Landmark change in Web ad privacy - The Death of Metrics

44 replies
Congress weighs landmark change in Web ad privacy
Metrics are the lifeblood of any serious marketer.

Is Opt in and Opt out for data collection the death of metrics?

washingtonpost.com
#change #death #landmark #metrics #privacy #web
  • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
    Warning: pure opinion coming.

    Bob, I doubt this will be the end of metrics. At worst, it may make the measurements a little less precise. I think that most people simply don't care enough to bother with it.

    Look at how many people run various tool bars and widgets, knowing full well that their surfing patterns are being recorded.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1162731].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

      Warning: pure opinion coming.

      Bob, I doubt this will be the end of metrics. At worst, it may make the measurements a little less precise. I think that most people simply don't care enough to bother with it.

      Look at how many people run various tool bars and widgets, knowing full well that their surfing patterns are being recorded.
      I'm sure he realizes that. He IS a marketer. Nobody is really against metrics as long as the group is big enough. Then again, some minorities don't want to be targeted. If you found blacks bought 51% of the watermelons for example(NOT a real statistic, but a good example for this), then they would scream stereotype, etc...

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1162788].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Michael Mayo
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        I'm sure he realizes that. He IS a marketer. Nobody is really against metrics as long as the group is big enough. Then again, some minorities don't want to be targeted. If you found blacks bought 51% of the watermelons for example(NOT a real statistic, but a good example for this), then they would scream stereotype, etc...

        Steve


        Wow,
        What a choice for an example...lol
        Gets Popcorn to see how this thread plays out!

        Michael
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1162915].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Killer Joe
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        If you found blacks bought 51% of the watermelons for example(NOT a real statistic, but a good example for this), then they would scream stereotype, etc...

        Steve
        Geez, I'd hate to see a bad example for this.

        Perhaps saying Blondes bought 51% of all White-Out sold would be a little more benign.

        KJ
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1163027].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by Killer Joe View Post

          Geez, I'd hate to see a bad example for this.

          Perhaps saying Blondes bought 51% of all White-Out sold would be a little more benign.

          KJ
          Don't blondes have ENOUGH problems without any fuel on the fire? OK, just saying. Frankly, I HATE watermelon, and I haven't seen a lot of blacks eating it either, does that make you feel better? I just tried to think of some stereotype that some knew about about some product and race.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1163392].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Black Hat Cat
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Killer Joe View Post

          Geez, I'd hate to see a bad example for this.

          Perhaps saying Blondes bought 51% of all White-Out sold would be a little more benign.

          KJ
          You're basically making his point for him.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1164428].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author havplenty
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        I'm sure he realizes that. He IS a marketer. Nobody is really against metrics as long as the group is big enough. Then again, some minorities don't want to be targeted. If you found blacks bought 51% of the watermelons for example(NOT a real statistic, but a good example for this), then they would scream stereotype, etc...

        Steve
        You are damn right about that not being a statistic! I am sure using that 'superior' brain of yours, a more intelligent argument can be posited towards the issue of metrics.

        Go on then...
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1163478].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
          You are damn right about that not being a statistic! I am sure using that 'superior' brain of yours, a more intelligent argument can be posited towards the issue of metrics.
          Just for the record...

          Yes, that was a poor choice of example to show the (very real) potential for abuse of advertising to stereotypes, but that's all it was. I have never seen Steve behave in any way that indicated any sort of bias against or about any group based on race, religion or other non-political categorization.

          Complain about tacky if you want, but that's all it was. He just ain't like that.

          Don't get him started on politics, though.


          Paul
          Signature
          .
          Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1163500].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kurt
            Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

            Just for the record...

            Yes, that was a poor choice of example to show the (very real) potential for abuse of advertising to stereotypes, but that's all it was. I have never seen Steve behave in any way that indicated any sort of bias against or about any group based on race, religion or other non-political categorization.

            Complain about tacky if you want, but that's all it was. He just ain't like that.

            Don't get him started on politics, though.


