Stanford, Mozilla, Opera Launch Web Privacy Initiative

An anonymous reader writes "Stanford Law School has kicked off a 'Cookie Clearinghouse' web privacy initiative that brings together researchers and browsers. The project aims to provide a centralized and trusted repository for whitelist and blacklist data on web tracking, much like StopBadware does for malware. Mozilla and Opera are collaborating on the initiative, and Mozilla plans to integrate it into Firefox's new default third-party cookie blocking. The leader of an advertising trade group has, of course, denounced the participating browsers as 'oligopolies.'"

Comments

It's about the right to choose

[Jawnn]

“There are billions and billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs at stake in this supply chain,” said Rothenberg, who called the browser makers “oligopolies” with excessive power to make decisions affecting the workings of the Internet. “It should be done with stakeholders’ input.”

Mr. Rothenberg, you keep using that word. I do not think that it means what you think it means. The "stakeholders" in this are the users of the browsers, not the web site operators. Get that part right, at least. It is my browser, not the web site operators. If I don't want it to allow me to be tracked through the use of third-party cookies, I should have that choice, just like it's the web site operator's choice to deny me access if I don't allow such tracking. It's all about choice and when it comes to what my browser should or should not do, that choice is mine.

Re:It's about the right to choose

[MysteriousPreacher]

And of course there's nothing stopping Rothenberg's bunch of self-entitled wastes of skin from producing their own browser! The AdBrowser could be designed with no blocking of cookies, tracking enabled by default and no blocking of Flash or pop-up windows.

I'm sure it'd be popular.

That advertising group?

[MysteriousPreacher]

The group in question is the Interactive Advertising Bureau, which is paid to rail against pretty much anything that makes it harder for advertisers to track people online.

I don't want these shitbags tracking my browsing history, which is why I block or otherwise restrict most cookies, and block web bugs. I'm fine though with adverts - just not Randall Rothenberg's view of spying being an acceptable price for free content. Bloody hell, even his name makes him sound like some 19th century mad industrialist, busy earning a fortune from grinding childrens' bones in to cosmetics.

Re:That advertising group?

[SJHillman]

I'm okay with most ads, as long as there's no music/video/flashing/excessive animation/pop-ups/pop-unders/scrolling/etc. I don't mind them tracking me within a site (IE: NewEgg displaying ads for stuff someone from my IP has previously looked at). However, when I see ads for something I looked at on NewEgg popping up on every site I visit, that just feels like stalking. I don't want the Walmart Greeter following me into Target, Sears and Big Lots just so he can keep trying to hand me the Flyer of the Week.

Tough ...

[gstoddart]

âoeThere are billions and billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs at stake in this supply chain,â

You know what Mr Rothenberg, we don't give a shit.

Because also at stake is our privacy, and our right to not have some douchebag advertising company know every detail of our lives.

I don't want doubleclick, quantserve, google analytics, scorecard research, and all of these other assholes to get a phone-home beacon on every page I visit -- which is why between my firewall and various things like NoScript/ScriptSafe, these sites are blocked.

I don't owe you marketing data, and I'm not interested in your product. Don't act like it's your right for me to provide you this data, because it isn't.

The advertising companies who do this are the oligopolies, Mozilla is just putting some more freedom in the hands of their consumers ... or maybe you don't like it when consumers exercise their right to be not interested in what you're selling and your just a corporate mouthpiece who is only interested in corporate freedom?

I don't have any more sympathy for advertisers than I do for telemarketers. They can both go eat shit and die.

Re:Tough ...

[gstoddart]

In theory, they could use this in their Terms of Service and deny you service on those grounds.

In theory, they can shove it up their asses.

Until I see a legally binding court decision which compels me to allow this, I'm going to assume my right to tune them out and not listen still holds true.

If a website wants to sue me for blocking their ads, and 3rd party advertiser thinks I'm breaking some kind of law by blocking this, then I will refer them to Arkell v Pressdram.

Even if we call advertising 'speech', your right to free speech in no way compels me to listen or enable you to speak to me. I consider advertising to be in the same class the Jehova's Witnesses who come to my door -- your desire to tell me something is trumped by the fact that I Don't Give A Fucking Shit. And like I will shoo these people from my front door, I will continue to block the advertisers and other crap in my browser.

Their desire to be heard doesn't mean I'm required to listen or allow them onto my property.