| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| Do Not Track: an uncertain future |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-10-12 23:06:08 |
| "With the fate of our beloved internet economy allegedly at stake, perhaps it's a good time to examine what Do Not Track is. How did the standard came to be, what does it do, and how does it stand to change online advertising? Is it as innocuous as privacy advocates make it sound, or does it stand to jeopardize the free, ad-supported internet we've all come to rely on?" Do Not Track is inherently flawed because it gives people a false sense of security. Other than perhaps well-known and accountable sites, nobody's going to abide by it anyway. We don't need nonsense like DNT - we need to educate people about that 'private browsing' button. Everybody's already using it for porn anyway; shouldn't be hard to let people know what other things it can be used for. |
|
| I had to stop reading after this bit |
| By darknexus on 2012-10-12 23:25:40 |
|
> to create an online equivalent of the successful nationwide Do Not Call list — a single list of opt-outs that all telemarketers had to respect. There are three things wrong with this statement, and any news source worth its salt should have made the effort to find this out: 1. The do not call list must explicitly be requested by telemarketers, 2. They do not technically have to respect it even if they request it. It's a massive list of phone numbers (sometimes with names if you put your name on it) that is out for public consumption. Even if legally they must respect it, you have no way to prove whether a company did or did not. As it's available easily, even if you make a claim against a company, it becomes your word against theirs and we know what the US government does when it comes to the word of a business against the word of an individual. 3. There are many exceptions to the do not call list, noteably for political campaign calling and other types of services falling under this type of category. This can be interpreted as broadly as one can get away with, like much of the laws here. As a result of these things, one can hardly call this list a success. Do not track does, in fact, remind me of this list because, like the list, it's a standard that no one actually has to comply with. It's theater, pure and simple. |
 - Score: 3 |
| Comment by ssokolow |
| By ssokolow on 2012-10-12 23:36:30 |
|
I was always lead to believe that Do Not Track was intended to obsolete per-company opt-out cookies. Basically, as an alternative to extensions like TACO and Keep My Opt-Outs which install a massive list of company-specific opt-out cookies in your browser and protect them from tools which might flush them out while clearing other cookies. That also seems to be how advertising companies which sign on are treating it... as a simpler way to meet the voluntary opt-out commitments they've made to avoid being slapped with legislation. That's why it's important that browsers have it turned off by default. (They really should have chosen a name that makes the intent more obvious. Something with "Opt-Out" in the spec's title like "Unified Tracking Opt-Out") Edited 2012-10-12 23:52 UTC |
| - Score: 3 |
| All I've ever thought about DNT... |
| By Lazarus on 2012-10-13 00:22:12 |
| "Do Not Track is inherently flawed because it gives people a false sense of security. Other than perhaps well-known and accountable sites, nobody's going to abide by it anyway." |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE: All I've ever thought about DNT... |
| By ssokolow on 2012-10-13 00:34:36 |
|
If you don't mind my asking, how would you have thought of it if it had been presented, persistently, in terms of a checkbox labelled with "Request that all participating sites opt me out of being tracked" (Sort of like how Firefox labels the checkbox with "Tell websites I do not want to be tracked") While I don't have time to run a study, I am quite curious how much the unfortunate naming might be affecting peoples' impressions of the feature. Edited 2012-10-13 00:37 UTC |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE: I had to stop reading after this bit |
| By UltraZelda64 on 2012-10-13 00:37:01 |
|
> Even if legally they must respect it, you have no way to prove whether a company did or did not. That's why they allow you to report an unsolicited call, isn't it? https://complaints.donotcall.gov/... I'm sure the government has just about any advertiser's number in their own database, so just about any sales call you get and notify them of they can probably easily track. I do agree that the Do Not Call registry is not as good as it could be, because ANYTHING that is not considered advertisement (telemarketing) is allowed. Which unfortunately includes survey companies, charities and political organizations--but if you tell them not to call, they *should* listen (who knows if they will or not though). But theoretically, a telemarketer *must* listen, because they're just opening themselves up to potential trouble if they don't and they end up calling back. I have received a grand total of One telemarketing call in the last year that I had my current phone and number, which was earlier this year (it was a Spanish-spoken recording). I immediately reported the number, not sure if it really had much of an effect or not (you can never tell), but I never heard from that number since. Then again, it's a cell phone and I don't give its number to everyone. But by putting your number on the list, you are, in fact, making it directly available to the telemarketers... but really, they probably have every U.S. phone number there is anyway (probably buy them from phone companies, government organizations and