            Paul
            Paul,

            While you haven't, I have. This is the 3rd or 4th such comment from Steve I've read over the years.
            Signature
            Serious about Print on Demand? Discover how YOU can join my FREE exclusive secret alliance
            Plus how to get my Print on Demand Treasure Maps for FREE
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1164561].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
              Kurt,
              While you haven't, I have. This is the 3rd or 4th such comment from Steve I've read over the years.
              Tacky choice of example that showed less verbal sensitivity than one might want? Yep. I can think of two specific examples offhand myself that exploded on him. But they were the same sort of thing. Deliberately meant to show the dangers of stereotypes, and not as clear as one would like in presentation.

              When you have as many strong opinions as Steve has, and post as quickly as and with the odd style he does, you're going to face that challenge. On the flip side, I've seen Steve interact with every kind of person in this group in a helpful fashion, and without ever saying or doing anything that, when looked at closely, was meant as a slight toward any non-political factor.

              A lot of people find Steve's style annoying. (No slight intended. A lot more find my style outright offensive.) When you form an opinion about someone, it's easy for that to color how you read everything they write. That's a dangerous trap, as it makes it all too easy to misjudge the person unfairly.

              I've had plenty of heated arguments with Steve over the years. I can tell you from personal experience that if he means to call you something unpleasant, he'll just come out and do it. He's no good at all about hiding his opinions on things. (That's a good trait, in itself.)

              I've never seen anything real that points to those kinds of Isms from him. I've seen plenty of evidence to the contrary.

              Over the top sometimes? Yeah. But if that were a crime, you and I would be right in line with him for trial.


              Paul
              Signature
              .
              Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1165103].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

                Kurt,Tacky choice of example that showed less verbal sensitivity than one might want? Yep. I can think of two specific examples offhand myself that exploded on him. But they were the same sort of thing. Deliberately meant to show the dangers of stereotypes, and not as clear as one would like in presentation.

                When you have as many strong opinions as Steve has, and post as quickly as and with the odd style he does, you're going to face that challenge. On the flip side, I've seen Steve interact with every kind of person in this group in a helpful fashion, and without ever saying or doing anything that, when looked at closely, was meant as a slight toward any non-political factor.

                A lot of people find Steve's style annoying. (No slight intended. A lot more find my style outright offensive.) When you form an opinion about someone, it's easy for that to color how you read everything they write. That's a dangerous trap, as it makes it all too easy to misjudge the person unfairly.

                I've had plenty of heated arguments with Steve over the years. I can tell you from personal experience that if he means to call you something unpleasant, he'll just come out and do it. He's no good at all about hiding his opinions on things. (That's a good trait, in itself.)

                I've never seen anything real that points to those kinds of Isms from him. I've seen plenty of evidence to the contrary.

                Over the top sometimes? Yeah. But if that were a crime, you and I would be right in line with him for trial.


                Paul
                I just wanted to make a good point. Sometimes even GENERAL demographics will cause anger. You have to admit, I proved the case. It IS a shame. race, religion, sex, age, and politics should be out of the picture somewhat, and I do NOT want to get ads for viagra just because I happen to be a middle aged male. Might religious people want to see candles, or women certain hygeine products? WHO KNOWS?

                As for havplenty? PLEASE don't misunderstand this, because this might get Michael Mayo to get another bag of popcorn. I wouldn't even have known he was black outside of the avatar and reaction to the statement, not that it would even matter. Why should I have ANYTHING against him? I DON'T! If he were to ask me for some help, I would be as likely to help as with anyone else. I wish him only the best. And have I said anything against Willie Crawford? I normally wouldn't even say Willie, but that is what he calls himself.

                There may be HUNDREDS of other people I could name, but I haven't been tracking race. There wouldn't be any point. On another system, I met a girl years ago and only found out THIS year she was black! My opinion of her didn't change.

                OK, hopefully Mayo won't run up his weight and cholesterol on that.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1165726].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by havplenty View Post

          You are damn right about that not being a statistic! I am sure using that 'superior' brain of yours, a more intelligent argument can be posited towards the issue of metrics.

          Go on then...
          I HOPE you are just kidding, and know what I was getting at. All I mean is that certain demographic groups wouldn't want to be singled out either. I'm not going to argue anything against any group, and didn't mean it as an insult.

          I will say though, that you DID illustrate my point well. I could just as easily have said "use tide" instead of "eat watermelons", and someone might have spoken up.

          As long as I am at it, I hope Michael Mayo is enjoying his popcorn.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1163697].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author havplenty
            Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

            I HOPE you are just kidding, and know what I was getting at. All I mean is that certain demographic groups wouldn't want to be singled out either. I'm not going to argue anything against any group, and didn't mean it as an insult.

            I will say though, that you DID illustrate my point well. I could just as easily have said "use tide" instead of "eat watermelons", and someone might have spoken up.

            As long as I am at it, I hope Michael Mayo is enjoying his popcorn.

            Steve
            Steve I'm glad you weren't trying to insult anyone. And the 'tide' example would have been perfect. For me at least

            Hav
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1164068].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Michael Mayo
            Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

            As long as I am at it, I hope Michael Mayo is enjoying his popcorn.

            Steve
            Hi Steve,
            I hope you realise that I didn't mean anything towards you in my post.

            You shell shocked me with the example...lol

            I know you meant well. I also knew that some may take the example
            offensively and/or personal.

            My screw up was quoting your post. Doing that kinda inhibited you from
            using a different example. I apologise for that, My bad.

            If it's any consolation, I burnt the popcorn!

            Have a Great Day!
            Michael
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1164431].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Yeah, give me a break. One Czar OBVIOUSLY knew what he was doing, based on his views spoken publically, but even HE publically claimed that he was being persecuted because he signed something he HADN'T READ, and RESIGNED partly because of it! And THAT was probably just a couple paragraphs.

    What IDIOT expects someone to constantly check and reread possibly HUNDREDS of pages every day? Frankly, the idea of "opting out" to something you really can't even know about, let alone knowing HOW to "opt out" is ludicrous. BASICALLY, they are saying, "We are stealing from you, and it is ok, as long as you don't catch us and ask us to stop!"

    And yeah, it is ASTOUNDING how much data google collects. If you had told me even 15 years ago that they would collect this much I would say "NO WAY! It is TOO expensive, TOO MUCH TROUBLE, etc....". Well, they have a TON of space and they are certainly using it. They have software that is apparently VERY effective. With doubleclick, all they have to do is make ONE tiny change and they can tie ALL the information together. Make one tiny OTHER change(that they made several years ago), and they can tie it to a person.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1162763].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author zapseo
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      Yeah, give me a break. One Czar OBVIOUSLY knew what he was doing, based on his views spoken publically, but even HE publically claimed that he was being persecuted because he signed something he HADN'T READ, and RESIGNED partly because of it! And THAT was probably just a couple paragraphs.

      What IDIOT expects someone to constantly check and reread possibly HUNDREDS of pages every day? Frankly, the idea of "opting out" to something you really can't even know about, let alone knowing HOW to "opt out" is ludicrous. BASICALLY, they are saying, "We are stealing from you, and it is ok, as long as you don't catch us and ask us to stop!"

      And yeah, it is ASTOUNDING how much data google collects. If you had told me even 15 years ago that they would collect this much I would say "NO WAY! It is TOO expensive, TOO MUCH TROUBLE, etc....". Well, they have a TON of space and they are certainly using it. They have software that is apparently VERY effective. With doubleclick, all they have to do is make ONE tiny change and they can tie ALL the information together. Make one tiny OTHER change(that they made several years ago), and they can tie it to a person.

      Steve
      Surely, Steve, you remember the fiasco around Lotus Marketplace (which, the last time I checked, the Wikipedia article failed to comment on how that Lotus sold "Marketplace" to another company who quietly marketed the product.)

      Privacy ... sorry, folks. The horse has been let out of the barn a LONG time ago. Check out this site: Privacy Rights Clearinghouse--privacyrights.org
      I discovered this great organization when I used to use gopher to surf the Internet (there was no web, and certainly no search engines as we know them today). Check out the information on the Medical Information Bureau (your medical privacy, if you've ever had group insurance, has LONG since gone away.)

