DoubleClick DoublesBack 86
rjamestaylor was the first to write to us about the news that DoubleClick is reversing its decision to cross-reference individuals' information with their online habits. There's a great quote from Kevin O'Connor, DoubleClick's chief executive, who said in a statement, "I made a mistake by planning to merge names with anonymous user activity across Web sites in the absence of government and industry privacy standards." Privacy Advocates have won this battle, but we need to remain vigilant against future scenarios like what DoubleClick wanted to do. Moreover, look for what you can do to help establish legal consumer privacy laws where you live.
Too Late (Score:1)
So is Akamai Technologies, after what I read on the firewall-wizards mailing list. (I note with some amusement that /. uses them. Why am I not surprised?) Call it a pre-emptive strike :-).
Their stock got whacked (Score:1)
I've been thinking about an idea. Suppose someone started a non-profit investment trust chartered to directly influence companies like DCLK and AMZN. When a company does something hostile to the Internet, the trust steps in and buys a butt-load of put options on their stock. It would choose short-term somewhat out-of-the-money options to get leverage of 10:1 or better.
The trust would sometimes lose its investment but it could lean on the stock price a little bit. And sometimes it would make enough money to finance its continuing operations.
Jam 'em (Score:1)
Re:Their stock got whacked (Score:1)
From synopsis: "...legal consumer privacy laws..." (Score:1)
Re:Cookies and Banners (Score:1)
Yes, Junkbusters are great for my NT and Unix machines at work and in the lab. But at home, where I do all the surfing I prefer to keep secret, I run Macintosh. They don't offer anything for that platform.
Any recommendations, perhaps?
Not that hard on a Windows install of IE (Score:1)
First is general cookie handling. When in Internet Options, click on the Advanced tab, and there should be an option there to either disable all cookies, accept all cookies, or be prompted to accept a cookie. I don't have the exact because the IE settings are disabled on the computer I'm currently using.
The second option is to manage cookies by security zones. Click on the Security tab. You can select global settings for the Internet zone (all the Internet) by clicking on Internet, and then clicking on Custom Level. There are two methods of cookie management: "Allow cookies that are stored on your computer" and "Allow per-session cookies." Options are Disable, Enable, and Prompt. You can also set servers to be put into Restricted zones, where you can select different cookie options for those servers as opposed to the general Internet zone. I have DoubleClick in Restricted and am not troubled by their cookies. IP addresses can be put into Restricted.
Yeah, I believe them. Sure. (Score:1)
I already despise telemarketers and telemarketing. It's gonna take a lot more than a decision reversal to change that opinion.
Re:Cookies and Banners (Score:1)
I know <tt>ezbounce</tt> does have a modified identd that'll fake it as necessary, but one that
gets installed by default would be great.
By default, the identd server tells me who and the data of the identd request (incoming/outgoing), and I've only seen one webserver that actually did try to access it - it connected (once each per Netscape connection - ARG!), then timed out.
...but will they stop? (Score:1)
Re:Better the devil you know? (Score:1)
cache-22 (Score:1)
But the fact that Doubleclick had to back down on this shows that standards aren't necessary.
Isn't it great to have the irony of fate on our side for once.
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
Invasion of Privacy. (Score:1)
is it so simple? (Score:1)
My point is that there are legitimate and worthwhile reasons for gathering some of this information. It is not a black and white issue. The polarization of the issue as if it were does not help anyone.
Not really won. (Score:1)
How would you go about proving they've started doing it? Short of sueing them every month to get court to give you access to their memo's etc. I can't see a way to so his words are just that... words. They're an attempt at a treaty that cannot be verified that all parties are playing fair.
Re:Cookies and Banners (Score:1)
I may turn the ads back on since the ads are paying sites' bills, but the cookies are byebye!
Privacy Programs (Score:1)
Re:a rare event (Score:1)
Re:What are they doing with what they've already g (Score:1)
They just put the plan on hold. The cross referencing will be back, as soon as there is a widely recognized standard on how much cross-referencing is "normal".
As KO'C put it, the mistake was acting in the absence of government and industry privacy standards
Re:Suspicions (Score:1)
User Friendly put an "opt-out" link under their doubleclick ad, and posted requests for people to recommend other ad services.
