“The White House wants a ‘Do Not Track’ option put on websites to give consumers greater control of their personal information online but Internet companies and privacy groups are at odds on how tight the controls should be,” Jasmin Melvin reports for Reuters. “The stalemate could lead to a legislative crackdown on Internet privacy if left unresolved.”
“That has firms like Google Inc and Facebook Inc that rely heavily on collecting user data worried that any legislation could lead to cuts in online advertising that would eat into their profits,” Melvin reports. “The U.S. administration has looked to an Internet standards setting body, already eyeing a ‘Do Not Track’ mechanism and with an aggressive timeline in place, to corral everyone into a room and onto teleconferences to reach a deal. With over 10 months of talks under the group’s belt, they are still talking but are arguably no closer to an agreement than when they started. The sides are so far apart that they don’t even agree on what ‘Do Not Track’ means.”
Melvin reports, “To privacy advocates, it is halting data collection so a consumer can surf the Web without any prying eyes collecting information about their online activities for economic gain. To the industry, however, it means not targeting ads to a consumer based on their Web viewing history, but data collection would continue for other purposes. The next step, if no consensus is reached by year’s end, will likely test regulatory and congressional threats of legislation to enforce Internet privacy.”
“This puts Internet companies in the midst of an existential dilemma as their business models rely on consumers parting with their personal information to bolster ad revenue,” Melvin reports. “Online advertisers and Web companies say such data is now the lifeblood of the Internet. ‘If you get rid of that, you kill the Internet. It’s just that simple,’ Linda Woolley, executive vice president of government affairs at the Direct Marketing Association, said of the dangers of ceasing data collection.”
“What some once viewed as a sideline – collecting and selling consumers’ data to advertisers – the Internet ecosystem took on as its main source of revenue, in return providing consumers with free Web content and services,” Melvin reports. “Any clamp down on data collection deals a blow to their bottom lines. Targeting has almost tripled what brands pay websites to run ads, and companies like Google and Facebook rely heavily on advertising for the bulk of their revenue. U.S. online ad revenue was just shy of $15 billion in the first half of 2011, 23 percent higher than the previous year.”
Melvin reports, “In recent years Internet giants have gotten into trouble for various privacy abuses, including secretly tracking users’ locations and selling consumers’ data to advertisers without their knowledge. Both Google, the world’s No. 1 search engine, and Facebook, the No. 1 social networking site, reached settlements with the FTC last year because of privacy problems. The faux pas got regulators’ attention… Representatives Edward Markey and Joe Barton, co-chairmen of the Congressional Privacy Caucus, wrote to the W3C last month championing a “Do Not Track” definition that bars accumulating, using and sharing personal data. ‘Joe Barton is one of the most conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives, and Ed Markey is one of the most liberal,’ said Consumer Watchdog’s John Simpson. ‘The fact that those two guys can come together on this leads me to believe that privacy is likely to be one of the issues where there will be bipartisan agreement about the need to do something.'”
Much more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: We’d love to be able to stipulate which sites can be tracked by advertisers and which cannot.
For example: Say you’re in the market for running shoes. You would allow advertisers to see that you went to Zappos, Finish Line, Mizuno, etc. and what you browsed (sizes, colors, type, etc.) so then you can get served relevant ads that might be useful to you in your quest (better prices, choice of widths, shoes you might like but haven’t heard about, etcetera). However, you can block the fact that you went to a health website and what ailments you researched or that you visited a political website to donate to a campaign, etc.
Such granular control would be quite useful for power users. However, making it usable for those who think the Internet is the blue ‘e” is another story altogether. It seems like something only Apple could figure out and implement well. A stop and go situation where you have to tell each site “track” or “do not track” the first time you visit seems unwieldy, although that would do the job in brute force fashion and would certainly ease over time as you built up your white and black lists. If you gave users a “Do Not Track” master button, you’d kill a great deal of advertising and might likely introduce strange consequences. For example: Sites that are free for those who allow some level of tracking, but require subscription fees for these who have “Do Not Track” enabled.
As usual, it’s a can of worms.
Related articles:
Google to pay $22.5 million to settle charges over bypassing privacy settings of millions of Apple users – July 10, 2012
Apple’s anti-user tracking policy has mobile advertisers scrambling – May 9, 2012
Obama’s privacy plan puts pinch on Google – February 24, 2012
I’m sure this is something Google and Facebook could make go away or at least turn toothless with some nice campaign contributions.
