Do Not Track ListPrivacy groups say it's time for consumer protections ( old news - 12:47PM Wednesday Oct 31 2007) tags: privacyConsumer advocate groups, including the Consumer Federation of America, the World Privacy Forum and the Center for Democracy and Technology, today collectively called for a "do not track list" intended to protect consumers from having their online activities unknowingly tracked, stored and used by marketers and advertising networks. From their press release: Across an ever-growing array of electronic devices, from the Internet to mobile devices and beyond, consumers leave behind a vast amount of behavioral information that is being tracked and targeted without their knowledge. This "behavioral tracking" -- the practice of collecting and compiling a record of individual consumers' activities, interests, preferences, and/or communications over time -- places consumers' privacy at risk, and is not covered by federal law. "If you look back at the Do Not Call list, it was at one time managed by industry. But it didn’t gain widespread acceptance until the FTC took it over," says Pam Dixon, Executive Director of the World Privacy Forum. Dixon says the industry has been allowed to self-regulate for years and has failed, and tougher measures are needed. In addition to a plethora of marketing and advertising relationships, the majority of ISPs sell your semi-anonymous website visitation records to outfits like Compete. It's estimated that they make about $5 per user monthly from selling your clickstream data. No ISPs admit to the practice. A letter (pdf) to the FTC outlines the specifics of how such a list would operate. In addition to taking control of a new list, the groups would like the FTC to force marketers and ISPs to make their activities clear to consumers and avoid burying their privacy practices in fine print. The privacy ball is in the FTC's court.
Related:- Telecom Immunity Opponents Running TV Ad
- The NebuAD Fight Heads To Canada
- ISPs Used Mouseprint Alerts For NebuAD Trials
- Phorm Worked With U.S. ISPs, Too
- AT&T 'Carefully Considering' Selling Browsing Data
- Charter Employee Data Stolen
- Friday Evening Links
- People Whine About Privacy, Then Freely Dole Out Private Data
|
 |  | SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| Re: Don't think it'll work... said by en102  :As the 'Do No Call' list doesn't work. Marketers still call, and you can file complaints. Until they actually set fines, there's no reason why companies would ever want to do this voluntary or otherwise. Data miners and other tracking companies are making too much money from this industry... why would they stop. Ad-blocker plus, and disabling cookies (esp 3rd party) and clearing all cookies/cache should be the norm. The national do not call does in fact work. If you are on that list, and you are contacted by telemarketers, and you have expressly told them to remove you and expressly told them you are on the do not call list, then you can file a complaint at the state/federal level and also take them to small claims court for each infraction. If you're too lazy to do that, then you can't be helped. But don't trash the do not call list and make blanket statements that it "doesn't work."
That said, this new list seems -at first blush- like it can work for consumers. It has a lot of brandname consumer advocation muscle behind it, unlike the crying about the WHOIS registration from the phantom, anonymous "privacy advocates" as reported by the AP. | |
| | | 
AtomicZero
join:2004-11-24
West Palm Beach, FL
 ·Comcast
| Re: Don't think it'll work... said by SilverSurfer :The national do not call does in fact work. If you are on that list, and you are contacted by telemarketers, and you have expressly told them to remove you and expressly told them you are on the do not call list, then you can file a complaint at the state/federal level and also take them to small claims court for each infraction. If you're too lazy to do that, then you can't be helped. But don't trash the do not call list and make blanket statements that it "doesn't work." I don't have this do not call service. Just have my ringer turned off and OGM set to announce... unless I am home or expecting a call...most of which I will direct to my cell. But all this is besides the point.... I am responding to what you just said because he is not the only person that has said that, I've heard a bunch of other people say the same thing and even you are saying it...which doesn't make sense, kinda. Which is you get phone calls you aren't supposed to get, then you gotta get riled up and fire off a bunch of complaints and then go to court, blah, blah, blah. It all seems like too much work to me. Same with this tracking stuff, which doesn't bug me in the least. I got my Ad-Block Mozilla add-on and I have my Spybot. If whatever slips thru doesn't inhibit my websurfing nor compromises my web security then I really don't care whether they sell it or pick boogers with it. | |
| | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
| Re: Don't think it'll work... It works, and your logic is laughable. "It doesn't work because it requires effort to enforce". I guess we don't have a working law in the country then.. (lets not get into that, okay?)
