Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

FTC Investigating Google-DoubleClick Deal

Posted by Zonk on Tue May 29, 2007 09:06 AM
from the somebody-attracted-somebody's-attention dept.
Government Businesses Google The Internet United States Politics
An anonymous reader writes "The New York Times is covering FTC interest in Google's purchase of the DoubleClick service. The investigation is in response to privacy group concerns over the amount of information Google will have available to it via its ad service and DoubleClick. Between a few days and a week from now the FTC should either declare the all clear, or elevate the process to a 'second request' stage. That would indicate more serious issues the federal body has an interest in. Google stated it was confident the purchase would hold up under scrutiny. 'In the complaint, the groups noted that Google collects the search histories of its users, while DoubleClick tracks what Web sites people visit. The merger, according to their complaint, would give one company access to more information about the Internet activities of consumers than any other company in the world.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Technology: Outcry Over Google's Purchase of Doubleclick 242 comments
TheCybernator writes to mention that several activist groups have cried out in protest of the Google buyout of Doubleclick reported in recent news. "'Google's proposed acquisition of DoubleClick will give one company access to more information about the Internet activities of consumers than any other company in the world,' said the complaint lodged with the Federal Trade Commission. 'Moreover, Google will operate with virtually no legal obligation to ensure the privacy, security, and accuracy of the personal data that it collects.' The complaint was filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center along with the Center for Digital Democracy and the US Public Interest Research Group, all of which are involved in online privacy issues."
[+] Technology: Google Experiences EU Antitrust Friction Over Doubleclick 62 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Here in the US, the Google purchase of Doubleclick is old news. Despite a few hiccups, the news of April and May seems well in the past. In the European Union, though, the discussion begins anew again as Google seeks permission from EU antitrust regulators. From the article: 'The European Commission said it had set a review deadline of October 26, when it could approve the deal, give a two-week extension or open an in-depth, four-month investigation ... The Commission has already sent questionnaires asking competitors and customers what they think about the deal. Google has already filed with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and with the Australian competition regulator.'"
[+] Your Rights Online: Google Attempts to Allay US Privacy Fears 101 comments
Ian Lamont writes "Google is in the midst of a full-court privacy effort in Washington that involves pushing consumer privacy legislation in U.S. Congress, reaching out to privacy advocates in an effort to allay concerns about its acquisition of DoubleClick, and working with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to 'fine-tune online advertising principles' that the agency proposed last year. Google has been under fire in Washington in recent years — the FTC investigated the Google/DoubleClick deal and the EFF has issued warnings over Google services in the past. Is Google being sincere about these issues, or is this effort mostly paying lip service to its 'do no evil' policy and an attempt to head off future clashes with policy makers?"
[+] News: Google Plans To Sell Part of DoubleClick 61 comments
mudimba writes "Google has announced that they will be selling the search engine marketing branch of recently acquired company DoubleClick. Google's reason for the sale is that they do not want to appear to be giving preferential treatment in search rankings to DoubleClick customers. Tom Phillips, director of Google's integration with DoubleClick, said, 'Maintaining objectivity in both search and advertising is paramount to Google's mission and core to the trust we ask from our users.' Google was under scrutiny from the European Union and the FTC over their purchase of DoubleClick, but both eventually approved the deal."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

FTC Investigating Google-DoubleClick Deal 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • If your worried (Score:5, Informative)

    by CastrTroy (595695) on Tuesday May 29 2007, @09:10AM (#19308615) Homepage
    If you're worried about how much data Google and doubleclick are collecting, then just block them from you firewall. If you never connect to their servers, they can't collect any information. If enough people start to do this kind of thing, they will have to start to find a new way of doing business.

    • I can see people blocking DoubleClick... Google's another story. It's ubiquity means that even if the average user has some idea how to go about blocking them, they'll hesitate to.

      • Re:If your worried (Score:5, Informative)

        by rtb61 (674572) on Tuesday May 29 2007, @09:24AM (#19308811) Homepage
        If you want to control google run this http://www.customizegoogle.com/ [customizegoogle.com] on top of firefox in preference to the google toolbar.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Aladrin (926209)
        Seriously? You think the fact that Google bought DoubleClick will even be widely known? Or that they will suddenly stop blocking DC because it's owned by the 'good guys', even though absolutely nothing about the company has changed?

