Seeking the advice and input of ATS members on an important issue...

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by EyesII
BTW - you can have ads that DON'T have cookies associated with them.

Could you explain how a wide variety of ads from dozens of advertisers could be delivered without the use of cookies to identify unique users?

Why do you need to identify unique users? Why can't everyone see the same ads at the same time?

Originally posted by Alaskan Man
i was disappointed to see this

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f9803be3b228.png[/atsimg]

come on Alaskans, get with it!!!

p.s. talking about me being the only one from Alaska to sign it so far

[edit on 11/30/2009 by Alaskan Man]

Did you know?

You are the 1st person from Iowa to sign this petition!


Same man :/

Don't feel bad, I was the 30something person to sign, and the first from Florida to email.
Amazing, all the post i seen that would support this; Where are they now?

I have forwarded the website to everyone on my email address list.

[edit on 1/12/2009 by Pappa_Bear]

I can't sign it, as I am a British Citizen. I pay for my Broadband service, so in effect, it is not free anyway.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by EyesII
BTW - you can have ads that DON'T have cookies associated with them.

Could you explain how a wide variety of ads from dozens of advertisers could be delivered without the use of cookies to identify unique users?

SO:

I can't explain HOW a wide variety of ads from dozens of advertisers could be delivered without the use of cookies to identify unique users. But I do think it would be no different than how ads are placed in the Super Bowl, or any other major broadcasted event.

Simply put, I don't know WHY the advertisers really care who I am, and WHY I am so unique & different from my buddy in the next cubby-hole over that the advertiser feels that they must cookie both of us so they can track us individually. Why do they feel that they NEED to track me, my travels, and basically who I am? It's NON OF THEIR BUSINESS.

Why does that matter at all? It shouldn't even come into play.

When I see a TV, radio or newpaper ad, they don't know who I am other than possibly my general location (state, county, broadcasting area).

I think this whole ad thing is vastly overstated, and in my mind, I can't wait to eleiminate or drastically reduce the invasion of my privacy.

The advertisers are just taking advantage of a "built-in" capability that they shouldn't have in the first place.

I am 100% against cookied ads, and 100% for non-cookied ads. It's all about my privacy, and nothing more. I realize that it costs money to run a website. Ads help to differ that expense. I get that. Let's do that the "right way" - without cookies.

Did I see an ad on ATS? Yes, then the advertser pays ATS $0.001 for ATS's forcing me to SEE THE AD. If it was a cookied ad then I have every right to be upset. If it was an uncookied ad, then I will not have a problem as my privacy remains intact, thus meeting my expectations.

I in turn throw this back - Please explain to me WHY they need to uniquly identify me and track my travels?

They have an false feeling of entitlement. My uniqueness is mine and is NOT FOR SALE!

-EII

[edited to correct spelling and clarify my post a bit.]

[edit on 1-12-2009 by EyesII]

Simply put, I don't know WHY the advertisers really care who I am, and WHY I am so unique & different from my buddy in the next cubby-hole over that the advertiser feels that they must cookie both of us so they can track us individually.

It's rather simple.

But first, the advertising networks don't care who you are, they care what you do. While the distinction may be subtle, it's very important.

The first reason to cookie you is frequency. With dozens or even hundreds of possible ads, the cookie that identifies you as a unique anonymous user is used to ensure you don't see the same ad too often.

The second reason is efficiency for smaller, or even local advertisers. Some of the data learned about your web use can be used to specifically target ads to a subset of users, even locally identified users, thereby reducing the cost of an ad campaign because it's delivered to fewer people.

The third doesn't come into play in many third-party ad networks, but the same targeting for specific users can be used by major advertisers for big-budget campaigns that focus on subsets of users.

Did I see an ad on ATS? Yes, then the advertser pays ATS $0.001 for ATS's forcing me to SEE THE AD. If it was a cookied ad then I have every right to be upset. If it was an uncookied ad, then I will not have a problem as my privacy remains intact, thus meeting my expectations.