People who say it doesn't work, largely don't understand how it is supposed to work. Non-profits and survey's CAN still contact you. Business's that you've done business with CAN still contact you. All it's supposed to do is protect you from random spam calls. Which it does very well. I never get these any more. | |
| | | | |
AtomicZero
join:2004-11-24
West Palm Beach, FL
·Comcast
| Re: Don't think it'll work... said by Ahrenl :It works, and your logic is laughable. "It doesn't work because it requires effort to enforce". I guess we don't have a working law in the country then.. (lets not get into that, okay?) People who say it doesn't work, largely don't understand how it is supposed to work. Non-profits and survey's CAN still contact you. Business's that you've done business with CAN still contact you. All it's supposed to do is protect you from random spam calls. Which it does very well. I never get these any more. Quite frankly don't see what's so laughable.....My Ad-Blocker works by not showing me ads or pop-ups or pop-unders right? I'm not copying URL threads and having to manually plug them into the software and Blacklist/Whitelist. I don't have to track down the marketeers behind the POP-UP or Banner Ads and write letters and sue them....the Ads just don't show up. A do-not-call number, I would assume, shouldn't have telemarketers or who ever calling that line if it's a protected number...it should already be on a so-called list...published to the marketers as numbers they OUGHT-NOT-CALL! and yet they do.... so who's logic is laughable? | |
| | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: Don't think it'll work... You're blocking ALL Ads. It's very easy to block ALL calls. Email would be a better {cringe} analogy. If you're on the do-not-call list and a business associate wants to call you from work, should his company get in trouble because he does? | |
| | | | SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| said by AtomicZero :I am responding to what you just said because he is not the only person that has said that, I've heard a bunch of other people say the same thing and even you are saying it... To which I'm guessing you and everyone else who still receive sales calls are most likely still getting them for 1 or 2 primary reasons:
1 - You have an "existing relationship" with the company, whose definition is pretty broad. All that is necessary is to say company XYZ has an existing with you is that you purchased something from the company and/or you spoke to them on the phone.
2 - You haven't learned not to give out the protected number. Personally, I guard my # as zealously as I guard my SSN. I can tell you exacly who has my number and they're either friends/family. I make it a policy to never, under any circumstances EVER disclose my # to a company even if they promise not to sell/trade it.
If you aren't protecting your do not call #, then it is inevitable that at some point, you're going to get a sales call. You have to be vigilant about protecting your data specifically because although the do not call list exists, money still buys loopholes in the law. And if you're a multibillion dollar corporate entity, you've purchased a few politicians to ensure those loopholes in the law exist. That is why the default for consumers is they are forced to jump through hoops in order to Opt Out. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | joeMI
join:2006-08-15
Mcmillan, MI
| Re: Don't think it'll work... said by en102 :i agree... Don't sign up for a 'chance to win a car'. At the bottom of one of those 'free' chances, there's a disclaimer that states by doing so, we and any of our business partners (i.e. anyone that we can sell your info to) will be able to contract you, regardless of what's in the 'do not call registry'. Its almost like having to set up a spam email on your pc. You have to setup a cheap VoIP phone to 'garbage collect' on these types of calls. That's nothing.
At a fair in Milwaukee, there was a 'chance to win a PWC' and it required a signature. I thought that was odd. I turned over the slip and the backside had tiny writing that stated by signing the front of the entry blank, you were authorizing your long distance carrier to be switched to some company!
