Slashdot Log In
Senate Scrutinizes Privacy Issues of ISP User Tracking
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Jul 08, 2008 06:30 PM
from the you-want-to-watch-me-you-have-to-pay dept.
from the you-want-to-watch-me-you-have-to-pay dept.
Hugh Pickens writes "As companies collect, use, and disseminate data regarding online users, there is concern that tracking individuals' Internet activity and gathering information from online users violates their expectations of privacy. The Senate Commerce Committee will hold a hearing Wednesday to look at the policy issues, and the hottest topic will be proposed systems by which ISPs can watch users and sell information about their surfing habits to advertising companies. The Center for Democracy and Technology has issued a report suggesting that these systems may violate federal law (PDF). 'Advertising per se is not the evil here,' says Leslie Harris from CDT. 'It's the collection of individuals' information, usually without their knowledge, always without their consent, creation of profiles and the complete inability of people to make choices about that.' On the other side NebuAd, the most active ad-targeting company, says its profiles are interest-based, and not personally identifiable. 'We have designed our entire company to make sure that we stay on the opt-out side of those laws and policies,' says NebuAd CEO Robert Dykes. Charter Communications announced last month that it would suspend a trial of NebuAd due to customer concerns about privacy."
Related Stories
[+]
Charter's Trials of NebuAd Halted 97 comments
RalphTheWonderLlama writes "The trials of NebuAd by Charter Communications were halted after it gained the attention of Congressmen Ed Markey and Joe Barton. The online behavioral targeting system has been called "a 'man-in-the-middle attack' and various other unflattering names" but would certainly be an easy way for an ISP to cash in on client profiling."
PaisteUser points out MSNBC's coverage as well, according to which the ad-insertion scheme was dropped because of "concerns raised by customers."
This discussion has been archived.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.
Scrutiny should extend further. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Scrutiny should extend further. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not so. After tomorrow, for example, Americans will no longer be able to sue AT&T for violating the law by letting the Bush Administration tap their phones without any judicial oversight.
The current president has taken the 60-year old notion of "state secrets" to an extent that absolutely shreds the Bill of Rights, but there was always the possibility that the truth would come out and the lawbreakers would have to pay. After tomorrow, not any more.
Parent
Re:Scrutiny should extend further. (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't "state secrets" as currently used in court violate the first amendment?
Not the speech part, the ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. part.
Parent
Yeah, and? (Score:3, Informative)
Hey, guess what... if a partner in a two-way correspondence chooses to share details of that correspondence, that's their choice (i.e., don't give private info to someone you don't trust). If you choose not to make safe your correspondence from third parties via encryption, that's your problem.
I'm willing to risk some troll or flamebait mods here to make a point:
No correspondence should ever be considered absolutley private. The same tools that allow data aggregation by companies like Google and ISPs give us better access to information and (arguably) a better quality of life. You have to take the bad with the good.
Creation of profiles allow vendors to serve us better. They allow better targeting of ads so we're not bombarded with ads for things we have no interest in (ok, in theory. In practice, this needs further work). They allow people and businesses to target our needs better, so it's easier for me to find what I'm looking for.
As long as we have the ability to anonymize and encrypt our traffic (which isn't a given), I have no problem with profiling. Those who want to opt out can do so easily... and if there is enough demand for it, there will be off-the-shelf tools for joe sixpack to do so.
So my point is this: Allow us to anonymize our traffic. Allow us to encrypt our traffic. Then you can go ahead and profile all you want.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I encountered a recent ridiculous one from a Yahoo access - something like that:
us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=FjLh6UWTUG8MnHdaSGkxXR + over 1000 characters more
To load 1 PIXEL!!!!!
There is tons of that stuff embedded in web sites. And that's got nothing to do with 2-way communication whatsoever.
Wo tracks it, who controls it, who sells and buys it?
Are the neurons in Sentat's heads interlinked enough to grok this?
Highly doubtful -
Re: (Score:2)
And why should you care, if your traffic is anonymized and your personal information, when needed, encrypted?
Re: (Score:2)
-yeah, encrypted web surfing/email for the masses is happening and Tor has lightning access speed.
It's just not reality at this point and will it ever be? So, your premise to arrive on your conclusion to "no need to care" is not a given, it's a cloud castle.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If they care about their privacy, that is their problem. If they don't care, no harm, no foul.
I have tons of problems with this question. Why do you assume that "it" is supposed to be yours? You're transmitting postcards, not sealed envelopes... assuming that by "it" you are referring to privacy, what makes you think that you have any expecta
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're transmitting postcards, not sealed envelopes... assuming that by "it" you are referring to privacy, what makes you think that you have any expectation of privacy...
To complete your analogy, I guess it would be okay for the US government to read all postcards sent via the US mail, log the data, and use it for whatever purpose they want? After all, not sending it in a triple-sealed container means that we clearly wanted this information gathered and used. UPS can open and examine packages sent in paper envelopes or cardboard boxes, since if we cared about privacy we would have used a welded box.
You're confusing what could happen with what should happen. Just becau
Re: (Score:2)
There is no harm in a business wanting my data to serve me better.
Provide I, and only I, decide when they get what data.
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of a quote (or sig) I saw once, wish I could remember the source:
"In the 80s, capitalism triumphed over communism. In the 90s, it triumphed over democracy."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you're going to continue the snailmail metaphor, again I have to stress that without encryption, you are sending postcards, not sealed envelopes. And plenty of people have used, and still use, encryption with snailmail, as they deem it neces
Boiling a frog (Score:5, Insightful)
How ironic that Congress is, in all likelihood, about to pass a telecoms immunity bill which allows them to spy on us... but are giving lip service to the issue of telecoms spying on us.
CongressCritters and Snoozators will soon be making a lot of noise about how they are protecting the public from being spied upon, while at the same time making it legal for us to be spied on.
Nothings changed, just another election year.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Democracy in action :) - or rather that's what happens when the free market and democracy collide.
We had a similar situation in the UK recently with a company called Phorm. ISP's were entering into secret deals with them to collect our data so that they could modify the html streams returned from sites to inject target
Re:Boiling a frog (Score:4, Insightful)
What free market? I hope you don't mean the mockery thereof that the current market of corporate cartels is.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps I'm using the wrong term - I'm ignorant of world affairs..
I'm talking about the situation that exists when profit is used as a means to determine what is moral.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not even profit anymore. Profit as a measurement of morality could be considered free market. What we have today is more control instead of profit. Everything is moral and fine as long as I get more control. More control of the market (in case I'm a corporation) or more control of the people (in case I'm a government).
I'd have less problem with this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would they need a cookie to track what you are doing? They can just monitor your connection directly as it flows through their network.
Watch just one little word (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet, NebuAd says the data they collect is not "personally" identifiable. I'll bet a six-pack that the data is damn-sure "individually" identifiable by cookies, etc.
"Personally" just means they're not selling my name along with my surfing habits. But they are very much tracking my individual habits/interest and selling that; user by individual user. I say send them back to tele-marketing, the scum-bags.
Putting it simply (Score:5, Interesting)
What is needed is a clear separation between those companies that sling bits (ISPs) and those who provide content and advertising. Each ISP should be required to transfer data as fairly as possible with a minimum of interference and monitoring.
Most broadband providers have a monopoly or duopoly, and therefore need to be regulated strongly. Otherwise, customers who object to these invasions of privacy will have nowhere to turn.
Re:Since When Do They Care About Our Privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
1970s: Don't steal. The government hates competition.
2010s: Don't spy on your users. The government still hates competition.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)