At the beginning of this month, the Federal Trade commission organized a conference that reveals current thinking by key advertisers, regulators and civic advocates about advertisers’ rights to accumulate internet users’ cookie data.
This issue is frequently neglected in the social network privacy debate, because so much of the activity goes by unnoticed.
US advertisers don’t get themselves into trouble for accumulating all the data they can on private people's web browsing habits, because there are simply no rules to break. A regulatory regime does not exist.
Reuters
reported back that ‘Internet advertisers have fallen short of promised self-regulation in respecting Internet users' privacy’.
Plus the FTC advised that advertisers tell consumers when they collect their information. That was the conference's meagre harvest. US consumers are now in the hands of advertisers who we'll have to hope will be decent.
But the standard is low. AOL-owned Tacoda Technology might have believed it was putting forward an examplary decision, saying it would refrain from collecting some sensitive information, EVEN if sourced anonymously. What world do these people live in? As if it's OKAY for people to collect stuff that you and I generate on our personal computers, sitting on our desks in our private homes!
Among the attendees were representatives of Google Inc and Yahoo and members of privacy advocate groups. What happened to the proposal of a "do not track list” isn't clear. This list is similar to the FTC's "do not call" registry. It is aimed at advertisers much the same way as the telemarketers’ list that excludes consumers who have specifically opted out from calls.
The initiative was proposed by consumer and privacy groups who are worried that cookies tracking will invade privacy because unknown parties can know every page that consumers visit.
The US group Tacoda Technology supposedly
endeared itself to audiences by telling the world it is allowing people to opt out. True, in this it differs from most competitors who do not offer such a luxury to the sleeping consumers.
The good behavior might catch on, but it will only be as a means of creating trust and goodwill, abuse of which is not prevented by even a basic law. Google now says it will stick to similar self regulations as Tacoda Technology, enabling similar features in its recently purchased DoubleClick techology.
One speaker at the conference, Trevor Hughes of the Network Advertising Initiative, said that there is no need for government regulation of privacy issues. He pointed out that there are many layers of regulation in place that protect people. But he did not address the issue of when companies break the limits and do well out of it profit wise.
The international implications of this are interesting too. If I want my national advertisers to not have any joy from my browsing behavior, am I best advised to simply stick to international sites? It would be a crazy notion, but if I were a Yank, I sure would entertain it.