--
HughesNet | Business Internet plan | HN7000S | .98m/2W dish | 91W:1050MHz | 65 signal | ACP 82 | 1150Kbps/80Kbps | |
| | | | |
AtomicZero
join:2004-11-24
West Palm Beach, FL
·Comcast
| said by SilverSurfer :said by AtomicZero :I am responding to what you just said because he is not the only person that has said that, I've heard a bunch of other people say the same thing and even you are saying it... To which I'm guessing you and everyone else who still receive sales calls are most likely still getting them for 1 or 2 primary reasons: 1 - You have an "existing relationship" with the company, whose definition is pretty broad. All that is necessary is to say company XYZ has an existing with you is that you purchased something from the company and/or you spoke to them on the phone. 2 - You haven't learned not to give out the protected number. Personally, I guard my # as zealously as I guard my SSN. I can tell you exacly who has my number and they're either friends/family. I make it a policy to never, under any circumstances EVER disclose my # to a company even if they promise not to sell/trade it. If you aren't protecting your do not call #, then it is inevitable that at some point, you're going to get a sales call. You have to be vigilant about protecting your data specifically because although the do not call list exists, money still buys loopholes in the law. And if you're a multibillion dollar corporate entity, you've purchased a few politicians to ensure those loopholes in the law exist. That is why the default for consumers is they are forced to jump through hoops in order to Opt Out. I like what you had to say in this one, that's pretty sound advice and I couldn't say it any better....however that was kind of my point. I don't just glibly divulge my number to every and any establishment and that seems to work without me having a do not call system. and as an added measure, since the phone can ring at inopportune times... I simply mute the ringer and put the OGM on announce only. And this seems to work really well....for me anyway. My other point is, if you have a DONOTCALL number then should one NOT have to go thru all these added measures. If in doing so defeats the purpose of having it protected in the first place. | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Mission Viejo, CA
clubs:
| Re: Don't think it'll work... said by en102 :I've filed at least 50 complaints through the system, and I still get calls from every thing from companies representing other companies that state 'its not being enforced' when I tell them I'm on the Do Not Call list, or 'have never heard of it' or 'I don't have that list'. If I took every telemarketer that has called over the last couple of years to court, I'd never leave the court room. If you honestly had that many complaints, then you should have been logging times/dates/names and filing suit in Small Claims Court. You'd have a really nice chunka change right now because 50 complaints x $1,000.00 for each infraction adds up. But, presumably you didn't bother so you lost out.
And you could have consolidated all those complaints in court. If you had the appropriate documentation and completed the appropriate legal forms correctly, you could have made off nicely with a lotta money in a single afternoon.
--
The Toll
Let's Go Flyers!
| |
| | | | joeMI
join:2006-08-15
Mcmillan, MI
| We wrote to the two addresses and request to be removed from all lists. We get almost no junk mail.
We also signed up for the Do Not Call list as soon as it came out--both federal and state. We get almost no telemarketing calls. Remember: Political, non-profits and prior business relationships are exempt.
I would say about once per quarter, we get a illegal call. We inform them we are on the do-not-call lists and to please remove our name for their list. So far that has worked very well.
To file a complaint and worse to take the company to court is beyond what I have time for. If a company still called back after being told not to, I would probably pursue that. But honestly, it just hasn't been necessary.
Joe
--
HughesNet | Business Internet plan | HN7000S | .98m/2W dish | 91W:1050MHz | 65 signal | ACP 82 | 1150Kbps/80Kbps | |
| | | | 
DownTheShore
Obama '08
Premium
join:2003-12-02
Edison, NJ
clubs: | The "Do Not Call" list has worked for me. It dramatically cut down on the sales calls I was receiving.
--
Life is simply one damned thing after another. | |
| | | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Don't think it'll work... It definately has cut down... we used to get 3 to 5 calls / day for 'refinance' 'purchase homes', etc. Now its only 1 or 2.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | Kizaki
join:2000-05-19
Fort Myers, FL
| It works. It took about two months for telemarketers to stop calling my line. Now I don't even remember the last time one called.
