FTC Proposes "Do Not Track" Cookie Rules

110 replies
Warriors - this is important. While these are just proposals, the path the FTC is going down will affect you.

Do you have advertising on your website? Use cookies? Have a privacy policy? Do affiliate marketing? Have affiliates? Sell products online? All of these activities are affected by the FTC proposals.

Some of what is being proposed:


- This applies to direct and indirect, online and offline marketing:

First, the framework would apply to all commercial entities that collect consumer data in both offline and online contexts, regardless of whether such entities interact directly with consumers.
- To obtain consumer consent before using affiliate tracking cookies.

The FTC would allow "first person marketing" tracking. This means a merchant could track purchases and propose recommended products based on purchases from their website.

Other tracking, namely third person marketing - aka affiliate marketing - would require affirmative consumer consent before the tracking is allowed.

With respect to all other commercial data collection and use, the framework would require companies to give consumers the ability to make informed and meaningful choices.
Note: In a footnote the FTC gives Google a free pass, saying "contextual advertising", namely Adsense, will be exempted.


- To allow consumers to opt-out of any tracking by requiring that you accept, recognize, and respect a "do not track" notification from the consumer's web browser

The Commission recommends a simple, easy to use choice mechanism for consumers to opt out of the collection of information about their Internet behavior for targeted ads. The most practical method would probably involve the placement of a persistent setting, similar to a cookie, on the consumer's browser signaling the consumer's choices about being tracked and receiving targeted ads.
Note: This necessarily means the FTC will be taking a role in deciding what technology is included in web browsers.


- New requirement to store data and pay for it

companies should implement reasonable and appropriate data retention periods, retaining consumer data for only as long as they have a specific and legitimate business need to do so. As noted above, the falling cost of data storage enables companies to retain data for long periods of time, at limited cost.

- Obligation to test privacy notices to make sure consumers read and understand them

privacy notices should provide clear, comparable, and concise descriptions of a company's overall data practices. They should clearly articulate who is collecting consumer data, why they are collecting it, and how such data will be used. Companies should standardize the format of their notices, as well as the terminology used. This could allow consumers to make choices based on privacy and will potentially drive competition on privacy issues. In addition, companies and industry associations should undertake consumer testing of privacy notices to ensure comprehension.
The FTC news release can be read here:

FTC Staff Issues Privacy Report Offers Framework for Consumers, Businesses, and Policymakers

The 122 page proposal can be read here:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2010/12/101201privacyreport.pdf
#cookie #do not track #ftc #proposes #rules
  • Profile picture of the author seobro
    Yeah, I was in a state of worry. Basically, that I would have to pull adsense from thousands of pages. Glad that is not the case.

    Sadly, we get no help from our gov. Mostly, what we get are new regs.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2947440].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garyv
    The Govt. has done some wrong-headed things here lately, but I don't see this one happening any time soon. There's way too much commerce that takes place w/ the help of those cookies.

    I wish the Govt. would stay out of the market-place. A free market usually takes care of itself. Sure there are plenty of bad apples out here, but a free market usually takes care of that on it's own.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2947491].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LB
    Of course Google is exempt...they are practically a government entity.

    And of course, consumers would be much more likely to accept cookies from say Google or Amazon than a private website.

    There are plenty of tools to block cookies, it's available as a default privacy setting in every browser and there are plenty of addons that allow the selection of which cookies are allowed/disallowed.

    Again, the government "fixing" something that isn't broken to the detriment of small business.
    Signature
    Tired of Article Marketing, Backlink Spamming and Other Crusty Old Traffic Methods?

    Click Here.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2947529].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Victor Edson
      I wonder how much Google had to pay to be exempt.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2947711].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Crew Chief
        Originally Posted by kindsvater View Post

        Warriors - this is important. While these are just proposals, the path the FTC is going down will affect you.
        Brian, if there is ever one person I could think of to head an organization that represents the issues that affect and impact Internet Marketing and Internet Marketers; you are THAT MAN!

        Honestly, IMHO, you should put out feelers, if you haven't already, to see the interest in forming such a membership based organization whose sole focus is educate, empower and protect IMers and the industry.

        And just to clarify, not educate, empower or show how to make money online; but to educate and empower in the area of legislation, industry regulation, taxation and other critical issues that impact our industry.

        At the moment, IMers as a whole, are not organized and definitely not galvanized when it comes laws coming down the pike... but we need to be!

        You could become the Jay Sekulow of Internet Marketing. Mind you, I don't follow Jay, I'm just using him for illustrative purposes. No one can argue the impact his organization has. I'm saying that with a IM organization, we can impact legislation.

        Just my thoughts sir...

        Giles, the Crew Chief
        Signature
        Tools, Strategies and Tactics Used By Savvy Internet Marketers and SEO Pros:

        SEO G.O.L.D. = Genuine Overall Link Diversity
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2948085].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Floyd Fisher
        Originally Posted by Victor Edson View Post

        I wonder how much Google had to pay to be exempt.
        Why wonder....see for yourself:

        OpenSecrets.org Search
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2969149].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Gary McCaffrey
    So, what do they think they're protecting the consumer from with this??
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2947831].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MichaelHiles
    I think I am going to start taking Mandarin Chinese language lessons.

    Seems like our friends across the pond are more capitalist than we are now.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2947850].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Rikki_Fawkes
      Originally Posted by MichaelHiles View Post

      I think I am going to start taking Mandarin Chinese language lessons.

      Seems like our friends across the pond are more capitalist than we are now.
      Sad, isn't it? Most Americans go on blindly shouting "Freedom" and "Capitalism" when the US gets less and less that way every day.
      Signature

      Learn how you can get paid writing online with NO startup money! I will help you make part-time or full-time income as a freelance writer at http://getpaidwriting.org. No previous writing experience necessary!


      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2947870].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Joshua Rigley
      Banned
      Originally Posted by MichaelHiles View Post

      I think I am going to start taking Mandarin Chinese language lessons.

      Seems like our friends across the pond are more capitalist than we are now.
      I agree. If this keeps up, it will be impractical to run a business in the U.S.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2947912].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ExRat
        Hi Gary,

        So, what do they think they're protecting the consumer from with this??
        Al Cookieda
        Signature


        Roger Davis

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2947923].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ArgusTargus
        Originally Posted by Joshua Rigley View Post

        I agree. If this keeps up, it will be impractical to run a business in the U.S.
        Unfortunately, I think, it does not matter where you run the business; it matters where is your customer. If it affects the customer in the US then you will have to abide. Unfortunately, the web is open and hence likely to be opened by a US client.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2962308].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LMC
    better go read up on my Karl Marx --> looks the way we are headed
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2947888].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Steve Wells
      Originally Posted by LMC View Post

      better go read up on my Karl Marx --> looks the way we are headed
      I know 1 person who is majorily to blame for this do you? I wont say the name too loud, I am on the internet.
      Signature
      Need Custom Graphics Work? - Message Me For A Design Quote!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3117852].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author winds
    I guess I'll have to point out that the FTC isn't coming out of left field here...we can all complain about how terrible this could be and how it'll ruin our industry, but the fact of the matter is that we, as a group, have done this to ourselves. Much like a used-car salesman would be upset about lemon laws, even though he only sold cars that were in great condition, the fact remains that there was tons of less than scrupulous salesmen screwing people over left and right.