        Not likely. It's much more likely the DC's mud will rub off on Google, and people will be more likely to block it as well.

        Since I've got NoScript installed now, I didn't bother to unblock Google's traffic stuff. It doesn't do anything for -me-, so it stays blocked.
    • I'm not worried about the data they collect about me, I'm worried about the data they collect full stop. A single company holding a massive data mine containign cross-referenced information about the browsing habits and search terms of loads of people is another step toward a less free internet. That's a bad thing. There are hundreds of millions of internet users out there who are clueless about firewalls, turning off scripting in their browser, and avoiding 'dangerous' sites. I could sit back and scoff at
      • But how do you really stop Google from storing all this data. How many gigabytes of data is too much? How do you control what data they are allowed to store. Is yahoo somehow exempt from this because they receive less traffic? The problem here is that how do you define too much, and what's the difference between google collecting a whole bunch of data, and your government census department collecting a whole bunch of data, and making it a crime if you don't respond to the census.

        • Re:If your worried (Score:4, Informative)

          by badasscat (563442) <basscadet75@@@yahoo...com> on Tuesday May 29 2007, @09:52AM (#19309149) Homepage
          But how do you really stop Google from storing all this data.

          With a law.

          How do you control what data they are allowed to store.

          With a law.

          Is yahoo somehow exempt from this because they receive less traffic?

          No, Yahoo is exempt because they do not collect the same type of information. Laws only affect those who undertake the actions defined within the law.

          The problem here is that how do you define too much, and what's the difference between google collecting a whole bunch of data, and your government census department collecting a whole bunch of data, and making it a crime if you don't respond to the census.

          The difference is the law. Provisions for the census are in the US Constitution. It was the law of the land long before you were ever born and most likely long before your family even arrived here.

          I mean, I know the /. crowd leans towards the libertarian side of things, but some people act as if they've never even heard of the rule of law around here. I guess given our current administration, that's probably not too surprising - but the fact remains that there's no inalienable right that says Google should be allowed to collect all this data on its users, which means there's no reason not to make it illegal if that's what's determined to be in the public interest.

          Who makes these determinations? The people we elect specifically for that purpose. This is why we have a congress. You can call them incompetent, you're free to dislike your representatives, but it's not like it's some big mystery who gets tasked with drafting laws in our governmental system. That is your congressperson's job. If you don't like the job they're doing, then vote for somebody else next time - but this is what they're there to do, and as long as they're there, you should use them.

          I think there is also a tendency for some people to turn fairly simple questions of law into larger philosophical debates. I don't really understand the reason for that. If people don't like the fact that Google is going to be collecting all this data, then we should pressure our congress to draft a law that stops them or anyone else from doing it. It's really that simple. There's no point worrying about whether it would apply to one company or another or why it doesn't apply to government or whatever. Laws are designed to address practical and specific societal issues; they're not designed to address abstract philosophical ethical questions.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Guppy06 (410832)
            "Provisions for the census are in the US Constitution. It was the law of the land long before you were ever born and most likely long before your family even arrived here."

            The Census is required to ask you the following:
            1. How many people are in your household? Don't count untaxed Indians
            2. Of those, how many are men at least 21 years of age?
            3. Of those, how many are enfranchised?
            Anything else isn't "the law of the land."

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by h2_plus_O (976551)

            But how do you really stop [someone] from [something]

            With a law.

            If it was that simple, illegal drugs wouldn't be available, would they? Murder wouldn't happen, right?
            We'd need enforcement to ensure compliance with said law, which means empowering the government to inspect private company data to make sure it's not the verboten kind of data we don't want them collecting. This would require congress to grant unprecedented powers to law enforcement, essentially rendering all privately held data subject

      • A single company holding a massive data mine containign cross-referenced information about the browsing habits and search terms of loads of people is another step toward a less free internet.

        How? If the single company isn't an ISP then they aren't in control of access. If you're worried about the government getting this information to track people then the issue is the government, not the one company holding the data.

