Consider the similarities between piracy and do not track. They're greater than you think, for both reduce value for content creators. And both are excuses for internet regulation.
In piracy, a content company sets business rules: You must pay for my product; if you take it without paying for it, you are robbing me of value.
With do not track, an advertising-supported content company sets business rules: You will get my content for free because I will serve you ads and I will increase their efficiency, performance, and value by targeting them to your interests and behavior; if you block the cookies that make that possible, you are robbing me of value.
The difference between the two is that there is a furor over piracy as theft but, quite to the contrary, there is a rush to enable the blocking of ad tracking as a virtue.
If you listen to the Wall Street Journal, Apple was a good guy for blocking by default third-party cookies (ask what Apple gets out of that). And it's good news that technology companies just agreed to implement a do-not-track button on browsers.
There is nothing sinister about third-party ad tracking cookies. They've been used since very early in the history of the web when General Motors, for example, insisted in serving its own ads on content sites so it could verify what was bought and optimize its targeting. Without that ability, many large advertisers will refuse to buy ads and the value of ad-supported media could plummet -- just at a time when we are concerned about how we will support news media.
Odd that a media company wouldn't be crying foul. The Journal's owner, Rupert Murdoch, cries bloody murder over piracy -- going so far as to accuse Google of theft -- but his paper crusades for blocking tracking, claiming it is a violation of privacy (though in most cases, the cookies have no personally identifiable information and so it's hard to justify a moral panic based on their use).
Murdoch's News Corp is, at its core, an entertainment company, thus a paid-content company. The ad-supported portion of his P&L is not only small but is causing him much agita as his journalists in the U.K. are accused of violating laws of the nation and the profession.
I'm not building a conspiracy theory. I'm just pointing to the priorities that emerge when one follows the money.
So what about the rest of the industry -- the media, advertising, and technology industries, that is? Oh, they blew it. They were never transparent enough about what technology they were using, what data they were gathering, and why -- not to mention the benefits that accrued to their users (i.e., free content). That opened the door for other parties -- privacy scare-mongers, competitors for our media attention, and government regulators -- to demonize the mysterious cookie and stir up this moral panic and paranoia. The M.A.T. industries have only themselves to blame.
In the EU, government regulators have decreed that sites must obtain opt-in permission to set cookies. In the US, the industry agreement today announced is an attempt to forestall government regulation with self-regulation.
But don't be too quick to celebrate as if these are consumer victories. I believe the EU dictum could lead to (a) a much poorer web experience as we are bombarded with boxes to tick and (b) poorer media companies and thus (c) the possibility of less free media and more pay walls. And in the U.S., it has been shown that one can whip up an anti-net hysteria and bring even giant technology companies to expose their soft underbellies. Each leads to more threats of regulation of the net. That's what I fear.
It is time for technology companies especially to adopt radical transparency of how they operate so they can't find themselves in gotcha moments when the hysterical "discover" something they've been doing all along. Under such openness, it is also time for them to learn that doing sneaky things will not benefit them. And it is also time for the media, advertising, and technology companies to start fighting back against accusers' misinformation and explain the truth of what they are doing and how we benefit. That is transparency's dividend.
Follow Jeff Jarvis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jeffjarvis
Though facebook is 100% transparent as far as the code goes, and people still don't seem to understand what is possible with facebook. Some think way too much is possible, others don't realize what third parties can do with it all, and no one seems to have a clear picture other than programmers that have used the API. So then again, maybe people don't pay enough attention for even transperancy to work.
Great journalism there. Just like how MOST iPhone's weren't recording and transmitting years of location information without user consent.
I vote for laws that limit how much data they are allowed to store, and sell, and to notify individuals of how our information is being used, for or against us. Orwell was a genius.
We can unplug, and hide in a cave, but that's not a life. Be careful of what you type into any website, and any post--it will be used against you. Take control of your message. Keep the really intimate stuff, intimate! Call people on the phone! E-mail if you must. But Facebook? Twitter? whatever, don't lay it all out there.
As Nixon's Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman told John Dean before Dean testified on Watergate..."remember, John, once you get the toothpaste out of the tube, it's hard to get it back in."
Monitor your toothpaste, my friends!
