.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
You used the right tense: They had no information about you. Now they have the information about you that you care (or someone else does) about what information they have about you. :-)
If you clicked the Slashdot link to go there, and don't block referrer, they also know that you came from Slashdot.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
This is going to sound stupid - even for me, but I'm still going to pose this question.
Assume that they're not going to send you spam email - and that this advertising company is only taking care of the online ads you view. Any information which they sell will be sold only to similar no-email-spam companies.
Now I go to my favourite website, and its full of ads. The amount of ads aren't going to change whether they track you or not, just that their content will depend on the websites you've visited before. So in my case instead of an ad for a 'vampire-movie' , there would be ads for computer stuff, development communities - that sort of thing.
Is it really so bad? There seems to be an in-built aversion to being tracked - but you're still going to get ads thrown at you...
"(*) Unless you run iOS or Android." -
I use a custom HOSTS file to block out ad banners - THUS, I "opted-out" from online advertisers, long ago & hosts files were my way of doing so...
Why? Ok:
---
MICROSOFT APOLOGIZES FOR SERVING MALWARE:
http://apcmag.com/microsoft_apologises_for_serving_malware.htm
---
Adbanners have been shown to harbor maliciously scripted code, as in the example above, & that's just a SINGLE INSTANCE. There have been others also... so, for online security's sake, I block them out.
I also do so because ISP's are in talks to bill you for how much you use your connection, bandwidth-wise, here:
---
FCC Approving Pay-As-You-Go Internet Plans:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/08/2012243/FCC-Approving-Pay-As-You-Go-Internet-Plans
---
So, by blocking out adbanner content, that means I don't consume as much bandwidth by downloading & processing adbanner code either (even IF it's "safe" from malware content within). That's for BOTH PHONES &/or PC's mind you, especially in light of that 2nd URL above happening... because, after all, bottom-line here is, that it's YOUR MONEY FOLKS, after all!
HOSTS files do ALL OF THAT, for me, even to the point of possibly saving money (if the FCC plans go thru on "pay as you use" internet billing)... & also, far more!
(Below in my P.S. section extolls all the virtues of using HOSTS files, even over AdBlock &/or DNS servers alone).
HOWEVER, most everyone knows you can obtain a reliable HOSTS file from MVPS.ORG here -> http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm and you overwrite your root/etc model in LINUX, or your %WinDir%\system32\drivers\etc model in Windows for it to begin to work... but!
How do you do load a custom HOSTS file for all of that on ANDROID?
You use developer tools is how!
ADB is your pal, and utilizing it, you:
---
A.) Use the mount command, & mount the system mount point on ANDROID as both READ & WRITE, first.
B.) Next, use the PULL command on the HOSTS file you want from wherever it is you keep it (hook your ANDROID to your PC for this)
C.) Lastly, use the PUSH command on the HOSTS file you want on ANDROID to send it to the system mount point on the ANDROID phone device, overwriting it as you would on LINUX (in the etc folder)
---
Since ANDROID is a form of LINUX, it will work the same, blocking out adbanners, maliciously scripted content on sites/servers that attempt to hijack your PC with malware, & you go faster online too!
You gain speed, security, & more "anonymity" by blocking out adbanners &/or malicious content using a HOSTS file, in the following ways:
---
1.) You gain speed of access to your favorite websites by "hardcoding in" your favorite websites as it avoids the roundtrip IPAddress - to - Host/Domain name resolution requests to DNS servers, which is slower than local HOSTS file access (since HDD's are faster than calling out to a remote server for that information),
2.) You gain privacy by avoiding DNS request tracking logs (more privacy/"anonymity" potential here)
3.) You avoids DNS poisoned or redirected DNS servers
4.) You avoid downed/crashed DNS servers
5.) You avoid known bad servers/sites that host malware laden content (by blocking out these sites using 127.0.0.1 (slowest & largest), 0.0.0.0 (next slowest & largest, + most compatible), or 0 (smallest & fastest of the lot, but won't work on Windows Server 2008, VISTA, or Windows 7 anymore))...