    As any industry evolves, there always reaches a point where the 'bad guys' realize the cash that is there and try to corrupt the game. The mob with unions, the banks on Wall Street...eventually there has to be some sort of intervention or the whole racket bleeds out and takes the whole industry with it. In the short term could this be bad news for
    most of us? Undoubtably. To a lot of us, though, who are serious about our work and always try to stay ahead of the curve, this will be nothing but a temporary issue that we have to overcome, like so many we've already conquered.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2947900].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mcmahanusa
      No, we as a group have not done this to ourselves. The bad apples have done it to us, without our consent. And as is always the case, the small, honest folk will be impacted and the bad guys will laugh it off, conducting business as usual. If they get shut down, they'll just open up shop someplace else, in a different name.

      Originally Posted by winds View Post

      I guess I'll have to point out that the FTC isn't coming out of left field here...we can all complain about how terrible this could be and how it'll ruin our industry, but the fact of the matter is that we, as a group, have done this to ourselves. Much like a used-car salesman would be upset about lemon laws, even though he only sold cars that were in great condition, the fact remains that there was tons of less than scrupulous salesmen screwing people over left and right.

      As any industry evolves, there always reaches a point where the 'bad guys' realize the cash that is there and try to corrupt the game. The mob with unions, the banks on Wall Street...eventually there has to be some sort of intervention or the whole racket bleeds out and takes the whole industry with it. In the short term could this be bad news for
      most of us? Undoubtably. To a lot of us, though, who are serious about our work and always try to stay ahead of the curve, this will be nothing but a temporary issue that we have to overcome, like so many we've already conquered.
      Signature

      Success is not to be pursued; it is to be attracted by the person you become - Jim Rohn

      Visit our beautiful gardens

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2948162].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author winds
        Originally Posted by mcmahanusa View Post

        No, we as a group have not done this to ourselves. The bad apples have done it to us, without our consent. And as is always the case, the small, honest folk will be impacted and the bad guys will laugh it off, conducting business as usual. If they get shut down, they'll just open up shop someplace else, in a different name.
        And that was the point of my post, whether it come across or not - if you can't police yourself, someone else is going to either step in or the whole thing will collapse. By saying we did this to ourselves, I was simply pointing out that intervention was inevitable - the bad apples tarnish the whole crop, and since we haven't been able to discern legitmate business against the tons of less scrupulous dealers out there, we've all set down this path together.

        Of course that's all just my opinion - I'm well aware that there are opposing opinions and most of them I actually agree more with...but if everyone in this thread is just going to feel pity for us as marketers and no one wants to play devil's advocate, then no one is going to help us get out of this dilemma either.

        Not directing this to you personally at all, since you do have a good point, but a lot of other people seemed to take me as just being anti- free market; not the case at all. If you can't at least discuss the pros and cons of it being a real possibility then honestly, we're a doomed industry anyways.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2948548].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ronr
          Of coruse they can do this an they probably will. The government can do anything it wants especially when to comes down to protecting consumers. They bureaucrats who right these things have never run a business and really don't care what the effects of their rules are on most online entreprenuers.

          These regulations get put in to protect consumers from the real crooks but the have a huge negative effect on all business as well.

          Remember the wonderful new regulations (about a year ago I think) that makes it extremely hard to use testimonials about any specific and hard to write sales copy to actually sell anything?

          Ron
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2948645].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Lee Wilson
            Originally Posted by ronr View Post

            Of coruse they can do this an they probably will. The government can do anything it wants especially when to comes down to protecting consumers. They bureaucrats who right these things have never run a business and really don't care what the effects of their rules are on most online entreprenuers.

            These regulations get put in to protect consumers from the real crooks but the have a huge negative effect on all business as well.

            Remember the wonderful new regulations (about a year ago I think) that makes it extremely hard to use testimonials about any specific and hard to write sales copy to actually sell anything?

            Ron
            That is true but it's not that straightforward. There will always be new regulations that affect somebody negatively, mostly the ones that focus more on the direct impact and not the work around. Regulations are rarely thought out well in advance but do get refined if necessary.

            The thing to remember is this is all business. We are in business and so are the governments. We all feed off of each other and both need each other. Governments also need small business as much as they need big business. They aren't stupid enough to make things so difficult that it becomes impossible for everybody. If it kills off a minority then it doesn't have any impact on business as a whole. In this case they aren't going to give a crap.

            Internet marketing doesn't stop at affiliate cookies, it's too big and brings in too much government money for them to regulate online business into extinction. This is never going to happen because everyone would lose. There will always be room for the small business, we just have to learn to work around those restrictions as annoying as they are, it will all still be possible, and there will be a lot more to come. Internet regulation is as much in it's infancy as the Internet itself.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2948719].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
              As to whether or not this is likely to happen, I don't think there is one
              person here who can say for sure either way.

              As to how much of an impact this would have if it did happen, personally,
              I think it will kill affiliate marketing, but that's just my personal opinion. Again,
              nobody really knows what kind of effect this will ultimately have.

              If nothing else, this will be interesting to watch to see how it unfolds.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2948761].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author The Copy Nazi
      Banned
      Originally Posted by winds View Post

      I guess I'll have to point out that the FTC isn't coming out of left field here...we can all complain about how terrible this could be and how it'll ruin our industry, but the fact of the matter is that we, as a group, have done this to ourselves. Much like a used-car salesman would be upset about lemon laws, even though he only sold cars that were in great condition, the fact remains that there was tons of less than scrupulous salesmen screwing people over left and right.

      As any industry evolves, there always reaches a point where the 'bad guys' realize the cash that is there and try to corrupt the game. The mob with unions, the banks on Wall Street...eventually there has to be some sort of intervention or the whole racket bleeds out and takes the whole industry with it. In the short term could this be bad news for
      most of us? Undoubtably. To a lot of us, though, who are serious about our work and always try to stay ahead of the curve, this will be nothing but a temporary issue that we have to overcome, like so many we've already conquered.
      And how is this any different to "business" in general i.e. the free enterpise system?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2948353].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author winds
        Originally Posted by Metronicity View Post

        And how is this any different to "business" in general i.e. the free enterpise system?
        It isn't, and that's my point. Tell me how many industries are truly free and without regulation anymore? Am I advocating for government intervention? Of course not, I'm simply saying that it's an inevitable road that we're going to end up facing. If you all want to keep screaming about how bad this is going to be for all of us, that's fine, but just remember that the "free market" we all keep talking about was lost years ago.

