Telco Privacy Promise About Taking A Shot At Google NSA pals AT&T, Verizon, suddenly show interest in user privacy... Friday Sep 26 2008 17:39 EDT Yesterday we noted how AT&T, Verizon and Time Warner Cable have proposed a voluntary code of conduct for the sale of user browsing histories, making such systems an "opt in" affair for consumers. Part of the motivation for this is they're trying to prevent Congress from passing laws on this front, but as the Washington Post makes clear, this also gives them a chance to take aim at the company that's become baby bell public enemy number one: Google. Google's positions on network neutrality and attempts to bring competition to the wired and wireless broadband industries have resulted in baby bell lobbyists taking the gloves off. quote: AT&T's chief privacy officer Dorothy Attwood made a similar pledge to legislators, and then, taking aim at Google she noted that AT&T's promise to get consumer consent is an advance over others in the industry. "Google's practices exemplify the already-extensive use of online behavioral targeting," she said, citing for example its use of tracking cookies through DoubleClick, its display advertising arm. "We encourage all companies that engage in online behavioral advertising . . . likewise to adopt this affirmative advance consent paradigm."
Given AT&T and Verizon don't yet use behavioral advertising, it's no huge impact to their revenue to voluntarily make the sale of user ISP data to firms like NebuAD an opt-in affair. But by lumping more invasive deep packet inspection technology in with more generic ad delivery systems, they're cleverly putting the onus on Google in the eyes of lawmakers and a public who are very confused about online privacy rights.In the end, any voluntary system is exactly that -- voluntary, and whether it's Google or AT&T, giving a damn about turning your online habits into a revenue stream is largely lip service. It is however, ironic to see carriers who funnel user data wholesale to the NSA sans oversight -- suddenly concerned about the sanctity of privacy. |
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2008-Sep-26 5:22 pm
Web sites; search engines, etc should have SAME LAWS as ISPsWell these companies make a good point:
That these rules being considered by Congress should apply to all web sites as well as ISPs. Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, BBR, etc should also have to do the same thing - make use of user interaction OPT-IN. Most web sites don't even have an OPT-OUT policy, let alone an OPT-IN one.
Why should data collection & ad targeting laws be applied to ISPs and not also all the web sites as well? After all, use of an ISP is just as voluntary as is use of a web site or search engine.
I notice that some of those supporting laws curtailing ISP data collection options are the same ones that would benefit from less competition from ISPs - MS, Google, Yahoo, etc. The drafts of the proposed law do not include web sites and search engines. This looks like just more of the same - don't want to compete - so get laws that only apply to your competitors. | |
| | |
JasonOD
Anon
2008-Sep-26 5:40 pm
Re: Web sites; search engines, etc should have SAME LAWS as ISPsAgreed. And anything that takes google down a notch or two is a bonus in my book. | |
| | Lazlow join:2006-08-07 Saint Louis, MO |
to FFH5
NO, most websites are not the same as an ISP. I pay my ISP for the use of their service, I do not pay (directly) for the use of any website's service. That is a HUGE difference. | |
| | | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2008-Sep-26 7:06 pm
Re: Web sites; search engines, etc should have SAME LAWS as ISPssaid by Lazlow:NO, most websites are not the same as an ISP. I pay my ISP for the use of their service, I do not pay (directly) for the use of any website's service. That is a HUGE difference. And why should the fact of paying cash vs ad dollars determine how privacy laws are applied? | |
| | | | Lazlow join:2006-08-07 Saint Louis, MO |
Lazlow
Member
2008-Sep-26 11:23 pm
Re: Web sites; search engines, etc should have SAME LAWS as ISPsSimple, I pay for my internet connection. If all the ISPs available to me(1 at my current location at a reasonable price) are doing this I have no choice. If I do not like a website selling my information, I can choose to use another web site. | |
| | | | |
to FFH5
AT&T advertising would be the equivalent of when your making a phone call and the phone company is listening in to the conversation between you and the other party, then breaking in when you say something that they have a sponsors ad for.
Goggle advertising would be the other party your calling to had ads provided by Google during the on hold music.