After all, corporations are people, too!
Waste of time to even talk about it, cause it ain’t gonna happen. That ship has sailed and we will never get our privacy back. Remember that corporations are now people. And they are very powerful people, so do not get your hopes up. Nowadays you are not the customer, you are the product.
This issue goes to the core of the problem with our Age Of Marketing. That problem is the Marketing-Moron. These are people who have no concept of respecting their customers. Instead, customers are treated as con-job marks. This sets companies as PREDATORS and customers as PREY.
Obviously this doesn’t work and is a self-destructive system. And of course, it is a core behavior that threw the world into out ongoing economic depression. It is also a core reason why we can’t get out of it.
If all of this sounds sick and demented, you are quite correct. Thus the current biznizz world is, in general, quite sick and demented. The deceitful attitude toward customers has become so ingrained in biznizz practices that it is going to require a new generation of enlightened business students, entrepreneurs and managers to rip out the damage and reestablish respect for the customer. Accompanying this revolution will obviously be a full scale denigration of propaganda practices.
There are of course shining exceptional companies who engender Marketing-Mavens, those who herald back to what I call ‘Source Capitalism’ when customer respect was mandatory. Apple happens to be one of them, if not the model for the new business revolution. So say I anyway. 😀
BTW: I posted an article last month that covers what we Mac Safari users can do in the meantime to detail Internet tracking:
The Fight For Internet User Privacy
WTF are you talking about you crazy motherfscker? Now, listen, nobody released you! We’re sending out the van right now. Just stay right where you are and everything’s going to be A-OK.
HAHAHA! Excellent satire.
It wasn’t satire, psycho. Just stay clam, stay right where you are and we’ll get you back into your jacket in no time.
IOC: You’re an oblivious troll with no world insight. Dime-A-Dozen. What a shame. You could have become a real boy but chose to remain a piece of wood. Well, if you ever change your mind, let me know. I can help.
No, the problem is people like you who think the consumer is the customer when the consumer is actually the product.
The fact of the matter is that people don’t respect their own privacy, give it away for free, and then bitch and moan when it is bought and sold.
Yes indeed. Those who should know better and don’t (called ‘The Ignorami’) have no one to blame but themselves. We all are required to make choices and to take responsibility for our choices. That’s one of the fundamental gifts and consequences of life.
Meanwhile, it is obviously demeaning and disrespectful, and therefore destructive to actual capitalism, to treat a human being as a ‘product’ of any kind. The fact that ‘Screw Thy Customer’ is the Spirit of the Age excuses nothing. You want to self-destruct your business by objectifying your customer/consumer? Enjoy your ride down the drain.
I noticed a comment from george that talked about the large # of companies and ad networks that track on MDN. However, MDN deleted the comment. Come on MDN, you can’t post the issue and then silence the discussion just because your site is one of the ones that traffics in tracking.
Virtually all ad networks, if not all, “track” users to some extent. It’s how the ads are made relevant to the viewer. It’s far preferable in our view than serving snow shovel ads to readers living in Phoenix. That is a total waste of time and money for everyone involved: the advertisers, the publisher and the readers. In the early days of the ‘Net, before there was contextual advertising, it was just a dysfunctional mess.
This isn’t a black or white issue. Some data being shared is beneficial to all parties. We believe the issue is how much data is shared, what kind of data is shared, how much control can be given to the user, and how much control can the average user really be expected to handle.
We removed “george’s” comment because he claimed we were “advocating” for one position or the other.
What we “advocate” is explicitly stated in our Takes.
Obviously MDN are part of the current culture of marketing. Revenues depend up on advertising and the best advertising is directed toward those who actually want the advertised product.
And yet, the US Constitution guarantees the right to personal privacy. Go read the article I linked above which I posted last month on my Mac-Security blog. Therefore, every single citizen of the USA who chooses to NOT be tracked by anyone, has that absolute right.
Darn, this interferes with the revenue stream. Sorry, but businesses have no rights to treat their customers with disrespect for the sake of anything. When they do treat their customers with disrespect, they destroy their own business. It is self-destructive behavior entirely at odds with the source concepts of capitalism. Deal with it. Live with it. Don’t censor people who point it out. Don’t feed our traitorous Corporate Oligarchy.
And don’t intimidate people who know better with dopey ‘psych ward’ trolling.
Which part of “We’d love to be able to stipulate which sites can be tracked by advertisers and which cannot” didn’t you understand?