        You can give a man a fish and he can eat for a day, or you can teach a man to fish...and then he has to apply for a fishing license, and apply for business license to sell his fish, get a EIN to pay taxes on his fish, ad naseum...
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2948465].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author The Copy Nazi
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Richard Odell View Post

      How about market to the rest of the 'Free World' instead?

      FTC rules govern just 'One' country - not all of ours...

      Host in your own country - sell to your 'own' people...

      One country does not govern all...

      Millions of other souls in this world.............................
      Exactly. You hit the nail on the head. Know what I reckon? Piss off FTC...I'll do my own thing in my own countries (France and Australia)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2948369].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mathmo
      Originally Posted by Richard Odell View Post

      Rhubarb...

      Canada
      Australia
      New Zealand
      Great Britain
      Eire
      All of the worlds scientific community
      Lost parts of the British Empire
      Anyone that wants to get a 'Green Card'
      Best part of Bilingual Europe

      There's a far bigger world outside there... all of which have Google translate.

      "I Thank You!"
      NZ

      Even so, couldn't affiliate marketers somehow argue they are "contextual advertisers" too? Just like google
      Signature
      Terso IT: for Web Development and SEO Latest blog post, on the mindset of outsourcing: How to Outsource: 2 kinds, which are you?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2956142].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Thomas Michal
        How would this change affiliate marketing exactly?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2956376].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Caleb Spilchen
      Originally Posted by Chris Kent View Post

      The problem is that the main English-speaking market is Americans. So the FTC cannot be ignored by most internet marketers.
      That is not even close to true. The USA is not the largest market of English speaking persons and far from it. It may be large if you look at the concentrated amount of people in the one area, that are a market.

      BUT in comparison to the number of English people around the world it is a complete dot on the map. Are the following from your perspective not actual markets?

      Canada
      UK
      Australia

      Etc

      If you look at the Canadian and UK markets. There are enough customers in those to make a living.

      From what I'm being told, the FTC can control things that make sales in USA, even if the company has no basis in the USA.

      Google

      And since, even if you move away from America, you will probably keep your current customers, your really not going to be hiding from the FTC.

      But, if you remove American customers, then you can completely hide from the FTC, and you are missing the "biggest market" in the World. You just need to respect that there's more then one country in the world.

      Caleb
      Signature

      Canadian Expat Living in Medellin, Colombia

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2957818].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rocked Steady
    Some of what is being proposed:


    - This applies to direct and indirect, online and offline marketing:

    - To obtain consumer consent before using affiliate tracking cookies.

    The FTC would allow "first person marketing" tracking. This means a merchant could track purchases and propose recommended products based on purchases from their website.

    Other tracking, namely third person marketing - aka affiliate marketing - would require affirmative consumer consent before the tracking is allowed.

    ^what does this mean?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2947942].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tknoppe
      Originally Posted by Rocked Steady View Post

      Some of what is being proposed:


      - This applies to direct and indirect, online and offline marketing:

      - To obtain consumer consent before using affiliate tracking cookies.

      The FTC would allow "first person marketing" tracking. This means a merchant could track purchases and propose recommended products based on purchases from their website.

      Other tracking, namely third person marketing - aka affiliate marketing - would require affirmative consumer consent before the tracking is allowed.

      ^what does this mean?
      "First person tracking" means that if you create and sell your own products directly to the end-consumer, then you would be exempt.

      However, if you are selling someone else's product, as their affiliate, then it looks like with these proposed FTC changes, you would have to notify the customer of this, and obtain their consent, before you would be cookie'd to that consumer for the sale.

      I see this as similar to the double opt-in process for autoresponders. Of course, we all know how effective that is, someone clicks a link to join your list, click the link to confirm - then as soon as you send them an email, they get upset wondering how they got on your list. :rolleyes:

      I see the bottom line as: we need to let our voice be heard, no matter which side of this issue you stand. If we do nothing, or assume it will never pass - then it surely will.
      Signature

      Traci Knoppe, OBM, Launch & Project Manager
      Your Web Tech Team

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2967231].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Sylonious
        Originally Posted by tknoppe View Post

        "First person tracking" means that if you create and sell your own products directly to the end-consumer, then you would be exempt.

        However, if you are selling someone else's product, as their affiliate, then it looks like with these proposed FTC changes, you would have to notify the customer of this, and obtain their consent, before you would be cookie'd to that consumer for the sale.
        No, they are saying that if you are a first party seller that you can not turn around and sell your customer information to a third party (which they call an Affiliate).

        Clickbank, for example, doesn't have you set cookies on your affiliate website. The cookies aren't set until they click a link and leave your affiliate site.

        Once they reach the other site then they would be first party cookies.

        The "do not track" setting would stop 1st party affiliate cookies from being set, but most affiliate programs track by Ip address as well as 1st party cookies on the main site.

        However, this is a browser setting and there is nothing for you to do.

        “Such a mechanism would ensure that consumers would not have to exercise choices on a company-by-company or industry-by-industry basis, and that such choices would be persistent,” the FTC said in its report.
        The user has to decide universally whether or not they want to accept cookies and be tracked by any and all websites. As soon as they hit Facebook or they try to log in to any free e-mail account they will have to start accepting cookies again.

        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

        And they are. We'll still have laws about stalking. We'll still have laws about trespassing. We'll still have laws about what's admissible as evidence in a court of law. What we won't have is laws about what people can do with what they know.

        Because that's what this is really about: what I'm allowed to do with what I know about you. And I don't think it's in any way fair or sensible to claim that you get to have some control over what I do simply because it's about something you think ought to be private.
        You make a good point, but I definitely wouldn't want to be on the bad end of something like this:

        if you visited a number of sites that advertise alcohol...and you end up on a list that your insurance company purchases. The list compiled from a variety of Internet sites shows your name as someone who frequents sites that promote alcohol, or at least as someone who is a prime prospect for alcohol sales. They raise your premiums on a profile that has been built about you based upon the sites you visit on the Internet.

        Someone assumes this is an accurate profile...and acts upon this erroneous assumption...This scenario may never happen but the door has been opened...Just ask anyone who has been victimized by an inaccurate credit report. - source
        I guess I do agree with you. People should be more conscious about who they give their information to instead of having the Government just reassure them that there Privacy is protected when it really isn't.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2967501].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
        Caliban,

        Possibly a poor choice of words on my part. The purpose is not to convince anyone. We both know how unlikely that is on a topic like this. There are simply times when continuing in some conversations is pointless. No-one will learn, nothing will be clarified, and the issue will just get further confused by shifting positions.

