Consumer Groups Urge "Do Not Track" Registry

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
In theory, a “Do Not Track” list is a good idea. The problem is, and most of us on the Do Not Call list already know this, these things rarely work the way they are supposed to. What do you guys think? Good idea? Bad idea?

The Consumer Federation of America and the Consumers Union also urged the FTC to bar collection of health information and other sensitive data by companies that do business on the Internet unless a consumer consents. The call echoed those of other privacy advocates who filed statements with the FTC on Internet companies' use of "behavioral advertising."
Click to expand...
 
Good Idea. And I don't know what issues you have with the do not call list, as it's been working wonderfully for me. The few that have called me that are not exempt I simply report.
 
I would expect those on the Do Not Track list to have the most money to lose, and I would use it to track them.
 
I'm not sure how useful this would be. I'd like the option, that's for sure, but I don't see it being adopted as widely as the do not call list. On that note, I too have had very little to no calls since signing up, so I can't complain about that.
 
At this point it is better than nothing and with the shadow of prosecution to hang over the head of any violators, it at least puts a layer between you and those that would abuse it.
 
I question how it could possibly be implemented effectively. It would be impossible to do via IPs, as even "static" IPs aren't forever. Would there have to an opt-in to accept a cookie at every site you visit? You can already set your browser to refuse cookies or alert you when one tries to set itself, which becomes a PITA when nearly every site you visit sends a cookie.

I think it may also be overblown in thinking that if you search for "incontinence" and you get ads for adult diapers that this is inappropriate.

This part made me chuckle:

Several child advocacy groups ... urged the FTC to bar advertisers from collecting information on or advertising to anyone under the age of 18.
Click to expand...
Can I sign up somewhere and say I'm only 17 so I'd never have to see any online advertising again?
 
Well, I like the do not call list, but tracking is a bit different. We choose to visit websites, and it's perfectly legal for them (website owners) to log any information that you provide them. They can even share it, if they choose to.

So don't visit websites, if you don't want to be tracked. Or disable cross site scripts. Or assume a super cool virtual identity. I personally just set firefox to ask me about every single cookie request, and I only accept the ones I know I need.. That way you can avoid being tracked to some extent. IP address gives away some information, but NAT kind of messes that up.
 
We need to just stop this rampant abuse of everything. Do we really need a do-not-mail list, a do-not-call list, a do-not-track list, and then what, a do-not-extra-fee list, a do-not-rob-me list, a do-not-spam list? This is like kindergarten, where we have to reason with some overpowered executive with the mental capacity of a three year old who thinks that every loophole is an opportunity.

Let's lock up all the three year olds in their McMansions until they grow up. Or at least give the judiciary some reasoning ability to say that just because something isn't specifically illegal, it is in the spirit of breaking the law and should not be (or have been) done.
 
Personally I think if our personal information on health and other shit is even being considered to be a sellable resource we're already too late.
 
advertising is what makes the web go 'round. If you don't like it, either find a way, technically, to avoid it or get used to it.

No need for more government legislation and spending to "fix" something that comes down to personal responsibility.
 
not sure if this is legal in a lot of countries.. .china would be upset if people could be "untracked" by google... that way they could search for dalai lama, democracy etc... without the police forcing your wife to give an abortion, and locking you up in prison for 8 years.

but i support it! but then i dont know how they would advertise quality goat porn for me anymore if they dont trace my ad searches.
 
I don't see what the big issue is about personalized advertising. I definitely wouldn't mind if the ads I see every day were more useful for me.

Sure, personal information can also be used for bad purposes. But a do-not-track list will not stop anyone from using your info for bad purposes. It wouldn't be worth the money IMO.
 
sharing medical information is illegal.. so i'm not sure how legal this will be unless they share bs from like webmd.com... but doctors cannot share your records without your consent so they would end up in a multi-bigillion lawsuit.

news reporters cant even ask the doctor, if the doctor tells stuff... they are in deep shit. same with mental disabilities in the classroom. its a teacher, councilor, parent, student relationship. if the teacher starts telling other teachers... about lets say a childs depression, it can even be a lawsuit.

so basically if they are general (no tracking of individuals, but the data is there)... they might get away with it. but if they are specific they will get sued. especially if your on campus and someone accesses your info. its just a mess waiting ot happen.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Personally I think if our personal information on health and other shit is even being considered to be a sellable resource we're already too late.
Click to expand...

It was way too late already at least 20 years before you thought that

but I know whatcha mean ;-/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top