      Give me anyone's web browsing history for a day and dollars to donuts, I'm going to know who they are. Why? All those great variables that get attached to your URL when you do things like: buy a product, or sign up for an email list.

      Steve, I think you've seriously (and vastly) over-estimated the amount of information required to profile a single person, along with how many "rights" we all have been blindly signing away for years.

      It does make me think that a great argument for universal health coverage IS the vast amount of information that is already collected on us. That information is used, then, to find ways to deny coverage. There's so much of this information -- and the amount and sophistication is growing every day (think personal genome mapping) -- that having everyone covered for all health care conditions may be the only thing that makes sense in the future.

      @Bob -- thanks for the link.

      Live JoyFully!

      Judy Kettenhofen, Copywriter, MarketersGeek, and science & privacy advocate.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1163138].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Killer Joe
        Originally Posted by zapseo View Post

        It does make me think that a great argument for universal health coverage IS the vast amount of information that is already collected on us. That information is used, then, to find ways to deny coverage. There's so much of this information -- and the amount and sophistication is growing every day (think personal genome mapping) -- that having everyone covered for all health care conditions may be the only thing that makes sense in the future.
        And let's not forget supermarket discount cards that record all your purchases.

        Lot's of alcohol and Twinkies and other junk food could easily profile you as a high risk individual to be singled out.

        KJ
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1163163].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by zapseo View Post

        Surely, Steve, you remember the fiasco around Lotus Marketplace (which, the last time I checked, the Wikipedia article failed to comment on how that Lotus sold "Marketplace" to another company who quietly marketed the product.)

        Privacy ... sorry, folks. The horse has been let out of the barn a LONG time ago. Check out this site: Privacy Rights Clearinghouse--privacyrights.org
        I discovered this great organization when I used to use gopher to surf the Internet (there was no web, and certainly no search engines as we know them today). Check out the information on the Medical Information Bureau (your medical privacy, if you've ever had group insurance, has LONG since gone away.)

        Give me anyone's web browsing history for a day and dollars to donuts, I'm going to know who they are. Why? All those great variables that get attached to your URL when you do things like: buy a product, or sign up for an email list.

        Steve, I think you've seriously (and vastly) over-estimated the amount of information required to profile a single person, along with how many "rights" we all have been blindly signing away for years.

        It does make me think that a great argument for universal health coverage IS the vast amount of information that is already collected on us. That information is used, then, to find ways to deny coverage. There's so much of this information -- and the amount and sophistication is growing every day (think personal genome mapping) -- that having everyone covered for all health care conditions may be the only thing that makes sense in the future.

        @Bob -- thanks for the link.

        Live JoyFully!

        Judy Kettenhofen, Copywriter, MarketersGeek, and science & privacy advocate.
        HECK NO! I KNOW we have "signed away" a LOT of rights! MOST through ABSURDLY LONG or nebulous contracts, etc... MOST through ADHESION contracts. A good example of that is the credit card contracts. I even spoke about how google did some key things YEARS ago. Still, a place like google is WORSE! They can get TONS of detail, and track us better than we can.

        As for healthcare plans? The HR3200 is GARBAGE! PLEASE read it. It actually MANDATES an INCREASE in real costs, and a DECREASE in profits and options. Also, H.I.P.A.A is basically OUT THE WINDOW! And I DO know about HIPAA. I am a patient, and have worked on contracts where it affected things. So I have seen it from BOTH sides.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1163400].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
          I had missed the fact that Google bought Doubleclick. That concerns me more than anything they're talking about putting in the bill so far.


          Paul
          Signature
          .
          Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1163465].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author zapseo
            Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

            I had missed the fact that Google bought Doubleclick. That concerns me more than anything they're talking about putting in the bill so far.


            Paul
            I wouldn't mind working for Google (one of the most awesome work environments I've ever seen.), so it's with some reluctance that I agree with you publicly, Paul.

