digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

The true cost of online privacy

dailyfinance.com — Do you like your privacy? I bet you do. What about being able to read all kinds of stuff on the internet without having to hand over your credit card number -- do you like that, too? I bet that's another yes. But which do you like more? You'd better figure that out quickly, because, if you don't, Congress just might decide for you.

Who dugg this? Made popular Jul 3, 2009

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

42 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • yocouchdigga, on 07/03/2009, -2/+28How is this not an invasion of privacy?

    As I understand it, we'd have to "opt-out", shouldn't it be the opposite? Shouldn't we have to opt-in to a program like this!?

    I think Congress, Advertisers, Marketers, data-miners or whoever the ***** it is, needs to GET THE ***** AWAY FROM OUR GOD DAMN INTERENETS!!!

    /RAGE
  • ilikedemoon, on 07/03/2009, -2/+16TIP FROM ILIKEDEMOON: Use Firefox. Go to 'Clear Private Data' ever so often and check 'delete cookies' then 'clear ...'.
  • inactive, on 07/03/2009, -1/+13***** THE RIAA
  • inactive, on 07/02/2009, -2/+12This will be an ever increasing battle I'm afraid, as tech excels concepts freeze
  • jerryjamesstone, on 07/02/2009, -2/+11do they take plastic?
  • peestandingup, on 07/03/2009, -0/+9Or basically just use anything BUT IE??
  • FreddyBoy1, on 07/03/2009, -0/+6Users can opt out of cookie related tracking by deleting cookies or disabling them on their computer, why do they need a law...?? It's stupid...!!
  • dusanmal, on 07/03/2009, -0/+6Because there are schemes ready to be deployed to pay your ISP to track you "at the source" without notice.
  • xenophrenia, on 07/03/2009, -0/+6The government wants to make this an opt-in while advertisers want it to be opt-out. I prefer opt-in thank you very much. Most times they make it very difficult to opt-out and often you are not even told about the option. So I like the idea of advertisers being forced to use opt-in. There will be people who will and I don't think they have ANY right to collect my data without my permission. (Yes, I know they already do - that's why it should be stopped)
  • mr5150, on 07/03/2009, -3/+8Eternal Vigilance is the price of Freedom and if you believe the internet should respect your privacy well too bad. It doesn't and shouldn't....that's what makes it so great.

    If you want you privacy then get the ***** of facebook and other douche sites otherwise quit the ***** whining.
  • inactive, on 07/03/2009, -0/+5Totally!

    The only thing governments should do is post a website.
  • inactive, on 07/03/2009, -1/+6Congress can piss off?
  • inactive, on 07/03/2009, -1/+6don't they know every1 uses adblock plus? god, everything is about advertising.
  • pin0chet, on 07/03/2009, -0/+4if you are sending sensitive data over your ISPs wires in plaintext, that's your problem. robust end-to-end encryption is free and widely available. i recommend you use it, that is, if you care about privacy that much.
  • pin0chet, on 07/03/2009, -0/+4no most people don't use adblock plus. if they did, how the heck would, say, Digg exist? it's almost entirely sustained by advertising, and running Digg's servers ain't cheap...
  • dusanmal, on 07/03/2009, -1/+5"If online ad rates don't rise, the universe of available free content is likely to contract considerably. The easiest way to boost the cost of web advertising is to increase its value to advertisers by making it more effective with exactly the kind of behavioral tracking and targeting that Congress is looking to restrict." - Again tired old school thinking. Neither the easiest nor most effective way. Real future of online ad-revenue is good content attracting truly interested audience who do want to learn about some product relevant to them. Niche-adv-ing, without need for tracking. Most similar case in old school: Superbowl ads.
  • hawkspur, on 07/03/2009, -1/+5This is unenforceable if it passes (which it won't).

    EFF GO!
  • funkyloki, on 07/03/2009, -0/+3You know you can also set it to automatically clear all private data every time you close the browser. Then you don't have to do those couple of clicks every time, it does it for you.
  • JohnEHubertz, on 07/04/2009, -0/+2I value it - as it brings forward sexual, political and other dialogue that tells us we are all the same, people with weird hungers, strange thoughts and different opinions.

    Our "secrets" (that they of course can know - through NSA and monitoring and spying etc etc etc) mean they can control US and help us fear our neighbor - who (whispering) might be a MEXICAN.

    Thank God he is - because he's the best Dad on the block and an activist for human rights and open borders - another little hate crime against the world. Can't pay mexicans 20cents an hour if they have the right to leave, can you.... this is corporate colonialism folks - it's the friggin CARS AND TVs that take our jobs - borders are for PRODUCTS

    Thank the "net - because the God and Govt folks have been blaming and naming and shaming us into their evil system for 5000 years.

    People, my name is john hubertz, i'm a recovering addict, am bipolar, am a socialist and have a mild "you're naughty and i spank adult females" fetish... so what?

