Slashdot Log In
Google To Monitor Surfing Habits For Ad-Serving
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Mar 11, 2009 08:44 AM
from the do-you-see-what-i-see dept.
from the do-you-see-what-i-see dept.
superglaze (ZDNet UK) writes "Google is gearing up to launch cookie-based 'interest-based' advertising, which involves monitoring the user's passage across various WebSense partner sites. The idea is to have better-targeted advertising, which is not a million miles away from what Phorm is trying to do — the difference, it seems at first glance, is that Google is being relatively up-front about its intentions."
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: BT Silences Customers Over Phorm 196 comments
An anonymous reader writes "The Register reports that BT, the UK's dominant telecom and internet service provider, has 'banned all future discussion of Phorm and its "WebWise" targeted advertising product on its customer forums, and deleted all past threads about the controversy dating back to February.' Phorm is a controversial opt-out system for delivering targeted advertising that intercepts traffic passing through an ISP in order to profile subscribers via an assigned unique ID based on their online activities. Subscribers can opt-out at the Webwise website but are opted-in again if the Phorm cookie is cleared. Firefox users can install Melvin Sage's Firephorm add-on to manage their interaction with Phorm and Webwise."
This discussion has been archived.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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I thought they'd been doing this for years (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I thought they'd been doing this for years (Score:5, Informative)
It is. In fact, Google owns Doubleclick, which I am sure is no coincidence.
http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/pressrel/20080311_doubleclick.html [google.com]
Parent
evil? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:evil? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Along these lines, never buy anything dirty from Amazon.com.
Umm... That's what someone told me.
Re:evil? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:evil? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
"Thankfully we at Slashdot are most likely gifted with the technological acumen to block these cookies...many others, however, won't."
I'm cookiemonster you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't want Google keeping a record of that (and showing my kids a "targeted" advertisement for Hairy Hardcore Latinas Gone Loco 3.5)
My first thought (modulo the "hairy" part), but I doubt that the makers of such entertainment advertise much.
I'd keep an open mind, personally. When I visit the Amazon site, for example, I receive plenty of targetted advertising. Some of it is useful (interesting new hardware), some of it absurd (recommending a book on Microsoft Server 2008 because I bought the Sendmail Bat
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's evil because it violates your privacy, and there's really no easy way to opt-out.
No?
Thankfully we at Slashdot are most likely gifted with the technological acumen to block these cookies...
It's true. I was able to install the Firefox extension "CookieSafe" to solve this problem. I can't imagine how an ordinary user might be able to do something that complicated, but I have hopes that in two or three thousand years the human race will have evolved that far.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:evil? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Reset your Google filter preferences (Score:2, Insightful)
Google does give you a preference ("SafeSearch") which you can set at three different levels. And yes, I understand that it probably fails sometimes. But I believe that can happen even if you didn't search for porn the previous night. Ergo, children's use of the net needs to be supervised in some way, IMO. (Appropriate to the parents' beliefs and the situation of the child, of course.)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But I'm worried to see Disney ads while I'm watching p0rn!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:evil? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would rather have tech and sci-fi books marketed to me when I go to Amazon. The big sale on may actually be the price tipping point for me to buy that. I don't really care about a big sale on that blue gem pendant necklace with 18k chain links. So yes, targeted marketing seems good.
The other side of the fence says, "ZOMG, there is a database with my surfing habits that can be accessed by the government and companies with money willing to pay for it." Some people may not care. Others think that this will allow Big Brother to build a fluff case against them. The middle group just thinks it is a private activity that should not be monitored by others.
I'm in more of the middle group. I have conversations with my wife all the time that are private. Nothing shameful or perverse, but just amicably intimate. I want them kept private, not indexed. I believe that is the heart of most of the objection.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Advertising exists to manipulate you into making choices that you would not otherwise. If they are able to target ads at me, that just means they're better at manipulating me. I don't want that. You can show me all the monistat commercials you want, it's not going to affect me. Show me ads for something I want, and it will probably interfere with my decision making process. I'd rather do my own research and make my own decisions, and not be affected by manipulation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not all advertising is manipulation. For example, look at coupons for your local Cub Foods or Krogers in the newspaper. The coupons are basically the retailer notifying you that if you bring in the coupon, they will allow you to purchase a specific product for a reduced price.
The coupons are often for things you would not normally purchase, but with a reduced price the product may offer a better value and thus be worthy of your purchase. There is no manipulation involved in this case.