        I just choose not to participate further when I believe it's reached that point. I don't see any benefit to anyone from my continued response in this one.

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

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2968797].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
          Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

          There are simply times when continuing in some conversations is pointless. No-one will learn, nothing will be clarified, and the issue will just get further confused by shifting positions.
          I think somebody learns from every conversation. I don't think there's a single conversation anywhere that has no effect on anyone. But I also think most of that effect is invisible, because people generally don't like to advertise the evolution of their beliefs, the effect may take quite some time to have any noticeable impact, and the actual impact may be the result of several conversations.

          Yeah, I know. Idealism from a cynic. Who would have thunk, right?
          Signature
          "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2970614].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Erica Leggette
    Dang....I am so tired of the gov't trying to take over every aspect of our lives with their rules and regulations but yet they hold no respectful standards in the way that they do business. They really need to know who works for who.

    IF people stand together the gov't will have to realize their place. And that place is NOT above the people and the businesses we work hard to perfect.
    Signature
    Be easy.


    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2947982].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kirk Ward
    My first thought is that these rules are being written by someone who is completely out of touch with the industry they are proposing to regulate. Why? Because, more than likely, they have been sitting in a granite office building in Washington for the past thirty years absorbing all the Radon being released by the granite walls, and their brain is fried.

    Who in the Sam Hill can expect a prospect to say "Oh sure, you can track me all you want, because you have been kind enough to try and sell me something."
    Signature
    "We are not here to sell a parcel of boilers and vats, but the potentiality of growing rich beyond the dreams of avarice."

    Dr. Samuel Johnson (Presiding at the sale of Thrales brewery, London, 1781)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2947993].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Crew Chief
    I just want to caution EVERYONE, let's not turn this thread into a governmental bashing thread.

    And please let's not turn it into a political or politics bashing thread.

    If so, this thread [which is critically needed] will get nuked and end up going up in smoke.

    Brian alerted us to the issue not to engage in bashing; I see it as an impetus for us to take control of our IM destiny by rallying together.

    Giles, the Crew Chief
    Signature
    Tools, Strategies and Tactics Used By Savvy Internet Marketers and SEO Pros:

    SEO G.O.L.D. = Genuine Overall Link Diversity
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2948300].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author webpromotions
    Everybody should wear a hardhat because this proposal is sure-fire proof that the sky is falling.

    Sigh

    (do I have to add the sarcasm tag? you never know...)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2948365].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Lee Wilson
    I don't see it as anything surprising. Since the introduction of the data protection act (which done anything but protect peoples data) it's been obvious that these kinds of things will continue getting more controlled by the clueless. The root of the problem lies with educating people but that will not happen, ever. It's too expensive and too involved. Much easier to pretend the problem has been taken care of.

    Non techies (most computer users) are constantly bombarded with the words threat and security like the world's going to end. Most of these restrictions are nothing more than public confidence building exercises and for government controlled bodies, increasing public confidence is the only goal. The easiest way for them to do that is to control anything that comes with the word "threat" whether it is a threat or not. If they increase public confidence it's mission accomplished.

    Nothing new, nothing surprising, nothing much that will change it. Business will still be business as usual, just have to adapt and work around it, just like businesses were doing long before the internet. I'm starting to sound like a broken record
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2948498].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
    We've done it to ourselves.

    Every one of you who says it's okay to spam backlinks on forums and blogs, every marketer who collects addresses and mails them without disclosing what the address will be used for, every spammer of any kind that floods communication channels, and every moron who sells their customer list to any of those people.

    If you do any of those things, you've contributed to this. You have no business yelling about regulation if you're one of the things people need to be protected from.

    All that aside, there is a very real line between commerce and invasion of privacy. If you don't grok that, you're probably just hoping you can cross it one day.

    While it is quite possible that this will go too far, it's better to err on the side of privacy than to let the data aggregators run loose with nothing holding them back. Comments to the effect that business will regulate such things properly on its own are either naive or self-serving. That has NEVER happened on any large scale in the history of capitalism (or any other economic philosophy), unless the holder of the data profited more from keeping it private.

    Go ahead. Tell me how anti-capitalist I am. Watch anyone who knows me laugh in your face.


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

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2948949].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author LB
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      We've done it to ourselves.

      Every one of you who says it's okay to spam backlinks on forums and blogs, every marketer who collects addresses and mails them without disclosing what the address will be used for, every spammer of any kind that floods communication channels, and every moron who sells their customer list to any of those people.

      If you do any of those things, you've contributed to this. You have no business yelling about regulation if you're one of the things people need to be protected from.

      All that aside, there is a very real line between commerce and invasion of privacy. If you don't grok that, you're probably just hoping you can cross it one day.

      While it is quite possible that this will go too far, it's better to err on the side of privacy than to let the data aggregators run loose with nothing holding them back. Comments to the effect that business will regulate such things properly on its own are either naive or self-serving. That has NEVER happened on any large scale in the history of capitalism (or any other economic philosophy), unless the holder of the data profited more from keeping it private.

      Go ahead. Tell me how anti-capitalist I am. Watch anyone who knows me laugh in your face.


      Paul
      But did CANSPAM stop spam?

      No, it just made more hoops for the small business to jump through and increased the likelihood that business owners can get burnt by bad legislation. Spam is just as bad as ever.

      A law like this will make honest businesses work harder to comply while the scammers just keep on scamming...most of them aren't even in the US anyway.

      The FTC made new guidelines regarding testimonials and income claims...how many WSOs are breaking them right now?
      Signature
      Tired of Article Marketing, Backlink Spamming and Other Crusty Old Traffic Methods?

      Click Here.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2949209].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
    LB,

    I didn't say it would work. I said we brought it on ourselves. Just like CAN-SPAM. Which, by the way, has virtually no impact on legitimate marketers. So, bad example as far as that one.

    CAN-SPAM has had some impact on spammers. Just not the way the Act was originally envisioned to. But it's been there.

    As far as the testimonials and income claims in some WSOs... I've said for a long time that the folks doing that had better hope the FTC never starts poking around in there. The people doing those things are sold on the idea that they're too small to attract attention, and I am sincerely hoping they're proved wrong.

    I'll tell you something. Years ago, as in 15 or so, I started telling people in this market what spam was going to end up like. Including the prevalence of viruses and trojans used to send it, and that it would eventually become the overwhelming majority of email sent. I predicted it would severely damage the effectiveness of even legitimate email marketing, as consumers got tired of the flood.

    The majority of people in this group, and elsewhere in the online marketing community, told me I was nuts. I was called everything from a communist to a net-Nazi to an anti-commerce thug. I was also told I was a stooge for the big ISPs, who wanted to control the industry.

