Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

The Advertisers are Watching You

Posted by CmdrTaco on Mon Mar 10, 2008 09:24 AM
from the zip-it-up-buddy dept.
The Internet
pcause noted that the New York Times is running a story about the information being collected about you by internet advertisers. Of course much of this is not news to you, but it's important that the mainstream media is more aware of the issues surrounding this.
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: Tracking you on the Web: news to the Times by pcause (209643)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

The Advertisers are Watching You 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • You may be surprised who is involved (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Spritzer (950539) * on Monday March 10 2008, @09:25AM (#22700680)
    Sounds like the 4th largest bank in the U.S. [wachovia.com] exposing me to no less than 12 single pixel tracking images from the likes of doubleclick, ru4, advertising.com etc. when I want to login followed by tracking by an outside source [hitbox.com] while using the "secure" area of the site(hooray for AdBlock). I complained and complained. I finally received a response from the office of CEO Ken Thompson telling me to piss up a rope. I am no longer a customer.

  • Mainstrem media attention not "important" or good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by elrous0 (869638) * on Monday March 10 2008, @09:25AM (#22700690)
    It's not good news that the mainstream media has picked it up, because they just use if for a lot of sensationalist fear-mongering that only serves to scare the uninformed public even more. I was watching CSPAN this morning and they were talking about this. People were calling in who obviously had no clue about the internet saying things like "My wife refuses to buy anything online because of stuff like this" and talking out of their asses.

    Stuff like this doesn't really inform the general public, it only frightens them and makes them even more irrational. It's like the occassional story about the kidnapped kid or terrorist attack that causes everyone to freak out and start demanding irrational laws.

    • Re:Mainstrem media attention not "important" or go (Score:4, Interesting)

      by gnick (1211984) on Monday March 10 2008, @09:35AM (#22700910) Homepage

      My wife refuses to buy anything online because of stuff like this
      We can't even get our secretary to order things online using the company card - We have to go to another group's purchaser if we want to use a vendor that won't accept phone orders.

      At the risk of straying off-topic, I'd like to see a "mainstream media" story about the different security risks/exposures between internet purchases, phone purchases, and in-store purchases. Tracking behavior is certainly easier online, but cutting people out of the loop does good things for security. Although imperfect, I trust automated billing a lot more than inmates working phone banks or high-schoolers swiping cards at their summer employment and throwing away paper receipts.
    • "My wife refuses to buy anything online because of stuff like this" and talking out of their asses.

      Yet, I can almost guarantee these are the same people who have no problem with the government wiretapping their phones without a warrant, or having a National ID card or any of the other means of tracking and doing away with ones privacy that this administration (and others) have come up with all the name of supposed "security". After all, if you have nothing to hide then you shouldn't worry about the go

    • The best part is the "main stream media" needs this extensive tracking in order to provide better context sensitive advertising to boost profits and stay alive in this still new to them online world.

    • Stuff like this doesn't really inform the general public, it only frightens them and makes them even more irrational. It's like the occassional story about the kidnapped kid or terrorist attack that causes everyone to freak out and start demanding irrational laws.

      I agree it's not a case for more stupid laws, but it needs to be said, to be brought out into the light. The truth is that online advertisers do everything they can to track people online. How many of the regular people are aware of it? Even nerds

    • How can we educate the general public into being able to raise their voices against something like Phorm [phorm.com] without scaring the crap out of them?

      Once you know that every character in your page request has been sent through an adware service, you kinda lose control of your bowels ...

  • That may be... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Alien Being (18488) on Monday March 10 2008, @09:25AM (#22700694)
    But i'm not watching them. Thanks Adblock!

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by gnick (1211984)

      Thanks Adblock!

      I also use Adblock (I'm sure that a lot of this audience does), but try to use it responsibly. If you completely Adblock pages that you like that rely largely in ad revenue to stay afloat, you are ensuring that the level of service will degrade or that other (possibly more invasive) methods of generating revenue will be implemented. For sites you want to keep going (e.g. slashdot), especially ones with well-targeted ads, remember the white-list option.

      Every time you Adblock slashdot, the gods flip a bit

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by notque (636838)
        I disagree. Screw all advertising. It's intention is to delude you into purchasing something on issues aside from the products qualities.

        Advertising is intended to lie to me. I refuse to spend time listening to known liars.

        • Re:That may be... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by gnick (1211984) on Monday March 10 2008, @10:09AM (#22701486) Homepage

          It's intention is to delude you into purchasing something on issues aside from the products qualities.
          I feel filthy standing up for advertisers - Ads have become a blemish on the planet and I'm sick of being attacked in every possible venue by random images telling me that I need random things. In fact, I'm of the opinion that prescription drug ads should be illegal.