    This is a move to hide THEIR OWN SINS - like Iraq, halliburton and all the other truths we now know.

    KEEP THE FREE INTERNET
  • LordByr0n, on 07/03/2009, -0/+2I have been doing this for quite a time. All my friends thinks its a waist of time but its only a couple more clicks and I find it works for the better.
  • synapz, on 07/04/2009, -0/+2That's fine, if it's your privacy.

    Stay the ***** away from mine.
  • SpeedyG, on 07/03/2009, -0/+1What a poorly written article.

    I don't see anywhere in the article any sort of even rabble-rousing about what the government might do. Just a "government deciding something is bad" connotation.

    It's like he's making the argument that if the advertising industry isn't allowed to track people in a really draconian manner online, the price of stuff will go up. Or, perhaps, if the ad dollar online doesn't replace the ad dollar offline quick enough, it'll threaten companies who are making fewer and fewer dollars offline while providing content for free ad-supported viewing online. Maybe he's trying to say that he supports the ad agencies' guidelines over being limited by the government.

    The last one might actually be the most likely point. So far, online advertising hasn't just been really annoying; it's also been an online security risk. If nobody steps up and tries to take some of the Wild West out of online advertising, the government will clamp down. (Said clampdown won't actually affect anything, much in the way that shutting down a server in one country doesn't prevent someone from setting up in another, but it would make it a much harder uphill climb for legitimate ad agencies.)
  • pin0chet, on 07/03/2009, -2/+3When you GIVE somebody else information about you, you're opting in right there. When you send a request to Google's servers to send you search results, that means Google knows a)what you searched for and b)your IP address. If you don't want them to know those things, then you can use an anonymizing service. Or you can just not use Google -- there are other search engines out there that don't collect your IP address or query. But it's not a violation of your privacy to use data that you VOLUNTARILY hand over for marketing reasons.
  • Twinnie, on 07/03/2009, -2/+3I think it comes down to the type of website, some sites like MySpace (or Digg) attract impressionable retards so their ads will be worth a lot but start getting a little more technical and they're going to start filtering down to the more web-savvy types who are pretty much immune to advertising, and well aware of the tools at their disposal to help decide which product to buy rather than being won over by a pretty banner ad.

    And none of this is helped at all by those people who use AdBlock to filter everything and deny site makers the small amount of revenue they get after paying a little in bandwidth for their visit. Ignoring a banner takes so much effort.
  • AgmLauncher, on 07/05/2009, -0/+1The operative word being "somehow". It's not magic, it's money. For those of us not fortunate to have enough of it to bankroll a server network that costs tens of thousands of dollars a year, there isn't much alternative...
  • AgmLauncher, on 07/03/2009, -0/+1The only thing that's "wild west" about advertising is the distinct lack of targeting. Digg is showing me ads for Spanish television networks (which pisses me off, but I won't get into that...)

    I don't want to see ads for female hygiene products. I don't want to see ads for Microsoft "enterprise ready" solutions. If I have to see ads, I want them to be 100% relevant to me.

    And yes, I have to see ads. Ad blocking is not a healthy sustainable practice. Digg.com WOULD NOT EXIST if everyone blocked ads. In fact, I would argue that digg.com wouldn't have to include custom sponsored content in the news river if nobody blocked ads. They have to recoup that loss somehow.
  • TwizzleNicole, on 08/04/2009, -0/+1Are we living in 1984? This is such a Big Brother world now, the governments know all our steps.... scary...
  • LeviTheSmith, on 07/03/2009, -0/+1I thought the commercial was a parody and she was vomiting due to him using IE and the guy comes in and tells you to download Firefox but it was a weird MS advert
  • AgmLauncher, on 07/04/2009, -0/+1This isn't about ad agencies, it's about YOUR ability to enjoy sites like digg. So yes, it very much is your problem.

    Your post borders on paranoia. As I said, I run a site, I work with advertising, and it's not all black hat tricks to gather a top secret folder of personal information about you.

    I'm what most would consider an internet power user. I don't get viruses and I don't get trojans (especially not from ads). Why? Because I'm smart about what sites/pages I visit and how I use the internet. If you visit a shady site with shady advertising that is a security risk to you, then to quote your own words "It's not my problem" ;)
  • SpeedyG, on 07/04/2009, -0/+1I'm realizing that you haven't actually read the article, and still aren't addressing any of the points I'm making.

    The source article talks about a coalition of advertisers and marketers trying to write a set of clear guidelines on what's an appropriate use of consumer information.

    It's a very good idea. But it's only just an idea at this stage. It's not as concrete as the established history of online advertising up to this point, which is riddled with douchebaggery like popunders, clear gifs, annoying seizure-inducing flashy things, mouseover popups, ad boxes intentionally designed to look like Windows alert boxes, and all the worst drama that Javascript has to offer. And for an example of embarrassing failure by a reputable company, see the AOL search log debacle of a few years back.