            In a rational world, I can't imagine that the government didn't object to this purchase (there certainly was some discussion of the government's concern previous to the purchase) -- but in our current political environment...in a world where I've seen both smoking banned in bars and the weirdest set of events leading to the near-collapse of the world economic system -- not too much surprises me any more. Although I do feel a bit twilight-zonish.

            I won't even begin to wade into the weirdnesses thrown in front of the current President. (Does anyone even remember Abe Lincoln's famous statement about "united we stand"?)
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1165521].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by zapseo View Post

              I wouldn't mind working for Google (one of the most awesome work environments I've ever seen.), so it's with some reluctance that I agree with you publicly, Paul.

              In a rational world, I can't imagine that the government didn't object to this purchase (there certainly was some discussion of the government's concern previous to the purchase) -- but in our current political environment...in a world where I've seen both smoking banned in bars and the weirdest set of events leading to the near-collapse of the world economic system -- not too much surprises me any more. Although I do feel a bit twilight-zonish.

              I won't even begin to wade into the weirdnesses thrown in front of the current President. (Does anyone even remember Abe Lincoln's famous statement about "united we stand"?)
              Well, there ARE laws concerning limiting monopolies and control. A situation like google, blogger(or whatever it is called) and/or doubleclick CLEARLY falls under that and should have been DENIED! But they clearly DON'T apply things equally. That HAS been a problem for DECADES though, so I certainly can't blame someone like obama for that. It is SCARY what Google knows. People even used it to show how police should have known about jaycees location.

              As for the weirdness? You have that BACKWARDS! Obama put that in front of him. It was NOT something someone else did. Some called attention to it, but it WAS there. In many cases it is obvious that Obama knew, or clearly could have. In many cases he tried to fight it.

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1165681].message }}
            • Originally Posted by zapseo View Post


              I won't even begin to wade into the weirdnesses thrown in front of the current President. (Does anyone even remember Abe Lincoln's famous statement about "united we stand"?)
              While Abe Lincoln might have used that phrase in one of his speeches at some point, it was actually Patrick Henry that said it in his last public speech ever in March of 1799 to denounce the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1167596].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author zapseo
    One year the company I worked for had a food drive at Christmas time. I had offered to take people's money and buy food with it (one of the higher ups in the company was offering a type of matching for the number of cans of food. Which --oops -- with my help and mis-understanding, and HER numeric illiteracy -- put her in for a much greater commitment than anyone had intended.)

    I SOOOOO loved using one of those supermarket cards to buy the food, LOL. I kept wondering what they thought of my buying many, many cans of tuna, vegetables and the like.

    With all the amazing privacy attempted by the HIPAA laws (ask anyone in healthcare what they think of the HIPAA laws -- they are, at times, a bit draconian) -- I was surprised to find out that pharmaceutical companies were (maybe still are?) purchasing the information on prescriptions written from pharmacies -- used to determine which physicians were writing prescriptions for which drugs.). Not to mention medical transcription being shipped offshore where there may be no privacy issues (as one hospital found out, when the transcriptionist threatened to publish the records on the web if they didn't meet her increased payment demands.), and U.S. X-rays being reviewed by physicians in India.

    It would be nice to know which personal information being collected on us is being sold to others. I don't have a problem with the supermarket knowing it -- but would definitely think it's none of the business of medical insurance companies. It could become a case of "political correctness" in the extreme -- the enforcement of current beliefs about what is an appropriate diet.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1163270].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Killer Joe
      If you read the TOS for installing a Google toolbar it will make your hairs stand up and quiver. Yet many people never think twice about reading them and just blindly allow Google to have its' way.

      Given the propensity of law enforcement agencies to look to Google's records for corroborating or incriminating evidence during an investigation it's almost scary to know that your browsing habits can place you into catagories that you might never have imagined you'd be associated with.

      And it's only getting worse...I can foresee a day when my name will be on some dossier where I will be forever linked to others who hit the 'backspace' key more times than they hit the intended 'letter' key when they type.

      I'd never want that to become public information. :p

      KJ
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1163313].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GarrieWilson
    I was surfing for something on Google, clicked a link and then I started get the same ad based on my search on most sites I visited. Even ones not related to the search for weeks. Even after I deleted my cookies. I assume using geo targeting.

