4 ms·
Conflict Over How Open ‘Do Not Track’ Talks Will Be
- killwhitey 15y ago>The advertising group, however, defines it as forbidding the serving of targeted ads to individuals but not prohibiting the collection of data. Astounding.
- jerrya 15y agoSubmitted for your perusal: "As Internet privacy has become a bigger issue in Washington, technology companies have been increasing their lobbying. Google and Facebook recently bolstered their lobbying teams. Google hired Susan Molinari, a former New York congresswoman. Facebook hired Greg Maurer, a former aide to House Speaker John Boehner."
- magicalist 15y agoNothing like a little techcrunch in your HN. You should really re-title your submission. You do the community a disservice when you turn to intellectual dishonesty to fan the flames (which don't even need any help here anyways).
- daeken 15y agoAt this point, I'm just flagging articles with sensationalized titles, no matter the content. We as a community need to enforce a standard of conduct for submissions, or it'll continue to get worse.
- daegloe 15y agoApologies if the title mislead. I was not trying to sensationalize. It was simply my takeaway from the article. Which I fully admit was influenced by my personal bias, but I never claimed to be impartial. Title adjusted.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- voidr 15y agoIf I'd had a site that lived off ads, and someone would come with a Do Not Track option, I would display a "Then get the hell out of my site" message. Collecting data is fine, as long as it's handled reasonably. What Washington should be focused on is what happens to the data after it's been collected? what control do I have over my own data? These are far more important than what they are currently focusing on, of coure the advertising group is deliberately misleading the debate.