6.) You avoid being charged on some ISP/BSP's "pay as you use" policy (see 2nd
And how often have you replied to some spam saying you want to opt out? It's a recipe for having a hundred times as much spam now they know you read it. It's confirmation that you are a prime candidate for spam. So now they want you to stick your email in a register saying you don't want the stuff. Give me a break. Anyone like that I'll avoid like a plague.
thou discernest my thoughts from afar
I dunno, it's easy to jump to conclusions, but given where the data comes from, it's a bit like trusting the telemarketers that only 5% of people are bothered by repeated calls at dinner time.
And it's especially the combination that makes me wonder. I'd assume that if people just didn't give a fuck, they wouldn't have clicked to learn more in the first place. I mean, I don't go click on penis enlargement pill adds just to change my mind later. If I'm not interested, I don't click at all.
That only 5% of those who went to that page actually went through, makes me suspect that it just sounded pointless, or confusing, or asked for more personal data to join that list than the relatively anonymous just tracking the browser rather than the person that is currently happening.
I mean, think I gave you a form like this to opt out of some crap:
First Name:
Last Name:
Address:
City:
Postcode:
Phone Number:
Social Security Number:
EMail Address:
[ ] I have read the Privacy Statement and understand that I have none, and any data I voluntarily enter can be used for marketing purposes, sold to the highest bidder and shared with every web site we advertise on
Would you go ahead with that, or just say "fuck it, I'll just clear my cookies and browser history more often."?
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Actually, after reading their powerpoint slide, the mentioned stats on page 5 actually say:
Which is actually what you'd expect for something where you have to click an icon _inside_ an ad to even get to their opt-out site. Especially an icon that says "Advertising Choices" instead of something clearer like, say, "Opt Out Of Ads." Not that that would make it much better, since we all learned anyway to not click on spammers' opt out links and that they typically lead to something worse than ignoring them.
Additionally, again: it's an icon _inside_ an ad. If I ever saw their stupid icon, I would assume it to be yet another lame FakeUI trick to make me click on the ad. The only kind of person who clicks on buttons on ads they're not interested to, is probably also the kind of person who believes they'll win an iPad by shooting 5 ducks in an ad or opens attachments called PornPix.xls.exe in emails. I.e., the terminally retarded.
The place I'd look for some genuine choices to turn off ads would be, say, in my user preferences on a site, not inside an ad.
And, geeze, if it's options call it "options", will ya? Calling it "Advertising Choices" is as far from suggesting "opt out" as humanly possible.
That's 3 in 4 users who click on the icon but never make it to the Opt Out page. Wtf? Why doesn't it lead directly to an opt-out page in the first place?
In fact, if you do look at their page 3, clicking on the icon leads you to a marketing bullshit page that starts with justifying why they showed you the ad. At which point, yeah, 3/4 of the people giving up sounds about right.
It's starting to sound like they took a lesson from The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy:
"`...You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anyone or anything.'
`But the plans were on display...'
`On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.'
`That's the display department.'
`With a torch.'
`Ah, well the lights had probably gone.'
`So had the stairs.'
`But look you found the notice didn't you?'
`Yes,' said Arthur, `yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of The Leopard".'"
Anyway, if you make it to the opt out page, basically at that point they tell you it doesn't opt you out of anything. It's on the same page 3. It tells you they'll still track you and collect your data and share it around, but you'll get worse ads from _some_ companies. WTF kind of opt out is that?
Plus, it tells you pretty clear that it's a pointless site, and, regardless of what checkboxes you click, it's still up to the individual companies whether they'll still track you or not. And that you actually have to click on each company's link to see what policy they actually have. I.e., basically the opt-out page is itself just a bullshit ad page with links to companies that you can click on, nothing more. That 1 in 5 still took their chances and clicked the checkboxes, is... interesting.
