• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FTC 'do not track' plan would be a Google killer

scourge99

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,233
Reaction score
1,462
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
This title is deliberately deceptive.

FTC 'do not track' plan would be a Google killer - Dec. 2, 2010

FTC 'do not track' plan would be a Google killer

December 2, 2010: 1:47 PM ET
?

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Federal Trade Commission proposed this week that consumers should have a "do not track" option for the Internet, similar to the "do not call" list that exists to block telemarketers.

Sounds great, right? With private data abuses and security lapses constantly popping up in the headlines, the idea of easily taking yourself off the radar might sound appealing.

But the FTC's proposal faces fierce opposition, from both the tech industry and many lawmakers. And if it were adopted, it would open a Pandora's box of unintended consequences.

The FTC's plan calls for a universal add-on piece of software that surfers could install on their Internet browsers to notify websites that they do not want any information about them to be collected. The proposal would need congressional approval before it could be enacted as an industry-wide mandate.
...
But those in the industry warn that such an overarching policy would put billions of e-commerce and advertising dollars at risk. It would also unleash all kinds of unintended and undesirable effects on the very consumers the FTC is trying to protect.


This is the most bald-faced bit of bull**** I've ever heard.

I fully support online and offline privacy. Its absurd the lengths this writer goes to defend the secret collecting of personal data on people all in the name of MONEY.

Now before I burn the bridge, can anyone defend this practice beyond the excuse of "it will hurt the profits of advertising companies who secretly collect data on you without permission"? Boo-****ing-hoo. We already have 1 big brother. We don't need more siblings, especially when they only have money on the mind.
 
Now before I burn the bridge, can anyone defend this practice beyond the excuse of "it will hurt the profits of advertising companies who secretly collect data on you without permission"? Boo-****ing-hoo. We already have 1 big brother. We don't need more siblings, especially when they only have money on the mind.

I couldn't care less for the advertising companies, but a huge portion of the web is only able to provide its content at no cost to the user by selling ad space. Depending on how broad the language is it could very well devalue ad space and threaten that business model. I'm not saying that this will happen, but it's not out of the question.
 
I couldn't care less for the advertising companies, but a huge portion of the web is only able to provide its content at no cost to the user by selling ad space. Depending on how broad the language is it could very well devalue ad space and threaten that business model. I'm not saying that this will happen, but it's not out of the question.

The fact that you think that supports my belief that this article is purely a product of lobbying.

The bill is not against webspace advertising. I.E., its not against putting signs, ads, popups, etc on your screen when you go to sites. Its about how companies secretly collect and store every site you go to, what you click, how long you spend there, what you buy, etc.

Normally this isn't an issue. For example grocery store cards are often used as a means to track product purchases and spending habits. The difference is that that data is used within that store. When you have things like google-analytics, its like having a person follow and track EVERY store and place you go and compiling a complete personal profile on you to be sold to the highest bidder.

Limited company use is acceptable. Widespread is an invasion of privacy.
 
I dont mind some maintained cookies or google accounts history, frankly it occasionally helps when I occasionally try to buy something. If Im lucky in a decade the cloud will understand that I am a man of taste and advertise accordingly. :D
 
scourge, I suggest you reread my post. You seem to have missed the point entirely

The bill is not against webspace advertising. I.E., its not against putting signs, ads, popups, etc on your screen when you go to sites.

I do not suggest that it is

Its about how companies secretly collect and store every site you go to, what you click, how long you spend there, what you buy, etc.

As I state in my post, the impact will depend on how broadly the policy is worded. The FTC's testimony states that they already take action against companies that do the sort of thing about which you're speaking. This policy is not targeting this narrow sort of abuse. Their proposal does not use any more specific language than "targeted advertising," a category which includes even your average plain text google ads. If websites are prohibited from showing such ads, ad space value will fall along with ad revenue. That could easily threaten the business model of a huge swath of the web.
 
scourge, I suggest you reread my post. You seem to have missed the point entirely
apologies if I misunderstood.


As I state in my post, the impact will depend on how broadly the policy is worded.

The FTC's testimony states that they already take action against companies that do the sort of thing about which you're speaking.
I'm not awar of that. Can you source that or reference the action they take?

Is it only in the real world or in cyberspace as well?

This policy is not targeting this narrow sort of abuse.
I disagree. I does not directly address it but it circumvents it by disallowing that information from being collected.

Their proposal does not use any more specific language than "targeted advertising," a category which includes even your average plain text google ads. If websites are prohibited from showing such ads, ad space value will fall along with ad revenue. That could easily threaten the business model of a huge swath of the web.

I understand and agree with your concern that laws need to be written concisely and unambiguously. I don't think that's cause enough to dismiss this initiative.
 
This title is deliberately deceptive.

FTC 'do not track' plan would be a Google killer - Dec. 2, 2010

This is the most bald-faced bit of bull**** I've ever heard.

I fully support online and offline privacy. Its absurd the lengths this writer goes to defend the secret collecting of personal data on people all in the name of MONEY.

Now before I burn the bridge, can anyone defend this practice beyond the excuse of "it will hurt the profits of advertising companies who secretly collect data on you without permission"? Boo-****ing-hoo. We already have 1 big brother. We don't need more siblings, especially when they only have money on the mind.