I can already see a flaw with this. This may keep companies in the U.S. from tracking you. But, won't they just move their business to China or India. | |
| 
EverAndAnon
@verizon.net
| The age-old question... I think the basic problem is that we're forced into an Opt-In status for everything, which we then must Opt-Out of with varying degrees of difficulty. Why can't we just force all companies to Opt-us-Out as a default, and then if they want us to Opt-In, they have to "sell" us on it and get our approval first? (pun intended)
No spam... no telemarketers... no nothin'. (Oh, yeah, right, that would hurt "business" & reduce the government's share of tax money being paid by those businesses. Consumer protection? We'll give 'em just enough to keep them from complaining too much.  )
Is Congress really listening to "the People"? I don't think so. | |
| | 
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: The age-old question... I agree in general. More things like this should be opt-in - that is, you don't get the annoyance, privacy invasion or whatever unless you ask for it.
In the case of web tracking, you can opt out without having to sign up on any list - if you know how. It's trivial for some of us "techies", but we have to remember that setting browser preferences and using 3rd-party add-ons can be baffling for a large percentage of computer users. The "opt out list" is for them. | |
| | |
EverAndAnon
@verizon.net
| Re: The age-old question... Actually, my "question" is on the last line and really has very little to do with the article. (I mean... I've been reading BBR posts for years now, and, well, aren't you supposed to drag the comment threads away from the main topic so as to continually promote your own pet peeves for discussion? Or did I misunderstand? )
As far as "protecting my privacy" and "security" are concerned, browser-wise I use various incarnations of Firefox Portable with different combinations of addons for different purposes: Google Apps, "safe" browsing, "secure" browsing, whatever. I'm somewhat less concerned about "privacy-tracking" than most anything else--it's not like I think I'm doing anything in private that isn't encrypted (and not always then either). More than anything, it's just fun to play with the software.
Now, about Congress... | |
| 
GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL
| Answer is... as with many of these types of items, an industry or government agency will act first and then they might recant if they're actually "caught."
The idea is of course that it is easier to ask forgiveness than permission. You'll never see the advert companies agree to a default opt-out. They believe they have a right to the data because they've bought it, and ISPs, admitting it or not willingly violate their own privacy policies OR bury changes into the TOS which essentially opts you in, allowing some bare minimum time for you to opt-out.
The DNC list I have found to only work somewhat. I still get calls, granted not as many but they do call. Since charities are immune to the list they call regularly until I tell them to buzz off.
What I used to love in our office was the telemarketers calling every line we had. That was always fun.
I don't really think this DNT list would do much good. How would it handle me being on another machine? Kiosk? I would rather just take the steps myself to avoid being tracked.
--
TheGlobalMind.com | Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? | Angus the IT Chap | |
| | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T Southwest
| This is about 253rd on my priority list I mean, seriously... I don't care that much. Compared to all the other things I'm trying to take care of, worrying that my web surfing habits are being tracked, summarized, and reported as marketing information is about dead last on that list.
Privacy is a myth. Actually it's worse than that. Privacy is a cult, comprised of people who think we have it, and it's eroding. News flash ... there is no privacy. Get over it. If someone really wants to know what you are up to, they will find out. Don't do stuff you'd be ashamed of if it was revealed. Then you don't have to worry. | |
| | SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| Re: This is about 253rd on my priority list said by MyDogHsFleas :Privacy is a myth. Actually it's worse than that. Privacy is a cult, comprised of people who think we have it, and it's eroding. News flash ... there is no privacy. Get over it. If someone really wants to know what you are up to, they will find out. Don't do stuff you'd be ashamed of if it was revealed. Then you don't have to worry. Wow. Your ignorance is simply breathtaking. | |
| | | jsouth
Jsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS | Re: This is about 253rd on my priority list Why is MyDogHasFleas ignorant. He's right. If you don't believe that you're ignorant.
--
Bush bashing is old. How about more solutions instead? | |
| | | | SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| Re: This is about 253rd on my priority list said by jsouth :Why is MyDogHasFleas ignorant. He's right. If you don't believe that you're ignorant. You must be the President of his fan club. Remove my name from your list, thx. I promise I won't be disappointed. | |
| | | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| said by SilverSurfer :Wow. Your ignorance is simply breathtaking. Wow. Your content-free ad hominem attack is simply lame.