At any rate, it seems to me like their conclusion is weird that "Transparency doesn't foster opt-out". They didn't measure that. They just showed that if you make a misleading icon that nobody sane will ever click on, put it in the worst place for encouraging users to click, and of the few that click you manage to lose 3/4 before they make it to the opt out page, and then the opt-out page is phrased to flat out tell people that you'll still track them anyway... yeah, you'll have very few opt outs. That's not "transparency". It's actually quite the opposites. It's like putting the customer complaints department at the South Pole and only accessible in person, and then concluding that you have the most satisfied customers ever because nobody ever has complaints.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
All advertising and marketing should be opt out by default.
Then, if people want to opt in by all means let them add their names to some list somewhere.
Forcing people to add their names to a list in order not to have their names added to lists is obviously an absurd requirement.
As usual the government is on the side of big business. The more the corporations make, the more tax revenue the government can rake off and the greater will be the empire of our representatives in government - and let's face it, that's why they're there.
Except this one is actually worse. The gist of it is: oh, we'll continue to track you all right, but we'll give you more ads you're not interested in. I.e., it's not even a fucking opt out of being tracked or the ads, it's accepting to still be tracked but forfeit the meager rewards of occasionally getting an interesting ad out of it. As opposed to, dunno, your point B, it doesn't even say "ok, ok, we'll stop collecting your data, but keep the old one." It flat out tells you "hell, yeah, we'll keep collecting your data and using it for everything except targeting ads. And oh, it's actually up to the individual companies if they actually want to obey even that. It's not like anything you click on this site is actually binding to anyone."
And from that they have the chutzpah to conclude that really, people don't want to opt out of being tracked.
Really, the scenario that comes to mind is sending a bunch of girls a letter that says, "Hi! Me and these 5 other guys are the ones who've been stalking you all these years and sending you creepy postcards and the occasional box of chocolates for Valentine's Day. But now we're nice guys and let you opt out! Just sign here and we'll... ah, who am I kidding, we'll still stalk you obsessively. But we promise to pretend we don't know you like chocolates and roses, so we might send you a dead cat or a baby skull instead, and maybe a bouquet of nightshade. And actually we can't even promise that. Really, each of us can decide for himself." And from that concluding that actually girls want to be stalked, because only one lass with Down Syndrome actually signed the opt out.
Even by the standards of the crap that "industry self-regulation" generally means, this takes the cake. I guess when you have a bunch of folks whose job is to lie to the public _and_ to the corporate masters paying for it, man, it's such a surprise that their own survey says that people love it. I mean what are the odds?
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Such advertisement practice should be opt-in to begin with. In telephone, e-mail and mail we only have opt-in for a reason. Why there are no laws to make such practice online opt-in?
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
Yeah, just make an account with us providing your name, address, email, and phone. We'll link that to every other thing we've previously tied to IP usage and browser metadata. We'll show you everything we have....
I am a performance artist and all of my life is subject to copyright, I do not grant redistribution rights to anyone for anything I may do with them.
Well, I've looked at the ODP and its indeed a step in the right direction. Additionally, Better Advertising Offers an awesome tool that actually allow you opt-out (via blocking) from 99% of the online tracking via their Ghostery tool.
So much entitlement here from people who outright block ads. Do you have any idea how much websites are paid for via advertising? Hell /. LOVES Google, where did they get their money from again?
I seriously would love to see an online world with no ads just to watch most sites be put behind a paywall or some other way of recouping the money no longer received from advertising. Then everyone here with their entitlement complex would complain about that too. Of course every little be of digital data should be free. I'm entitled to it! To hell with paying those who created it or maintain it.
Just lie. Get/make a Firefox add-in, an Opera widget, whatever, that generates tons of false information. Poison the well for these suckers.
BTW, if they allow someone to look at the data, what authentication do they use?
Can I change or block any random mis-identification data that is presented to me?
Can a robot walk the data and harvest even more throw-away email addresses?
Targeted spam - its no longer a contradiction in terms.
Sounds like a bad idea that makes trouble for all concerned.
The brit in me hoped that the acronym would be BAPS. :|
If they don't go to jail for it or there is no crippling financial penalty this is worthless. Hell they'll just use it as a way to identify valid information.
We need penalties that execute corporations. Take their property and leave their shareholders sucking the joy of supporting filth.