other businesses), so what difference does it make, other than if you're on the list they have liability? The bad thing would be the "allowed" unsolicited callers buying the list and using it to conduct their business, but I really haven't got any political or survey calls either--except one survey call, to one of my Google Voice numbers, which I determined to be a company that does business with my bank. Called once, I didn't even know till half a month later because my phone never rang: they hung up as soon as GV asked them for their name. My understanding is that the telemarketers are supposed to buy the list of numbers and obey it by adding all of the numbers to their database of numbers to NOT call. If they don't, they can get in trouble. Edited 2012-10-13 00:54 UTC |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[2]: I had to stop reading after this bit |
| By Bill Shooter of Bul on 2012-10-13 01:12:19 |
|
Well, here's the thing about the donotcall list. The scammers who are already doing illegal things, don't f'n care. The calls are routed through individual lines not tied through a buisness somehow ( skype??, burner cell phones?, forged Caller Id? I don't know). On calling back the number, I only ever get busy signals. I have one that has my number. I've reported each call to the FTC for the past year, but haven't got a response. Each time I also add it to a block list of numbers that simply don't ring, so they may be trying more than I actually realize. I image a do not email list would work just as well for scammers. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[3]: I had to stop reading after this bit |
| By UltraZelda64 on 2012-10-13 01:53:55 |
|
> The scammers who are already doing illegal things, don't f'n care. That's true, unfortunately, but it always was and always will be the case. No amount of government "regulation" will ever be capable of stopping all "illegal" activities. As for scammers using bogus CallerID data... it's possible. That information can easily be masked. If that's what's happening, well, you really were found by the wrong people. In that case, probably nothing short of changing your phone number and making sure right from the start that it's not listed in the phone book is going to help. But if it got that bad, just changing your number would at least save your sanity... but at the cost of a possible fee and having to get everyone to update their records of your phone number. It might be a massive PITA, but if it really has got that bad then the end result would be worth it. |
| - Score: 2 |
| Do not call?!? |
| By Alfman on 2012-10-13 03:06:33 |
|
"Back in 2007, a coalition of activists, academics, and lawyers approached the FTC to create an online equivalent of the successful nationwide Do Not Call list — a single list of opt-outs that all telemarketers had to respect." I actually really *like* the idea of the do not call list, but it only stops telemarketers who actually choose to abide by it. I get these damned automated calls for "home security" at least every week, sometimes several times a day. The voice says "There's been a crime in your neighbourhood...". I've been reporting these violations nearly every day for a year, they rotate between a handful of numbers, and I'm far from the only one who has these problems with these very same guys. You'd think they'd get a clue that I'm never going to buy anything from them...argh! http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Numb... http://www.numberguru.com/406-85... http://callerr.com/4068528003 http://whocalled.us/lookup/40685... http://www.numberinvestigator.co... I pay for received calls, they come at all times of the day, sometimes when I'm sleeping or driving or on vacation. They are costing me time and money. At the very absolute least the FEDs should shut down this phone number, but no..the spammer's been using the same numbers without interruption since at least 2010. What have all of our DNC complaints yielded us? Zilch! The do-not-call list is self-enforced and toothless. I keep hoping if I file enough complaint's it'll finally end. Sorry about this rant, but when I read "successful nationwide Do Not Call list", I just needed to point out the author's naivety - it only stops companies who respect it voluntarily. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[2]: I had to stop reading after this bit |
| By Alfman on 2012-10-13 03:25:16 |
|
UltraZelda64, "That's why they allow you to report an unsolicited call, isn't it?" You are fortunate that you don't have a problem with unsolicited robo-calls, I don't even know how many people have problems with them besides me (both my mobile and landline get them)... I suspect that IF you did get lots of unsolicited calls to begin with, you'd probably find the do-not-call violation reporting useless, unfortunately. "If they don't, they can get in trouble." The trouble is they don't get in trouble. Edit: (quoted from another post) "In that case, probably nothing short of changing your phone number and making sure right from the start that it's not listed in the phone book is going to help." Well, mine isn't listed, and since hanging up/unsubscribing has never worked, I try to get to a live operator to get them to take me off their list, they usually hang up when they find out I want them to stop calling, but one of them told me "I cannot take you off the list, there isn't one". They must be literally going through phone permutations for a given area code. Edited 2012-10-13 03:33 UTC |
| - Score: 2 |
| Distraction |
| By kwan_e on 2012-10-13 03:25:56 |
| Do Not Track is diverting attention away from draconian data retention laws anyway. |
| - Score: 2 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |