Privacy Groups Mull 'Do Not Track' List for Internet 136
Technical Writing Geek writes with a Reuters story about a collection of privacy groups looking to set up a 'Do Not Track' list online, similar to the 'Do Not Call' list meant to dissuade telemarketing. "Computer users should be notified when their Web surfing is tracked by online advertisers and Web publishers, argue the Consumer Federation of America, the World Privacy Forum and the Center for Democracy and Technology, among other groups in a coalition promoting the idea. Rather than burying privacy policies in fine print, companies should also disclose them more fully and provide easier ways to opt out, the groups said. The organizations submitted the proposals to the Federal Trade Commission, ahead of the consumer watchdog agency's workshop on Nov. 1-2 to study the increasing use of tracking technology to target online ads.
Do not spam? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The sad thing is, I know this would collect a LOT of valid emails. (Probably from folks who would buy things from spammers, too.) Unfortunately, I'm not quite evil enough to bring myself to do that. It's too bad, really.
You can't help stupid (Score:2)
This isn't stupid enough by itself. It gets even stupider.
In order for a web site to know that a person has "opted out" of tracking, the site would have to set a cookie to track that user's preference to not be tracked.
While I realize there is a difference between a cookie like:
It's still tracking. Maybe I'm nitpicking...but, so are they, yes?
Re: (Score:2)
One option:
===========
- Distribute the list only to marketers who's credentials and location you have verified.
- Require that distributed copies of the list not be redistributed.
- Fill the list with 10-20% honey-pot addresses. These addresses should vary from distribution to distribution so as to establish a "unique fingerprint" that would take the comparison of several distributions
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget to make list available to scammers! (Score:3, Funny)
Since most web usage is tracked anonymously it's much more likely that identifiable information will be hijacked from a copy of the the "no not track" list than from any of the web tracking itself. Seems like kind of a silly, tinfoil-hat-inspired idea!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is completely unlike the "do not call" lists; these are country-specific. If I spam your phone and you're on a do not call list, we're most likely to share the same government (at least so far) You ca
unrealistic goals (Score:5, Funny)
Also, they want world peace, and a pony.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:unrealistic goals (Score:5, Informative)
Tada! You're done. Now you can't be tracked (unless you specifically want to be).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
what we need is for congress to say, consumers have an expectation, if not a right, of privacy. what they do in a legal environment should be there business and their business alone.
but what we get is, things like the ftc's do not call list where yea...your number is blocked unless of course if you send in a text message to a co
Re: (Score:1)
It's worth pointing out that even if spam was punishable by death, and also resulted in the execution of your friends and family before your eyes, we'd still get just as much spam. There are even tougher laws for a more illicit market: Drugs. You can go to jail for the better part of the rest of your life in some states, or at least long enough to ruin it, ju
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I understand your point. The drug market doesn't really respond very well to threats of punishment, because many of the substances involved are physically addictive. Thus there's always a demand, regardless of how hard the government cracks down on it. The drug dealers are probably motivated by threats of punishment (in that if the threat is higher, they'll demand more compensation to take the risks, thus driving the cost of drugs higher), but the consumers definitely aren't.
Spam-sending se
Re: (Score:2)
Drugs, unlike spam, doesn't have a direct victim - the users are willing. They do have indirect victims in terms of children, etc. however. Drugs are also addictive (either physically or psychologically.) Much spam is currently legal due to the "I CAN SPAM" act, and you have no proof to back up your hypothesis. The fact is, outside of a VERY few isolated cases, we haven't even tried to deal with spam criminally. I could go on and on he
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Chris Mattern
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, you lost me around that third step.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Turn off cookies for all sites, then to permit a site (session or permanently) you just hit alt+c and choose one, then hit enter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Now, any site you go to will automatically allow JavaScript from that domain (I mean, if you didn't want its JavaScript running on your machine, what are you going there for?). Any other domain's scripts that are present on that page will s
Re: (Score:2)
> you didn't want its JavaScript running on your machine, what are you going there for?).
While most sites I visit push JavaScript at me, almost all of them work fine without it. Same goes for cookies.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason is simple: the more AdBlock is adopted, the more incentive advertisers will have to find ways to defeat it.
This happened to us with spam filters. Years ago, spammers were lazy and stupid. I was able to block almost all spam using regexps. Once regexp-based spam-blocking products became used by ISPs, however, spammers had to find new ways t
Re: (Score:2)
This depends on what you mean by "being tracked". If you mean tracked from site to site, then sure. If you mean tracked within a particular site, then no. There's no way to stop this.