Another example are adv
Re: (Score:2)
1. Turn off cookies (or just whitelist them)
2. AdBlock Plus
3. ???
4. No Profit!
Maybe not so bad. (Score:5, Informative)
At least you can opt-out.
Add-on idea. (Score:2, Interesting)
At least you can opt-out.
I set my browser to delete all cookies every time I close down. I guess that means I'd have to go to that page every time I'm on the internet to opt out.
That would be a great add-on. One that, upon Firefox startup, goes and opt-outs for you.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you paid attention to the opt-out page google offers a plugin that does exactly this.
Re: (Score:2)
A plug-in? Surely not...
How about, Google stores a cookie with a value that says "don't track me with Google cookies"?
K
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but if you tell your browser to delete all cookies then it'll delete the Google cookie telling Google not to assign a tracking cookie to you so you'll be tracked by a Google cookie... unless you tell your browser to delete all your cookies... or tell Google not to track you... in which case they give you a non-tracking cookie... but if you delete cookies... then Google will track you... because it doesn't see the non-tracking cookie... which you delete so Google has to...
error... error... does not co
Re: (Score:2)
Most people are too lazy to opt either in OR out.
So for the advertisers opt-out is what they'll choose, and yet that's the quickest way to the black-list of anyone who has the knowledge to make that choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Add-on idea. (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I set my browser to delete all cookies every time I close down. I guess that means I'd have to go to that page every time I'm on the internet to opt out.
Why bother? You're deleting your cookies, they can't track you anyway.
Not as bad as Phorm for one simple reason (Score:4, Insightful)
While potentially problematic, this behavior by Google does not rise to the level of Phorm for two simple reasons. First, rather than sitting with your ISP and tracking your browsing regardless of site, this technique will only apply to the (admittedly large) number of sites containing Google ads. Second, the release of a browser opt-out plugin is far beyond anything which would have been allowed for Phorm.
The remaining question for users is: Has someone yet developed a plugin to block google ads entirely? And if not, how long will it take now?
Re: (Score:2)
CustomizeGoogle
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/743 [mozilla.org]
Re:Not as bad as Phorm for TWO simple reasons (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
From the article... (Score:2)
"The new ad-serving system works by downloading a DoubleClick cookie to the user's browser to track their path through various AdSense-using sites"
So, am I right in thinking that if I reject all DoubleClick cookies I'll render this system null and void? I have most of my cookies set to be session cookies anyway (as should most people, since 99.9999999% of all cookies are redundant), so I'm not actually sure how cookie based ad tracking would affect me in the long run?
Re:From the article... (Score:5, Funny)
(as should most people, since 99.9999999% of all cookies are redundant)
There's a word in English, "most", appropriate for this situation. It's not necessary or helpful to invent obviously-made-up-numbers to illustrate "most". I doubt you have data to back up that only one in one billion cookies is useful.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
(as should most people, since 99.9999999% of all cookies are redundant)
There's a word in English, "most", appropriate for this situation. It's not necessary or helpful to invent obviously-made-up-numbers to illustrate "most". I doubt you have data to back up that only one in one billion cookies is useful.
I agree 110 percent!
Place your faith in AdBlockPlus and Filterset G (Score:2)
Having no faith in the integrity of Anything on the Web, I choose to block those ads since I won't be purchasing anything, anyway. I use NoScript as well, and don't hesitate to block Google from setting cookies, even though I use their search engine often. Call me a thief, I have no qualms.
Re:Place your faith in AdBlockPlus and Filterset G (Score:4, Funny)
Having no faith in the integrity of Anything on the Web, I choose to block those ads
Where did you get AdBlock from?
Parent
Here you go (Score:2, Redundant)
Google, statistics king, didn't already do this?! (Score:3, Interesting)
This is one of the reasons I avoid Google; they know more about statistics than I do (and that's a lot!) ... they have that motto don't be evil for exactly this reason; too much information coming from too many sources, including your personal information, means they can know you better than you know yourself, and thus they can manipulate you to their agenda and the agenda of their advertisers.
Think of it like the "gateway drug" concept; they advertise something you might have bought (but might not have bought) and that puts you over the edge and you buy it. Then they push something similar and you buy it for the same reason. After several iterations, you find yourself buying things you would never otherwise have had interest in. Your friends and family are supposed to have this power. Not a corporation whose first goal is appeasing their bottom line and therefore their customer corporations (whose first goal is selling merchandise to appease their own bottom lines).
