[xtypo_dropcap]I[/xtypo_dropcap] was looking at enameled cast iron cookware online a few weeks ago (Merry Christmas to me), and soon I saw ads for the stuff all over the place. “These pots must be pretty popular,” I thought. Finally it dawned on me: I wasn’t viewing these ads by chance, they were meant for me—uniquely targeted to my search habits.
While it’s always a little creepy to consider, most of us should already know that many aspects of our online behavior are being viewed, scrutinized, assessed, and sold to other companies to use for who knows what. Some of this information is used to target ads specific to a consumer’s perceived preferences.
But a significant portion of Internet users consider targeted ads an invasion of privacy. According to a recent Gallup poll, nearly 70 percent of respondents do not want companies matching ads to specific interests based on the websites they visit.
Earlier this month the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released a report recommending “Do Not Track” legislation. An easy, browser-based mechanism would let “consumers choose to opt out completely, or choose certain types of advertising they wish to receive or data they are willing to have collected about them.”
While I am concerned about online privacy, I don’t think Do Not Track will grant me anything significant.
First of all, I think targeted ads can be a good thing. While it’s fun to imagine an ad-free online experience, someone’s got to pay for it. The content we enjoy online remains free because sites generate revenue to operate from the advertising.
Targeted ads are found to bring in more revenue than random ones, which can mean less advertising overall. I personally find it just as easy to ignore ads aimed specifically at me as I do for other advertising, so I think it’s a good deal.
Targeted ads are a lot like the recommendations that sites like Amazon or Netflix offer in response to past purchases. Like targeted ads, most of the time these suggestions don’t interest me much. However, occasionally they provide a welcome service: helpfully pointing out items I will actually purchase. What’s not to like—I’m shown something I want and the merchant makes a sale. Everyone wins.
Of course, a big reason for Do Not Track is that Internet users resent having their personal information used by companies without their consent. However, unlike other identifiable information collected about me during my time online, I think targeted ads actually offer a degree of transparency. When I see these ads I can assess an actual example of the use of my observed Internet habits. They know I look at cookware so they’re trying to sell me some. It’s hardly a conspiracy.
What I am more concerned about are the recorded aspects of my Internet use for things I can’t see. Earlier this year Google admitted to accidentally collecting unencrypted user data, making it clear (if it wasn’t already) that any aspect of your online behavior can be accessed without your permission.
A more recent example can be found from last month when The Register reported that the FBI was pushing Facebook and Google to support a proposal that would make it easier for law enforcement to wiretap their users.
The Do Not Track proposal has received the most attention, but in the same report the FTC also called for less gimmicky measures that I think offer much more to protect the consumer online experience—shorter and clearer privacy notices, a requirement for companies to grant consumers access to the data they maintain, as well as prominent disclosures and greater transparency for data collection.
Do Not Track will only offer the illusion of privacy and control, and that’s not helpful when you’re online. Targeted ads provide evidence that we’re always being tracked, and I consider it a worthy reminder.
I think it’s a good idea to conduct yourself online as if you’re being watched, because you probably are being watched. Pushing a button so you can pretend that it’s not happening won’t make it go away, it will just leave you more vulnerable to the surveillance.
Readers can respond to Mr. Miller at: [email protected]
While it’s always a little creepy to consider, most of us should already know that many aspects of our online behavior are being viewed, scrutinized, assessed, and sold to other companies to use for who knows what. Some of this information is used to target ads specific to a consumer’s perceived preferences.
But a significant portion of Internet users consider targeted ads an invasion of privacy. According to a recent Gallup poll, nearly 70 percent of respondents do not want companies matching ads to specific interests based on the websites they visit.
Earlier this month the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released a report recommending “Do Not Track” legislation. An easy, browser-based mechanism would let “consumers choose to opt out completely, or choose certain types of advertising they wish to receive or data they are willing to have collected about them.”
While I am concerned about online privacy, I don’t think Do Not Track will grant me anything significant.
First of all, I think targeted ads can be a good thing. While it’s fun to imagine an ad-free online experience, someone’s got to pay for it. The content we enjoy online remains free because sites generate revenue to operate from the advertising.
Targeted ads are found to bring in more revenue than random ones, which can mean less advertising overall. I personally find it just as easy to ignore ads aimed specifically at me as I do for other advertising, so I think it’s a good deal.
Targeted ads are a lot like the recommendations that sites like Amazon or Netflix offer in response to past purchases. Like targeted ads, most of the time these suggestions don’t interest me much. However, occasionally they provide a welcome service: helpfully pointing out items I will actually purchase. What’s not to like—I’m shown something I want and the merchant makes a sale. Everyone wins.
Of course, a big reason for Do Not Track is that Internet users resent having their personal information used by companies without their consent. However, unlike other identifiable information collected about me during my time online, I think targeted ads actually offer a degree of transparency. When I see these ads I can assess an actual example of the use of my observed Internet habits. They know I look at cookware so they’re trying to sell me some. It’s hardly a conspiracy.
What I am more concerned about are the recorded aspects of my Internet use for things I can’t see. Earlier this year Google admitted to accidentally collecting unencrypted user data, making it clear (if it wasn’t already) that any aspect of your online behavior can be accessed without your permission.
A more recent example can be found from last month when The Register reported that the FBI was pushing Facebook and Google to support a proposal that would make it easier for law enforcement to wiretap their users.
The Do Not Track proposal has received the most attention, but in the same report the FTC also called for less gimmicky measures that I think offer much more to protect the consumer online experience—shorter and clearer privacy notices, a requirement for companies to grant consumers access to the data they maintain, as well as prominent disclosures and greater transparency for data collection.
Do Not Track will only offer the illusion of privacy and control, and that’s not helpful when you’re online. Targeted ads provide evidence that we’re always being tracked, and I consider it a worthy reminder.
I think it’s a good idea to conduct yourself online as if you’re being watched, because you probably are being watched. Pushing a button so you can pretend that it’s not happening won’t make it go away, it will just leave you more vulnerable to the surveillance.
Readers can respond to Mr. Miller at: [email protected]