The difference is you choosing to talk to a private party that uses Google ads, which track you on that site, and AT&T just applying their ads and tracking to every private party you talk to, without consent of either party, and in the case of their current proposition, with just your consent but still not from the other parties. | |
|
gaforces (banned)United We Stand, Divided We Fall join:2002-04-07 Santa Cruz, CA |
gaforces (banned)
Member
2008-Sep-26 5:28 pm
Even if its opt-inThey will probably offer some flashy gimmick, free game, free AV, free toolbar! Then in an obscure place on the agreement (or hiding in advanced settings) they will have you signing to opt-in to their spying program.
Bunch of crooks. Especially Google. | |
| | Matt3All noise, no signal. Premium Member join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC
1 recommendation |
Matt3
Premium Member
2008-Sep-26 5:38 pm
Re: Even if its opt-insaid by gaforces:They will probably offer some flashy gimmick, free game, free AV, free toolbar! Then in an obscure place on the agreement (or hiding in advanced settings) they will have you signing to opt-in to their spying program. Bunch of crooks. Especially Google. No kidding. How dare they put a prominent link to their privacy policy on their main page and then offer a *GASP* overview of that policy so you don't have to wade through pages and pages of legalese. Line 'em up and shoot 'em I say. | |
| | | gaforces (banned)United We Stand, Divided We Fall join:2002-04-07 Santa Cruz, CA |
gaforces (banned)
Member
2008-Sep-26 5:40 pm
Re: Even if its opt-inI'm sure you read those every time you get on the internet ... every page. What is it, a 20 page policy overview? Oh wait, you have said in other threads that you don't ... | |
| | | | Matt3All noise, no signal. Premium Member join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC
1 recommendation |
Matt3
Premium Member
2008-Sep-26 5:44 pm
Re: Even if its opt-insaid by gaforces:I'm sure you read those every time you get on the internet ... every page. What is it, a 20 page policy overview? Oh wait, you have said in other threads that you don't ... Nope, and I'll state it here again. I don't care what a privacy policy states or what is done with my browsing activity. I don't do anything on the internet that I'm trying to hide or that I'm ashamed of some random database somewhere knowing. Aside from that, I'm not sure I see your point. The privacy policy is there on a single page, in a bulleted list. » www.google.com/intl/en/p ··· hts.html | |
| | | | | gaforces (banned)United We Stand, Divided We Fall join:2002-04-07 Santa Cruz, CA 1 edit |
gaforces (banned)
Member
2008-Sep-26 6:08 pm
Re: Even if its opt-inThe point is that the overview policy is still to big and confusing for (non laywer) people to read and understand. | |
| | | | | |
to Matt3
That isn't the point. Don't you find it disturbing for someone to spy on you when your snail mail arrives and has a good look through it? Or have someone follow, you, your spouse, or your kids when they go shopping?
That's what all the ad services do. They want to know what you're looking/buying so they "target appropriate ads" your way. A lot of the time, they're willing to install software w/o your consent! If this isn't hacking, then I don't know what is. | |
|
| | |
pv8man999 to Matt3
Anon
2008-Sep-27 5:19 pm
to Matt3
Ya, how dare google remain the only one to stand up to the NSA and refuse to hand over all the search records
/sarcasm | |
|
|
meh37
Anon
2008-Sep-26 5:37 pm
The big difference is...no one is forced to visit a Google site or accept any Google ads. You do, however, have no choice but to use the Internet connection that you pay for--that you pay for--presuming you want to access the Internet at all. ISPs should have more respect for their customers (than they've shown so far). | |
| | Matt3All noise, no signal. Premium Member join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC
1 recommendation |
Matt3
Premium Member
2008-Sep-26 5:41 pm
Re: The big difference is...said by meh37 :
no one is forced to visit a Google site or accept any Google ads. You do, however, have no choice but to use the Internet connection that you pay for--that you pay for--presuming you want to access the Internet at all. ISPs should have more respect for their customers (than they've shown so far). I have to agree with this. The Google service is free in that you don't pay a monetary fee. The company generates revenue via advertising. | |
|
biff420 Premium Member join:2002-01-26 Vallejo, CA ·Comcast XFINITY
|
biff420
Premium Member
2008-Sep-26 5:51 pm