      • A single company holding a massive data mine containign cross-referenced information about the browsing habits and search terms of loads of people is another step toward a less free internet.
        So the answer to keeping the internet free is to have the government step in and restrict? Or is Google not allowed to enjoy the freedom?
      • you mean as opposed to AT&T resurrection of undead Ma Bell? With Google you have some choice to go to their site or not... how about ATT? They control the physical wire to your house, or the website, or the fiber in between!!!! and seem to have no issue at all with selling you out to the highest bidder (the whole NSA thing was just a bribe to get the FTC to look the other way in that HUGE merger) Where was the FTC championing our rights then? Really FTC, the Google/Doubleclick merger is silly. Or

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by davecb (6526) *

      CastrTroy wrote:If you're worried about how much data Google and doubleclick are collecting, ...

      You'd be surprised what "innocuous" information can be used to your disadvantage. A notable example, from right after the birth-control pill was introduced, was the DBA who did a query on a drugstore system for customers with a birth-control prescriptions, but was blocked from getting the customers' addresses. So he took the set of names from that query and did a soundex lookup for matching names on a library

    • If enough people start to do this kind of thing

      And therein lies the problem. Enough people will not block Google et al. The Slashdot/tech will not be burdened by the fears of privacy because they are knowledgeable enough to prevent it. The general public has no knowledge of how to be shielded from watching eyes, and furthermore has no knowledge that the Google and DoubleClick merger will give a single entity an overwhelming view of person's online activities.

      To reiterate, telling Slashdot to block Go
    • Can you cite one instance where sticking your head in the sand like an ostrich has saved you from imminent danger?
      • Well there was this one time when I was fooling around with the War Operation Plan Response computer over at NORAD when it decided a war game scenario was real. We convinced the computer through some tic-tac-toe simulations that the only winning move was not to play. I guess technically it wasn't stick my head in the sand but sticking the WOPR's head in the sand certainly saved us from imminent danger.

  • I can see it now... (Score:3, Funny)

    by PixieDust (971386) on Tuesday May 29 2007, @09:11AM (#19308623)
    There's an emergency government meeting behind closed doors...

    Suit 1:"So there's this new Google deal going down. Apparently some companies have their panties in a twist because of how much information Google will have."

    Suit 2: "How much information are we talking about?"

    Suit 3: "Well, Doubleclick catches a lot of web traffic information, browsing patterns, etc. and Google already mines tons of data..."

    Suit 1 begins crunching some numbers. "Good God! We have to put a stop to this! Soon they'll know more than we do! That's it. I want the Board (from Google) in here now. They'll be more than happy to give us wha6t we wish. After all, it'd be a shame if something unfortunate happened..."

  • Weird wording (Score:3, Interesting)

    by niconorsk (787297) on Tuesday May 29 2007, @09:14AM (#19308671)

    The merger, according to their complaint, would give one company access to more information about the Internet activities of consumers than any other company in the world.
    Wasn't this the case for Google before they bought Google? Not to dismiss their worries(Google freaks me out sometimes), but they could have found a better way to voice them.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by s.bots (1099921)

      The merger, according to their complaint, would give one company access to more information about the Internet activities of consumers than any other company in the world.
      Isn't this going to be the case anyway? If google doesn't have access to more information than any other company, that means that some other company would have the most information. Perhaps google has access to more information than the others combined (though I can't imagine that is the case)?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by WombatDeath (681651)
      It's a very strange point altogether. For any subject X, some company is going to have more information about X than any other company in the world. It's inevitable, unless you somehow manage to enforce some sort of weird inter-company information-sharing law.

  • Litmous test (Score:3, Insightful)

    by foniksonik (573572) on Tuesday May 29 2007, @09:17AM (#19308737) Homepage Journal
    Would they (FTC) force Google to spin off a section of the company IF they had developed the technology themselves?

    If not then this deal should be fine. If so, well they better be able to prove why... with precedents like Microsoft still around, it'll be a hard sell.

