Paranoid about Cookies...

[Mike Coleman]

Jeffrey Watts <watts at jayhawks.net> writes:
> The DoubleClick scheme was to simply track _where_ you viewed its ads.  
> It never had the ability to see "where you have been", 

It has the ability to log every URL you visit that contains one of its ads.  I
don't see your distinction.

> There are certain privacy concerns -- I personally don't really care for
> some ad agency tracking my tastes, but it's not exactly high treason.

No, and as you point out, it's not even illegal.  Nonetheless, we are sliding
down a slippery and insidious slope.  Consider those obnoxious customer
"loyalty" cards that are becoming popular in many grocery chains.  The stated
purpose for these (I'm guessing) is that the grocer can somehow offer a more
apropos variety of more economical products if they are able to track their
customers buying habits precisely.

To me, that sounds like crap and I imagine that this came straight from the
mind of some idiot PHB.  But even if it does work as stated, a database is
being collected and is available for many alternate purposes.  Records are
being subpoenaed by law enforcement, for example.  Buy too many Baggies and
you may end up having the DEA break down your door at midnight.

> Heck, one could look at my web logs as an example of "web tracking".  I
> could, based upon an IP address, build a database of where each IP went,
> and how many times.  Perhaps I could use this information to determine
> which people were Chris Bell groupies by looking at how many times a
> particular IP address read one of his posts in the archives.  Is that
> illegal?  No.  Not at all.  You came to _my_ site.  Is it ethical?  
> Dunno.  I don't think people have really figured that out yet.

I think the "_my_" part is mostly a red herring.  If you come to _my_ house
and use _my_ bathroom and I tape you and broadcast it, this is most definitely
unethical.  Depending on local regs and your age, it might even be illegal.

Similarly, if you talk to your bank on your employer's phone, most people
wouldn't think it proper for your employer to eavesdrop on the conversation
and disseminate the contents as they please.

No, most of this is not illegal.  I believe that most of it should be.  Most
people seem to understand that following someone around and rummaging through
their stuff is creepy and unethical behavior in the meat world, but for some
reason they think it's okay in cyberspace.

> So what would we want advertisers to do?

Actually, I'd want them to divert a lot of the money they're currently
spending ramming their products toward useful mechanisms for me to find
*exactly* what I want when I want it.  If I'm looking for a pepper grinder (as
I was yesterday), show me exactly what stores have which products in stock
right now, and give me objective ratings on their quality, quirks, return
rates, etc.

> > Apparently, Go-Zilla has a TSR that monitors every website that you visit
> > and bounces that information to another URL.

> What does _any_ of this have to do with cookies, a web browser, or Linux?  
> You seem to be using this example as evidence for your beliefs, but this
> example is not germane in any way to this discussion.

It seems germane to me.  It's another example of surreptitious monitoring in
the context of web browsing.  

--Mike

-- 
Any sufficiently adverse technology is indistinguishable from Microsoft.