I don’t understand why you bothered to write it. It’s the status quo. Every site decides whether and which advertising network they will join.
The issue is NOT about marketing or fictional corporate rights to surveil anyone. The issue is entirely about citizen rights to full and complete privacy at all times as THEY choose, not how anyone else chooses. Do please read the US Constitution.
Derek
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights put limits on what the government can do to a private citizen. There is nothing in those documents about what a business can do. The legislative and judicial branches of government set what a business can and cannot do.
Total bullshit. But you have fun in your Corporate Oligarchy wonderland. I’m not interested.
MDN: You say ” It’s how the ads are made relevant to the viewer. It’s far preferable in our view than serving snow shovel ads to readers living in Phoenix. . . . In the early days of the ‘Net, before there was contextual advertising, it was just a dysfunctional mess.”
Good points. But I’d argue it’s still a dysfunctional mess. I bought a circular saw at Amazon and now I receive 3 emails a week saying “we noticed you bought a circular saw. Here are some circular saws that other people bought.” I bought a new fridge at Sears, and so now I’m inundated with emails about fridges. And every time I go to the Sears website, every page is full of ads for fridges, no matter what I’m looking at. I fricken well bought one already!
Internet advertising is out of control. It sucks up bandwith, it slows down older computers, and it’s as annoying as hell. The issues is not black and white, but in the absence of common sense by the advertisers, it’s going to need regulation.
Have you ever heard of AdBlock? It works!
This isn’t really that complicated. Sites have a right to track who visits them (just like any one of us has the right to track who visits our house), and to share overall/summary versions of that (minus individual-specific info) with their advertisers. Sharing or selling individual-specific info should ONLY be allowed if visitors allow it via a clearly explained opt-in permission. Also, sites should face liability for releasing individual info without permission. So, am I missing anything?
P.S. My business provides online services.
No. Just because I knock on your door, and you invite me in, does not give you the “right” to take my picture whie in your bathroom, vacuum my cloths and go thru my wallet – and then sell any information you glean to whoever is willing to pay you for it. All without my knowledge or permission. No. You are wrong. In my view, this would only be permissible if there were a sign on your front door outlining what you intend to do, in detail, so that I may determine whether to enter – or if I should call the police! Maybe THAT is what websites need to do if they insist on the “right” to monetize me.
Except that no website that I know of takes pictures of their visitors while in the bathroom. Nor do they vacuum cloths or go through your wallet. What so many fail to accept is that participation on the web is a voluntary endeavor. From its inception it has lived on computers that logged your visits. So many rail against the monetizing of the internet, but guess what: were there no monetizing the internet would still be a chat board for Universities and the DOD. There would be no news sites, no topical interest sites like MDN, no entertainments sites, no online ticket sales, no nothing. People LOVE the internet, but it is a quid pro quo environment. If you needed a reminder that there is NO FREE LUNCH, the WWW is it. Advertisers pay for this playground. If they can’t utilize the tools it offers to reach potential buyers than the money dries up and the party is over. I’d like to know this: just who is it that you pay your subscription to web content? There are a few that try; NYT, Wall Street Journal, thousands of porn sites. That’s about it. The other 5 billion websites are presented to you for free, and every one of these site owners dreams of having an advertisers that will help support the cost of running a site. So… to answer the basic question, I don’t mind websites using my traffic data in an attempt to serve up relevant advertising. I accept advertising as the price to be paid, and not seeing “snow shovel ads in Phoenix” is a good thing. It’s advertisers trying be more granular in pinpointing salable customers, nothing more sinister than that. I do NOT want my internet service provider keeping track of my internet wanderings; they have no legitimate reason to acquire that info. Lastly, there should be severe punishment for the misuse of collected data.
MDN : at least you believe what you say is honest. That’s one.
First, let’s call it what it is:
STALKING
If someone follows you getting a restraining order is not considered out of line. Farcebook, Google and the endless number of data miners are doing for profit what would get you arrested.
Next, the dirty little secret:
Governments are some of the best customers of the data miners. In fact, government agencies routinely buy information that they have been forbidden by law from collecting. Buying what you statutorily are banned from collecting should also be wrong.
10 months for negotiations is bullshit. A few US Marshals busting the doors and shuttering Google and Farcebook’s servers down pending an “investigation” might provide a moment of clarity.
Except for the part where Google actually lets you file the restraining order, and then leaves you alone.