To anybody outraged at things like the government accessing your library book list, this is the same thing. Except even if you opt out, Google just got that better at targeting you with ads.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is one of the reasons I avoid Google;
So, I assume you also avoid purchasing things with your credit card? Or with any kind of club card? Or interacting with any company that sells any of their business records to third parties (like, for example, car dealerships)? Or generally interacting with the civilized world?
Look, here's the deal: the privacy genie was out of the bottle long before Google was ever conceived of. Companies like Axciom and Experian already know, and have known for decades, what
Re:Google, statistics king, didn't already do this (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, I avoid such things. My credit card is for emergencies and rare online purchases (though sometimes I use Simon Gift Cards for anonymity except for the whole delivery address thing). I opt out of information sharing when given the option (this is usually a legally required option). What's wrong with cash? When they ask you for address or zip information in the store, you can always say "no thanks."
I disagree. Corporations have been collecting data, but at a snail's pace, and largely on far less sophisticated equipment. This limits the relational and learning algorithms that are economically feasible. Even today, few corporations have the penetration and computing power (and engineering prowess) to collect that volume of data and pull off massive statistical crunching like Google. Also, those other corporations don't read your email, monitor what you read on a word-for-word basis, or tap your television (youtube) and phone (gtalk). Google does. The internet is instantaneous and all-encompassing, whereas mail-order, phone order, and physical shopping doesn't give anywhere near the same level of detail, and the little detail it yields is very slow-flowing.
My friends and family have been respectfully asked not to post photos of me. So far, this has worked (for the most part). I don't have an account on centralized blog sites like livejournal, and while I do have accounts on slashdot and even facebook, they don't say too much about me personally. I understand that we're losing our privacy, but I want to control how that happens and limit its damage, specifically as it pertains to how I am targeted through advertising. Your friends must be jerks if you think like that.
Oh, good. Now we're throwing around insults. Recall how I said I know a thing or two about statistics. I also know about brand-building and marketing in general. I date a psychology PhD. Let's just say that nobody's brain functions independently; we are all biased by our environments. If you like, I can obtain a dozen peer-reviewed papers that present compelling evidence to that fact. Just consider: why do companies advertise? why do those advertisements often do nothing but say the company name? The answer is that they are building a brand, which equates to trust.
Parent
Sign me up please (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't want to refinance my house. I don't want to find relationships online. I don't want to find old classmates. I don't want to earn money by signing up for free trials. Even though I don't want these things, I see these ads a lot.
I like videogames and boardgames. I like anime. I like paintball. I like cooking. I already go out of my way to learn about new products and discounts in these areas.
I would love to surrender information about my interests in order to replace the ads I don't care about with ads that I do care about.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would consider doing that as well, but there is one problem: I have never seen an ad I care about.
Google != Phorm (Score:5, Informative)
You can easily opt-out or block Google ads. You cannot do this with Phorm as it will still monitor your clickstream regardless of whether you have opted out or not.
Google is a per-user based system. Because you are tracked by cookie, it will serve ads based on YOUR cookie ID only (or maybe your Google account, whatever). Phorm tracks by IP address, so if you share an IP address via NAT (most people do) then it cannot easily distinguish between users. This leads to the possibility that inappropriate ads may be served up (porn, pharma etc).
In any case, what Google is suggesting is not new and basically has been around in one way or another since the dawn of internet advertising. What Phorm is trying to do *is* new and is almost the same as monitoring systems such as the sort of thing ECHELON does (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON [wikipedia.org]).
Absolute power... (Score:3, Interesting)
At some point, if not already, Google will realize how much power they have. In my experience, companies eventually act primarily in their own interests. I think Google will choose more and more to use that power for their benefit, rather than the benefit of their customers. "Do no evil" indicates they knew their potential power from day one. At this point, if they wanted to "do evil," it would be hard to stop them.
-Ghostis
Not at all like Phorm (Score:2)
> By visiting Google's ad-preferences page, the user can opt out of having their surfing
> habits tracked...
The user can also opt out of having their surfing habits tracked by blocking Google and DoubleClick cookies.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"No, Mr. MadDogX, I expect you to die."
Re: (Score:2)
FTFTFY
Re: (Score:2)
LOL!!
That's going to be hilarious, if you know my surfing habits. :-)
But more serious, if possible, I'll be blocking this. I don't want anyone to know what I'm reading.
It's possible. And google has now crossed into evil territory (again) and will join doubleclick and ad20 and their dubious brood in my blocklist. Too bad, so sad.