New Survey: Online Privacy, Internet Advertising and The Independent Web

There is an option for me to opt out of receiving telemarketing -- advertising over the phone, and I have exercised that option.
There is an option for me to opt out of receiving bulk adds by mail -- and I have exercised that option too.

Why is the internet any different? Intrusive, aggressive marketing schemes involving tracking of on-line activity is surely worse than bulk mail. We need to at least have the option to opt out.

I have never responded to on-line ads and never will. They need to get that message. If I need or want something I will look for it; in the mean time leave me alone!!! Bugging or annoying me only makes me hate you (advertiser) and not want to patronize you.

We should all be buying local and small anyway.

For many years there have been those who have saught a way to commercialise the web. This is how the 21st century works- If you object to it spend a little time in insurring that their time is wasted. Reply to surveys and fill in non sense, reply to spam with an impossible demographic. In other words wate their time and money as best you can

Originally posted by wayno
Why is the internet any different?

Thus far, online, advertising is the only viable option to fund the extraordinary range of free content available to users.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
If we change the laws to prevent tracking, Im not convinced...

...
1) Make it a serious offense to cross-reference personal data with cookie information without the express consent of the user
...

Thanks for bringing this out - I personally was not aware legislation was being attempted.

I think there is good and bad to the tracking issue - data can be interpretted at some point and the cross-referencing could perhaps be viewed as a vulnerability.

No doubt creative coding in ads can mine loads of data - it's probably going to be a huge challenge to convince general internet users of data safety especially when anti-spyware, anti-virus, anti-malware and whatever other software is continually alerting users that cookies are a threat.


Best of luck in D.C.

Well, I, for one, click on advertisers on this site and my other favorites routinely. I am not paying them a red cent and it is the least I can do.

Right now on ATS.com I am getting calls about the University of Phoenix and college grants as well as quotes on policies for home and auto. Oh yea and a free laptop...tee hee.

On another site, something that will make look younger, (from their mouths to God's ears) and dentistry that will replace all my teeth with caps, also so I can look younger. (I can dream). I have this theory about white teeth though, they should never look whiter than the whites of your eyes, you run the risk of looking like a newscaster.

Click rebels! Click damnit! Wake up! We all are desperately looking at other models, but for now, this is what we have!

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Im sure you made the brownie list. You can stop haranguing me for having my own opinion now.

You reasoning is utterly flawed. There is no reason the interwebz cannot survive without something it survived without for every other year of its existence besides the last 12 months or so when these ads that target you based on your browsing habits began popping up.

Sponsored advertising has existed for many years. How else would you expect marketing companies to target you with effective ads if not with tracking cookies? I am not saying its ethical, all I am saying is its an accepted and legal way of doing business.

Edit to add,

And, to address another fallacious point you brought up, I DONT expect "free" access to anything. Im one of many who would be willing to pay to opt of of the most intrusive tracking. Its not even offered as an option. And you need to take some marketing courses if you trust advertisers so much. That will cure you. If they could develop and legally use mind control devices to part you from your money you can rest assured they would.

edit on 14-5-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)

Yes they might be able to provide an optional subscription package so those that get easily offended/annoyed can choose that rather than the free service. As for me on a personal level, I would choose "free access" because I cannot afford the alternative.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


I've been having a problem with the surveys, I did the first one you guys had, but since then, every time I click on the links to do a new one, it tells me it's already received a response from my computer to this poll. Then asks me for my survey code.

What code? Did I miss a huge step or something? I don't know where to get a code and from everybody's responses here, ok I've only read the first page, it doesn't seem that anybody else is having the same problem, which leads me to believe I've missed a step on the process.

Help!

I don't mind paying for an ad free site. You know you could offer extended benefits (such as private forums and animated avatars etc...) and no ads for a price. And less perks and ads for free. You could make more money than you think this way. Trust me.... Then again we would not get to see as much of you while you are sailing around the world.

Tracking has to go. I don't care for it one darn bit. If given the choice I would not sell out my privacy.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by wayno
Why is the internet any different?

Thus far, online, advertising is the only viable option to fund the extraordinary range of free content available to users.

Subscription rates,
Private investment,
Public investment,
At will donations...just a few.
While on site ads are the most common and easiest form of funding for a website it is far from the only viable option. Fact is, different things work for different sites while not for others. It's up to each site to evolve and find the method that works best for them.
On the internet, the traditional methods aren't always the best or the only options.

I realised yesterday that it was my anti-virus software that was slowing the pages up, not the advertisements so i apologise for that but i still don't like all this advertising!!

I must say that this is the absolute best, thought provoking survey that you guys have run so far. It made me aware of legislation being considered by the admin, and from what I surmised from the survey, the legislation is potentially controversial and damaging. Now I'm off to research the proposed laws.

I didn't notice any link to where we can read about this proposed law(s). Google, here I come!