I have a basic stat tracker on my blogs that I use for my own amusement; I just like to see who visits my sites. I see plenty of people visit with javascript turned off, and I don't use cookies
Re: (Score:2)
I think we should be able to prevent a company from selling personal information to others. But if one company knows every thing about me, what harm is there. So what if I look at porn in the evening and watch barny in the morning. Its not like I will see more advertising than I already am, it will just be more targeted. If they realy knew me, they would not advertise to me at all. That would be a good thing.
I wish they could figure out who
Re: (Score:1)
Tada! You're dead. Now you can't be tracked (unless you specified where you were going to be).
Re:unrealistic goals (Score:4, Insightful)
My first reaction to this story was to add the "futile" tag.
I think we all have to get used to the thought that if there is any information out there, that is publicly accessible in plaintext, it will be cataloged, author identified, and data-mined ad infinitum. Given the technological capability to collect, organize, and process data... as well as the prolific availability of said data, we cannot reasonably expect any privacy laws to deter usage of this data, whether it be by private companies for profit, or government entities for censorship and oppression.
The way I see it, the only way to ensure any real privacy, is to personally ensure anonymity at any point where it seems necessary. With this, there will come more and more tradeoffs in terms of conveniences, and ultimately perhaps even one's place in society... but this is a choice we're all making right now, and will certainly have to make in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
When companies have to pay for this they will be more circumspect about what data they collect and how much.
This would work for spam as well.... opt in and get paid. Currently someone else is getting paid to collect your data, leaving you out of the equation except as the victim/volunteer.
Advertisers and market researchers should be paying us for the opport
Re: (Score:1)
This makes the government's job that much easier as to whom shall appear on the 'no-fly' and 'no foreign travel' lists.
~|.$*#
NO FEDDERS
Re: (Score:1)
you still are using word "mull" in wrong contect (Score:2, Funny)
Re:you still are using word "mull" in wrong contec (Score:3, Funny)
No, "mull" is appropriate (Score:2)
Re:you still are using word "mull" in wrong contec (Score:2)
Never heard that usage. (Score:2)
Usage here is just fine.
Re:you still are using word "mull" in wrong contec (Score:3, Informative)
Chris Mattern
it means (Score:2)
Anyone else see the problem here? (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, let's set up a "Do Not Track" list. How are they going to know not to track you? By figuring out who you are, then checking to see if you're on the list.
Oops.
A better idea would be a standardized opt-out system where your browser tells every server, "Do not track me," then set up web applications to honor that choice.
Maybe set up an X-DontTrackMe header for HTTP requests. Or a standardized DontTrack=true cookie not linked to a domain. Something that has no unique information and gets sent to every website. Then turn it on and off in the browser with a checkbox.
Something like that could be tested as a Firefox extension or IE browser helper (if I'm remembering the terminology correctly) to start with, then added to browsers themselves.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
On the Wired [wired.com] article with the story they have a diagram which shows how the whole proposed list is SUPPOSED to work. One of the notes included in it is that "Consumers may have to download a browser upgrade, Plug-in, or extension to get the Do-Not-Track list to work for them"
So.... lemme get this straight.... a Fed Maintained list....which required you to install a special application onto your computer...In order to keep private companies and websites from tracking you.
opt-out lists are the work of satan (Score:2)
Hash.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Golly, I wish I could do that while robbing a bank with my "don't videotape or look at me" tshirt on.
Re: (Score:1)
A bit like caller ID blocking (Score:2)
The only way to do it is via some sort of "don't track me" token. But what do we really mean by "don't track me". Some services need cookies etc. Are cookies tracking? What about the context used to set up a secure connection for transactions?
Re: (Score:1)
It looks like it works the other way. People who want to do the tracking are the ones that are registered. And those that don't want to be tracked download that list of tracking servers. So we are tracking the trackers, not those who dont want to be tracked
Internet != Telephone (Score:5, Insightful)
This problem obviously does not exist on the internet - the cost of serving up those banners to millions of people clearly doesn't eat into the profits of these companies, so there's no reason for them to stop, and if laws are passed forcing them to stop, they'll simply be replaced by foreign companies advertising either on behalf of the same companies serving up the ads now, or set up by the advertising companies to circumvent the laws.
This won't work.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, they have already figured a way around that law if they want to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
How? (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, there is no simple way of defining something like this. A better solution might be to regulate the type of information that they are allowed to collect in the first place. If they aren't allowed to record my IP address (or any other identifying information like a zip code I type in a form or POST/GET data), then there would seem to be limited privacy implications. They could gather data showing that people who like power tools also like Sony stereos or whatnot, but without information like IP addresses, form and GET/POST data, there is little they can use to violate my privacy.