Got anything to actually say? | |
| | clickie
join:2005-05-22
Monroe, MI
| Actually, it exists for those who are willing to take the time and effort to protect it. As mentioned above, if you guard your telephone number, use adblocking, delete cookies and watch who you do business with and use cash, then you do have privacy.
However, whenever you engage in any sort of commerce that uses credit cards, bank cards, frequent shopper clubs, frequent flier miles, check cashing cards or any other scheme, then no, you're just another name to be sold and traded. | |
| | | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: This is about 253rd on my priority list said by clickie :Actually, it exists for those who are willing to take the time and effort to protect it. As mentioned above, if you guard your telephone number, use adblocking, delete cookies and watch who you do business with and use cash, then you do have privacy. However, whenever you engage in any sort of commerce that uses credit cards, bank cards, frequent shopper clubs, frequent flier miles, check cashing cards or any other scheme, then no, you're just another name to be sold and traded. Your point is taken.
I am not trying to argue with you here, I'm sincerely curious. What value are you are receiving for this "privacy" that you have to work to get?
I know I'm getting value from being on the grid. I get free travel, I get the convenience of using credit cards and ATMs wherever I go, the airlines and hotels treat me nicely because I'm a frequent customer, I get good interest rates when I borrow money because I have a credit history. It's not that big a deal for me to delete email that is pitching something to me I'm not interested in. I'm on the do-not-call list which means the phone rings a lot less.
The only thing I would really complain about is the amount of junk mail I get and I have to spend 10 minutes a day opening and sorting for recycling. But even that's not that big a deal to me. | |
| | 
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | I don't think its a cult, since most people believe they have privacy and don't join together as a group.
Privacy is an illusion. You may think you are anonymouse on the internet, you are not. | |
| |
DarkHost_MDhtr
@qwest.net
|  It is a sad and tragic thing when we stop caring. ...but if you reflect the the thoughts and feeling's of others are you the reflection or the ghost of your residual self image.?
I am only means something when you care. If not then in a similar way isn't the rest of your menial existence void?! | |
| | | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: This is about 253rd on my priority list said by DarkHost_MDhtr : It is a sad and tragic thing when we stop caring. ...but if you reflect the the thoughts and feeling's of others are you the reflection or the ghost of your residual self image.? I am only means something when you care. If not then in a similar way isn't the rest of your menial existence void?! mmm... yeah.. ok.
It looks like you focused on the "I don't care" part of my post.
Please understand I am not talking about caring about people. I am talking about not caring whether my click habits are tracked and rolled up as marketing information. Pretty much a different thing. | |
| 
AmeritecTech
Change we can believe in, 1922
Premium
join:2002-09-06
00000 | Turn off Cookies That's pretty close to "Do Not Track". It doesn't cover everything related to tracking, but it covers quite a bit. | |
| 
adsldude
Crazed and confuzed
Premium,Mod
join:2000-11-10
Colorado | Doesn't get my vote... Internet consumers need to take responsibility for themselves and learn how (and how not) to use the Internet. I do not support asking the government to get any more involved in the Internet than they already are. | |
| | 
fatness
subtle
Janitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
Host:
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help?
Sports Chat
| Re: Doesn't get my vote... I see the issue as businesses not taking responsibility for limiting themselves. When business practices become too intrusive or predatory the only recourse is for the government to limit them, since it's beyond the ability of individual consumers to do so. Businesses ran the "do not call" list on a voluntary basis, if I'm not mistaken, and it never worked until the government took it over. Leaving the responsibility for deciding what to track in the hands of those who make money off tracking is a mistake.
If business would let people opt in, that would be the equivalent of knocking on the front door and asking. Instead they just enter the house, seek what they're after.