I started getting a large number of dead ads. At least some of them showed as being blocked by my employer's filtering software. Large corporations already run filtering software. Adding doubleclick to the blocker is easy and doesn't really impact the users of that corporate net. I wonder if the corporate case is scarier to dclick than boycotts one at a time?
PR (Score:1)
Re:Confused about submission process (Score:1)
2000-03-02 23:26:39 DoubleClick backs down?? (articles,news) (declined)
Re:Cookies and Banners (Score:1)
I assume your question is rhetorical -- you must know the reason nothing comes bundled with IJB or other privacy-protective software or hardware... But for anyone who doesn't integrate so-called "real world" (i.e., business/commerce) facts into their technical understanding:
Re:Better the devil you know? (Score:1)
Thought you might like to see an unabashed example of the way these people think:
Re:Cookies!? (Score:1)
The most recent installs ive done indicate.... (Score:1)
Which could be funny, because DoubleClick must think I'm really boring, as they have only ever tracked my work-relevant surfing. Seems their demographic has false information already! ;-)
What CAN they do with what they've already got? (Score:1)
I may be being idealistic about this, as I'm not sure about retroactive legality. However, even if that doesn't work, the PR stink that it would create would (hopefully) lead to a significant number of sites/net users blackholing, or simply not using them, their shareholders to balk at the lost revenue, and get a reversal on using the data too.
Again, I'd need someone to clarify the legal standpoint, but there _should_ be a way of getting this sort of corporate behaviour stopped.
Remember the words of the late, great Bill Hicks :
"If anyone here works in Marketing, or Advertising.....Kill yourselves." "There is no rationalisation for what you do, you are Satan's little helpers, KILL YOURSELVES!" - NB. Not Flamebait, just expressing a point, or as Bill would say "planting seeds".
What motivation other than money? (Score:1)
Confused about submission process (Score:1)
I'm not sure why if an article can get rejected almost immediately, it takes takes that long to actually post one.
(I know this is off-topic, but I'm sure a lot of other submitters have wondered similar things themselves).
____________________________________
Remind me what the default is (Score:1)
Although it does seem that IE automatically accepts them by default. (And you're right about being hard to find. Took me a ages to find them, and I know roughly where to look)
Re:The most recent installs ive done indicate.... (Score:1)
Cookies!? (Score:1)
Granholm continued to level criticism the company failed to disclose to Internet users it is ``systematically implanting'' electronic files on the hard drives of users' computers - known as ``cookies'' in tech parlance - without their knowledge or consent.
I did consent to allow any company to implant cookies on my computer. I turned it off at first. Then I kept getting problems with pages not being available, so I switched to the "Warn before accepting cookies" setting. There were just too many cookies. Given the choice between access to web sites, and no cookies, I chose access. This seems reasonable to me. There's only a certain amount of data you can put into a cookie anyway. All this data has to be supplied vouluntarily.
DoubleClick, Cookies, Segregation. (Score:1)
Sounds bizarre, but that's exactly the "vision" promoted by the various profiling outfits that are busy mining data. It seems like a safe assumption that an online catalog viewed by an affluent businessman in a "proper" suburb will look quite different from that same catalog when viewed by a low-income user of a public terminal in a library.
The Internet (and other forms of electronic communication) has been perhaps the greatest catalyst for change in human society since the invention of writing.
If some people get their way, the Internet will become the perfect tool for segregation - and since it will be invisible (how will you know what your neighbor's version of that catalog looks like?) there will be few ways to fight it.
Re:right (Score:1)
Re:right (Score:1)
right (Score:1)
Re:right (Score:1)
Now add other possible factors. You start getting queries from detailers, start getting info from garages and oil change places - this may be good info to get.
But.. you get a letter saying your spousal support is going to be increased (you have a new vehicle, you can afford it - where did that info come from?).. the advertising database of a company contacted by your dealership is cracked by car thieves that just happen to be looking for vehicles of a certain type - this is a bad use of info.
By conglomerating even more information on not just your buying habits, but your shopping habits as well, you're allowing not only for a correct use of that information, but also it's incorrect use. More efficient is not necessarily better. Do you really want to give someone that kind of insight into your life? And I say someone, as problems with unauthorized access to IRS data has shown the human equation is always going to be there.
Re:So what? (Score:1)
Re:technical Solution to doublelclick (Score:1)
ipchains -A input -s 0.0.0.0/0 -d 208.84.29.0/24 -j REJECT
Note that by using REJECT instead of DENY, your system will actually refuse the connections (instead of just ignoring them, which would cause your browser to stall).