Am I missing something?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:1, Redundant)
Re: (Score:1)
on a "do not spam" list (Score:5, Informative)
Re:on a "do not spam" list (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, it doesn't need to be that complicated. The server takes an address from the spammer and either tells it yes or no. There's no need to hash it if the server never sends out addresses. I would take this idea a bit further. See my Option #2 here [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, that's not too bad. Still I can't see what changes from current methods of filtering spam. After all, if you receive an email and you're on the list, does that mean the email bounces or not? As far as I can see, either the source email address needs to get on some sort of white list or the email needs to pass a spam test. Both approaches are used today.
Finally, there's also the problem of legal-side attacks with a checksum based approach. Spammer ally gets email that checksums to something on the list
(yawn) Yet another pre-defeated proposal (Score:5, Interesting)
Sometimes I find myself idly wondering how many miserable failures of opt-out proposals will be necessary before people get a clue that opt-in offers the only possible way to success.
Then I snap out of it and remind myself that of course some people have a clue, and that's precisely why they continue to put these proposals out (or to enthusiastically back them): doing so serves their purposes nicely. It allows them to proudly say that "they've taken the lead in protecting privacy" while of course they're doing everything they possibly can to do the opposite. (They do this, of course, because they're well aware that few people would opt-in to have telemarketers bother them, or to have spammers clog their mailboxes, or to have their personal data collected.)
This situation is unlikely to change in the forseeable future. Just as it's given us ineffective anti-telemarketing measures, just as it's given us ineffective anti-spam measures, the outcome of this process will inevitably give us ineffective anti-privacy-invasion measures.
Which is why it's probably best to just ignore this nonsense and instead use technological means to either deny data to invaders or feed them bogus data.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice idea but! (Score:2)
Kick me (Score:3, Insightful)
I do this already. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They'll track the denied tracking. (Score:2)
I don't see how this could be reasonably implemented. You can't put your IP address on the do-not-track list, because it could change day-to-day. You'd need a cookie in your browser saying you opted out. But that's as much information as if you hadn't opted out in the first place, they'd just have to toss the info after they got it.
U
Re: (Score:1)
They'll give you a cookie that tells them you have opted out. Then another firm will track which things you weren't tracked in because you opted out of it. That's so great!
I don't see how this could be reasonably implemented. You can't put your IP address on the do-not-track list, because it could change day-to-day. You'd need a cookie in your browser saying you opted out. But that's as much information as if you hadn't opted out in the first place, they'd just have to toss the info after they got it.
User: "Hi, I don't want you to track the places I've visted."
Marketer: "Ok."
User: "Remember, I don't want you to track me, and I have just visted XYZ site."
Marketer: "Ok, I'll forget."
IMarv
I think this could easily be overcome by everyone using the same cookie (e.g. "doNotTrack=true"). While they will be able to track the cookie, if hundreds of thousands of people are using that same cookie, the data is not going to mean much.
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
On the contrary, it will give us aggregate web surfing statistics for paranoid privacy loons
And how do they propose . . . (Score:2)
The alternative to tracking via cookies is micropayments where you have to pay a fraction of a cent for each web page you view.
It's not even you that's being tracked. It's your browser. Unless you constantly use your real name online, there is no way to link a name to the observed browsing habits of a person unless ISPs get involved and connect IPs to names.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not proposing anything. Paying for bandwidth is somebody else's problem. They're just (ostensibly) trying to protect rights, not plan the economy.
Of course, a paranoid person could read something interesting into this. Perhaps it is a "good thing" if the government can make web publishing more economically hard. It would help shut up troublemakers. There's too much independent media; s
How do they know it's you? (Score:3, Informative)
If this is limited to advertising to people who are customers... that is, people who have some kind of relationship that would allow them to be identified... that would work. But it doesn't sound like that's what people are concerned about...
Re: (Score:1)
2)Google Search on day1 = cookie2 = ip address 1 --> your benign search pattern
3)Google Search on day2 = cookie2 = ip address 2 --> your guilty pleasure search pattern
---------------
cookie2 --> ip address 2 at day2 and ip address 1 at day 1 are the same guy
ip address 1 --> cookie 1 and cookie 2 are the same guy
Therefore Google has the name, no longer content with your mail secrets, also know what your guilty pleasur
Re: (Score:2)
Which you gave them. Why did you do that?
Re: (Score:2)
If you're using Google Mail, then you fall under the "you're a customer" side of things.
Your only chance is that Google staff members also like midget porn.
Insert Google-vs-Second-Life joke here.