The problem with this message is I don't run any ad blocking software.
I have an anti-virus program and a hosts file that prevents my computer from being redirected to SPAM, SCAM & Malware sites. Nor do I accept third-party cookies.
Perhaps Hulu should consider where their advertising messages are coming from.
The real question is whether anything can be done about it.
I do not embrace targeted advertising nor targeted searches because what was good about the net was i got information I did not know... if I only wanted information I did know I would not be searching... i don't want to be kept in a fishbowl of what some outsider believes I want to see what I could find and go in any direction I want.. I want to make the choices on my own.. and I don't want nor prefer all my actions to be linked... I don't want someone behind the curtain fabricating my results as if they were being guided by myself when the reality is they are being directed from afar.
I said it elsewhere today already, but why is targeted advertising so good? I didn't buy your genital pills the first time you sent me an advert, why would I buy them the 1000th time? Seems inefficient and ineffective to me to try and sell me only 5 or 6 products, based solely on my surfing habits. Checking YouTube once a day does not necessarily mean I am in the market for a new video recording device.
Check out the recent TED presentation on Google-induced "Filter Bubbles":
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/14/internet-censorship_n_1147078.html
Hang with the speaker for 2 minutes, readers, and you'll see the problem -- in black and white.
Here, the speaker blames "algorithmic gatekeepers" for determining what you see, and he is of course right -- to a point. Take the next step: programs don't write themselves. Who controls/writes these algorithms/programs now, and more importantly in the future?
Welcome to America, Inc. Brought to you by Google -- your one source for disinformation -- in close cooperation with the NSA...
Of course, this is nothing new. "He who pays the piper, calls the tune". And Google's got deep pockets. Think, people.
Thanks, and Enjoy.
So, your scaremongering that people have to give up privacy and allow tracking willy-nilly is seen for the nonsense that it is.
Had the companies made clear all along exactly what they were tracking and convinced us that we could trust them to not track anything personally identifiable, then it likely wouldn't be an issue. As the companies haven't done that and there are companies mining all sorts of personally identifiable data, the opportunity to establish tracking as a benign practice with regards to privacy has passed. Content providers now have to live with tracking being a problematic issue.
Herein lies the biggest problem. The Googles and Facebooks of the world aren't going to change that either.
As to (a) a much poorer web experience as we are bombarded with boxes to tick --- If you use a mechanism, you can set all your preferences once and then forget about it. If you want to let amazon and netflix track you but not barnes and noble, you could do that too.
and (b) poorer media companies and thus -- The web has BARELY begun to rely on the revenues from behavioral advertising and has remained solvent; it can once again rely on general ad revenues.
(c) the possibility of less free media and more pay walls. --- See my comment above.
A more detailed version can be found here: http://jolt.richmond.edu/v18i1/article2.pdf
What you are suggesting is that a user can go into some preference centre somewhere and set their opt ins and outs - perhaps something built into a browser. That would be lovely, but unfortunately, that's apparently not good enough (UK law).
Instead, EVERY website has to separately ask you, and it has to be OPT-IN. This basically means no tracking (anonymous or otherwise) unless you check some box on the website you are currently viewing.
That is the 'poor experience' the author of this piece is talking about. Check out the oh-so-lovely banner at the top of the ICO's website - this is the UK government's suggested solution to the problem: http://www.ico.gov.uk/. Nice.
In another HuffPost article today "Consumer Privacy 'Bill of Rights' Seeks To Give Web Users More Control Over Their Data" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/23/web-privacy-bill-of-rights_n_1294230.html) the author notes that:
"In coming weeks, the Commerce Department will bring together companies, privacy advocates and other stakeholders to develop privacy policies based on principles outlined in the bill of rights, officials said."
I suggest the folks at Commerce contact Daniel Brandt of Scroogle fame, the privacy-first search engine that gave users the option negate Google's tracking behavior.
To no surprise, Google squashed them like a bug:
Scroogle, Privacy-First Search Engine, Shuts Down for Good
http://www.betabeat.com/2012/02/21/scroogle-privacy-first-search-engine-shuts-down-for-good/#
As I noted on that blog, Google is a bully, plain and simple. Make that an Evil Bully.
Thanks, and Enjoy.