If one wants to pay more for the use of a search engine and just about every other use of the internet please keep it to yourselves.

I like having it as it is, and I would bet you have never been harmed because they track what you do.

Or is this about some activity people might be ashamed of? If that is a fear again I say show where you have been harmed.

Unless one is a criminal and your PC is taken by Law Enforcement there is nothing to worry about.

By the way once Law Enforcement has someones PC that person has no secrets because unless you do a very good job of wiping the hard drive it's all there for ever.

Besides everyone is being tracked by big brother with Carnivore, anyway. The FBI once made fun of the accusations calling it a Conspiracy theory because no one had the capability to do it.

Now they are saying: Okay yea we did it, but we stopped. That is the BS.
 
This title is deliberately deceptive.

FTC 'do not track' plan would be a Google killer - Dec. 2, 2010




This is the most bald-faced bit of bull**** I've ever heard.

I fully support online and offline privacy. Its absurd the lengths this writer goes to defend the secret collecting of personal data on people all in the name of MONEY.

Now before I burn the bridge, can anyone defend this practice beyond the excuse of "it will hurt the profits of advertising companies who secretly collect data on you without permission"? Boo-****ing-hoo. We already have 1 big brother. We don't need more siblings, especially when they only have money on the mind.

The alternative is to pay a subscription to pretty much every website you go to.

Google. Youtube. Pandora. News sites. Pretty much anything that isn't already a storefront.
 
If one wants to pay more for the use of a search engine and just about every other use of the internet please keep it to yourselves.

I like having it as it is, and I would bet you have never been harmed because they track what you do.

Or is this about some activity people might be ashamed of? If that is a fear again I say show where you have been harmed.

Unless one is a criminal and your PC is taken by Law Enforcement there is nothing to worry about.

By the way once Law Enforcement has someones PC that person has no secrets because unless you do a very good job of wiping the hard drive it's all there for ever.

Besides everyone is being tracked by big brother with Carnivore, anyway. The FBI once made fun of the accusations calling it a Conspiracy theory because no one had the capability to do it.

Now they are saying: Okay yea we did it, but we stopped. That is the BS.

It could be compared to a peeping tom watching your wife undress. Does it hurt anyone? particularly if they are ignorant of the action. No probably not, but people do expect a degree of privacy in thier lives and for some this can cross that line.

I am all for the option to block such tracking for those that wish to use it. If it doesnt bother you to be monitored and its not an issue, you can continue as you always have.
 
This title is deliberately deceptive.

FTC 'do not track' plan would be a Google killer - Dec. 2, 2010

This is the most bald-faced bit of bull**** I've ever heard.

I fully support online and offline privacy. Its absurd the lengths this writer goes to defend the secret collecting of personal data on people all in the name of MONEY.

Now before I burn the bridge, can anyone defend this practice beyond the excuse of "it will hurt the profits of advertising companies who secretly collect data on you without permission"? Boo-****ing-hoo. We already have 1 big brother. We don't need more siblings, especially when they only have money on the mind.

I think this is much ado about nothing....this "secret collection of data," that is. Yes, websites know a particular computer has visited particular sites, how long it's been there, yada yada yada; but it uses this data in the aggregate; the data collected is compiled, correlated, and used to help marketers determine any variety of things. "Those who shop at Amazon are more likely to order from Brookstone," as a vanilla example. You aren't being tracked. No one can know who you are without legal intervention. And they don't care who you are.

Your telephone company, as an example, collects this same kind of information about you -- much more directly and with the possibility of being much more damaging -- but, again, legal intervention is needed to access that information.

People who expect others to maintain the world wide web, put content on there for free use, charge nothing for visiting their websites, let you copy/paste to your lil' heart's content, ought to be more than willing to let some background monitoring assist these companies with their marketing models. What's the big deal?
 
BBC News - Web bug reveals browsing history

The flaw gives sites access to all the other sites that user has visited. Many use it to target ads or see if users are patronising rivals.

The researchers said their work showed a need for better defences against history tracking.

The bug exploits the way that many browsers handle links people have visited. Many change the colour of the text to reflect that earlier visit.

This can be abused with a specially written chunk of code sitting on a website that interrogates a visitors browser to see what it does to a given list of websites. Any displayed in a different colour are judged to be those a user has already seen.

A survey of 50,000 of the web's most visited websites by the team from UC San Diego found 485 sites using this method to get at browser histories, 63 were copying the data it reveals and 46 were found to be "hijacking" a user's history.

...

Users can also check how much information they are leaking by visiting a webpage set up by security researchers that tries to grab their history.

Despite these safeguards, the researchers said there was a "pressing need to devise flexible, precise and efficient defenses" against the history hijacking technique.

The research team is now planning more in-depth work that it hopes will result in tools that will more comprehensively defend against attempts to exploit the bug.
 
I personally support this bill. I never liked the fact that when I am reading my gmail, google is showing me ads in relation to the contents of my e-mail. What's in my e-mail is none of their damn business. If they want to show me random ads, that's fine, but the fact that my private data is being channeled into their content has always bothered me.

The way companies are mining consumer data by monitoring their websurfing is not acceptable to me. I already have a flash blocker installed so that flash aps don't play unless I give them permission to.
 
Back
Top Bottom