Google To Monitor Surfing Habits For Ad-Serving

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."

I thought they'd been doing this for years

Isn't that how Doubleclick made their fortune?

Re:I thought they'd been doing this for years

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]

evil?

I don't get what is so evil about using cookies to determine what kind of advertisements you would be more interested in. I don't mind having ads more tailored to my interests.

Re:evil?

It's evil because it violates your privacy, and there's really no easy way to opt-out. Thankfully we at Slashdot are most likely gifted with the technological acumen to block these cookies...many others, however, won't. If I choose to browse porn while my kids/wife/whatever are asleep, 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). If it in any way gets into the wrong hands (or Google decides to switch their business strategy/privacy policy) then I could be seriously screwed if I decide to run for public office.

Re:

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:evil?

Hahaha....actually I found that out the hard way. I bought something to...enhance...my relationship with a girlfriend (now an ex girlfriend). Every time I sign in I get suggested items for body chocolate, kama sutra tapes, and dildos that look like weapons.

Re:evil?

You can tell amazon not to use an item you have already purchased to suggest other items.

Re:evil?

When they're doing a report on vegetation in China and they Google "Asian bushes" there might be an issue.

Re:

But I'm worried to see Disney ads while I'm watching p0rn!

Re:evil?

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.

Maybe not so bad.

By visiting Google's ad-preferences page, the user can opt out of having their surfing habits tracked, or input their own preferences for the subject matter of ads they would like to see.

At least you can opt-out.

Re:

If you paid attention to the opt-out page google offers a plugin that does exactly this.

Re:

In Firefox, you can set an exception for a particular website. Just allow only the opt-out cookie to be stored when you close the browser. I have Firefox set up to delete all cookies except for those from particular websites which I don't want to have to log in to many times per day (such as Slashdot).

Re:Add-on idea.

No add-on it's in the same place it's been for ages. Go to Tools -> Options -> Privacy Tab -> Under the Cookies part click the exceptions button.

Not as bad as Phorm for one simple reason

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:Not as bad as Phorm for TWO simple reasons

NO ONE expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Google, statistics king, didn't already do this?!

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:

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

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?

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."

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 demo you're in, what products you buy, whether or not you have a lease on your car that's about to expire, and probably a million other things I haven't even thought of. In short: they already know you better than you know yourself. So who really cares about Google, honestly?

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.

Oh, and as an aside, with things like social networking out there, even if you try to disengage from the rest of the world, your friends and family probably haven't, and right now, they're posting pictures about you, writing stories about you, and generally divulging things about you that you probably wish they wouldn't. So, if I were you, I'd find yourself a nice cabin in the woods and hide out there, because frankly, I don't see that you have any other option.

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.

You don't actually have an independently functioning brain. Instead, apparently your brain is a slave to the whims of whatever advertisement happens to be presented to you.

So, nevermind. In fact, ignore this post entirely. It probably just confused you.

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.

Sign me up please

Perhaps I undervalue my security and privacy, but I keep hoping for an increase in the targeted advertising I experience.

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.

Google != Phorm

There are several key differences between Google and Phorm. Google will use a cookie-based system to track you as you visit sites with the relevant Google Ads. Phorm take the data directly out of your clickstream.

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...

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

Re:

"Google, you fiend, do you really expect me to opt out?"
"No, Mr. MadDogX, I expect you to die."

Re:From the article...

(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.

Re:Place your faith in AdBlockPlus and Filterset G

Having no faith in the integrity of Anything on the Web, I choose to block those ads

Where did you get AdBlock from?