    • There has always, always been a higher standard for breaking a company up than for allowing it to merge, since the former incurs all of the substantial costs of making an autonomous company out of a department. A better litmus test for whether two companies should be able to merge -- and the one that the government actually uses -- is whether the aggregate benefits to the consumers and shareholders (through increased returns to scale, usually, though also through synergies) outweigh the harm of decreased co

  • So.. who's number one right now? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29 2007, @09:20AM (#19308767)
    So they are complaining that this deal will give Google more information about consumers than any other company in the world. Now, I'm all for a healthy dose of tin-foil in my daily diet but someone has to have more information than everyone else. Am I the only one wondering who has the most information right now and why there isn't a complaint against that company already with the FTC?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ookabooka (731013)
      Am I the only one wondering who has the most information right now and why there isn't a complaint against that company already with the FTC?
      Well I think its more like right now Double click and Google have roughly the same "amount" of information, but since they are in different areas its hard to quantify. After the merger, when one heuristically quantifies the amount of information they have compared to other companies, one concludes that Google definitely has "more" than the other companies.

      So think o
  • My understanding is that this investigation is actually intended to look at possible anti-trust violations in light of this merger, not so much privacy concerns. Is that not correct? If it is, any attorneys out there who know enough anti-trust law to speculate on whether this investigation will hold water? At first glance that accusation seems a bit flimsy to me, but I haven't had a chance to read up on it much, and I'm no expert in anti-trust law.
    • I'm just assuming Google has consulted atleast one expert in anti-trust law, and apparently (s)he saw no problems with the deal. I seriously doubt the "do no evil" company will want to risk evil anti-trust publicity.

  • Well, no wonder (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bullfish (858648) on Tuesday May 29 2007, @09:26AM (#19308825)
    People lie regularly on the net when answering surveys, filling out forms etc. They can still track you, but other than that, they can only have the information you give them. Survey after survey has found people lie when talking about themselves on-line etc. Not a surprise even if it really isn't all that effective. If you are really concerned, there are things like TOR that can help you be anonymous. Ultimately, people have to accept the web is not a private place. If you can see them, they can see you. Act accordingly.

    I would like to see a FTC stipulation that after infromation has been "aged", it should be deleted. I doubt though that in these paranoid times it will happen though, so I can only say keep on lying and use TOR etc if you don't like the prying eyes.

    As far as google not being evil. They are a business.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Skye16 (685048)
      That's why I'm so sneaky. I muck up the system by telling the truth. They never see it coming, mwahahahahahahahaha!

  • Microsoft (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by Billly Gates (198444)
    I wonder if Microsoft had anything to do with this since they are a top lobbiest?

  • ...I'm sure someone around here will chime in with why Google isn't evil. ;)

    Gotta love corporate tools.

  • The merger, according to their complaint, would give one company access to more information about the Internet activities of consumers than any other company in the world.'"

    If that's enough to tank the merger, then Experian, Transunion, and Equifax should be disbanded. Each makes available to potential creditors every purchase you've ever made, everwhere you've ever lived, etc. And the information isn't hard to get.

    If the FTC doesn't have a problem with that, I don't have a problem with Google+Doublecli

    • Each makes available to potential creditors every purchase you've ever made
      Completely false, have you ever seen a credit report? They basically show available credit vs credit used for each account as well as the status of the account and any delinquencies. Theres maybe 10 fields total for each account. Nothing even close to a list of purchases.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Mr. Underbridge (666784)

        Completely false, have you ever seen a credit report? They basically show available credit vs credit used for each account as well as the status of the account and any delinquencies. Theres maybe 10 fields total for each account. Nothing even close to a list of purchases.

        Incidentally, I have seen my credit report. Those guys keep a record of every account you've ever had. They can figure out which ones are mortgages and car loans (that's what I mean by purchases, they don't care about your grocery bill)

        • You know they only expose the entire report to YOU right? The GP is right, the credit report to companies is hopelessly undetailed.

          Consider yourself lucky you have three of them (less chance of any given one having all your details, presumably) - we have ONE.

          • You know they only expose the entire report to YOU right? The GP is right, the credit report to companies is hopelessly undetailed.

            Yes, I do realize that. However, Google doesn't share the info they have either, yet they're still being challenged. That was my point - Google is being attacked not for *sharing* the information - apparently for simply *collecting* it.

            Consider yourself lucky you have three of them (less chance of any given one having all your details, presumably) - we have ONE.

            No kidding

            • Consider yourself lucky you have three of them (less chance of any given one having all your details, presumably) - we have ONE.

              No kidding? That sucks. Where's 'we', incidentally? Is this thing state-run?

              Nope. In New Zealand, we have one credit organisation, and it's fully private. Accountable to noone too, since we have NO regulation regarding credit reporting bureaus.

