Slashdot Log In
Privacy Groups Mull 'Do Not Track' List for Internet
Posted by
Zonk
on Wed Oct 31, 2007 01:44 PM
from the i'd-sign dept.
from the i'd-sign dept.
Technical Writing Geek writes with a Reuters story about a collection of privacy groups looking to set up a 'Do Not Track' list online, similar to the 'Do Not Call' list meant to dissuade telemarketing. "Computer users should be notified when their Web surfing is tracked by online advertisers and Web publishers, argue the Consumer Federation of America, the World Privacy Forum and the Center for Democracy and Technology, among other groups in a coalition promoting the idea. Rather than burying privacy policies in fine print, companies should also disclose them more fully and provide easier ways to opt out, the groups said. The organizations submitted the proposals to the Federal Trade Commission, ahead of the consumer watchdog agency's workshop on Nov. 1-2 to study the increasing use of tracking technology to target online ads.
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Do not spam? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The sad thing is, I know this would collect a LOT of valid emails. (Probably from folks who would buy things from spammers, too.) Unfortunately, I'm not quite evil enough to bring myself to do that. It's too bad, really.
Don't forget to make list available to scammers! (Score:3, Funny)
Since most web usage is tracked anonymously it's much more likely that identifiable information will be hijacked from a copy of the the "no not track" list than from any of the web tracking itself. Seems like kind of a silly, tinfoil-hat-inspired idea!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is completely unlike the "do not call" lists; these are country-specific. If I spam your phone and you're on a do not call list, we're most likely to share the same government (at least so far) You ca
unrealistic goals (Score:5, Funny)
Also, they want world peace, and a pony.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:unrealistic goals (Score:5, Informative)
Tada! You're done. Now you can't be tracked (unless you specifically want to be).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
what we need is for congress to say, consumers have an expectation, if not a right, of privacy. what they do in a legal environment should be there business and their business alone.
but what we get is, things like the ftc's do not call list where yea...your number is blocked unless of course if you send in a text message to a co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, you lost me around that third step.
Re: (Score:2)
Turn off cookies for all sites, then to permit a site (session or permanently) you just hit alt+c and choose one, then hit enter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Now, any site you go to will automatically allow JavaScript from that domain (I mean, if you didn't want its JavaScript running on your machine, what are you going there for?). Any other domain's scripts that are present on that page will s
Re:unrealistic goals (Score:4, Insightful)
My first reaction to this story was to add the "futile" tag.
I think we all have to get used to the thought that if there is any information out there, that is publicly accessible in plaintext, it will be cataloged, author identified, and data-mined ad infinitum. Given the technological capability to collect, organize, and process data... as well as the prolific availability of said data, we cannot reasonably expect any privacy laws to deter usage of this data, whether it be by private companies for profit, or government entities for censorship and oppression.
The way I see it, the only way to ensure any real privacy, is to personally ensure anonymity at any point where it seems necessary. With this, there will come more and more tradeoffs in terms of conveniences, and ultimately perhaps even one's place in society... but this is a choice we're all making right now, and will certainly have to make in the future.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
When companies have to pay for this they will be more circumspect about what data they collect and how much.
This would work for spam as well.... opt in and get paid. Currently someone else is getting paid to collect your data, leaving you out of the equation except as the victim/volunteer.
Advertisers and market researchers should be paying us for the opport
you still are using word "mull" in wrong contect (Score:2, Funny)
Re:you still are using word "mull" in wrong contec (Score:3, Funny)
No, "mull" is appropriate (Score:2)
Re:you still are using word "mull" in wrong contec (Score:2)
Never heard that usage. (Score:2)
Usage here is just fine.
Re:you still are using word "mull" in wrong contec (Score:3, Informative)
Chris Mattern
Anyone else see the problem here? (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, let's set up a "Do Not Track" list. How are they going to know not to track you? By figuring out who you are, then checking to see if you're on the list.
Oops.
A better idea would be a standardized opt-out system where your browser tells every server, "Do not track me," then set up web applications to honor that choice.
Maybe set up an X-DontTrackMe header for HTTP requests. Or a standardized DontTrack=true cookie not linked to a domain. Something that has no unique information and gets sent to every website. Then turn it on and off in the browser with a checkbox.
Something like that could be tested as a Firefox extension or IE browser helper (if I'm remembering the terminology correctly) to start with, then added to browsers themselves.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
opt-out lists are the work of satan (Score:2)
Hash.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Golly, I wish I could do that while robbing a bank with my "don't videotape or look at me" tshirt on.
Internet != Telephone (Score:5, Insightful)
This problem obviously does not exist on the internet - the cost of serving up those banners to millions of people clearly doesn't eat into the profits of these companies, so there's no reason for them to stop, and if laws are passed forcing them to stop, they'll simply be replaced by foreign companies advertising either on behalf of the same companies serving up the ads now, or set up by the advertising companies to circumvent the laws.