=================================
Re:Cookies and Banners (Score:1)
=================================
Re:a rare event (Score:1)
The opt-out cookie is a start, but I'd prefer it to be the default setting. Then, if I decide I want my habits tracked (however unlikely), I can choose to do so...and DoubleClick can send me money. It'd be like AllAdvantage.com, except without the annoying "always-on-top" ad bar. If someone is going to get paid to use my information, it should be me.
In case you need it, here's the link to "opt-out" of DoubleClick. [doubleclick.com]
What's the real issue? (Score:1)
If it is going to be a problem for you that someone has personal information about you, then don't give it to them. We don't need more regulations and laws that would be impossible to enforce anyway, we need to start using our own brains....
The post here about the person who wanted to buy a skirt, but wouldn't because of DoubleClick's partnership with the seller is a GREAT example of the power that consumers hold. If you're concerned about part of an agreement that you are going to enter into, either have the agreement modified, or don't sign. It's really that easy.
If you want to buy something from an on-line company, expect to have to adhear to their policies to do so. They make the rules, you don't have to follow them if you don't agree. Go somewhere else. The FREE MARKET really does work, contrary to the gov't's belief.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for keeping my personal information private, but to do so, I actively practice discretion when I enter into agreements with entities that ask for personal information that I would prefer be kept private.
You always have the option to just say NO.
just my $.02
-rj
Re:From synopsis: "...legal consumer privacy laws. (Score:2)
...phil
Re:Cookies and Banners (Score:2)
However, I do believe that we as citizens concerned about privacy need to get a few well placed TV ads to make the message strong or stronger.
a rare event (Score:2)
Hmm, Now how do we know they stop (Score:2)
I wonder how long it will take until they try to get away with it again. I fear that the temptation of huge piles of money can make people forget promises fast.
Why trust them? (Score:2)
As long as doubleclick owns abacus' database, I'll have a very hard time believing that they are keeping the databases seperate. For now, I think doubleclick will stay aliased to 127.0.0.1 on my box.
Too late for me (Score:2)
They pissed in the well.
Re:Tracking users (Score:2)
All the more reason to keep using text-based mailreaders
The best examples of this tracking are like this:
<IMG SRC="http://www.doubleclick.net/images/hidden-cgi/ pixel.gif?you@your-mail.com">
Where they send a 1x1 transparent image-- you'll never even see it unless you 'view source', and of course by then it's too late.
Gotta love fetchmail + pine! You get to see the source every time, before it can hurt you.
DoubleClick is not the only offender (Score:2)
The real question is how many other companies are sneaking around doing the same kind of thing under the radar of the media, etc. For instance, credit card companies track every purchase that you make and where and when you made it. Credit reporting agencies track all of your financial transactions except for pure cash. Obviously, your ISP can tell every site that you visit simply by correlating network traffic to your login or IP address and can read your email (what do you think those spam filtering "services" are doing?).
Generally the point I'm trying to make is that everyone knew that DoubleClick was using cookies to do some sort of tracing to begin with, they just previously weren't correlating it directly to your name, etc. I've been blocking their cookies for a while now because I KNEW they were there. The ones I'm worried about are the ones I can't see. The Internet is much more like a public street then any one wants to admit, and what you do on a public street can be seen by a lot of people. Be careful out there.....
Not as good as it sounds (Score:2)
You didn't think these were nice people, did you? They're an ad-banner company, for gods' sake.
Better the devil you know? (Score:2)
I'm sure there are other companies that are not necessarily web based that are doing very similar things, and the only way we could really find out is through a leak from a member of staff somewhere.
I do wonder if it makes any difference at all, perhaps Big Brother is always watching?
Nice to see them admit defeat though.
Re:Cookies and Banners (Score:2)
yeah, you know that, and I know that, and Hemos probably knows that too, but the average Net user -- and let's face it, slashdot readers tend not to be average Net users -- would have no idea how to even use, never mind setup and configure, something like IJB (which is a wonderful product, you're absolutely right).
Until ISPs start using things like IJB as a regular part of their services, companies like DoubleClick will continue to do shitty things like this, and the majority of the Internet using public will continue to be tracked and have their information sold to demographers and spammers.
