Yesterday the Federal Trade Commission took the first steps towards creating a Do Not Track feature to allow internet users to opt-out of having companies obtain data on their online surfing habits. This mechanism is being designed in the spirit of the Do Not Call registry that regulates the activities of telemarketers.
On the surface this sounds great. You would be hard pressed to find anyone, besides a telemarketer, who preferred life before the Do Not Call list eliminated those annoying sales calls that interrupted your dinner. But online advertising and telemarketing are very different animals, so let's look a little deeper into what the reality of a Do Not Track bill would look like.
In theory implementing a Do Not track mechanism will allow consumers to have more control over their personal information that is shared online. Internet privacy has been a hot topic for awhile now, so it's easy to have a knee-jerk reaction to supporting anything that will protect online privacy. The more prudent way to analyze the implications of a Do Not Track bill is to look at what it will actually accomplish.
Eliminating or decreasing the frequency of internet users receiving targeted advertising while they surf websites is the result that the Do Not Track bill. Building individual profiles of how we search, surf and interact online for the use of targeted advertising, based on behavioral targeting and contextual advertising, is assumed to be a problem that needs solving. ... but is it?
Common wisdom tells us that people hate advertising. Is this true, or is this is a myth when it is thrown out as a blanket statement?
People don't hate advertising; they hate advertising for stuff they don't want.
People love advertising that tells them about a new cool product they will use. We are psychologically wired to connect with other people and seek their validation. Therefore we love to be the first one to tell our friends about something that we think is cool, and that we think they will think is cool.
With this in mind, why wouldn't you want to see targeted advertising when you're online? You're going to see advertising anyway, so what's bad about it being for products and services that are aligned with your historical online profile of interests?
Why should anyone be afraid of marketers using this data to offer you more things that you want? This isn't the same as someone using your private information for identity theft. This is a way for you to find out about things you'll probably be interested in rather than finding out about things you don't care about.
The word 'privacy' is a trigger word. No one wants to give up their privacy. If the Do Not Track bill goes into effect you can choose to keep a little bit of your privacy in exchange for continuing to receive nonspecific advertising instead of targeted advertising online.
Either way, this issue not anywhere near the problem it's made out to be and your life as an American consumer will continue on. You just may have to wait longer to discover cool new products and be stuck with seeing diaper advertisements when you don't have any toddlers in the house or ads for singles websites even though you've been married for 10 years. At least you'll be able to feel a little more secure because you feel in control of your information.
Follow Brett Greene on Twitter: www.twitter.com/brettgreene
And you wouldn't want to contribute to the rate of unemployment, wouldcha? ;>)
I have yet to see anything sent to me that I want.
Cool new stuff? Really this is what the bar should be lowered to? You won't find out about "cool new stuff"?
I seriously doubt that.
There are myriad places to find out about cool new stuff without being beaten over the head with ads.
There is no lowering of a bar. What bar are you talking about? Yes, there are a myriad of places that we find out about new things and advertising will always be one of them whether we like it or not. Advertising won't go away, so what's the harm in being served advertising based on our interests.
Marketers are not burglars; sharing our information with them cannot harm us. What is the worst thing you expect to happen from marketers knowing your online profile? The fact that your username is not your first and last name leads me to believe that you hide behind anonymity online, so I understand that we have different contexts of how to participate on the social web.
Not to mention the individuals RIGHT to charge whatever the INDIVIDUAL wants.
As it is, the tracking is illegal and invasion of privacy, IMHO.
The burden of proof, safety and security should be on the tracker , NOT THE TRACKEE.
TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT.
I think it would be much worse if they outlawed tracking, and equally worse to outlaw refusing to be tracked. But, I don't mind if they help me a little bit by ensuring i have a choice. I can choose to be tracked or I can choose not to be tracked. Given all the wealth the ones being tracked are heaping upon the trackers, such vast vast sums of riches and potential riches, I dont think we need to just give the whole farm, do you? At least we should have to make them work a little for that money -- knowing if they abuse those they are tracking that the ones being tracked can always opt out. Now, let them see what they can do to make me opt back in. Can I have a slice of that pie back please? I'll make it worth your while...
Yes, the companies can make money off this, and yes it would be awesome if we got a little residual payment for every time people in control of our data sold it for a profit. I agree that the one bad part of this equation is that companies are collecting our data for free and selling it for a profit.
Including the VP of an internet marketing firm in Denver who wrote this opinion piece we're commenting on...
We're on the same page in believing in having the option to not share your online information, and we're disagreeing on what the value is in doing so.
After all these years from the cradle to the grave yes we are sick and tired of all the ads.
Stop Tracking my every thought!
If Madison Ave. could jack into my skull and download it they would.
I have nothing to hide, though as mentioned above, you've misread my LinkedIn profile and think that I work in the online advertising industry, which I never have and do not profit from. Before you decide to 'expose' someone in the future it would be best to get your facts straight and not base your comments on false assumptions.
When we talk about the 'cost of privacy' it sounds and feels ominous, but in reality what is the cost? Beyond that, those who opt-in to participating transparently in the social web are the ones who will get the most out of it. That said, I agree that anyone who wants out deserves that right and should use the links in your article to do so.
All of us, privacy advocates or not, need to regularly be thinking about the pros and cons of our digital data being shipped around the world to each and every data miner. I like to choose when and where I give up parts of my privacy. Much of the new media world is about re-invention and disruption and many of us control our outputs. We pick which Social platforms to engage with, we choose which individuals/businesses to interact with, and we should have options to open or restrict our targeted data flow from and to our own gadgets.