This won't work.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, they have already figured a way around that law if they want to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
How? (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, there is no simple way of defining something like this. A better solution might be to regulate the type of information that they are allowed to collect in the first place. If they aren't allowed to record my IP address (or any other identifying information like a zip code I type in a form or POST/GET data), then there would seem to be limited privacy implications. They could gather data showing that people who like power tools also like Sony stereos or whatnot, but without information like IP addresses, form and GET/POST data, there is little they can use to violate my privacy.
Am I missing something?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
on a "do not spam" list (Score:5, Informative)
Re:on a "do not spam" list (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
(yawn) Yet another pre-defeated proposal (Score:5, Interesting)
Sometimes I find myself idly wondering how many miserable failures of opt-out proposals will be necessary before people get a clue that opt-in offers the only possible way to success.
Then I snap out of it and remind myself that of course some people have a clue, and that's precisely why they continue to put these proposals out (or to enthusiastically back them): doing so serves their purposes nicely. It allows them to proudly say that "they've taken the lead in protecting privacy" while of course they're doing everything they possibly can to do the opposite. (They do this, of course, because they're well aware that few people would opt-in to have telemarketers bother them, or to have spammers clog their mailboxes, or to have their personal data collected.)
This situation is unlikely to change in the forseeable future. Just as it's given us ineffective anti-telemarketing measures, just as it's given us ineffective anti-spam measures, the outcome of this process will inevitably give us ineffective anti-privacy-invasion measures.
Which is why it's probably best to just ignore this nonsense and instead use technological means to either deny data to invaders or feed them bogus data.
Nice idea but! (Score:2)
Kick me (Score:3, Insightful)
I do this already. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They'll track the denied tracking. (Score:2)
I don't see how this could be reasonably implemented. You can't put your IP address on the do-not-track list, because it could change day-to-day. You'd need a cookie in your browser saying you opted out. But that's as much information as if you hadn't opted out in the first place, they'd just have to toss the info after they got it.
U
And how do they propose . . . (Score:2)
The alternative to tracking via cookies is micropayments where you have to pay a fraction of a cent for each web page you view.
It's not even you that's being tracked. It's your browser. Unless you constantly use your real name online, there is no way to link a name to the observed browsing habits of a person unless ISPs get involved and connect IPs to names.
How do they know it's you? (Score:3, Informative)
If this is limited to advertising to people who are customers... that is, people who have some kind of relationship that would allow them to be identified... that would work. But it doesn't sound like that's what people are concerned about...
Advertising is too entrenched now (Score:2)
But there should be some kind of W3C standard for web browsers and commercial web sites that could offer up a simple "dash board" that identifies a variety of characteristics about the sites users are browsing and
Let me get this straight ... (Score:2, Funny)
Bad Analogy With Do Not Call... (Score:2)
This, however, is saying, "Look, I want to go to your Web site and have you not track me." To which I think the valid response should be, "Well then, don't come to my Web site."
The user is entirely in control. He initiates the actions, not the Web site. It's not as if he's running a program and the Web site suddenly shows up. And if it does, that's spyware/malware, not cookie tracking.
I second the CookieSafe, Adblock and NoScript extensions. Once a user
The change needs to happen in the browser (Score:3, Interesting)
It would be like the default-block pop-up blocker, with a simple mechanism to opt-in to long term cookie storage on a per site basis.
Tried and failed (Score:3, Informative)
P3P lets a create a all-encompassing privacy plan for their browser, and only websites that comply with particular levels of user privacy, and sign their sites as doing so, are able to set and read cookies in the way that the user specifies. The standard was created by W3C, and even had support initially from IE and Mozilla.
The code for P3P in Mozilla sat untouched from 2003 until 2007, so they turned it off for a few releases to see if anyone would notice. When no one complained, they finally yanked it out [mozilla.org] of the firefox and seamonkey trunks.
The vast majority of websites are never going to file one of these documents, since it is just a bunch of paperwork, and a setup for a lawsuit against yourself.
My questions not answered by this article are:
The Do not call registry works because it is tied phone numbers, which are static for users, and are the only gateway for phone communication between a user and a solicitor. There is no such vehicle for the internet. If the U.S. government wants to assign web browsing IDs for all users, then it could work. If that ever happens, I'm moving to Cambodia.
Why bother? (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, screw local -- if you were an ISP with your own servers and the wherewithal to (re)sell ADSL, you could offer something like this as a paid-for service; and even give out CDs with a customised Firefox, preconfigured to use your proxy and DNS. I know people would gladly pay a premium for advert-free surfing -- after all, Sky Plus users pay for (what is effectively) advert-free television.
Re: (Score:2)