Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Advertising

Privacy-Focused Tech Companies Call For Ban On Targeted Advertising (vice.com) 53

Posted by BeauHD from the privacy-invasive-practices dept.
A group of privacy-focused tech companies including DuckDuckGo, Vivaldi, and the company that makes Protonmail are calling for a broad ban on targeted, "surveillance-based" advertising. Motherboard reports: "Although we recognize that advertising is an important source of revenue for content creators and publishers online, this does not justify the massive commercial surveillance systems set up in attempts to 'show the right ad to the right people,'" the letter reads. The letter urges lawmakers in the United States and European Union to enact data protection laws that could protect consumers from the "privacy-hostile" practices that many companies turn to for their advertising. It explains that exploiting users' privacy for the sake of personalized ads is not necessary for companies to be profitable.

Many of the signatories, including Proton Technologies and DuckDuckGo, already prioritize data protection in their services. Mojeek, an independent search engine, posted in 2006 about its efforts to avoid using "big brother tactics" and collecting personal user data in order to make money. Many of these companies make money by advertising, but the advertising is "contextual" rather than targeted. For a search engine, this means that an advertiser can buy ads that show up when a user searches a specific term. This is different from targeted advertising, which in this example could potentially take into account a user's search history, their demographic and biographic info, their web browsing history, their geographic location, etc.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Privacy-Focused Tech Companies Call For Ban On Targeted Advertising More

Privacy-Focused Tech Companies Call For Ban On Targeted Advertising

Comments Filter:

  • I'm forced to use Edge at work, had to search for manufacturer's part numbers for 5dB SMF attenuators, used google, got what I needed, so fine.

    Every single page, to anywhere on t'interwebs since, on my work laptop, has included ads for attenuators & SFP's, the only pages without are internal.

    What a crock of shit. Won't use Edge/google to search ever, ever again.

  • Hear, hear! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rmdingler ( 1955220 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2021 @09:02PM (#61561185) Journal

    I'm personally, and simultaneously for the good of my human brethren, calling for a ban on mosquitoes and rattlesnakes.

    You know how it goes: "Wish in one hand, and shit in the other... see which one fills up faster.

    • Re:Hear, hear! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ljw1004 ( 764174 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2021 @10:36PM (#61561359)

      I'm personally, and simultaneously for the good of my human brethren, calling for a ban on mosquitoes and rattlesnakes.

      They don't seem remotely similar. I don't understand the point of your analogy. It's certainly possible and fairly straightforward to regulate what data companies collect and what they do with it -- as has been done already in Europe and California. All it takes is lawmakers to agree there's a need, and then pass a law. That doesn't mean that companies will instantly change their practice but it does mean that those which fail to do so will be financially liable (assuming the law was written properly, which indeed in two cases I listed it has).

      As for a ban on mosquitoes? That requires substantially more than passing a law.

      The only sense I can understand from your analogy is that you think that companies violating our privacy with abusive practices is an inherent and unavoidable part of life. To which I say -- look at the past hundred years of consumer-protecting legislation for counter-examples.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Bert64 ( 520050 )

        There is little the law can do to ban mosquitos, as mosquitos won't obey the laws in any case.

        In several countries it is already illegal to create conditions allowing mosquitos to breed (ie pools of stagnant water), or to breed them intentionally. This is about as much as can be done legally.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Jack9 ( 11421 )

        > They don't seem remotely similar. I don't understand the point of your analogy

        They are similar and you do understand because you're not an idiot. Being disingenuous is not compelling.

        > All it takes is lawmakers to agree there's a need, and then pass a law.

        I'll just believe you made a kneejerk statement that's obviously ludicrous. Broadband equity/ubiquity and Net Neutrality are still topics being debated and they are far simpler (and I would argue, more pressing) mandates that have been monumentally

  • Not just about advertising or money (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rtkluttz ( 244325 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2021 @09:09PM (#61561201) Homepage

    If anyone thinks it is just about advertising or money they are fucking idiots. Snowden documents even say as much and it isn't even denied. ALL the major tech companies have embedded CIA personnel steering/guiding/influencing the companies and their users toward those services for the express purpose of gaining access to all of this information via non-government entities to get around data collection laws against the government doing it directly. Anyone using smart speakers or cloud services in general is basically a clueless idiot. This is conspiracy in the open yet most idiots still use this shit. And it isn't just Google. Why the FUCK do I have to log in to a server at a remote site to ask permission to control things in my own home like thermostats or Chamberlain garage door openers or any number of other things. I WANT connectivity, but refuse to do it in a way that puts my shit in someone elses control whether nefarious or not.

    • I WANT connectivity, but refuse to do it in a way that puts my shit in someone elses control whether nefarious or not.

      Does this mean you have no smart devices including no smartphone?

      • I keep seeing smartphones brought up often when discussing these kinds of articles.
        The only use I have for mine now is a makeshift tablet to read ebooks on since my current tablet broke and I do not feel the need to replace it. For everything else, my life quality has vastly improved since I abandoned the smartphone.
        As soon as am done with work, I just walk away from the computer. If am looking for a place, I just ask for directions. if my friends want to talk, they either call or we just meet up.

        Smartphone

      • Not all devices call home to a mothership.

        Take lineageos google-free smartphone. Doesn't call google.
        Use an IM that supports federation. Not matrix (the official client calls back to many [maybe israeli, not sure] motherships. And the spec is still shifting a bit, so alternative clients are playing catch-up.) I chose XMPP through conversations.im . Doesn't call anywhere you don't want to. e2e encryption.
        OsmAnd for offline navigation.
        k9 for email.
        What else do you really need a smartphone for?