The response has been excellent. We have over 20,000 respondents so far, making this our most-popular survey so far.

We're going to continue through to Thursday, but so far the responses indicate a strong sense of awareness of the core issue, and especially a strong desire to ensure nothing happens to the independent web.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

First, you need to be aware that the "tracking" does not identify you or your entire web browsing activity -- that is misinformation perpetuated by big media.

That is not entirely true... Malicious web developers and or cooperations and advertisers can work together and share their cookies with each other across domains, so your browsing activity could be tracked. On websites that require you to enter personal information to make a purchase like Amazon.com or PayPal etc., they can link your name and information to a cookie (if they wanted). So there is nothing stopping people from making your statement false.

I think "tracking" for advertisements should stop. The worse case scenario is the advertisements would be random and not personalized for the user. However, there are other methods for advertising that could still be used. The google ads which read the webpage and then show a relevant ad according to the page content works pretty well.

Honestly, I have mixed opinions about the personalized advertising. On one hand if I had to deal with advertisements I would rather they be personalized and not random so they are not a complete waste of space on my screen and waste of bandwidth. On the other hand, personalized advertisements seems to be flawed anyway.... I hardly ever see anything I want or need. There are times where I have gone to an online store such as MotoSport.com, bought something, and then came back to AboveTopSecret only to find a MotoSport advertisement of the exact items I just purchased... (i was obviously tracked by something). But... the ad was basically useless, showing me stuff I already have and bought or looked at, from a place I frequently go. Why show me something I see all the time? I think the advertising is hit or miss... mostly miss.

Cookies are a very important part of the internet (I am a web developer and programmer so I understand the importance of cookies).. I just don't think they should be abused by advertisers... it is getting out of hand and could only get worse.

Cookies are not as scary as is portrayed but not as innocent as portrayed either when you consider what can be done with them in the future, or if they are shared across domains via willing information exchanges between web developers and cooperations.

I don't know... I am undecided on this so far...

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
Malicious web developers and or cooperations and advertisers can work together and share their cookies with each other across domains, so your browsing activity could be tracked.

Not impossible, but so difficult as to be improbable.

On websites that require you to enter personal information to make a purchase like Amazon.com or PayPal etc., they can link your name and information to a cookie (if they wanted).

The issue here isn't related to e-commerce sites, or other transaction-specific websites, where you volunteer information about yourself. In such cases, users should always review the privacy policies of such sites before offering any information.

I think "tracking" for advertisements should stop. The worse case scenario is the advertisements would be random and not personalized for the user.

And very similar to a local TV station unable to know which commercials run against which shows, at which time, and how often. The result is advertising that commands a much lower dollar-value, and as a result, a significantly lower yield for the website.

I just don't think they should be abused by advertisers... it is getting out of hand and could only get worse.

"Cookies" are not being abused. In all the hype and media-madness surrounding the issue, no one has been able to point to a single occurrence where someone has been harmed by cookies that are used to retain aspects of your browsing history, personal information, online preferences, or anything else.

It's the big-media and politicians who are "abusing" the artificial paranoia of what cookies "might" do that is the big problem here. They would like nothing more than to pull the financial rug out from under the independent web so that online opinion may condense down to a manageable collection of primary gatekeepers.


The IAB has discussed our suggestion with the politicians -- third party cookies (typically set by advertisers) should be forced to auto-expire by the web browser software within 48 hours. A graceful, inexpensive, and simple solution that provides for enough short-term targeting for effective ads, but no long-term tracking/targeting. Because the politicians have an ulterior agenda, the proposal is finding no favor.

The american government must be the most notorius liars of all time. Instead of going after those that spread viruses and worms in the wild they are attempting to go after cookies and marketing firms. It used to be a hefty prison sentence for internet vandalising, but apparently since antivirus/antimalware companies produce most of the threats, the government is keeping quiet about it.

Once again they let the big boys off-the-hook and go after the small guys. Crime pays big if your big and if your small you go to jail. Big business does not need aggressive advertising because their brand sells automatically and people go to them first. On the other hand small business selling generic merchandise needs aggressive advertising to compete with big business.

By taking out cookies, they are limiting the advertising and thus limiting site sponsorship to a bare minimum. The fewer the sponsors, the more selective they become in what platform they advertise on and anyone bashing big business and state capitalism gets zero funding. Just look at that pitsburgh steeler player who was honest enough to question 9-11 and osama bin ladens involvement...Champion merchandise dropped him from spokesperson and he lost millions in revenue.

People are naive and go along with whatever mainstream media and government tell them.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Thus far, online, advertising is the only viable option to fund the extraordinary range of free content available to users.

Well that's just not true. There are other options available, you just have to look for them, or get creative!



Lucrative Alternatives to Online Advertising
www.businessweek.com...


Beyond Ads: Guide To Alternative Online Business And Monetization Models
www.masternewmedia.org...

The results are in!