Jon_King
msg:3496662 | 12:40 pm on Nov 5, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Welcome news to me. I hope the regulations really have some teeth. The do-no-track option should also be applied to online and offline credit card transactions.
|
ember
msg:3496772 | 2:58 pm on Nov 5, 2007 (gmt 0) |
About time. The big boys in online advertising need some oversight.
|
BlueLeaf
msg:3496877 | 4:49 pm on Nov 5, 2007 (gmt 0) |
That's right, you hear that Google?
|
jkwilson78
msg:3497056 | 8:47 pm on Nov 5, 2007 (gmt 0) |
I'm surprised this hasn't gotten more responses. I'm an affiliate marketer so my concern is how they propose to deal with cookies which are very essential to properly crediting commissions and sales. How about anything that relies on cookies for that matter? It's easy to see this as a great way to bring in line big advertisers or sources of ads like Google, but Google could easily require searchers to check a box stating they understand their privacy policy etc before delivering search results. Millions would blindly check the box without a care in the world. Obviously that is an extreme and probably silly possibility but large companies and popular websites that provide a useful service/content that make money through advertising have a good bit of leverage themselves. If you have the content or service people like, the majority of people could care less about the ads being shown, privacy policies, etc. A vocal minority will strongly disagree but a minority it is.
|
greenduck
msg:3497077 | 9:16 pm on Nov 5, 2007 (gmt 0) |
"the complexity of the average privacy policy was too difficult to understand." While the government is so worried about the complexity of privacy policies... can they address tax law, city ordinances, and cell phone bills? ;)
|
Jon_King
msg:3497096 | 9:37 pm on Nov 5, 2007 (gmt 0) |
>>How about anything that relies on cookies for that matter? There is nothing wrong with cookies. It is the consolidation of lot and lots of cookie data to form individual user trends that is the issue. It is the putting together of data (and the same with credit card transactions as I see) to yield a personal profile that is the problem.
|
8kobe
msg:3497163 | 10:39 pm on Nov 5, 2007 (gmt 0) |
I personally do not want the FTC or any government to have anything to do with anything on the internet if at all possible.
|
arieng
msg:3497173 | 10:47 pm on Nov 5, 2007 (gmt 0) |
I foresee this having a similar effect on online advertising to what can-spam had on your inbox. Are you really receiving significantly less spam? Legislation will set boundaries that most of us will abide, while the most egregious violators work the edges of the law's jurisdiction. If anything, it widens the gap and increases the incentive to find a way around the rules. My main concern is how legislators will almost assuredly misunderstand ad serving technologies and botch the regulations. There are so many reasons to 'track' a visitor's actions that are completely legitimate and in no way intrude on privacy. This whole deal has the potential to be the biggest setback that legitimate Internet businesses have ever faced. Well, in the US anyway.
|
jkwilson78
msg:3497720 | 2:22 pm on Nov 6, 2007 (gmt 0) |
| My main concern is how legislators will almost assuredly misunderstand ad serving technologies and botch the regulations. |
|
Amen to that. Almost anything government run/regulated is a clumsy, non-sensical bureaucratic mess.
|
FourDegreez
msg:3497968 | 6:25 pm on Nov 6, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Agreed, legislators don't have a good enough understanding of the technology. Further, there are already solutions available for maintaining one's privacy to one's desired level. Anyone bothered enough about it is already clearing cookies, blocking ads, etc. with freely available software. As for me, I don't really care if Google serves me an ad for widgets today because yesterday I searched for them. If tomorrow I start to care, I'll take advantage of one of the many available privacy tools. Please, don't legislate on my behalf.
|
|