          However, I still think it's a little inaccurate to say that all ads are trying to get you to buy something based "on issues aside from the products qualities". That's often true - Fear-mongering / Band-wagon attacks / etc are common. But ads do exist that do nothing more than try to make you aware of a product's qualities rather than trying to delude you.

          I'm not saying, I'm just saying...
          • I wish I had mod points, if only for the idea of banning prescription drug advertisements. That makes more sense than anything I've heard here in a long time.

      • Re:That may be... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Mox-Dragon (87528) on Monday March 10 2008, @09:50AM (#22701174)
        I use adblock, too, and in the time before I did, I *never* clicked on an online ad. Not once. Nor can I imagine a situation in which I would. ever. So why shouldn't I adblock not only slashdot, but every website?

        • Re:That may be... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by gnick (1211984) on Monday March 10 2008, @10:02AM (#22701366) Homepage

          So why shouldn't I adblock not only slashdot, but every website?
          I don't recall ever clicking an ad either but, if I blindly speculate correctly, some ad-revenue is generated based on targeted viewing rather than purely click-through.

          Feel free to correct me if anyone has actual knowledge/data. I reject the argument that white-listing is stupid because advertisers suck - I know they do but, if they pay sites I like to provide content to me without forcing me to subscribe, I'll put up with them. But, if white-listing slashdot (et al.) really does not help them at all, then I'll clean out my white-list.

          • I don't recall ever clicking an ad either but, if I blindly speculate correctly, some ad-revenue is generated based on targeted viewing rather than purely click-through.

            Then their model is flawed. Personally, I don't like the idea of being passively influenced like that. I'd feel much better about my purchases if I knew my decisions were based on my own research than some subliminal message.

            Feel free to correct me if anyone has actual knowledge/data. I reject the argument that white-listing is stupid beca

            • I do believe that WE are providing the majority of content for Slashdot.


              Seriously. I've been waiting for a check for like, five years now. All of those adblocking slashdot readers must be interfering with my revenue stream.

      • Re:That may be... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by misleb (129952) on Monday March 10 2008, @10:26AM (#22701766)

        I also use Adblock (I'm sure that a lot of this audience does), but try to use it responsibly. If you completely Adblock pages that you like that rely largely in ad revenue to stay afloat, you are ensuring that the level of service will degrade or that other (possibly more invasive) methods of generating revenue will be implemented. For sites you want to keep going (e.g. slashdot), especially ones with well-targeted ads, remember the white-list option.


        I still don't get the supposed benefit of "well-targeted" ads. Every time I hear that phrase I think of the book/movie Minority Report.

        As for sites like slashdot shutting down... meh. I like slashdot and all, but quite frankly, if it went under because a few people who don't like to see ads block them, then so be it. There was an internet before massive amounts of advertising. There will continue to be an internet with massive amounts of ad blocking. If they invent more invasive methods, we'll block those too and you suckers who feel morally obligated to look at them will just have to suck it up.

        -matthew

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by CastrTroy (595695)
          The difference is that Slashdot doesn't have "massive amounts of advertising". The front page has exactly 1 ad on each page. If that's too much for you, then fine. But I find it to be unobtrusive, and a very good way at generating cash. People are probably far more likely to remember and click on an ad, when they only see a single advertisement.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by srh2o (442608)
        You do what you want... but don't try to tell me that I'm not using Adblock "responsibly" The advertisers had their chance with me. What I got was pop-overs, pop-unders, drive by installs and more impressions of X10 cameras than I will ever care about. I got ads that blocked the content, that played loud sounds, that floated all over the page. Adblock is a response to irresponsible behavior by the advertisers. I use it and I use it on full. There was content before the ads and there will be content aft
  • Gee the mainstream media aware of this issue, one which they are ultimately responsible for? 1. Newspapers and magazines - You gave them all your demographic information in their questionaires and quizzes and contests for years. 2. Nielsen boxes on televisions. 3. Even voting by phone for american idol, and even when Star Search did it. 4. Those annoying survey questions you used to get when you called for a service, to pay a bill. Etc. Mainstream media is feeling the hurt of the internet still and loo

  • I see dead ads (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nomen Publicus (1150725) on Monday March 10 2008, @09:31AM (#22700838)
    If they are watching, why is it that I never see any "targeted" adverts? TV can be excused for just throwing everything into the aether and hoping that something sticks, but on the web why do I see all kinds of ads in which I have no interest in at all?
    • How dare you question the advertising executives?!? They know what you need regardless of whether you think you need it or not, and you will be served those ads!
    • Are you sure? Do you think you get all those Viagra and big dick ads by accident?
    • I think for the most part they're tracking general tendencies. What topics come up most often in search boxes. Which links do users follow the most on our website. What kinds of products do users look at on each visit (used often on sites like Amazon with their "other people also looked at these things" ads). I suppose they could track your surfing habits on their site if you create an account there and login regularly. Beyond that it's just cookies, you can set most browsers to delete them automatically on
    • They can't advertise anything that's illegal. Pervert.
  • noui consilia et ueteres quaecumque monetis amici,
    "pone seram, cohibe".
    sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes
    cauta est et ab illis incipit uxor


