Even the Ad Industry Doesn't Know Who's Tracking You 98
jfruh writes "The Internet advertising industry is keen to stave off government privacy rules and opt-in-only browsers by loudly proclaiming its adherence to a self-imposed code of conduct. Yet a little digging shows that even "self-regulated" advertisers link to services that link to other services that nobody's really sure what they do. That's why, for instance, when you visit a page on the Sears website, your web browsing behavior is being collected by a company that sells ringtones and won't return emails asking about their privacy policy."
Re:Oh, yeah (Score:4, Insightful)
for instance, when you visit a page on the Sears website, your web browsing behavior is being collected by a company that sells ringtones
The NoScript list of blocked domains on many (even legitimate) websites is scary indeed. One of my favorites is Javascript from ru4.com required to be able login into your banking account on chase.com. Based on the name, it looks like a phishing website to me...
What I like is when you allow a website and then suddenly you have 30 new addresses on the noscript list. Mainly when trying to read articles or see the videos attached, it becomes a guessing game (based on domain names) on who you should allow so you can see the text, or vid.
LOL ... (Score:5, Insightful)
And according to DoNotTrackMe, TFA has beacons for 5 tracking companies, plus two social media sites. So ITWorld are just as guilty of this shit as everyone else.
I swear, between NoScript, AdBlockPlus, DoNotTrackMe, and blocking/deleting cookies -- I'm *still* not sure how much crap is out there I'm missing.
I don't feel the slightest bit of guilt for blocking these sites so some marketing asshole can collect data.
Re:I'll tell you what I'm thinking (Score:2, Insightful)
Great idea! You could even raise additional funds by collecting and reselling info about what your users are browsing. Maybe even insert some relevant product-based sponsored informational links into the proxied pages?
Re:Oh, yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
Good, because those contractors are doing this on behalf of Chase -- so ideally they couldn't do something like denying any responsibility because it was all done by the evil contractor.
They did it on your behalf, and you engaged them to do it, you are still responsible for it. You can't then say that what your contractors do isn't your problem.
Essentially it lets them do an end run around their privacy policy. "We don't collect or share" becomes meaningless when the people who do the work for you do collect and share.
Re:No need for government. (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently you missed the part where they're stunningly incapable of self regulating.
Self regulation is corporate speak for "let us do whatever the hell we want and leave us alone".
Re:Oh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ghostery itself is a tracker: http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/31/ghostery-a-web-tracking-blocker-that-actually-helps-the-ad-industry/ [venturebeat.com]
I use a combination of ABP, DNTMe, and Firefox's built-in DNT flag.
Re:This article is an apk summoning ritual. (Score:4, Insightful)
You realize you just did the equivalent of saying "Beetlejuice" three times, right?