Consumer Groups Advocate for 'Do Not Track' Registry

eldavojohn writes "Consumer groups are asking for a 'do not track' registry to be implemented, similar to the successful and popular 'do not call' registry. Tracking companies are asking for examples where tracking has caused harm, and would rather the industry stay self-regulated. 'In December, the FTC approved Google's purchase of advertising rival DoubleClick over the objections of some privacy groups. At the same time, the agency urged advertisers to let computer users bar advertisers from collecting information on them, to provide "reasonable security" for any data and to collect data on health conditions or other sensitive issues only with the consumer's express consent.'"

Nice Try

[Anonymous Coward]

something like this would be impossible to enforce, and the data collection is almost always transparent to the user.

but if you really dont want to be tracked, just turn off your cookies! (although there are ways to track without using them)

Re:What's with all these registries?

[Blakey Rat]

You're going to see the ads anyway, why not see ads targeted towards products you're interested in?

I don't care if Google knows what websites I visit. Oooo! A single 29-year-old male goes to porn sites!! How EEEEEVIL of Google to know this!

How do you "not track"

[nine-times]

I'm probably not fully understanding, but how do you track people, but allow someone to "opt out". What I mean is, let's say you don't want DoubleClick to track you. So for them to abide by a "do not track" list, they need to set up some kind of identifier so that, when you visit a site where they would normally track you, they recognize it's you and stop tracking you. But that means you'd have to send them that identifier in every instance where they would track you, and they'd end up having to track you to make sure they don't track you.

I suppose they could just not store the collecting information, though. And no, I didn't RTFA.

Wouldn't it be smarter to just block the ads?

[Antony-Kyre]

Wouldn't it be smarter to just block the ads instead? To prevent such cookies from touching one's computer?

Re:How do you "not track"

[Hatta]

"I'm against picketing but I don't know how to show it" -Mitch Hedberg

No, I'm not going to see the ads.

[spun]

I use adblock and filterset.g. Even when there are ads on the page, I tune them out. When I want to purchase something, I research it. I don't need to have it shoved in my face. Advertising and marketing are a complete waste of human energy at best, evil mind control black magic at worst. I don't want to watch chickens being sacrificed to dark gods, I don't inject raw sewage straight into my brain, and I don't look at advertising.

Re:No, I'm not going to see the ads.

[Blakey Rat]

Gruh, I should have specifically said "no 'I use AdBlock' responses." Yes, we get it, a lot of Slashdot readers use AdBlock. I understand this. I've read the snarky "the web has ads? I use AdBlock so I don't see them" about 50,000 times this month alone! Yes, I know it exists. Yes, I know people use it. Yes, I choose not to as a way of supporting the sites I visit. No, you won't convince me to download it.

Sorry, those posts are irritating as hell. Please try to respond with original thoughts. Thank you.

oxymoron?

[Bob-taro]

A "do not track" ... registry? Is this a late April fool's day joke? It sounds like it could backfire. Wouldn't it mean that websites that track at all would be LEGALLY REQUIRED to obtain some piece of identifying information about you to check against the registry? And how could you prove a violation? Wouldn't it still pretty much rely on "self-regulation"?

As an aside, I used to work in a marketing department that had separate "do not call", "do not mail", and "do not email" flags for all their customers. Our group's policy (I can't speak for the whole company) was that if any of those flags were set, we wouldn't put them on any kind of contact list. I think the decision was still based on economics -- they figured the benefit of marketing to a few more people was outweighed by the risk of angering those people: "I'm sorry, sir, I see that you asked not to be mailed or emailed any more offers, but you didn't say we couldn't CALL you!"

Re:No, I'm not going to see the ads.

[Anonymous Coward]

When I want to purchase something, I research it...Advertising and marketing are a complete waste of human energy at best...

You're a fool if you think that in general, advertising is not valuable to both the buyer and the seller. That is how buyers find sellers. You couldn't even begin researching your purchase if there wasn't some form of advertising letting you know what options are out there.

The problem isn't that ads exist, it's that they need to be more relevant when they're displayed. Google seems to be making this their mission and for that reason, and right now I'm happy to let them track what websites I look at and what ads I do or don't click on so that both the ads and the search results are more relevant.

I run a small business and I am constantly looking for ways to advertise to a smaller group of people who are actually looking for my product. And guess what? Google's ads that are served up as a result of tracking search queries and trends are my best find right now. Even better than trade shows where people leave their homes and drive to a venue looking for my business.

But, you can go back to your cave when there was no advertising and you only consumed what you could catch or trade with your neighbor, but only if you asked him what he had to trade since you wouldn't want him letting you know that by advertising in any way.

Re:No, I'm not going to see the ads.

[spun]

What utter bullshit. I read reviews, listen to friends, read, and research. I have never seen a ad and thought, "Wow, I NEED that even though I've never heard of it before."

When I want something, I will seek it out. I'm not a sheep, I don't need to be led to pasture and shown where to graze. I don't need people telling me what I should want.

When I want something, I'll ask, thanks, so shut the fuck up, I don't want to hear what you have for sale.

Re:No, I'm not going to see the ads.

[Kelbear]

Further to the above, I use a middle-road approach. I have AdBlock installed but I don't have any filters added. I'm fine with seeing ads, it's revenue for the sites I visit if they serve up something of interest to me. When an ad bugs me, I just selectively block it.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

A better idea...

[Fuji Kitakyusho]

How about making tracking, bulk email, internet marketing, telemarketing calls, junk mail, surveys, political and non-profit canvassing, RFID, automatic software updates, census polls and the phone book all "opt-in" under penalty of death?

Re:What's with all these registries?

[Nefarious Wheel]

The joke came originally from one of David Friedman's books on economics. It was there to illustrate the difference between people's stated desires, versus evidence of their desires as described by statistics covering what people actually bought. Economists are notorious for this narrow view. +1 to you for not getting the joke, -1 for me for explaining it.

By "moving to Facebook" I was inferring that economists are better off polishing their social interaction skills by attending to that website rather than Slashdot.

To this end I'm hoping also that you'll support my new group Society for Understanding Commercial Concepts, Economics, and Responsibility. It's dedicated toward replacing all incandescent bright ideas with low-impact flourescents. Free sarcasm filter with every new member.

Re:No, I'm not going to see the ads.

[willfe]

Heh, so if advertising were eliminated, the Internet would contain only research, reference materials, and personal/individual home pages? Like it was intended to be in the first place?

I fail to see the problem...