    I personally dont like that and something should be done.

    I never gave Google permission to track and store personal identifiable data. I never gave the ad company permission either.

    The marketer in me loves it though.

    Someone should start a ISP that doesnt keep logs or anything.

    Garrie
    Signature
    Screw You, NameCheap!
    $1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:

    SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1163524].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
      Originally Posted by GarrieWilson View Post

      I never gave Google permission to track and store personal identifiable data. I never gave the ad company permission either.

      The marketer in me loves it though.

      Garrie
      Check the TOS or Privacy Statement for a phrase something like "use of this resource constitutes acceptance of these terms..." Further in, you'll find clauses related to gathering and sharing information.

      If you use Google, you gave permission. You just didn't sign it.

      On a more general note, just remember that next year are the mid-term elections in the US. You're going to see a lot of legislation with benign or beneficial sounding names so incumbents can go back to their districts and stump for what they've done to, I mean for the voters.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1163580].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
        Signature
        .
        Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1163602].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author GarrieWilson
        Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

        Check the TOS or Privacy Statement for a phrase something like "use of this resource constitutes acceptance of these terms..." Further in, you'll find clauses related to gathering and sharing information.

        If you use Google, you gave permission. You just didn't sign it.
        I was told by an attorney that technically, you have to perform an action to agree to something and it has to be stated that by doing X you agree to X.

        eg By placing your order you agree to "link to legal" and it would have to be placed near the order button. The same for the search box.

        Why do you think Gmail actually requires you to click a link agreeing to open an account? If they could protect themselves by hiding a link at the bottom in nonstandard priny, they wouldn't require anything besides filling out a form.
        Signature
        Screw You, NameCheap!
        $1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:

        SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1163703].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by GarrieWilson View Post

          I was told by an attorney that technically, you have to perform an action to agree to something and it has to be stated that by doing X you agree to X.

          eg By placing your order you agree to "link to legal" and it would have to be placed near the order button. The same for the search box.

          Why do you think Gmail actually requires you to click a link agreeing to open an account? If they could protect themselves by hiding a link at the bottom in nonstandard priny, they wouldn't require anything besides filling out a form.
          TECHNICALLY, the basic google contract may be considered equivalent to a shrinkwrap one, and illegal. On the other hand, there IS the idea of an expectation of privacy.

          Of course, Google HAS clouded the second argument, because they can collect information from LOTS of sites! NO DISCLAIMER, NO CONTRACT, and NO KNOWLEDGE of a tie with Google! Still, they would claim you did this out in the open, and privacy wasn't a reasonable expectation.

          On THEIR website, they can claim you used THEIR property, and should have accessed their TOS. With ME, they can claim an adhesion contract with GMAIL. I don't like ANY of that though.

          Of course, IANAL, but that is my take on it.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1163743].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author GarrieWilson
            Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

            On THEIR website, they can claim you used THEIR property, and should have accessed their TOS. With ME, they can claim an adhesion contract with GMAIL. I don't like ANY of that though.
            Wouldn't they still technically be required to state that on the page on not burried in the legal notices?

            Something like, "by using the site you agree to "link"" Instead of just having a link that says "Privacy"
            Signature
            Screw You, NameCheap!
            $1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:

            SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1163777].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by GarrieWilson View Post

              Wouldn't they still technically be required to state that on the page on not burried in the legal notices?

              Something like, "by using the site you agree to "link"" Instead of just having a link that says "Privacy"
              WOW, you have a point! I thought they did!
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1163788].message }}
  • Sites already have privacy policies. Now they will just get longer. Who actually reads them? Who has the time.

    It's akin to the legal agreements affiliates sign that are a mile long and put in scrolling text boxes about about 6 lines tall like this quick reply box, that make them incredibly tedious to read.

    The bigger issue is the Government giving themselves the power to regulate (take over) private networks and pull information from peoples computers without their knowledge.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1163549].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author zapseo
      Originally Posted by InternetMarketingIQ View Post

      Sites already have privacy policies. Now they will just get longer. Who actually reads them? Who has the time.

      It's akin to the legal agreements affiliates sign that are a mile long and put in scrolling text boxes about about 6 lines tall like this quick reply box, that make them incredibly tedious to read.

      The bigger issue is the Government giving themselves the power to regulate (take over) private networks and pull information from peoples computers without their knowledge.
      Yah, that has to be soooo much worse (and certainly more frequent) than having The Russian Business Network take over about 1/3 of all personal computers so they can be used in botnets. (The use of botnets, from the last accounts I paid attention to, is what helped to take down twitter a while back.)

      When I worked on one of the first public data communications networks (Tymnet) I remember my boss telling me that the network was a fragile thing. Indeed it is. And the twitter incident shows just how vulnerable a site can be (granted, there are those who -- probably rightly -- place part of the outage at the foot of twitter for not protecting themselves adequately.)

      The fact is, a good chunk of personal computers are (unknowingly) ALREADY infected and vulnerable.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1165542].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by zapseo View Post

        Yah, that has to be soooo much worse (and certainly more frequent) than having The Russian Business Network take over about 1/3 of all personal computers so they can be used in botnets. (The use of botnets, from the last accounts I paid attention to, is what helped to take down twitter a while back.)

        When I worked on one of the first public data communications networks (Tymnet) I remember my boss telling me that the network was a fragile thing. Indeed it is. And the twitter incident shows just how vulnerable a site can be (granted, there are those who -- probably rightly -- place part of the outage at the foot of twitter for not protecting themselves adequately.)

        The fact is, a good chunk of personal computers are (unknowingly) ALREADY infected and vulnerable.
        The government ALSO wants to dictate WHO can setup/manage computers, what they learn, and PAY for them(that means MORE TAXES/DEBT)! They ALSO want to change the computers THEMSELVES, and STANDARDS!

        The only winners will REALLY be some consultants and colleges and people that are NOT qualified, but tow the government line.

        BTW YOU may not even remember, or have really seen it, but in the 1990s, they had the YTK effort. In the early 2000s, they had the effort to repair a bug introduced by that garbage that network solutions perpetrated. The government bill illustrates something that is FAR bigger and more complex.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1165695].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author zapseo
          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          The government ALSO wants to dictate WHO can setup/manage computers, what they learn, and PAY for them(that means MORE TAXES/DEBT)! They ALSO want to change the computers THEMSELVES, and STANDARDS!

          The only winners will REALLY be some consultants and colleges and people that are NOT qualified, but tow the government line.
          Heaven forbid we should require people to pass certification or licensing tests. Is this something along the same lines of "the government" dictating who can become a physician? (And if you don't think the government already greatly determines what physicians make, you haven't heard the complaints I've heard from physician spouses about the decrease in Medicare re-imbursements starting january of next year? And that Medicare re-imbursements largely determine insurance re-embursements?)

          BTW YOU may not even remember, or have really seen it, but in the 1990s, they had the YTK effort. In the early 2000s, they had the effort to repair a bug introduced by that garbage that network solutions perpetrated. The government bill illustrates something that is FAR bigger and more complex.

          Steve
          Awww, c'mon Steve - you know me. We've even met (think Washington DC pre-Underground seminar, Russell Brunson of a few years back.) OF COURSE I remember y2k. LOL.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1166837].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by zapseo View Post

            Heaven forbid we should require people to pass certification or licensing tests. Is this something along the same lines of "the government" dictating who can become a physician? (And if you don't think the government already greatly determines what physicians make, you haven't heard the complaints I've heard from physician spouses about the decrease in Medicare re-imbursements starting january of next year? And that Medicare re-imbursements largely determine insurance re-embursements?)



            Awww, c'mon Steve - you know me. We've even met (think Washington DC pre-Underground seminar, Russell Brunson of a few years back.) OF COURSE I remember y2k. LOL.
            To have them determine special things that may not even really be valid, include their little gadgets, and retest everyone at a high price WE must pay!?!?!? OF COURSE I'm against it! It would be like telling physicians that they now have to learn to treat elephants, and every person must be treated as an elephant.