    "I hear always the admonishment of my friends:
    'Bolt her in, and constrain her!'
    But who will watch the watchmen?
    The wife arranges accordingly, and begins with them."
  • So, does deleting my cookies (please, no food jokes) on a regular basis, thwart their intentions, or are they sending home more traceable stuff, like the MAC address?
    • Or you can do like me and have the browser prompt you every time it tries to set a cookie. Depending on what is sent, I can either allow always, allow as session, or block always.I very rarely allow always.

    • Re:Cookies (Score:5, Informative)

      by mlts (1038732) * on Monday March 10 2008, @10:52AM (#22702196)
      One thing that people don't clear as often as cookies is the Flash Shared Object repository. A lot of advertisers use this to store persistent user data in lieu of cookies to monitor viewer activities.

      I personally use two ways to block this. First is NoScript which is a must have companion to Adblock. Adblock stops the known stuff, NoScript stops the unknown stuff.

      Second, on Windows, I deleted the Flash Player folder in Documents and Settings\username\Application Data\Macromedia, and created a text file with the exact same name as the folder. This makes the Flash player unable to write any persistent data to disk. However, this does sometimes mess up sites like YouTube which store legit preferences.

      Third, I run a utility called ccleaner (used to be called Crap Cleaner) which is great for removing random junk left over in Windows apps.

      This is not perfect, but good for most sites. If you want better security, consider running your Web browser in a VM that dumps all changes since a known good snapshot. I do this for some entertainment Flash sites because I don't feel like allowing, even temporarily, all the data mining companies write access to my machine.
  • Advertisers Are Watching Me?
            And yet I am not watching them as they present no more significance than a sparrow watching me and inspire no more interest than a slug.

     
  • In Soviet Russia, you... oh wait. That's not right.
  • The person who makes privacy as easy and intuitive as Google search will make a bundle. The public isn't ready yet, but when the time comes, the market for privacy will be huge.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gsslay (807818)
      Well in the mean time; do this;

      - use Firefox.
      - use Adblock. Constantly update it. Mercilessly add all sites that push annoying, irrelevant ads onto your screen.
      - regularly clear your cookies. Block any cookie forever from any website you don't immediately recognise.
      - use NoScript. Honestly, you'll be amazed by the source of all the scripts that attempt to run on your computer. How many of them do you care about?
      - lie on every stupid compulsory registration you en
  • From TFA: So anybody who searches for information on such disparate topics as iron supplements, airlines, hotels and soft drinks may see ads for those products and services later on.

    What if I search for AdBlocker and NoScript? Will I see ads for those products? Can a Firefox ad-blocking add-on be so awesome that it cannot block ads from itself? Whoa.
  • One thing I do in an attempt to mitigate the ubiquity of ads is to simply redirect the domains to localhost.

    On my macs, linux, unix (mostly solaris) boxes, and windows. This means that instead of ads I get "Unable to connect ..."
    errors, but I much prefer those blocks. Additionally, I notice that ad sites delay the loads of many pages, thus redirecting
    them to localhost speeds up browsing.

    I know most of us know where the hosts files lie on most systems, but for those who don't:

    OS X: /private/etc/hosts

    Unix/Lin
  • Relevant Ad targeting is in many ways a good thing. I cannot stand to watch TV because of the commercials, but the commercials are for things that I will never be in the market for as a man living in NYC such as feminine hygiene products or cars, cars, cars. If, however, the commercials were for, I dunno, home energy kits or wearable computing, I just might watch them.

    That in turn helps the websites like Slashdot and Tom's Hardware that are not for mass-market media consumers to make enough money in ad rev
  • And that's why, children, I keep my cookies only for one browsing session.

    I don't really want them to find out about my foot-fetish ;)

  • Use a tracker filter (Score:3, Informative)

    by the_other_chewey (1119125) on Monday March 10 2008, @10:47AM (#22702130)
    There's a special filter subscription for Adblock Plus to kill a lot of that tracking
    stuff (webbugs, tracking scripts, etc.), the "ABP Tracking Filter" [adblockplus.org] (see #3 on the left).

    This of course doesn't make you anonymous online at all, but it helps against the worst
    offenders and keeps your data out of their DBs.

    (Full disclosure: I am a co-author of that list)

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.