    Right. I was one of the first email marketers who used purely permission-based (as in, real opt-in, all the time) marketing. And I've been a solo operation the whole time.

    Look at the current state of email. Turns out I was an optimist.

    You do not want to see what the future will be like if data aggregators are allowed to run uncontrolled.


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

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2949271].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      LB,

      I didn't say it would work. I said we brought it on ourselves. Just like CAN-SPAM. Which, by the way, has virtually no impact on legitimate marketers. So, bad example as far as that one.

      Paul
      The industry and those bad actors in the industry specifically, are the first ones to cry government take-over, lack of freedom, etc. It gets boring. The unethical marketers ARE indeed responsible for making this sort of thing necessary, just as they had to crack down on forced continuity programs, fake testimonials, fake income claims. Privacy issues are a big problem. How many times have you been called by some call center selling an outrageously priced upsale because some asswipe sold your name to the call center or the call center is working on a commission basis. That is not permission marketing. That's selling your private data to the highest bidder.

      And you know what? In threads where marketing techniques are discussed, such as the ones I mentioned ... it's always ... Hey! It Works.

      Well, guess what people .... NO testimonials, NO income claims also work. I just launched a WSO and until the two recent natural testimonials I received from real customers, I launched without testimonials and without any income claims.

      There is a growing customer base that appreciates and respects honest marketing. Yeah, I know. You're still not convinced and you'll still resort to trickery.. And the FTC will continue to make rules.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2957783].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Sylonious
        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

        The industry and those bad actors in the industry specifically, are the first ones to cry government take-over, lack of freedom, etc. It gets boring. The unethical marketers ARE indeed responsible for making this sort of thing necessary, just as they had to crack down on forced continuity programs, fake testimonials, fake income claims. Privacy issues are a big problem. How many times have you been called by some call center selling an outrageously priced upsale because some asswipe sold your name to the call center or the call center is working on a commission basis. That is not permission marketing. That's selling your private data to the highest bidder.
        That's understandable, but a universal "do not track" cookie that makes Google exempt would simply give Google a monopoly on relevant advertising.

        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

        And you know what? In threads where marketing techniques are discussed, such as the ones I mentioned ... it's always ... Hey! It Works.

        Well, guess what people .... NO testimonials, NO income claims also work. I just launched a WSO and until the two recent natural testimonials I received from real customers, I launched without testimonials and without any income claims.

        There is a growing customer base that appreciates and respects honest marketing. Yeah, I know. You're still not convinced and you'll still resort to trickery.. And the FTC will continue to make rules.
        Yeah, but those people who did use testimonials and income claims were probably customers of your "WealthyMembership" site. How can you sell a "make money" online program and then bash people for trying to make money online?

        Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

        Caliban,Given the phrasing, that's possible. I'm not sure it matters much, having read your comments below. I think the comments about consumers' lack of ability to understand has more to do with proper disclosure than their intellectual capability.So, you're recommending that someone other than the consumer is better equipped than they are to make that choice?

        When it comes to personal privacy, I reject that notion.

        Each person should have as much control over how their personal data is used as they want to have. The default should not be, "We can find out without telling them, so we have the right to do so, and to do whatever we wish with that information."

        I can pretty much bet that what's good for the customer is not the primary concern of merchants using those kinds of data bits. It may overlap with that, but it's not the main consideration.Are you suggesting that people don't understand the idea of privacy?


        Paul
        Well, it's not that clear cut. The FTC is proposing that do not track cookies are set as the default setting on Internet Explorer and FireFox.

        Most people don't care about these new regulations and they would have to wrestle with unfamiliar settings just to enable cookies on their PC. 95% of these people wouldn't bother changing the default settings.

        This would pretty much kill analytics overnight, except of course Google Analytics.

        ...if you visited a number of sites that advertise alcohol...and you end up on a list that your insurance company purchases. The list compiled from a variety of Internet sites shows your name as someone who frequents sites that promote alcohol, or at least as someone who is a prime prospect for alcohol sales. They raise your premiums on a profile that has been built about you based upon the sites you visit on the Internet.

        Someone assumes this is an accurate profile...and acts upon this erroneous assumption...This scenario may never happen but the door has been opened...Just ask anyone who has been victimized by an inaccurate credit report. - Cookie Central
        You're right people should have a right to decide what they want shared with different companies, but they definitely are being fed misinformation by fear mongers.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2961031].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Sylonious View Post

          That's understandable, but a universal "do not track" cookie that makes Google exempt would simply give Google a monopoly on relevant advertising.
          Personally, I don't think Google should be exempt from any FTC rules. That's the FTC's mistake ... trusting Google when it has already proven that it does not deserve trust.

          Originally Posted by Sylonious View Post

          How can you sell a "make money" online program and then bash people for trying to make money online?
          I guess you didn't read my sales page. It isn't a Make Money Online program. It's a How To Build a Google News Site program, with one package me building it for the client. You see, that's what I do ... I build websites. If clients happen to make money with those websites, that's a good thing.

          In addition, my remark differentiated between ethical and unethical information products. Perhaps you don't see or draw a line. I do.

          EDIT: Breaking News- Think there's no reason to protect people's privacy on the Internet?

          Popular sites caught sniffing user browser history
          YouPorn nabbed in real-world privacy sting

          Popular sites caught sniffing user browser history ? The Register
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2961635].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Sylonious
            Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

            I guess you didn't read my sales page. It isn't a Make Money Online program. It's a How To Build a Google News Site program, with one package me building it for the client. You see, that's what I do ... I build websites. If clients happen to make money with those websites, that's a good thing.

            In addition, my remark differentiated between ethical and unethical information products. Perhaps you don't see or draw a line. I do.
            "Get To The Top Of Google For Any Keyword In Minutes"

            I know what you are selling. You are telling people that they can get "1,000-4,000 unique visitors per day" by using your "Google News" system.

            You're guide shows people how to get their site listed in Google News, but you can't show the site you got into Google News because Google would ban you for doing so.

            Now, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with your business model, but some people might think that you are teaching people to spam the Google News Service.

            Now of course you will have some people that use your product to do just that. Does that mean that the government should shutdown your business because some people use your "package" to promote spam?

            What About Affiliates?

            Don't you think that there are a lot of affiliates that would like to "Get To The Top Of Google For Any Keyword In Minutes". If they can't make money online then how will they be able to buy your traffic generation products?

            I don't see who else besides a successful internet marketer would be willing to pay $497 for your "Gold Package". Yet, you are always in every thread bashing internet marketing.

            Edit: You also sell Wordpress templates. How many of those Wordpress users have adsense or affiliate links on their site. You are hurting your own customer base, really.

            Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

            Personally, I don't think Google should be exempt from any FTC rules. That's the FTC's mistake ... trusting Google when it has already proven that it does not deserve trust.
            That has a lot more to do with lobbyist than it does them simply trusting Google. The FTC knows they can't destroy a Billion dollar empire like Google without causing serious damage to the economy and their own careers.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2961960].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
              Banned
              Originally Posted by Sylonious View Post

              [size=3][B]Now, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with your business model, but some people might think that you are teaching people to spam the Google News Service.
              You obviously don't know what I am selling, because I don't teach anyone to SPAM anything. I don't SPAM and I don't teach SPAM.

              [quote=Sylonious;2961960]What About Affiliates?

              Originally Posted by Sylonious View Post

              Don't you think that there are a lot of affiliates that would like to "Get To The Top Of Google For Any Keyword In Minutes". If they can't make money online then how will they be able to buy your traffic generation products?

              I don't see who else besides a successful internet marketer would be willing to pay $497 for your "Gold Package". Yet, you are always in every thread bashing internet marketing.
              I don't have affiliates ... so yeah. What about affiliates. Show me those threads that I am bashing Internet Marketing. They don't exist. You take exception to my use of the word ethical marketers? Hmmmm ... makes me wonder why. What you have to lose with the FTC regulations.

              As for my customers, there's plenty of people who want to be a news publisher .... not just affiliate marketers, and in case you don't know, all of the news publishers are selling something. Read some news someday when you have some time .... you will see ads.

              Originally Posted by Sylonious View Post

              Edit: You also sell Wordpress templates. How many of those Wordpress users have adsense or affiliate links on their site. You are hurting your own customer base, really.
              I'm hurting who by selling websites? How? Don't answer. Please. You're obviously just some unknown hostile entity here that has some little snit against me. Like I care.

              Originally Posted by Sylonious View Post

              Also FYI:

              You need to check your (nichebloggingtreasure.com) website.
              I don't need to do anything. Site was hacked, promptly restored from a backup and Google contacted. Google will get around to removing the notice when Google gets around to it.

              Any other misinformed comments?
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2962361].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Sylonious
                Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                You obviously don't know what I am selling, because I don't teach anyone to SPAM anything. I don't SPAM and I don't teach SPAM.
                I made it very clear that I didn't think you were promoting spam. So you are just trying to start an argument.

                Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                I'm hurting who by selling websites? How? Don't answer. Please. You're obviously just some unknown hostile entity here that has some little snit against me. Like I care.
                I never said you were hurting people by selling your package. I'm saying that you are advocating stiffer internet marketing regulations which will cause the internet marketing industry to shrink considerably.

                Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                As for my customers, there's plenty of people who want to be a news publisher .... not just affiliate marketers, and in case you don't know, all of the news publishers are selling something. Read some news someday when you have some time .... you will see ads.
                You just proved my point. Your customers have ads. The FTC wants to stop them from showing their ads. Visitors would have to opt-in before you could show them an ad. Wouldn't that hurt your customers?

                Think about it like this. They reach your site from Google News and then they see a permission popup asking them to opt-in to see advertising. That is what the FTC wants all website owners to do.

                Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                Show me those threads that I am bashing Internet Marketing. They don't exist. You take exception to my use of ethical marketers? Hmmmm ... makes me wonder why. What you have to lose with the FTC regulations.
                Yes, of course I am against them destroying my anayltics programs (like Conversion Prophet, for example) and giving Google Anayltics a pass.

                I also have Chitika ads and Infolinks contextual ads which would be destroyed.

                Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                Those people don't know Suzanne.

                There are many people out there teaching this exact thing: how to get a site into Google News when it doesn't belong there.

                Suzanne is not one of them.
                Yeah, but if there intention was to game Google using her system how could she stop them? I'm sure she is a lovely talented young lady.

                There's no need for her flame bait posting.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2962448].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
                  Originally Posted by Sylonious View Post

                  That means that there will be less Internet marketers available to buy your wordpress templates.
                  Suzanne has a philosophy that I happen to share.

                  There are so many customers out there, we cannot possibly serve them all.

                  If the market shrank to 1% of its current size, there would STILL be more customers than we could possibly serve.

                  So we accept that we will not be serving those customers. We do not see it as money left on the table, or some kind of slight against us. We see it as natural and normal that all those customers are still out there for someone else to serve. And we believe, in the end, that all of those customers will be served - just not by us.

                  And we're fine with that, really.

                  A lot of marketers are horrified at the idea that someone out there might want their product, but not be buying it. That those customers might be buying someone else's product. That their money might be going into another marketer's pocket. And those marketers are tremendously stressed out, trying to improve conversions and SERPs and PPC clickthru.

                  We just don't want the stress. Suzanne is much more comfortable financially than I, because she's been doing this longer. But if the price of financial security today is that much stress? I'll wait. It's just time. Time, I've got.
                  Signature
                  "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2962473].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
                  Originally Posted by Sylonious View Post

                  Yeah, but if there intention was to game Google using her system how could she stop them?
                  It's not her job. Once you get the system, what you do with it is your problem. Google News is not going to ban Suzanne if you game their system. They're just going to ban YOU. And that's precisely how it should be.
                  Signature
                  "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2962486].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Sylonious
                    Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                    Suzanne has a philosophy that I happen to share.

                    There are so many customers out there, we cannot possibly serve them all.

                    If the market shrank to 1% of its current size, there would STILL be more customers than we could possibly serve.

                    So we accept that we will not be serving those customers. We do not see it as money left on the table, or some kind of slight against us. We see it as natural and normal that all those customers are still out there for someone else to serve. And we believe, in the end, that all of those customers will be served - just not by us.

                    And we're fine with that, really.

                    A lot of marketers are horrified at the idea that someone out there might want their product, but not be buying it. That those customers might be buying someone else's product. That their money might be going into another marketer's pocket. And those marketers are tremendously stressed out, trying to improve conversions and SERPs and PPC clickthru.

                    We just don't want the stress. Suzanne is much more comfortable financially than I, because she's been doing this longer. But if the price of financial security today is that much stress? I'll wait. It's just time. Time, I've got.
                    That's a great philosophy to have. You are a wise man. I will admit that I have been operating in scarcity mode.

                    Look at your response. You showed me some kindness even though you didn't agree with me.

                    Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                    It's not her job. Once you get the system, what you do with it is your problem. Google News is not going to ban Suzanne if you game their system. They're just going to ban YOU. And that's precisely how it should be.
                    But see that's my point. The FTC would require her to add that as her "typical result" if she used result based testimonials.

                    They would just assume that the worst result is the most common and put the burden on her to prove otherwise.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2962585].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                  Banned
                  Originally Posted by Sylonious View Post

                  Yeah, but if there intention was to game Google using her system how could she stop them?
                  I'm no more responsible for what people do than anyone else is. My father builds M1 Garands for match rifle shooters. You think he'll be convicted if someone decides to kill someone with one of his rifles instead of shooting targets as intended?