--
Sure, that'll work.. | |
| | |
adsldude
Crazed and confuzed
Premium,Mod
join:2000-11-10
Colorado
Host:
All Things Unix
Qwest
Efficient
Southwest Chat
| Re: Doesn't get my vote... said by fatness :...and it never worked until the government took it over... No debate on that point. There is a difference in this case. The telephone industry is highly regulated, the Internet is not. That's a big difference and one that I would not want to see repeated on the US portion of the Internet. While I don't doubt the government could pull it off, I don't want to see how far they will go to "protect and serve" nor do I want the taxes to support their protective activity. | |
| | |
See 6 replies to this post | |
| MJRudzik
join:2002-01-13
Independence, MO
·Speakeasy
| I have little faith that this will retain any teeth The Do Not Call list has provisions that state that all its rules become null and void as soon as the compnay in question can claim that you have a "relationship" with them. Business who we all know has enough lobbyists to get what they want in a law will have the same type of provisions put in here. And just like the Do Not Call list the term relationship will painted so broadly as to include requesting the website that would track you in the first place. Quoting the FTC's own site "calls from or on behalf of political organizations, charities, and telephone surveyors would still be permitted, as would calls from companies with which you have an existing business relationship". Existing Business relationship is not defined, its left for interpretation which can be varried, and as long as this is the case a large number of complaints will be deemed invalid as the call or tracking will fall withing the vague undefined reference of a business relationship which can be as little as requesting a company's website or as already legally proven contacting a company at all. | |
| 
MLou
Premium
join:2007-05-01
Madison, WI
| helpful tip The following site is helpful at figuring out which company is calling.
»whocalled.us/
If you have # blocking (I know Charter has it, up to 10 numbers), it's handy-keeps you from accidentally blocking Aunt Martha's number. | |
|
CowAnon
@qwest.net | There should just be a general... Do not buy, sell, track, market, etc. list. One fell swoop our privacy may become more private. What do you think? | |
| Xizer
join:2004-02-05
Kenosha, WI
| Stupid This is retarded. Once again, Americans thinking they can control the entire world.
Unlike phone lines, where calls tend to be restricted to one's own local territory/area, the Internet is truly a global medium.
The FTC won't be able to control this nearly as well as they can with phones. | |
|
RachelC
@comcast.net
| There's no such thing as a free lunch As an online marketer, I'd like to pose the question of how users expect to get free online content from portals such as MSN.com, Yahoo!, and AOL. These companies pay for the content that is provided to users (free of charge) through ad revenue. Much in the same way that network TV does. Without these ad dollars, you would not be able to read the news on your favorite site or watch your favorite network TV show for free. The only cost to you is that you view the ads that are served up, or not.
Much in the same way networks cannot force users to watch the commercials they broadcast (thanks to TiVo and DVRs), online advertisers do not expect that users will click on the ads they serve. Granted, its wonderful when they do, but its not a forced behavior. Users can choose to click or not.
The practice of behavioral targeting is a method that serves relevant ads or content to users based on their previous online behavior. I think much of the misconception here is that this practice violates privacy policies. The actions tracked are anonymous, based on cookies not individual users. Marketers do not know that Cookie123 is Susie Johnson in Seattle, WA or her three kids who use her computer. They only know that Cookie123 has visited page XYZ.
From that information they make assumptions as to what Cookie123 would like to see. So rather than seeing a "Lower my bills" ad for the millionth time, an advertiser might serve Cookie123 an ad for a vacation because that cookie previously visited the travel page on their site. Statistically speaking, since Cookie123 "showed interest" in vacations, the likelihood for that cookie to click on the vacation ad is higher because it was relevant to the previous behavior of that cookie.
Of course you can argue that your behavior on the net should be private. If that is how you feel, then cookie deletion/disabling is your solution. Currently advertisers are reliant on cookie technology to do any of this content targeting. I'd like to point out however, that without cookies, you will always have to sign into your favorite sites and you will always have to enter in search information to sites like Expedia or Amazon, etc. For some its an issue of privacy, for others its a matter of convenience.
I just wouldn't be surprised if down the road your favorite website requires that users enable cookies or will not allow users to view their free content unless ad blockers are disabled. Its like the title of my post, "There's no such thing as a free lunch." | |
| | | | | |
|
|
