clickie
join:2005-05-22
Monroe, MI
| reply to BF69
Re: [HSI] Charter to monitor surfing, insert its own targeted ad
I hope you're right, because the more backlash, the better.
From my reading of the Phorm and Nebuad sites, it seems to me that these do not replace existing ads, they are another ad syndication service.
However, if Charter isn't using these people and comes up with the own solution or different provider, then all bets are off. As I said, I hope the approach this with as much stupidity as possible so it's easy for them to get sued. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by clickie  :From my reading of the Phorm and Nebuad sites, it seems to me that these do not replace existing ads, they are another ad syndication service. Plerase read carefully
"Will I see more ads now than I used to see?
No, you will not see any more ads now than you would otherwise see."
No you can not have their ads and not have more ads without replacing existing ads. It is impossible. |
|
clickie
join:2005-05-22
Monroe, MI
| You're not considering that the web site owner has entered into an agreement with Nebuad. Look on the site, why do you think there's a link for web site content creators? These people are another ad syndication service that web masters use to generate revenue. Switching from Google Adsense to these jokers will result in -- no additional ads. The web site owner simply sells the space to Nebuad resulting in -- no additional ads.
This doesn't make it any better though because it's offensive to me that Charter thinks they have a right to peek into my communications, give the information to a third-party and profit. I have to believe this is a violation of the ECPA. |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to mmainprize
I do not have the service and don't know if this would work. Nor do I agree with this in anyway as I see it as an invasion of privacy and a violation to owners of websites. However, couldn't you simply set the rights on the opt-out cookie so that it can't be deleted?
I am not sure how this would effect IE or Windows when you try to clear all your other cookies, but it is certainly something to try. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by Skippy25 :I do not have the service and don't know if this would work. Nor do I agree with this in anyway as I see it as an invasion of privacy and a violation to owners of websites. However, couldn't you simply set the rights on the opt-out cookie so that it can't be deleted? I am not sure how this would effect IE or Windows when you try to clear all your other cookies, but it is certainly something to try. Yeah but charter just doesn't let you click a button to opt out. they want your name, address, telephone number etc. befoer you can opt out. WTF do they need that for? |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to clickie
said by clickie :You're not considering that the web site owner has entered into an agreement with Nebuad. Look on the site, why do you think there's a link for web site content creators? These people are another ad syndication service that web masters use to generate revenue. Switching from Google Adsense to these jokers will result in -- no additional ads. The web site owner simply sells the space to Nebuad resulting in -- no additional ads. No read what Charter is doing. They are putting ads on sites that HAVE NOT signed up for this service. |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | reply to BF69
Yeah, I am not sure what justification they have for wanting personal information to opt out. That cries foul.
But then again, I am not sure why they do or did many things to begin with. |
|
garnetbobcat
join:2007-10-02
| For what it's worth, I just sent the following to Joe Stackhouse, Neil Smit and the Consumerist:
Dear Mr. Stackhouse,
I am a high speed internet subscriber in the Fort Worth, TX area. For the last year or so I have had Charter’s 10 Megabit service and I am a satisfied customer. I am writing, however, because I am concerned by your recent letter discussing the “enhancement” that will be coming soon to my Charter web browsing experience (targeted, in-line advertisement manipulation). I appreciate Charter’s respect for my privacy, but the method that Charter has provided to opt-out of this tracking scheme is insecure and woefully inadequate.
The method that you provide to opt-out is as follows. First, a customer must visit www.charter.com/onlineprivacy. Once at the site, the customer must enter his or her complete name and address. Upon submission of this personal information, the customer must accept a cookie from Charter that indicates his or her opt-out status. While this process sounds simple on face, further consideration reveals that this opt-out method is fraught with privacy concerns and places the burden on your paying customer, rather than Charter.
The most pressing privacy issue with this opt-out method is that the opt-out form presented at the aforementioned URL is not encrypted. As I’m sure you realize, this means that a user submitting his or her address to Charter is doing so in the clear, leaving this personal information open to eavesdropping. It is not difficult to create an SSL-encrypted web form. It is troubling that Charter has not done so in this case.
The fact that this opt-out system relies on a cookie to keep users opted out is also a privacy issue. By telling customers who visit the opt-out page that, “if you delete your cookies or cache files… you will have to opt-out again,” you are encouraging users to keep those files that good privacy practices dictate should be frequently purged. Ironically, the best reason to purge one’s cookies often is to prevent internet marketers from tracking one’s behavior online.
In addition to the critical privacy concerns, the steps required to avoid being tracked by this new advertising system place the burden on your customers, rather than on Charter where it belongs. A customer should be able to opt-out of this advertising tracking system in a manner that will rarely, if ever, require the customer to opt-out again. Instead, because the system uses cookies, a customer must insecurely opt-out of being tracked on each PC in his or her home. Further compounding the work that the customer has to do, if the he or she deletes cookies in accordance with safe browsing techniques, it will be necessary to insecurely opt-out on each and every PC again.
I suggest that rather than force your customers through unending iterations of opting out of this advertising system, you should allow customers like me to opt-out at the cable modem level via a secure, encrypted form on your website. I’m glad to hear that Charter has an appreciation for my privacy, but please change your opt-out process to demonstrate that you also have an appreciation for my time and security online.