                  CDarlock expressed the way I feel about "losing market" if bad actors bite the dust due to regulations. I don't care. I've never been a "quantity" marketer. I like my small share of customers. I don't hype my products all over the Net to get every last penny that I can get. And the ones that would be affected by regulations ... I don't need them. I priced my product this time precisely so that it would not appeal to the masses and slam Google News with a bunch of spam sites. I want customers who are genuinely interested in becoming a Google News publisher ... not a Google News spammer.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2962541].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Sylonious
                    Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                    I'm no more responsible for what people do than anyone else is. My father builds M1 Garands for match rifle shooters. You think he'll be convicted if someone decides to kill someone with one of his rifles instead of shooting targets as intended?
                    No, and I don't think anyone who sells guns should be held responsible for what others do. But, there are plenty of cities that are trying to ban the sale and ownership of all guns.

                    The Government doesn't always act in the best interest of it's citizens.

                    Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                    CDarlock expressed the way I feel about "losing market" if bad actors bite the dust due to regulations. I don't care. I've never been a "quantity" marketer. I like my small share of customers. I don't hype my products all over the Net to get every last penny that I can get. And the ones that would be affected by regulations ... I don't need them.
                    Honestly, they aren't really going after bad actors. They are wiping out Google's competition to give them a free monopoly. I only use alternative ads like Chitika and Infoads and they will be wiped out by this.

                    Open Source alternatives like Piwik will be hurt by a "do not track" cookie while Google's own Analytic's program gets a free pass.

                    These new rules don't apply to these big corporations.

                    Just the other day I found out that the "expert" who said that the full body scanners don't store images was actually a CEO for a company that profited from selling body scanners.

                    Now he never disclosed his relationship and he was never punished for it.

                    I guess my problem is that I am pessimistic and I don't trust the Government to act in my best interest.

                    Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                    I priced my product this time precisely so that it would not appeal to the masses and slam Google News with a bunch of spam sites. I want customers who are genuinely interested in becoming a Google News publisher ... not a Google News spammer.
                    That's a great philosophy to have. I tip my hat to you for going to such great lengths to avoid "spammers".
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2962643].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
                      Originally Posted by Sylonious View Post

                      But see that's my point. The FTC would require her to add that as her "typical result" if she used result based testimonials.
                      But she doesn't.

                      See how easy that is?

                      Originally Posted by Sylonious View Post

                      The Government doesn't always act in the best interest of it's citizens.
                      The behavioural advertisers are citizens, too. The government MUST act against the best interests of some citizens to protect the best interests of others.

                      I only use alternative ads like Chitika and Infoads and they will be wiped out by this.
                      Chitika isn't behavioural. I don't know what Infoads is and couldn't find any information about it in a search; I found a Chinese parked domain at info-ads.com, though, which was amusing.

                      Open Source alternatives like Piwik will be hurt by a "do not track" cookie
                      Piwik is a first-party solution and will not be affected. Indeed, if Google were not exempted, something like Piwik would be your solution.

                      Just the other day I found out that the "expert" who said that the full body scanners don't store images was actually a CEO for a company that profited from selling body scanners.
                      Just out of curiosity, how exactly did this influence your decision on whether to buy a full-body scanner?

                      He needed to disclose his relationship to potential buyers. Not to people in general.

                      If I'm telling people how great the latest Microsoft program is, they might buy it, and I'm required to say something like "of course, I'm a Microsoft Partner, so I'm biased."

                      But if I'm telling them how awesome the Boeing 787 is, nobody in my audience is going to buy one - so I don't have to say "oh, by the way, my mother is a manager at Boeing."

                      I guess my problem is that I am pessimistic and I don't trust the Government to act in my best interest.
                      An even bigger problem is that your best interest as a marketer sometimes conflicts with your best interest as a consumer. If you're concentrating on what government has done wrong, all you have to do is hop back and forth over that line to complain about every single thing the government does on this issue.

                      I was actually discussing this in a chat last night, and my position is pretty radical. I believe in the complete repeal of privacy laws. I think surveillance by private citizens should be decriminalised and encouraged.

                      Because once you give regular old everyday people the right to collect data on their neighbours, they'll gleefuly lose interest in the personal right not to have their own collected. The objection to data collecting isn't that data collecting is wrong, it's that the average person can't do it. It's restricted to a few big scary corporations, as the average man on the street sees it, so it's an us-vs-them situation.

                      Give that man on the street a licence to do the same, and he'll jump up and down clapping his hands, then cheerfully skip down the road to spy on his neighbours. He won't give a damn who's tracking his internet porn habit, because he'll be too busy ferreting out other people's secrets.
                      Signature
                      "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2963511].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                        Banned
                        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                        I was actually discussing this in a chat last night, and my position is pretty radical. I believe in the complete repeal of privacy laws. I think surveillance by private citizens should be decriminalised and encouraged.

                        Because once you give regular old everyday people the right to collect data on their neighbours, they'll gleefuly lose interest in the personal right not to have their own collected. The objection to data collecting isn't that data collecting is wrong, it's that the average person can't do it. It's restricted to a few big scary corporations, as the average man on the street sees it, so it's an us-vs-them situation.

                        Give that man on the street a licence to do the same, and he'll jump up and down clapping his hands, then cheerfully skip down the road to spy on his neighbours. He won't give a damn who's tracking his internet porn habit, because he'll be too busy ferreting out other people's secrets.
                        lol .. radical. Spy vs Spy
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2963602].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author affhelper
                          I can see retargeting and Google remarketing getting hit by this.

                          The way I see it, if they really wanted to protect us then they should
                          make a law stating that none of your online habits or websites you visit
                          could ever be used against you in the court of law.

                          I would rather have merchants tracking me so they can sell more
                          products and so that our economy can grow than some government
                          agency being able to decide how our internet browsers are being
                          developed and what's right for us and what's not.

                          Just sayin...
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2963630].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Sylonious
                        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                        But she doesn't.

                        See how easy that is?
                        You have a different set of priorities. My thing is that if you decided to use result based testimonials that it's not morally wrong to do so as long as they are truthful and fairly reasonable.

                        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                        The behavioral advertisers are citizens, too. The government MUST act against the best interests of some citizens to protect the best interests of others.
                        Of course, we assume that the Government is doing what's morally right for all parties.

                        IMO, the best way to regulate the Free Market is to shut it down and let only a handful of highly regulated elite players advertise and market products to consumers. That would be what's "best" for consumers.

                        There's no need to let the little guy have anything since he under reports his tax liability, anyway.