    This very simple point is being muddled, both by you and by the article writer. It's being hidden in the black/white argument of "either we advertise online however we want or free online content dies". The most worthwhile point in the article is about how the gray area in between gets defined.

    The article writer tries to claim that any regulation is a bad thing with some nebulous arguments about having to pull out your credit card to do anything online, while at the same time dismissing privacy concerns as abstract.

    Somewhere in the middle is Twitter, which nobody but technorati knew about two years ago, and now, every advertiser is licking their chops just thinking about what they could do with access to information on that user base. Somehow Twitter managed to grow with very little ad agency advertising.
  • inactive, on 07/05/2009, -0/+1 I agree with you.
    That also goes for grocery stores DLB,etc.They should not be allowed to sell your phone number or address unless you agree to it.
  • inactive, on 07/04/2009, -0/+1 If they would pay me I'd give them my info, ($500/00 a month sounds like a good start.) otherwise,butt out.
  • SpeedyG, on 07/03/2009, -0/+1You pulled two words out of my comment, and swerved everything else I said.

    Online advertising has a decade-long history of being a security risk. If I go to the wrong page, an "ad" will try to exploit my browser and take over my computer. In that atmosphere, if you tell me that ad agencies want to track me online, I want no part of it. I don't trust it.

    I would love to see ads for things I'm in the market for. The problem is this: "targeted" advertising as it currently exists involves hiding 1x1 blank gifs on webpages. Or hiding the authorization for such targeting in a 20 page EULA, in a text box that only allows me to read a half page at a time. It's an exercise in trying to sneak stuff past me in bad faith, under the assumption that if I really knew how the information was being used, I'd stop it.

    Somewhere in the middle is a fine line between "taking my personal information for the purpose of providing me with something" and "taking my personal information to give to someone else who finds it valuable, while I get nothing from the transaction". One of those can be construed as identity theft.

    If the ad agencies get together, get their equivalent of an online privacy Bill of Rights together, AND implement it properly where I, the consumer, get to decide how my information gets used, then I, the consumer, can see a value for said targeting.

    As it is now, I see the risks outweighing the rewards. I don't give a **** whether "Ad blocking is not a healthy sustainable practice." I don't work for the ad agencies. It's not my problem.

    As for Digg's business model, Digg gets value both from the consumers who view the ads and from those who don't, because those who don't still digg and comment and contribute. The fraction of the Digg userbase not viewing ads is only a big problem for those trying to advertise to the Digg userbase.
  • fallingdamage, on 07/03/2009, -1/+2nobody decides for us.

    Whatever is free will be used, read, and accepted.
    on the other hand, anyt virtual goods people try to attach monetary value to will simply be pirated to the masses.
  • RyanElston, on 07/03/2009, -0/+1"Again tired old school thinking." I'm really confused how "tired and old school" web tracking is compared to film and print advertising.

    I actually work in advertising and most of what you're (dusanmal) saying is true. "Real future of online ad-revenue is good content attracting truly interested audience who do want to learn about some product relevant to them." except the idea that we brands aren't going to need to track anything. Right now brands are still scared of taking there advertising money and putting more into online with out some sort of accountability of the campaigns success which tracking can provide.

    Having made online ad's myself... I'm not quite sure what all the fuss is about. People get really weird ideas about sort of information is collected. No one is interested in you personally, its all just statistics. Do we call the census a invasion of privacy? ...... granted its a census designed to make product more appealing to more people.... but a census non the less.
  • inactive, on 07/05/2009, -0/+1 My problem is even if they make a decent product I may not want/need it...So i don't want to be bothered.
  • Twinnie, on 07/03/2009, -2/+2Much easier said than done, the future of ad-revenue is in limited data-tracking I'm afraid. You say that if they want us to click on their ads they should give us a decent product? They've been trying to do that for years, and if making an attractive ad sounds so easy to you then you should take up a career in advertising.
  • andyaustin, on 09/28/2009, -0/+0Now I'm reading about this hot online privacy topic. I think that this topic is very important because nowadays we all have computers and internet. FreddyBoy1,you are so right. Users have to decide about the cookies and other internet tracks. I have the right software- Mil Shield that cares for deleting my cookies and removing of other my internet tracks instead of me.

    Nobody can not force me to reveal my privacy. Nobody!!!!
  • zachstanley, on 07/03/2009, -1/+0Anyone else read the title as "The true cost of online PIRACY"? Sheesh, all this crap about the Pirate Bay lately is getting to me.
  • MrViklund, on 07/03/2009, -4/+2DiGG me UP!
  • mrpunman, on 07/03/2009, -10/+3Use IE8!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB9fhjnJcB0

    /s
  • RyanElston, on 07/03/2009, -16/+1Personally, I'd rather go with less privacy.... seriously. I think that if most of the facebook millennial generation really thought about it they would agree as well. Advertizing is looking like the most likely bankroll behind the inovation happening on the internet.

    Besides, if the government is collecting this information anyway.....

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.