FTC To Examine Targeted Advertising 61
narramissic writes "Following a series of complaints by privacy groups, the FTC has announced plans to host a two-day forum on targeted advertising at the beginning of November in Washington, DC. It's the first time since 2000 that the agency has looked at industry practices in this area. They hope to learn how Web advertising firms protect the personal data they collect, how they notify consumers about that data, and whether the data is sold to or used by other firms." The FTC page for the event ia here. Sign up by September 14 if you want to be a panelist or to recommend topics for discussion.
Editors! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Normal typo, happens all the time.
Re: (Score:1)
Hosts file - don't surf without it (Score:1, Informative)
No need for a popup blocker when the ad site host name goes into the bit bucket.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Bah. A hosts file is okay when you don't have a regular ad-blocker, but it really loses out by not being able to block stuff like "www.example.com/ads/*".
The filter list I use in Konqueror and Opera has over 700 things in it. Along with an ad-blocking stylesheet, I don't even see text ads in Google search results anymore.
Seeing the ads is the lesser problem... (Score:2)
The greater problem is the gathering of personal data to serve the ads. For me personally, the scariest thing isn't them developing an accurate profile, but an inaccurate one and it spreading to potential employers, etc, if they ever attach my name to it.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll never work at Hooters again.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I too use hosts file blocking, but I took a weekend (I'm not a code god) and augmented it's usefulness by developing a browser plug-in that infers whether a given image is a (putative) ad. It acquires DOM info about a particular image (size, dimensions, position in the client area) and examines the originating URL.
So far, I've gotten about 70% "true positive" results on images/frames that aren't straight-out blocked by my hosts file (~8900 entries and growing). I'm working on ways to im
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
You know, I wonder about Akamai: there have been plenty of published notes about using their services to get around IP based firewalls and censorship. Do they mind? Do they get supboenaed for their reco
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://adblockplus.org/en/ [adblockplus.org]
I'll make the FTC's job easy. (Score:5, Funny)
They don't.
how they notify consumers about that data,
They don't.
and whether the data is sold to or used by other firms.
Yes.
There. Study done.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, not selling your data is a bad business move. All your competitors do it. The poor suckers who gave you the data won't know the difference. There is no way to sell the "we don't sell your data" story because everyone claims the same and it is very difficult for a consumer to tell who
Re: (Score:2)
There's PLENTY of reasons NOT to sell soft data. For starters, what you collect tells someone a lot about how you are using it. You almost never want that to get out. Most companies are not Google :p and anyone with the right financing can copy you. Using the data to form trends and selling the metadata quietly is where it's at. Offering to serve Cingular ads to people who have a Verizon number in a cookie or to show graphs as to how many creatives per c
Re: (Score:1)
Honestly, not using slaves is a bad business move. All your competitors do it.
Fixed that for you.
With that attitude, the problem only escallates. The practice has to stop somewhere. Just because everybody does a given thing doesn't make it right. I mean, look at how long people owned slaves because it didn't seem economically feasible to do otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
I do agree with your sentiment. But businesses not being slimey won't fix the problem. It will just make the truely slimey ones more powerful.
The real answer is to get some transparency legislation enacted or to increase fines/punishments for violating the trust and privacy of customers. Right now there is almost zero
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
They protect it fiercely. Keeping the data secret keeps the valuation of the data high for resale and ensures that they retain a competitive edge in the niche markets where the competition is weakest or they are using the technology to capitalize on the data.
You are never notified about soft data collection and most multinationals notify you when collecting hard data.
Re: (Score:2)
By t
Re: (Score:2)
P.S.
It's interesting to see people mod down (my)facts about the industry and mod up people who have no idea as to what actually happens to this type of data.
Re: (Score:2)
I work for a large company that many people here hate, and no, not MSFT. It seems that whenever I make factual statements about certain company initiatives I get modded down (via the overrated mod, of course...pansy boy mods) while the kneejerk "large corp A === teh evils!1!" comments get modded up as insightful. Not that I really even defend my company, as I am no "company man", I just occasionally refute statements I know t
Re: (Score:2)
But no, *all* advertising companies do not have these policies. Or don't you count spammers, Viagra salesmen, and "my unclale left me $10,000,000" advertisers? And frankly, they have you outnumbered by far too much for your claim that "all advertising companies" foll
Re: (Score:2)
I do not own a company. I'm not sure what I've said to portray my employer in a positive light, but have tried to relay the facts about advertising companies. I've dealt with about 200 to date (not counting the actual customers like Pfizer, Random House, Nestle, etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
2 years I've been here, it has never happened.
Nobody with hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend does large transactions with companies they havent checked out thoroughly. Running credit checks on companies is something you might expect. A number of us have our credit histories run as a requirement as well. It's not like you simply tell General Mills that you have this l
Re: (Score:1)
And being a legitimate advertiser is a lot like being a high-class escort. The business you're engaged in, as legitimate as it may be in the way you practice it, is a paid service tainted by the dangerous majority of its practicioners. You cannot reasonably talk about how "advertisers don't do this" any more than you can say "escorts are safe" without qualifying your statement, restricting it to what seem to the be the clear majority of the professionals we see out here cluttering up the sidewalks and molesting us as we try to get home.
Mmm. Condoms for data. Although, when you think about it, their normal use is to contain 'data'
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Ballmer must be happy (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure (Score:1)
Yes, whenever we have a privacy concern (Score:2, Funny)
Targeted advertising is still rare? (Score:3, Interesting)
Ads I get via e-mail are invariably spam, which is as untargeted as it gets. Snail mail isn't targeted either.
So where's all this 'targeted advertising' going on? Companies must be sitting on loads of data that never gets used, if I'm any indication.
Re: (Score:1)
I was going to sign up, but ... (Score:2)