8 ms·
The author bills it as 'freedom of choice', but I would argue we already have freedom of choice when it comes to advertising on the internet. In the same way th
by nowarninglabel 16y ago
The author bills it as 'freedom of choice', but I would argue we already have freedom of choice when it comes to advertising on the internet. In the same way that I can mute the TV when commercials come on, I can also turn on ad blocker, flash blocker, cookie blocker, and other such plugins or extensions. These steps will foil all but the most invasive advertisers, for whom you can still foil by more sophisticated methods. The choice is there, but it's up to the consumer to take action.
- marcusbooster 16y agoAnd what if sites continue to track you using browser signature techniques? This is not about having an "arms race" with every internet user, but having a default policy in place.
- catch23 16y agoShouldn't that fall under the responsibility of the browser author then? It seems like this policy just makes it easier for individuals to file lawsuits.
- ktsmith 16y agoThe average user is not sophisticated enough to implement most of the steps you are comparing with a mute button so the comparison isn't really that great. It's more about being a matter of "freedom of choice" for everyone and not just those that are technically savvy. Anyone can fill out the form to get a phone number on the do not call list, not everyone can install and maintain an ad blocker, cookie blocker, flash blocker nor manage to get those turned off when they actually need a feature on a site that isn't related to tracking them but the service that is provided.
- jasonlotito 16y agoActually, you can. You can buy software to do this for you. I believe Norton does this, as do other internet security software available for home users (not entirely sure here). DNC was different: People called you. On the internet, web sites don't call you; rather, you "call" web sites.
- ktsmith 16y agoI can't speak to the most of these pieces of software but things like Norton don't do any good. They don't block ads and they allow you to remove cookies after the fact during their scans but not during sessions so you are still being tracked during any browsing sessions you may have between scans. While you "call" websites you aren't telling the advertisers on those websites that you want them to follow you around the Internet you are interacting with the site you chose to visit and it's operators. That seems very much like an unwanted telephone call to me. They are both unwanted interactions with third parties that you should be able to opt-out of. edit: These software solutions are still not even close to being comparable with the mute button used in the first example and barely comparable to the DNC. More importantly they are of questionable effectiveness.
- jasonlotito 16y agoYou make some good points. As I said, I'm not really aware first hand of their capabilities. I'll just say that I still think that if a problem exists, the solution should be solved by the market, rather than any attempt at some form of "legislation." There are things that the browser makers and software vendors can do still. The problem, I think, is no one wants to pay for their privacy, but a lot of people, I imagine, would pay to give it up.
- nowarninglabel 16y agoI disagree. The user is sophisticated enough, but they need training. I work on a ship in the summers, and a subset of those people have no idea what I mean when I say the above things I mentioned. However, I show them, have them do the same action, and then they understand and are good to go. I believe making users smarter is a greater long term solution than policing behavior (of corporations or users).
- earl 16y agoIf you don't want to be tracked, the single best thing to do is to disable 3rd party cookies.