            Actually, medicare is usually WORSE than normal insurance, as far as reimbursements. HECK, you are taking a page right out of my arguments, and arguing my case FOR ME!

            YEAH, I know we met, at that hotel in Washington DC on the other side of the area where the whitehouse is. What, you thought I forgot!?!? That was when I was working at the red cross. I was invited by Josh Anderson, which means that was after my aortic dissection. That was after the AE stuff, with Warrior Alliance(AKA WA).

            Still, too many have even openly said that Y2K retrofits weren't even necessary. That guy with the $90K+ late fee, on his video tape that was like 2 days late, didn't get enough play. It turns out that cybercash went bankrupt because of Y2K problems! Many other things were JUST averted, worked around, or hidden. They WERE, and still ARE, NECESSARY! The next ones will probably come after I am retired though. 8-/ And MANY probably don't even know about the trick network solutions pulled. If someone entered a bad domain name, it routed to a page of THEIRS.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1167045].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1164452].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author bgmacaw
      Originally Posted by Fraggler View Post

      How does this work when the Web is not limited to the USA?
      It's all a part of our plan to be less competitive in the world marketplace.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1164513].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KEY
        this just sounds like yet again big government wasting time and $$ on an issue that is a NON-issue! all in the guise of 'protecting' the people.

        how can gathering some information on things like: search terms, referring search-engine or site, as well as sorting people in our auto-responder lists based on open rates on certain offers, etc, etc...be a 'bad' thing? <-all of this is done in the effort to make more relevant (and therefore less annoying) offers?

        myself as an example: I am always interested in PLR offers for graphics and scripts/software...some marketers are using their click data and send me more of what I am likely to buy and less offers similar to those that I never clicked...to me this is GOOD, but only possible by collecting some data.

        SO...is this sort of 'collecting' going to become inappropriate? or will we have to have even more elaborate privacy clauses, that are longer than the salesletters? :p

        KEY
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1164659].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author GarrieWilson
          Originally Posted by KEY View Post

          how can gathering some information on things like: search terms, referring search-engine or site, as well as sorting people in our auto-responder lists based on open rates on certain offers, etc, etc...be a 'bad' thing? <-all of this is done in the effort to make more relevant (and therefore less annoying) offers?
          It can be and is but depends on the side youre on. The personal or business.

          Imagine you search for bomb making info cuz you heard it was online and didnt believe it, Google ads you to database X and the government gets access to Data-X. Welcome to the pre-terrorist watch list.

          Thats extreme but possible.
          Signature
          Screw You, NameCheap!
          $1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:

          SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1164769].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by GarrieWilson View Post

            It can be and is but depends on the side youre on. The personal or business.

            Imagine you search for bomb making info cuz you heard it was online and didnt believe it, Google ads you to database X and the government gets access to Data-X. Welcome to the pre-terrorist watch list.

            Thats extreme but possible.
            That IS another thing. I have ACTUALLY looked for Visual Basic information(of all things), even from formerly BIG VB sites, and found that they were redireected to PORN sites. Porn sites LOVE to take old sites and do that. And some of those have auto popups that lead you to OTHER sites, and weird places. And you may look for some term, like electronic toys, and you can just SEE where THAT could go.

            BESIDES, someone else may tell you about another site, and you may make a mistake or something. ONCE, I tried to go to a shopping site, shopping.com, left off one letter, and ended up at a porn site. whitehouse.com at least used to be a porn site, though whitehouse.gov was the whitehouse site. A lot of .edu sites have a .com equivalent, that is NOT for education. AND, I ran through all my OLD bookmarks on my laptop. Not all pointed to the old sites.

            Sometimes, metrics are just TAINTED. Of course, WHO KNOWS!? Maybe I was writing a document against porn, or checking to see how many DMOZ sites pointed to the SAME porn site. MANY do, by the way.

            HEY, I was once looking up sites on Arabic, the language. You don't know WHAT that will bring up.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1164818].message }}

Trending Topics