So here's a question -- why don't OS manufacturers and distributors bundle IJB or something similar with their product? I mean, RedHat, for example, has tons of services turned on (who really uses or needs identd running? Home users need ntalk? Huh?); it would be trivial for them to implement IJB, get ti running, and configure their customized version of Communicator to use localhost:9999 (or whatever) as a proxy. Similarly, with the huge amount of Internet-related services that come configured on Windows 2000, why isn't a filter one of them? Can't you see AOL's configuration screens with an entry for Cookie filters?
My mind is a mind that I have come to know,
a few words about this... (Score:2)
Sure.
Uh-huh.
We believe you!
I'm sorry, but how can we *really* tell if these people are telling us the truth?
Pretty soon I predict the title of one of these articles here on
DoubleClick DoubleBack DoubleCross.
Until then, I still fill out form with incorrectly spelled information so I know where companies get my name.
(I even got a chain letter a-la MAKE MONEY FAST style in the US-Mail. I sent it off to the Postmaster who I could only assume would be interested.
Thanks for reading.
-m
Re:right (Score:2)
"Doesn't work on me, I make up my own mind!" you shout. My friend, everyone says that advertising doesn't effect their decisions, but yet advertising does effect sales. Subtle indeed are the ways of manipulation; you can bet there's even a target demographic for "people who think they're too smart for advertising to affect them."
Do you want to empower those who wish to influence and manipulate you, or do you want to maintain your privacy and independence?
If I want you to sell me something, I'll tell you what I want, thank you very much, I don't need you snooping on me.
Re:Cookies and Banners (Score:2)
It's not perfect, though. You can only have the four fixed security zones, no more. And it could really use an easier way to block sites, such as a "this site is evil" button on the toolbar.
Personally, what I do is set my default cookie setting to "prompt", and then whenever I see a cookie that's suspicious, I add the domain to my restricted list.
I'm not saying that IE is the perfect browser when it comes to privacy, but if you're using it anyway, it's not too hard to set it up pretty tightly.
<cough*bull$h17*cough> (Score:2)
Conclusion: DC will start this up again, as soon as the public furor has died down, and the gov't can be convinced to make it legal.
Second conclusion: I will continue to filter DC out at my proxy.
Re:Cookies and Banners (Score:2)
Re:You can't have it both ways... (Score:2)
Hey, don't stop there, the hypocracy continues!
Publishers expect legal enforcement of copyright, yet expect the government not to censor their content!
Businesses want laws against embezzelment and theft but the whiners think they should be able to produce what they want, not what the government says.
And the gall of those feminists who ask the government not to regulate their reproduction and then turn right around and ask for rape to be taken seriously as a crime!
When will these people learn? I hope you continue to ferret out these hypocrits who want to have their cake and eat it too, where ever you imagine them.
-Kahuna Burger
Re:Cookies and Banners (Score:3)
However, the Berkeley folks might have a problem with the "GPL Virus" on their distros; what's more, I'll bet you a jelly donut Bill Gates (that's Mister Big Brother to you :) would never, ever include a piece of amateur-written, untested, probably virus-laden software on his professionally-built, expensive release CD.... oh, come on, what do you have to hide? [remove tongue from cheek]
No, I think it's a damn fine idea and we ought to drop it in the ears of folks like Bob Young, Bruce Perens, Larry Augustin (he's no distromeister but he does build boxen that could be preconfigured...) post-haste.
Come to think of it, I think I installed IJB from RPM anyway, so it would be dead simple for the Red Hat and SuSE folks to simply sweep it onto the CD.... and the Debian and Slack folks could just run alien... boom, problem solved.
If we can get'em to do it...
-- ;-)"
"See, you not only have to be a good coder to create a system like Linux, you have to be a sneaky bastard too
-- Linus Torvalds
What are they doing with what they've already got? (Score:3)
So, what are they going to do with the data they already collected? That's what I'm wondering. They may have already collected the amount of data that they want.
Also, who's to say that this wasn't their plan all along? Collect tons of data, cross-reference it with the Abacus databases, get profiles of tons of Net users, and then admit to "making a mistake" and try to get public sympathy through the admission. By now they must have enough data to make any demographer wet with desire. It sounds devious, but maybe it's not so far from the truth.
My mind is a mind that I have come to know,
Tracking users (Score:3)
<IMG SRC="http://www.doubleclick.com/images/banner.gif
then my email client will
1) Automatically send a "return receipt" to double-click
2) Send any double-click cookies I have
3) Associate my cookie (which shows all my past surfing to doubleclick sites) with my email address.
