Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Privacy

Amazon To Block Phorm Scans 140

clickclickdrone writes "The BBC are reporting that Amazon has said it will not allow online advertising system Phorm to scan its web pages to produce targeted ads. For most people this is a welcome step, especially after the European Commission said it was starting legal action against the UK earlier this week over its data protection laws in relation to Phorm's technology. Anyone who values their privacy should applaud this move by Amazon."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon To Block Phorm Scans

Comments Filter:
  • by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohn@noSpAM.gmail.com> on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @09:44AM (#27585355) Journal

    Anyone who values their privacy should applaud this move by Amazon.

    Thank you for telling me how to think. I believe we are approaching this from the wrong end (why start with websites?).

    The article hints at two other points I would encourage Brits who care to be vocal about:

    Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, said: We expect more sites to block Webwise in the near future and also ISPs to drop plans to snoop on web users.

    Write your ISPs. Threaten to change ISPs even if you're not able to. Let them know how this makes you feel.

    The European Commission has described the technology as an "interception" of user data and wants UK law to reflect more explicitly the need for consent from users in order for the service to be implemented.

    As always, contact your parliamentary representative and also EU representative and let them know how you feel about this.

    These would be much more effective options than asking each website that exists to request Phorm not scan their site.

  • Not to nitpick ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by krou ( 1027572 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @09:46AM (#27585385)
    ... but they obviously didn't do it for privacy reasons. As a business, I can bet they weren't happy with the idea of something scanning their pages and then targeting adverts from possible competitors based on what users were looking at on Amazon.
  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @09:47AM (#27585389) Journal
    SSL.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @09:52AM (#27585469)

    Who want to bet that Amazon is actually blocking them because they are not paying to do it?

    Incidentally, why would a business let another business makes money out of it for free?

    Simple economic strikes: THAT service isn't free.

  • by ji777 ( 1107063 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @10:01AM (#27585583)
    It's actually been a while since I last heard about phorm. I believe that the general issue had more to do with phorm intercepting pages on the ISP's side and re-writing them to insert material before re-serving them to you. Google ads, on the other hand (since you brought them up) is a widget added by the site owner's permission.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @10:08AM (#27585673)

    Kind of useless really. Crawlers using robots.txt are supposed to uniquely identify themselves, so that you may block specific crawlers. Phorm doesn't do this - instead, it processes directives intended for Google, Yahoo, and all crawlers.

    Effectively, the only way to block Phorm with robots.txt would also block all search engines. That makes it effectively impossible to do, while still allowing them to claim that it can be done.

    Bastards.

    Anyway, if there were a way to block just Phorm using robots.txt, you can bet that as soon as a couple of major sites start doing it, Phorm will start ignoring it.

  • by freelunch ( 258011 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @10:08AM (#27585681)

    More sites should provide an option for https, like gmail does. Some still don't even provide it for authentication.

    Once upon a time there were wimpy CPUs, and https was a more significant computational burden. Now, not so much. Especially when compared to the resource requirements of most dynamic page generation systems.

  • by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) * on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @10:16AM (#27585763)

    I believe that the general issue had more to do with phorm intercepting pages on the ISP's side and re-writing them to insert material before re-serving them to you.

    WTF?! Even ignoring all the privacy issues everyone else is talking about, isn't that still blatantly illegal? It's copyright infringement! By modifying the web page, Phorm is creating a derivative work, and that requires permission of the copyright holder.

  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @10:25AM (#27585865) Journal
    Because sleazy bastards like Phorm would never, ever think of just impersonating an assortment of other people's legitimate User-agent IDs...
  • by Jane_Dozey ( 759010 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @10:27AM (#27585905)

    Phorm wants to inject ads into web pages at the ISP level. They want them to be targeted so not only do they want to alter web content without the owners or receivers consent, they also want to take a look at all web traffic first (deep packet inspection) and keep a history so they can better target the ads. It's opt-out because otherwise no-one would even touch it.

    Now, I'm not going to even try to claim that I'm unbiased as living in the UK means that this monstrosity may well hit me but I think that's not an entirely inaccurate explanation. I really hope that the EC manages to step in and squash Phorm and maybe even slap BT with a giant fine.

    My website content has been written to look how I want it to look. I block many ads as a policy as I don't want crap clogging up my screen or distracting me. Now they want to bypass both my content layout in my website *and* throw ads at me even though I have zero interest in them. Asshats.

  • by threeturn ( 622824 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @11:21AM (#27586565)
    Technical explanation in some detail [cam.ac.uk]

    Q Why is it an opt-out system?
    A Because they couldn't get away with providing no optionality control, so they went for the option which pushed as many users as possible to their system.

    Q When did I or Slashdot give implied consent to anyone to inspect the packets for reasons other than routing?
    A You didn't, but Phorm and the spineless UK government has decided you did.

    Q What data do they collect and what do they do with it?
    A Browsing habits to produce targeted advertising.

The rule on staying alive as a program manager is to give 'em a number or give 'em a date, but never give 'em both at once.

Working...