--
Matt, CCIE Security, »www.wr-mem.com |
|
DA
join:2002-04-13
Greenville, SC | Very good email Garnet, the only change would be to stress that the opt-out should be permanent or for 12 months or more regardless of cookie status. If the system can't integrate with their provisioning system then they should use it at all. |
|
markopoleo
join:2003-04-02
Bonne Terre, MO | Not sure what the big deal, don't most people just use ad blockers anyways now? |
|
CBJ
@charter.com
|  reply to cjhorh
I just opted out, and was pretty shocked when it told me that I had to opt out AGAIN every time I clear my cookies. That's hard core.
Yes, people use ad blockers. That's not the point. The point is that our ISP is collecting data from our computer use.
Everything we do is being logged by the company, or at least much of it.
The telephone companies are REQUIRED to spy on us now when asked to do so (thanks Supreme Court) and now our computers are open for anyone to see as well.
I want a better opt-out, or an opt-in. I'm seriously considering switching companies over this. |
|
clickie
join:2005-05-22
Monroe, MI
| reply to markopoleo
The point isn't the ads, the point is that Charter is peeking into every packet sent to and from your computer and allowing a third party to track what you do via (ostensibly) the MAC address of your cable modem.
People install cookie blockers because they don't want marketers and advertisers creating a profile, regardless of how "anonymous", of where they go on the internet. And I find it highly offensive that they peek into communications I have with the likes of Google to determine my interests. I have to believe that this intrusion is illegal under the ECPA of 1986.
Even if you install ad blockers, they will still create a profile of your habits. And I'm certain they'll sell it to the highest bidder. |
|
clickie
join:2005-05-22
Monroe, MI
| reply to CBJ
I agree, and it seems to be a solution in part with the comments in an interview from the CEO of Nebuad who said that 40% of people clearing their cookies at least once a month is making life difficult for online marketers.
Well, that's just too bad.
I just converted over from Verizon DSL because in the evenings, I'm lucky to see 768k. But this outrage hasn't hit my neck of the woods just yet, so I figure I'll wait to see how far I get on my promo rate and when it hits, I'll think about jumping back to Verizon.
Well, until Verizon implements this kind of nonsense.
I've fired off a couple emails to the EFF about this. This is an obscene infringement into the privacy of customers by peeking into search and form submissions. |
|
robertfl
Premium
join:2005-10-10
Mary Esther, FL
 ·Cox VOIP
| BLOCK the ads by using firefox with noscripts and adremoval..
if your looking for something more powerful, try admuncher »www.admuncher.com (not free)
-Rob
--
»www.cband.info - unique radio you won't find elsewhere. join the chat and join our growing family. |
|
hlpM3
@charter.com
| reply to cjhorh
charter is so far in debt besides charging more for internet service they are now making money by selling its users browsing activity's....
When they start loosing customers over privacy concerns I wonder how long it will be before they realize this isn't the way to make a buck. |
|
clickie
join:2005-05-22
Monroe, MI
| reply to robertfl
That's sweet. And what wonderful anti-deep packet inspection tools does noscripts and adremoval have?
None. And that's the problem, because as I've stated above, the ads are only the symptom of the real problem. These people are looking at each and every packet to and from your computer.
Reading email on Yahoo mail --- they're reading over your shoulder.
Doing a search for something on Google -- they are looking at your queries.
Reading funny things on The Onion -- yep, they know that too. And how long you spent reading.
That's the problem. |
|
clickie
join:2005-05-22
Monroe, MI | reply to hlpM3
Do you or anyone here happen to know the deployment schedule? |
|
markopoleo
join:2003-04-02
Bonne Terre, MO
 ·Charter Pipeline
| reply to hlpM3
said by hlpM3 :
charter is so far in debt besides charging more for internet service they are now making money by selling its users browsing activity's....
When they start loosing customers over privacy concerns I wonder how long it will be before they realize this isn't the way to make a buck.
You must be new here, they don't charge that much for internet anymore. |
|
markopoleo
join:2003-04-02
Bonne Terre, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| reply to clickie
said by clickie :The point isn't the ads, the point is that Charter is peeking into every packet sent to and from your computer and allowing a third party to track what you do via (ostensibly) the MAC address of your cable modem. People install cookie blockers because they don't want marketers and advertisers creating a profile, regardless of how "anonymous", of where they go on the internet. And I find it highly offensive that they peek into communications I have with the likes of Google to determine my interests. I have to believe that this intrusion is illegal under the ECPA of 1986. Even if you install ad blockers, they will still create a profile of your habits. And I'm certain they'll sell it to the highest bidder. /shrug Not that big of a deal. No different than the millions of other things that collect data from you. You might as well stop using a visa/mastercard, shopping from stores, paying taxes, etc. Welcome to the future. |
|
rahlquist
Redeye
join:2001-10-30
Villa Rica, GA
| reply to cjhorh
Ok let me get this right.
ISP with 6 million customers is starting a program where they will replace existing banner ads (for example) with ads that they get paid for that based on the content your viewing would be relevant.
So say I am searching for a job on zippyjobsite.net (made up) and they have a banner ad for a temp agency like Kelly Services. Charter seeing where you're at can, under this program, replace that Kelly Services ad that Kelly Services paid to have placed on that page with say a MrMegaJobsite.net ad that Charter was paid for?
If thats what happening here holy monopolistic hijacking batman! It wont take long for them to be sued for this. They are acting as a content provider, opting out of their section 230 protection in the CDA (by editorializing any content they become liable for all content).
What it amounts to in my book though is theft plain and simple. In any other space if you simply took over someone's ad space, billboard, commercial etc its theft plain and simple. |
|
