Paranoid about Cookies...

[Mike Coleman]

Jeffrey Watts <watts at jayhawks.net> writes:
> Right, but all it can track are its URLs, not everywhere that you have
> been.

Effectively that means any page that has a DoubleClick image on it.  It's not
everywhere, but to the degree that they are successful, it can be quite
comprehensive.

> Note that Amazon.com tracks your buying and viewing habits...

I'm not crazy about that either.  At least they are potentially using the data
properly.

> But I throw it back to you -- don't we _want_ targetted advertising?  I
> dislike 99% of the advertising I see, but that 1% I care about I do want to
> see -- wouldn't it be great if we could change the ratio?  Make it more like
> 40/60?

I wouldn't mind it if it was strictly opt-in, and great care was taken to
anonymize the target groups (including outside auditing, etc).  That's not
what's happening at all, though.

> Targetted advertising is a good step towards reducing the amount of
> "broadcast-style" advertising that plagues us every day.  Billboards, junk
> mail, leaflets, etc.  I think that there need to be constraints, but then
> again, the market should take care of it.

Maybe.  The market didn't bring us seat belts or the Internet, though they are
highly desirable and very economical for society as a whole.

> Look at the Intel CPUID marketing fiasco.  Good feature, DREADFUL marketing
> and salesmanship.

It was bad because Intel was trying to ram something their customers generally
didn't want.  I believe the CPUID "feature" is a privacy disaster, and I'm
glad it's gone.

> It scared the bejesus out of a lot of people, when it was actually a good
> idea.  Note that professional computer systems (Suns, SGIs, etc) all have a
> way of identifying the serial number of the system from software.

They do, but I can't see any good reason for this.  Generally the mechanisms
available to keep corporations of any size from unauthorized use of software
seem to be quite effective.

> People freaked out 'cause they thought that somehow MSN.com could somehow
> reach out through the aether and yank the serial number, without your
> permission.

I don't believe that this was an incorrect impression.  If you're running your
MSN client (i.e., a program written by Microsoft) on your CPUID cpu, you are
powerless to prevent it from sending off the id.  (As I recall, anyway; it's
been awhile since I read about this.)

> This is where I agree with you.  I think it is a great idea, but we need
> to have some kind of protection from the government as to use of this
> data.  But note that this ISN'T DoubleClick's fault.  It's a product of
> our wonderful War On Drugs(tm).

Ok.  But I think a decline in privacy is inevitable given tracking databases,
much as an increase in shootings in inevitable given easy access to firearms.
It might be worth the price to some people, but unfortunately those paying the
price are usually not those making the decision.

> You keep implying that DoubleClick is getting information from you that is
> private, but in fact they were simply logging usage patterns.

I consider that my usage patterns *are* private.

> > 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.
> 
> Again, bad analogy.  The appropriate analogy would be for your employer to
> track when and who you call, and use this information to see what you've
> been doing.

Maybe.  Perhaps the analogy should be that the employer records all keystrokes
(i.e., digits) tapped out on your phone and sells that information.  Ever
check your bank balance from work?

> This is perfectly legal, and although it's rather Big Brotherish (and I'd
> certainly quit that job), it is not illegal nor is it unethical.

I think I sense a contradiction here.  If you don't think the behavior is
unethical or illegal, why object to it?  And why would it bother you so much
that you'd even quit your job, just on that basis?

> > 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.
> 
> Again, this IS NOT THE SAME THING AS TRACKING USAGE PATTERNS.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

--Mike

-- 
Any sufficiently adverse technology is indistinguishable from Microsoft.