Email programs should not allow this.
Mozilla will easily let us block individual cookies.
You can't have it both ways... (Score:3)
This just absolutely pisses me off. People want the internet to be free, but at the same time they want to have their privacy on the net too. I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
If you want the government not to regulate the content of the internet, then its simple. Keep them off of it. Once you allow the government to start passing privacy laws regarding the net, what is to stop them from passing laws regarding the content of the 'net itself? What next, will they start prosecuting based on posts in newsgroups?
These are perfect oppurtunities for we, the internet community, to show the government that we are able to regulate the net ourselves. The course of action is simple.
1) Sites that violate users' privacy are listed at a privacy site, or a forum is maintained in a high visibility area. This allows net consumers to have a common area where they can check to see if the vendor they're purchasing from will attempt to screw their privacy.
2) E-mail is sent to the offending site, indicating what was wrong, and that we as net consumers will cease to visit their site if the situation is not resolved.
This will, in effect, set a net boycott on sites who violate users' privacy, which will either cause the company to rectify their error, or will cause them to take their business off the net. (No revenue is typically a 'Bad Thing'.)
But I for one am sick and tired of hearing all these privacy advocates whine for legislation about privacy on the net, and then hear the same advocates turn around and cry when bills are passed to censor content. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
--
"A mind is a horrible thing to waste. But a mime...
It feels wonderful wasting those fsckers."
Was it us, or companies? (Score:3)
Anyway, I wonder. For weeks we've seen the public awareness and outrage growing, and not much happening. Suddenly a few companies cancel their contract, and Double-Click wakes up. The lesson we can learn from this is simple, and seen many times before: hit a company where it hurts, in the wallet or at the shareholders, and only then they'll listen.
(firmly implanting tongue in cheek) Double-Click has done more for consumer awareness on privacy issues than most companies, and we should applaud them for that effort!
-John
Re:Cookies and Banners (Score:3)
It's really annoying to have to keep turning on & off features of the browser for particular sites & URLs.
the-big-picture (Score:3)
So what? (Score:3)
Not necessarily permanent (Score:4)
I feel that we should be careful of DC's promises not to abuse our privacy, as they have not shown themseleves to be the most trustworthy business in that regard. We also should not blindly assume than any 'industry standard' for privacy will agree with the beliefs of people here on slashdot.
Sam TH
Cookies and Banners (Score:5)
Suspicions (Score:5)
I decided I didn't want anything to do with DoubleClick. I got a list of all of their 'associates' - the people who run their ads, give them info, etc. It's a disappointing list, just about _everyone_ uses DoubleClick. I almost stopped shopping online completely. However, I also sent letters to the people I would have otherwise shopped at. One example:
I was looking for a particular skirt, to replace one which had been damaged beyond repair. I couldn't find it until I went to a site called catalogcity. But they used doubleclick. I sent them a letter, telling them how happy I was to have found the skirt, but that I would not buy it until either DoubleClick backed out of their current invasive policy or this site stopped using DoubleClick. I told them that, while I use cookies on a regular basis, and am perfectly fine with targeted ads, I don't approve of anyone tying that in with what my income is, or my real address, or other such personal info.
I received a very polite, well-written response, saying that they were unhappy with it too, and that, for now, they were removing the doubleclick integration from their site - not to be reinstated until Doubleclick backed away from that policy.
This was a pleasant surprise, as I had expected no reply at all - the usual response to letters indicating a single lost sale is 'oh well, we've got plenty of happy customers, this one must be a fluke'.
It appears that catalogcity wasn't the only one, however. UserFriendly, Advance Internet (who run a number of the 'state' sites, like nj.com, oregonlive.com, and (I think) alabama.com), and a few others I spoke with were all looking for new adservers, or simply disabling doubleclick entirely for the duration of this mess.
Somehow, I don't think this is some sort of sneaky move. Doubleclick was feeling the heat, from consumers and from its affiliates, in a major way. I know for a fact that Advance, for example, generated a _lot_ of advertising for them (we're talking millions of pageviews a day, and that's just in ONE of the physical sites). When your major customers start complaining about something, you listen or you go under. The thing that makes me happy is that the major customers of DoubleClick were on the ball and listening well enough to put the heat on in the first place.
-Elthia