NSAT&T vee haff a compleete dossier on youAT&T's chief privacy officer Dorothy Attwood made a similar pledge to legislators, and then, taking aim at Google she noted that AT&T's promise to get consumer consent is an advance over others in the industry Does this opt in include the NSA? Hmmmmm? The new TOS from at&t grants them immunity from class action lawsuits, including the NSA spygate. Yes, we trust you to keep us safe from evil Google. | |
| | |
Re: NSAT&T vee haff a compleete dossier on youWell Google and NSA Gate are two different things, NSA Gate was for the U.S. govt maintaining U.S. security while google is working for anyone willing to pay... | |
| | | funchordsHello MVM join:2001-03-11 Yarmouth Port, MA |
Re: NSAT&T vee haff a compleete dossier on yousaid by ninjatutle:Well Google and NSA Gate are two different things, NSA Gate was for the U.S. govt maintaining U.S. security while google is working for anyone willing to pay... They should have been watching the people needing the $700 Bn payoffbailout. | |
| | | | |
Re: NSAT&T vee haff a compleete dossier on youThats a different type of security. | |
|
| Relic (banned) join:2003-09-29 |
to biff420
said by biff420:AT&T's chief privacy officer Dorothy Attwood made a similar pledge to legislators, and then, taking aim at Google she noted that AT&T's promise to get consumer consent is an advance over others in the industry Does this opt in include the NSA? Hmmmmm? The new TOS from at&t grants them immunity from class action lawsuits, including the NSA spygate. Yes, we trust you to keep us safe from evil Google. Hah. I couldn't help but laugh. I doubt two companies, AT&T and Verizon, should be whining about privacy and Google, when they're the ones in bed with the NSA without consumer consent and without warrants. Post 9/11, U.S. citizens are terrorists. Oh, and AT&T/Verizon care about your privacy. | |
|
badtrip Premium Member join:2004-03-20 |
badtrip
Premium Member
2008-Sep-26 6:17 pm
FTA: "AT&T's chief privacy officer..."ROFLMAO
AT&T cracked the funniest joke I heard all week! Kudos, AT&T!!! | |
| |
NSA not the same as Ad targetingNSA was used to combat "unfriendlys", where this is targeting the average user. The ad targeting should of been an "opt out" instead of an "opt in" because they could note that in their TOS. The default setting should say you're in, unless you "Opt out". Of course their should be some kind of prompt to "Opt in" or "Opt out" . Where am I wrong ? | |
| | axus join:2001-06-18 Washington, DC |
axus
Member
2008-Sep-27 9:00 am
Re: NSA not the same as Ad targetingIf you look at history, it's usually governments that are the unfriendly ones. Anti-privacy rules start out with good intentions, but they always end up being abused.
What Google does is still in the bounds of the law. What the telcos, minus Qwest, did was expressly prohibited. That's why the average person is upset with AT&T and Bush. I would support laws making user data collection "opt-in" instead of "opt-out", and I think the original FISA law isn't so bad, but before anything everyone must support the law while they try to get it changed through the democratic process. | |
| | NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616 Asus RT-AC66U B1 Netgear FR114P
|
to ashworth7
said by ashworth7:NSA was used to combat "unfriendlys", where this is targeting the average user. The ad targeting should of been an "opt out" instead of an "opt in" because they could note that in their TOS. The default setting should say you're in, unless you "Opt out". Of course their should be some kind of prompt to "Opt in" or "Opt out" . Where am I wrong ? The trouble with "opt out" is that there are ways to hide the need to "opt out" in the fine print, so people don't always know it is an option, or might fear that by "opting out", they will suffer degraded service. When it comes to my personal habits, "opt in" is preferred. Make "them" explicitly request my permission to track my habits; and if I say, "no", tough. | |
|
|
Ads? What ads?I ignore ads 99.999% of the time--only "long enough" to determine that there's an ad there, to which my automatic response is "ignore that space on the page". (Actually, most of them get blocked.) I don't doubt that companies spend more on creating and placing ads than the revenue supposedly generated by them. (The only people getting rich on ads are those that present them, like Google--that's just capitalism at work, supply & demand.)
They would do better to welcome opt-in because at least they'd know that they have a receptive audience instead of people who just tune them out. But that would be too logical. | |
| huntml join:2002-01-23 Mullica Hill, NJ |
huntml
Member
2008-Sep-28 12:22 am
From some of the responses on this thread......ATT's FUD is already working. And here, in a forum frequented by people one would think to be more knowledgeable about the subject than the average Luddite Congressman.
This does not bode well. | |
|
| |
|
|