See... here is the problem, you've been lied to. There is no proven invasion of privacy connected with cookies, the paranoia is 100% speculative based on outright misrepresentation and lies from the anti-virus people, and overstated information from so-called security or privacy "experts."

However, the "potential issue" is not so much specific to your cookie, but specific to what data might eventually be shared without your consent.

I've explained it in my proposed solution to the problem. In short, many third-party ad networks engaged in a practice known as "daisy-chaining" where your ad impression (usually your 20th or higher impression on the day) can be handed off to other ad networks, who may also hand off your impression. The result is far too many unnecessary cookies and concern over what data is shared in the hand-off process.

The proposed solution from Boucher is akin to shuttering all the stores in the shopping mall, with a security guard at each locked door... and each time you want to go into a store, you're told that if you make a purchase, the store will sell your personal information to one or more demographics aggregators. Retail stores DO sell your specific personal information, purchase history, and sometimes credit data to third parties without your knowledge or consent.

So why aren't we holding the retail stores (that have much more information about you) to as high a standard as Boucher wants for websites? Easy... retail stores pose no threat to the publishing and communications industries that back Boucher, independent websites do.

My solution proposes a one-cookie standard which should be workable and eliminates the source of the privacy concerns related to third-party ad networks... yet still provides independent websites and their ad networks with the technology needed to effectively target ads to end users.

come on people - there are only 82 signatures on the online petition to keep our web free.


Of the 229 flags this thread received...less than half of you signed the petition.

Speak out (if you believe in freedom on the internet) and go sign the petition!


keepourwebfree.org...

Okay, people, I made the first 100, and so did 11 of my friends from a bulletin I sent out on another site linking them to the ATS site. Where are you?

Ya know i just signed the online petition and was surprised I was only the 85th person to do so.... Come on peeps don't be shy go back to page one and follow the links

reply to post by DaddyBare


TY for the reminder DB

I sent the linky to all in my address book also.

reply to post by Doc Holiday


Sure...thank him and not me! I see how you are.

I'm number 88. At this rate I don't think were gonna make such a huge dent.

I'm all for a free and independent Internet, not controlled by goverment(s) or huge corporations. I'd sign the petition but I can't as only US citizens are eligible to sign it and I'm Canadian. Either way I'm still with ATS on this one.

reply to post by Rob37n


Guess we'll find out shortly...

All u guys had to do was link directly to the petition site at the very outset of this post, but no, you have to navigate thru pages of B.S. and tiny links to get to it. So let me do your jobs for you:

www.petitiononline.com...

Maybe now you can get more than 115 signatures.

Disappointing, ATS.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


SO, I just ran into this article:

Study reveals mass online news copying

A month-long study of how 101,000 articles published by 157 newspapers proliferated around the Internet found that more than 75,000 sites reused 112,000 almost exact copies without authorisation. A further 520,000 articles were reprinted in part.

The study, conducted by Attributor, a content tracking business, will form a critical part of upcoming negotiations between the news industry and online advertising networks, which publishers want to use to claw back the ad revenues being made by unauthorised redistributors.

Now I know we are very strict here on ATS about plagiarism and citing news sources, but are we supposed to also ask for "official" permission.

Considering the topic at hand, it is no small coincidence that this is driven by the likes of Murdoch, once again targeting advertising revenue of small to medium sized independent sites such as ATS. It seems that their attack is multi-pronged and coordinated.

I was wondering how this latest and emerging copyright battleground might affect us here ... are the days of sourcing external content (with proper credit) nearing an end?

Originally posted by nightmarehalo
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

 

OMG. I thought the legislation was a little more serious than preventing companies from installing spyware cookies on my computer when I accidently click on an advertisement.

I assure you that reputable advertisement companies will find ways around this legislation unless of course they provide the kind of degenerative, smut advertisements that I see on ATS.

Furthermore, ATS is not as independent as you may think considering it keeps popping up on Google. Perhaps you just want to keep the website running while making easy money from advertisement companies that you are too good for?

A'men to this.

I signed last night, in the first 20. I think many of the members who pledged support were from other countries.

Sounds like a great idea.

The senator has my full support.

I have signed it as well - Hope being from the UK it still counts