  • Oh no! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Dancindan84 (1056246) on Tuesday May 29 2007, @09:41AM (#19309013)
    90% of Google users search for boobies
    90% of DoubleClick's responses are people clicking on ads with boobies

    Combined together, they'll know that 90% of internet users want to find booies! That's just too much power for one company to have!
  • I don't think Google needs to concern itself with an investigation of monopolistic practices. They do need to concern themselves with unfair business practices [yald.com] .

    As the leaders in the internet space continue to merge and grow, they're going to need to open up their secret processes to customers and regulators. Again, this is where organization such as the EU have an advantage over the US system.
  • Google had been the one light in the darkness... I thought their "Do no Evil" thing meant something. But as time pushes forward, I see my hopes eroding.

    Google is still my search engine of choice. They help me find answers to problems that other people have published on a routine basis. For that, I cannot imagine dumping Google.

    However, I have become increasingly convinced that marketers are evil and they don't know it. They cannot see for themselves that they are evil... or at the very least, facilitate

  • The merger, according to their complaint, would give one company access to more information about the Internet activities of consumers than any other company in the world.


    wait, so is that illegal or something?
  • They are concerned with Google having too much information on users but don't say a word about ChoicePoint? Anybody else feel a need to reach for the wtf tag?

  • My response to the doubleclick deal (Score:4, Informative)

    by Lengyel (1082385) on Tuesday May 29 2007, @10:55AM (#19310005)
    My response to the doubleclick deal has to add the following entries to my /etc/hosts file. It's most gratifying to see blank spaces formerly occupied by distracting advertisements. Initially I defined ad.doubleclick.net to be the localhost address in /etc/hosts, and then found the other addresses below at http://radio.weblogs.com/0103807/categories/rant/2 002/04/23.html [weblogs.com].


    127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
    127.0.0.1 m.doubleclick.net
    127.0.0.1 img.x10.com
    127.0.0.1 ads.x10.com
    127.0.0.1 www.x10.com
    127.0.0.1 x10.com
    127.0.0.1 ads.addynamix.com
    127.0.0.1 leadgreed.com
    127.0.0.1 www.leadgreed.com
    127.0.0.1 c1.zedo.com
    127.0.0.1 ad.trafficmp.com
    127.0.0.1 media.adcentriconline.com

  • The amount of personal data collected by Google is nothing compared to what data aggregators like Acxiom [wikipedia.org] have.
  • I think this will pass for one reason. Isn't it the government who wants google (every computer owner) to maintain that data? So when something comes up and they need to datamine who did what/when/where on what website they have a clean trail? A few months back, there was a lot of chatter about the government requiring people to keep lists of who's on the network (**AA), and companies to archive all email (Enron) so they could follow a trail.

    Seems like catch-22 if they didn't allow it.

  • ...if you are worried about Google's use of your data. We live in a sorta-free market. If you don't like the policy of a company, the theory is that you don't buy from them. Sometimes, you cannot avoid a company in some limited markets. But, the internet has many search engines.

    Google is clear in their terms about what they collect, thus, no surprises. Never read the terms of use? That is your own fault. All of the big search engines collect data, and the spell that out in their terms of use. *shrug
  • they do find out all about my web browsing habits and what I buy.... then they'll know I don't buy much of anything, and read Slashdot regularly.... maybe I'll get a bunch of Slashdot ads while I'm browsing the net rather than the other useless shit I already get advertised to me.
  • Interesting that Google's the focus of this investigation, almost immediately after Microsoft paid twice as much money for one of DoubleClick's main competitors, aQuantive [yahoo.com].
  • Nothing new here. Google already tracks *which* search results you click on, not just what you search for (and not just for the ads--they use a redirection to track the click). And a huge number of sites already use Google ads, so they know when you visit *those* pages as well.

    My concern is that Google's data retention period is still far too long. 90 days should be sufficient for having personally-identifiable logs around to detect click-fraud, respond to court-ordered subpoenas, etc. Same goes for librari

      • How many times have we heard of people being arrested by Google releasing information in China?

        Because, of course, we're privy to the activities and motives of the (secret) police in China, and all such cases are routinely publicized, right?

        Right?

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.