Google/Facebook: Do-Not-Track Threatens CA Economy

theodp writes "Google and Facebook are warning legislators of dire consequences if California passes a 'do-not-track' bill. The proposed law would require companies doing online business in the Golden State to offer an 'opt-out' privacy mechanism for consumers. Senate Bill 761 'would create an unnecessary, unenforceable and unconstitutional regulatory burden on Internet commerce,' reads the sky-is-falling protest letter bearing the stamp-of-disapproval from Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Amex, Acxiom, Experian, Allstate, Time-Warner, MPAA, ESA and others. 'The measure would negatively affect consumers who have come to expect rich content and free services through the Internet, and would make them more vulnerable to security threats.'"

On the one hand, they're right

[Compaqt]

The Californian economy is based on this stuff.

On the other hand, it seems strange that the new American economy is based entirely on

-hustling stuff via spam^H^H^H^Hemail marketing
-getting people to click on ads while penalizing sites that ask people to click on ads
-movies
-figuring out who you are/what you've bought so you can buy more of it.
-knowing who your friends are so you can be peer-pressured into buying more stuff.

It just seems that after you've figured out the basics of food production, housing, metals/commodities, transportation, there's nothing left except for group-brainstorming ethereal "value-adds" like the above.

Interesting group of signers

[spopepro]

I found it interesting who was on the list and who wasn't.
-Experian is but Fair Issac (who has a couple of offices near here) isn't.
-Amex is but Visa, one of the Bay Area's largest employers, isn't.
-Many insurance companies. I know past behavior is important to these companies, but web tracking? I don't know enough to see why this is worth fighting for on their end.
-California Assoc. of Licensed Investigators. Probably the only honest ones on the list. "We want to be able to track you, because, um, we track people. That's what we do."

So I wonder if some of the companies that aren't on here don't care, weren't asked, or actively don't want to be on a list with PR nightmares like the MPAA.

Re:Interesting group of signers

[betterunixthanunix]

Many insurance companies. I know past behavior is important to these companies, but web tracking? I don't know enough to see why this is worth fighting for on their end.

Well, if you are someone who happens to frequent forums where people discuss depression and suicidal thoughts, you are probably not the person that the insurance company wants to offer a life insurance policy to; they might not advertise as heavily to you as to other people.

California Assoc. of Licensed Investigators. Probably the only honest ones on the list. "We want to be able to track you, because, um, we track people. That's what we do."

Congratulations on having written a comment that will be added to my personal "list of favorite /. comments."

Re:How about trying paid service?

[BrianRoach]

What you're likely to see if this comes to pass is that people who "opt out" are then bitching that they now have to actually, you know, PAY for things like email, search, social networks, etc, just like in the good 'ol days when GEnie, compuserve, AOL, Prodigy, and your local ISP were charging by the hour for access.

Well it IS unenforceable...

[MoNsTeR]

I mean, seriously. There is no mechanism by which Do Not Track can actually be made to work as it is currently being proposed. This is more important than whether you think it's a good idea.

If you want to be able to opt out of being tracked, you need to built it in to browser behavior and/or web protocols themselves. You can't simply ASK sites not to track you and expect anything to happen, nor can you rely on a law to do this for you.

Re:Rich content

[betterunixthanunix]

that's one company I'm not investing in any time soon.

...on the other hand, if you are an investor, Facebook is a godsend. Imagine asking Facebook this question: How many American users are posting messages that indicate they are out of work? The answer would be a far more accurate depiction of the number of unemployed Americans than any measurement based on official unemployment claims, and the answer would come sooner than official estimates. In a way, Facebook has so much information about so many people that you could probably make some accurate predictions about where the economy is going just by asking Facebook to answer the right questions, and adjust your investments accordingly.

Re:Yeah well

[Z00L00K]

From what we can see out of this is that we are actually in the future pictured by the 80's TV series Max Headroom [maxheadroom.com] where corporations rule, "TV" (today the internet) is global and number of viewers is what counts. Now we are just waiting for Edison Carter and Max to appear.