Advertising is too entrenched now (Score:2)
But there should be some kind of W3C standard for web browsers and commercial web sites that could offer up a simple "dash board" that identifies a variety of characteristics about the sites users are browsing and
List of terrorists? (Score:1)
I believe people in this "do not track" list would most certainly make their way into some other NSA terrorist tracking list as well. People would protest against that, they would say that this violates their privacy,their civil liberties, but The US government would simply cite the Patriot Act and some other national security excuse like "not all people on the 'do not trac
Let me get this straight ... (Score:2, Funny)
Bad Analogy With Do Not Call... (Score:2)
This, however, is saying, "Look, I want to go to your Web site and have you not track me." To which I think the valid response should be, "Well then, don't come to my Web site."
The user is entirely in control. He initiates the actions, not the Web site. It's not as if he's running a program and the Web site suddenly shows up. And if it does, that's spyware/malware, not cookie tracking.
I second the CookieSafe, Adblock and NoScript extensions. Once a user
Re: (Score:1)
Another solution is to block ads via
P3P Privacy policy cookies (Score:2)
I believe IE (and possibly firefox) actually requires a valid P3P policy to serve 3rd party cookies at all.
There is an argument that the browsers should be more aggressive at explaining
Do Not Track Request Form (Score:2)
First Name:
Last Name:
Birth Date:
Gender:
Marital Status:
Social Security Number:
Personal Email Addresses you do not wish tracked:
Personal Computer / Home Network IP addresses you do not wish tracked:
Web sites that you do not wish to be tracked to:
The change needs to happen in the browser (Score:3, Interesting)
It would be like the default-block pop-up blocker, with a simple mechanism to opt-in to long term cookie storage on a per site basis.
Re: (Score:1)
One Opt Out To Rule Them All (Score:2)
One opt out to bind them
One opt to find them all
And in the freedom blind them
Three levels of security for the paranoid King
Useless and a waste of time
Five cookies for the hapless sap
Who clicked on Track Me For All Time
Seven credit checks for the customer
Whose identity has been stolen
Nine illegal agreements for the click thru license
Soon to be voided
One opt out to rule them all
One opt out to bind them
One opt to find them all
And in the freedom blind them
Tried and failed (Score:3, Informative)
P3P lets a create a all-encompassing privacy plan for their browser, and only websites that comply with particular levels of user privacy, and sign their sites as doing so, are able to set and read cookies in the way that the user specifies. The standard was created by W3C, and even had support initially from IE and Mozilla.
The code for P3P in Mozilla sat untouched from 2003 until 2007, so they turned it off for a few releases to see if anyone would notice. When no one complained, they finally yanked it out [mozilla.org] of the firefox and seamonkey trunks.
The vast majority of websites are never going to file one of these documents, since it is just a bunch of paperwork, and a setup for a lawsuit against yourself.
My questions not answered by this article are:
The Do not call registry works because it is tied phone numbers, which are static for users, and are the only gateway for phone communication between a user and a solicitor. There is no such vehicle for the internet. If the U.S. government wants to assign web browsing IDs for all users, then it could work. If that ever happens, I'm moving to Cambodia.
Re: (Score:2)
Tracking can be a Good Thing too (Score:1, Interesting)
- cookies are used to maintain the session of web applications - this isn't going anywhere
- tracking user actions within a site lets us get great statistics, work out where our web apps need improving
how do you prevent malicious tracking without damaging the above?
who says what is malicious and what is good? who polices the police?
and what's wrong with being tracked anyhow?
Why bother? (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, screw local -- if you were an ISP with your own servers and the wherewithal to (re)sell ADSL, you could offer something like this as a paid-for service; and even give out CDs with a customised Firefox, preconfigured to use your proxy and DNS. I know people would gladly pay a premium for advert-free surfing -- after all, Sky Plus users pay for (what is effectively) advert-free television.
Adblocking is stealing. (Score:2)
By blocking ads, you are preventing them from getting paid, while taking up thier bandwidth and other resources.
Personally, I support the adding of something
Re: (Score:2)
If ads weren't invasive and annoying (javascript that slows a site, flash, sound), they wouldn't get blocked -- and those things existed long before AdBlock or even Firefox.
Re: (Score:2)
Where did you make the idea up that commercial skipping is the same as putting the five finger discount on hard property? Is someone using a text mode browser like elinks stealing since they can't see those javascript and rich media ads? No. Reality is that if a visitor to a site blocks ads, they are using the web as it was designed. That a business model fails to account for the fact that http and html make it a snap for people to selectively load
and how would they do this? (Score:2)
DNC List is unconstitutional (Score:1)
BISS lists? (Score:1)
2. Download BISS lists
Alright, not entirely foolproof, but a start in the right direction to keeping the AD tracker dirtbags off your "front-lawn"!
Re: (Score:2)