        Use only service

        • Oh, I didn't know about OsmAnd. I use...
          - Protonmail for their collective spam filtering and address aliasing (so you can give a unique address to everyone)
          - IRC since it's stable, widely supported, and clients don't push the use of (unicode) emoji
          - a feature phone, as I know exactly how much data it's leaking (GSM tracking as you noted).
          - Linux (because you can't trust MS or Apple)
          - Firefox (sync disabled)

          Firefox still has a few naughty behaviors but they can be rectified with the correct config settings [github.com].

  • Targeted advertising doesnâ(TM)t work (Score:4, Interesting)

    by djp2204 ( 713741 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2021 @10:57PM (#61561379)

    I visit a website, I order a product, and as ai browse the web ads for the product I just bought follow me here and there. How does that help? If I get annoyed enough, Iâ(TM)ll cancel the order.

  • I don't think it works anyway (Score:5, Insightful)

    by spitzak ( 4019 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2021 @11:33PM (#61561411) Homepage

    I don't need 100 copies of the same ad for an item I just bought. I don't need 100 copies of the same ad for some ad I clicked on. I just looked here on Slashdot and imho the most interesting ads are the ones that don't seem to have anything to do with what I clicked before, but are just geeky stuff like VPNs or tech toys.

    Why don't they target based on "what page the user is looking at". That is perfectly allowed, and I think provides a much much more accurate idea of what the user is interested in than any tracking of what they did before.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ShoulderOfOrion ( 646118 )

      Yeah I feel exactly the same way and said as much on a similar story a while back. As pointed out to me by other /. commentators, the problem is that WE the browser users are not Google's customer--Google's customer is the ad buyer. If I just bought a hammer, Google could care less that I'm unlikely to buy another one any time soon. They are ecstatic, however, that they can sell ad space to hammer retailers on pages viewed by 'known hammer buyers'.

      • Re:I don't think it works anyway (Score:4, Insightful)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Thursday July 08, 2021 @04:35AM (#61561755) Homepage Journal

        This isn't entirely accurate for a few reasons.

        First we are the customers, if we don't like what Google is doing we can use a different search engine. Google has to keep all its customers happy, even when they have conflicting desires.

        Secondly Google would very very much like to avoid offering ad space to hammer vendors on searches by people who just bought a hammer. The ad industry isn't completely blind, they have metrics like click-through and conversion rates (the numbers of people who saw the ad and went on to buy a hammer from them). The higher the conversion rates the more money Google can charge for ad space.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        Stop using Chrome, for this reason.

    • Targeted ads are not about showing you (and specifically you) an ad for something you recently bought. That is just aggressive (and dumb) “remarketing”. It’s also not about showing you (and you specifically) a product you like. Advertisers don’t pretend to be able to do that accurately.

      Targeted ads are aimed at target groups. If an advertiser wants to target “Latino teens in middle-income households with liberal parents and an astronomy fetish”, then targeted advertis

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Some sites have found that ads related to content rather than tracking are most effective and generate the most revenue.

      Makes sense because you clearly visited that site due to some interest in the content. Also means that the issue you describe where they try to sell you something you already bought is much less likely to happen.

  • What's next? Making fast food chain commercials show what their burgers actually look like?

    • My friend had a genius take on that: Any and all food presented in an advert must be eaten. Enjoy your pancakes with motor oil and shaving cream.

  • I'm all for this...but at first glance, won't you have to keep track of the targeted ads and those you are targeting? Track the targeted ads and whom they are being targeted for, the recipient...

    This seems to be a Hellerian Catch-22.

    JoshK.

  • What about people who want relevant ads instead of being inundated with BS ads? Why are people so afraid of being tracked? Just make sure the second amendment features prominently in your google searches.

    • What about people who want relevant ads instead of being inundated with BS ads?

      There's no such thing.

      If I want to see something "relevant", I'll type a word or two in a search engine and click through the hits.

      The very word "ad" means I wasn't looking for it, so by definition it's not relevant. It's a parasitic monetization of my attention.

      • Really? Then why do people buy things they see in ads? They obviously were informed of a product they have a need for. If people didnâ(TM)t need ads companies wouldnâ(TM)t pay to put ads.

  • This concept that people are 'tracking' you is directly related to one's own impression of one's self-importance, in my opinion. I don't give a flip if companies are making huge databases that know where I've been and what I've bought if it means I don't have to watch another anti-vaping ad.

    But my ego is also small enough to know that no one outside my family and friends really gives a whit about me. I know that to most people I'm just boring. If someone at Amazon is personally going through what I've

  • Ads? (Score:2)

    by jvkjvk ( 102057 )

    I don't even see ads anymore. And I don't mean the adblocker is catching them all. Anything in a page that's an ad I just skip. I don't even register it anymore, since I am focused on whatever I came there for. I don't even know if I am receiving any targeted advertising.

    Surely I can't be the only one.

  • I can see the benefit of targeted advertising. For example, on my phone while looking at the Facebook, I see Amazon listings for stuff that looks really interesting to the geek/nerd/maker/gadget-freak that I am and I have to resist the urge to tap on it to see what that thing is. Sometimes it's something cool that I didn't know existed. I'd rather see that than ads for effing kale salad or frilly knickers. Of course, as I type this, I'm now likely see ads for double-edged swords.

Slashdot Top Deals

Serving coffee on aircraft causes turbulence.

Close