Google Using DoubleClick Tracking Cookies 175
dstates sends news coming out of the letters the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent to a number of broadband and Internet companies about their policies and practices on user tracking. The committee has now made public 25 responses to its queries, and many companies, including Google, acknowledge using targeted-advertising technology without explicitly informing customers. The Committee is considering legislation to require explicitly informing the consumer of the type of information being gathered and any intent to use it for a different purpose, and a right to say "no" to the collection or use. The submitter notes that, while Google denies using deep packet inspection, if the traffic is a Google search or email to or from a Gmail account, Google does not need DPI to see the contents of the message. "The revelations came in response to a bipartisan inquiry of how more Internet companies have gathered data on customers. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) said 'Increasingly, there are no limits technologically as to what a company can do in terms of collecting information... and then selling it as a commodity to other providers.' Some companies like NebuAd have tested deep-packet inspection with some broadband providers Knology and Cable One. Google said that it had begun to use the DoubleClick ad-serving cookie that allow the tracking of Web surfing across different sites but said it was not using deep packet inspection. Google promotes the fact that its merger with DoubleClick provides advertisers 'insight into the number of people who have seen an ad campaign,' as well as 'how many users visited their sites after seeing an ad.' Microsoft and Yahoo acknowledge the use of behavioral targeting. Yahoo says it allows users to turn off targeted advertising on its Web sites; Microsoft has not yet responded to the committee."
Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Did anyone really believe Google wasn't doing this?
Ummm (Score:5, Insightful)
Disingenuous much? (Score:4, Insightful)
I find it ironic that this government, who greedily gobbles up vast volumes of data at every opportunity, would be barking up this tree.
Not the same (Score:5, Insightful)
Google's targeted advertisements seems reasonable; When you decide to use their free services, you should know that advertising is a part of the deal.
Broadband providers using DPI, on the other hand, is like the USPS opening your private mail and then profiting off of what they learn about you. It's all about the expectation of privacy. Broadband providers need to transfer bits and stay out of the content business. If they start doing this, there will be no way to use the internet with any modicum of privacy.
Evil... (Score:4, Insightful)
Tinfoil hats are the way to go (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't news to me. I proudly wear a tinfoil hat and therefore have always assumed Google and every other search engine does everything technically possible to track my internet usage. And I behave accordingly. Firefox deletes ALL private data each time I close it. I don't do ANYTHING on the Internet that would be upsetting if it were public knowledge.
So, you see, those of us wearing tinfoil hats aren't recluses that hide in the forest and survive on nuts and berries to avoid the grid. Instead, we are people who simply avoid the grid if and when we do want privacy and don't get upset when we get some confirmation of what we've known all along: the grid ain't private.
And as for targeted advertising, everyone's got it all wrong. Targeted advertising is the ONE thing that I DO want them to track me for. After all, seeing ads for things I might actually want to buy rather than crap I don't want is a Good Thing. Targeted Advertising IS consumer friendly. It's feeding the data into health insurance eligibility and credit scores and potentially inaccurate data into legal proceedings that's scary.
So everyone needs to stop worrying about advertising and start demanding that congress pass a law stating that if a company collects information about you and shares it with a third party without your explicit consent, that information is considered "public" in that it can count towards liable claims. Don't worry about what they share. Worry about your right to sue them if sharing the info causes you harm.
An observation (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe it's just me, but has anyone else noticed the pattern of a roughly daily "Google invades your privacy" story?
I'm not saying they're accurate or not: for all I know it's just an astroturfing campaign. It's just a significant trend around here.
Full Disclosure. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Disingenuous much? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Do as I say, don't do as I do".
It's not just for religion anymore.
But isn't Google already opt-in? (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't DELIBERATELY having all your email intentionally sent to Google, about as opt-in as things can get? We have known all along that Google reads the email that the users opt to have sent to them.
I am starting to really get pissed off at the weirdo "modern" privacy movement. It used to be that we worried someone was watching us. But now we're taking active steps to push our "private" information into other people's faces, while still expecting them to not pay attention to what we are giving them. It's starting to get really absurd.
The first step to protecting your privacy isn't to regulate the spies. No, the first step is to stop cooperating with the spies. If you won't take that step, then your privacy obviously doesn't mean jack shit to you, so quit crying to the government to do something about it.
Stop sending I-looked-at-this-webpage packets to doubleclick. Stop sending your private email to Google, and stop sending your search requests to Google. You are giving them this stuff. You fucking opted in.
You'd better turn off Javascript too (Score:2, Insightful)
That's not only overkill, it's annoying. Just do the "Accept cookies only from sites I visit" part and be done with it.
Besides, disabling cookies hardly stops them from tracking you. They could still hit you with a doublescript.js, which can be much more invasive than a cookie. Their server could glean your browser history based on link color, [mikeonads.com] instead of just track you around affiliated sites. And most doubleclick site already drop doubleclick javascripts on you for banner rotation. All doubleclick has to do is change their code a bit if they aren't doing it already. At least with cookies, they have to be affiliated with the website to know you've been there.
You also need to disable swf files because they can store info cookie style too. You might diable cookies, but if you load doubleclick SWFs you're just as screwed.
Personally, I just use Omniweb and since I can filter links with perl-like regular expressions, I just drop everything from doubleclick... among other offenders.
I always thought (Score:3, Insightful)
That people who used Gmail for anything remotely personal are fucking nuts. 5 years, 10 years down the road do you really think that all of your personal Gmail information won't be either a) sold to advertisers, insurance companies, and financial institutions and b) stolen by hackers?
The original Google founders have no idea what a monster they are creating. An essential, and most times helpful monster, but a monster none the less that will someday turn on everyone. I'm looking into only using a proxy for all Google searches, you should too.
Why do people think that M$FT is the evil one? (Score:1, Insightful)
- Google is destroying sourceforge (code.google.com)
- Google is a search monopoly
- Google markets to gullible developers by calling them fellow geeks
- Google stores your life's data on the web. Microsoft just did BSOD. What if Google does WSOD?
C'mon guys -- We need a new slashdot category gif for Google, like the swoosh on Bill's face.