                        Since, they can't really do that a gated advertising model like the FTC is proposing would work just fine. People would only opt-in to see ads from major corporations.

                        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                        Chitika isn't behavioral. I don't know what Infoads is and couldn't find any information about it in a search; I found a Chinese parked domain at info-ads.com, though, which was amusing.
                        I'm sorry, Infolinks.

                        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                        Piwik is a first-party solution and will not be affected. Indeed, if Google were not exempted, something like Piwik would be your solution.
                        Yeah, but what if you host Piwik on one domain and use that installation on several others?

                        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                        Just out of curiosity, how exactly did this influence your decision on whether to buy a full-body scanner?

                        He needed to disclose his relationship to potential buyers. Not to people in general.

                        If I'm telling people how great the latest Microsoft program is, they might buy it, and I'm required to say something like "of course, I'm a Microsoft Partner, so I'm biased."

                        But if I'm telling them how awesome the Boeing 787 is, nobody in my audience is going to buy one - so I don't have to say "oh, by the way, my mother is a manager at Boeing."
                        Of course the people who decided to give him his Government contract watched him reassure the public about the safety and security of full body scanners. Technically those elected officials work for the public so the CNN audience was his customer base.

                        At least that's how I see it.

                        Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                        An even bigger problem is that your best interest as a marketer sometimes conflicts with your best interest as a consumer. If you're concentrating on what government has done wrong, all you have to do is hop back and forth over that line to complain about every single thing the government does on this issue.

                        I was actually discussing this in a chat last night, and my position is pretty radical. I believe in the complete repeal of privacy laws. I think surveillance by private citizens should be decriminalized and encouraged.

                        Because once you give regular old everyday people the right to collect data on their neighborhoods, they'll gleefuly lose interest in the personal right not to have their own collected. The objection to data collecting isn't that data collecting is wrong, it's that the average person can't do it. It's restricted to a few big scary corporations, as the average man on the street sees it, so it's an us-vs-them situation.

                        Give that man on the street a license to do the same, and he'll jump up and down clapping his hands, then cheerfully skip down the road to spy on his neighbors. He won't give a damn who's tracking his internet porn habit, because he'll be too busy ferreting out other people's secrets.
                        IDK, I think it would have the opposite effect. I remember when I was in school there was a guy who unknowingly had his hard drive open for sharing on the school network.

                        My friend opened up his drive and saw that he had a terrabyte of porn. Then after violating the other guys privacy he spent the next 6 hours doubling down on his own PC security.

                        A lot of hackers who violate other people's privacy are really paranoid about their own privacy because of the strange stuff that they find.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2965753].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
                          Originally Posted by Sylonious View Post

                          IMO, the best way to regulate the Free Market is to shut it down and let only a handful of highly regulated elite players advertise and market products to consumers.
                          This is precisely what the Soviet government tried to do in Russia. What they got was a bustling black market trade. Not that I minded selling a $15 pair of jeans for upwards of $200 in Moscow, but looking at the state of the Russian economy today, I don't think it's exactly a ringing endorsement for state-controlled markets.

                          Yeah, but what if you host Piwik on one domain and use that installation on several others?
                          It's still first-party data collection, and you obviously don't understand the issue here.

                          If YOU host Piwik on a domain, and then I use your Piwik installation on one of my domains, that creates a third-party data collection issue.

                          For me.

                          Not for you, and not for Piwik. It is not your problem. All the disclosures and policies and FTC guidelines apply to me, because people are coming to my site.

                          Now, if you have a domain using Piwik on another domain, but you own them both - you have every right to voluntarily treat this like a third-party data collection situation and make all the same disclosures. But you don't have to, because the "party" collecting the data is not the domain. It's you.

                          Of course the people who decided to give him his Government contract watched him reassure the public about the safety and security of full body scanners.
                          Okay, so think about this.

                          What if someone else had answered the question? Would the answer have been different?

                          Or how about this: what would change if he had just never said anything?

                          Would someone else have gotten the contract?

                          Was there an election between his reassurance and the contract award, so the public could vote his supporters out of office?

                          Would that even have mattered under Federal Acquisition Regulations, or would his contract have been awarded anyway?

                          Because if it doesn't make a difference, I don't see what you're complaning about.

                          A lot of hackers who violate other people's privacy are really paranoid about their own privacy because of the strange stuff that they find.
                          That's expected and intended. We don't want to stop people protecting their privacy. We want them to stop expecting that privacy to be protected for them.
                          Signature
                          "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2966763].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Sylonious
                            Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                            Now, if you have a domain using Piwik on another domain, but you own them both - you have every right to voluntarily treat this like a third-party data collection situation and make all the same disclosures. But you don't have to, because the "party" collecting the data is not the domain. It's you.
                            Ok, I see. So basically as long as I don't share my data with anyone else there's nothing for me to disclose.

                            Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                            Okay, so think about this.

                            What if someone else had answered the question? Would the answer have been different?

                            Or how about this: what would change if he had just never said anything?

                            Would someone else have gotten the contract?

                            Was there an election between his reassurance and the contract award, so the public could vote his supporters out of office?

                            Would that even have mattered under Federal Acquisition Regulations, or would his contract have been awarded anyway?

                            Because if it doesn't make a difference, I don't see what you're complaining about.
                            Well, no It wouldn't have made much of a difference. I just figured that they would regulate everyone fairly and equally, but that was just me being gullible.

                            Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

                            That's expected and intended. We don't want to stop people protecting their privacy. We want them to stop expecting that privacy to be protected for them.
                            Well, IDK about that. I agree with you up to a point. I think people should be protected from the most egregious offenders. I don't believe in total anarchy when it comes to our Privacy.
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2967176].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
                              Originally Posted by Sylonious View Post

                              Well, no It wouldn't have made much of a difference. I just figured that they would regulate everyone fairly and equally, but that was just me being gullible.
                              They are. If it would not make any material difference, then the disclosure was not necessary. The same applies to you and me and Google and Microsoft and every other company in the U.S.

                              Well, IDK about that. I agree with you up to a point. I think people should be protected from the most egregious offenders.
                              And they are. We'll still have laws about stalking. We'll still have laws about trespassing. We'll still have laws about what's admissible as evidence in a court of law. What we won't have is laws about what people can do with what they know.

                              Because that's what this is really about: what I'm allowed to do with what I know about you. And I don't think it's in any way fair or sensible to claim that you get to have some control over what I do simply because it's about something you think ought to be private.
                              Signature
                              "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2967332].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author Sylonious
                                [DELETED]
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2967517].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
                                  Originally Posted by Sylonious View Post

                                  You make a good point, but I definitely wouldn't want to be on the bad end of something like this:
                                  That's not the issue. The issue is whether the insurance company has the right to raise your rates for whatever damn reason they want, and the fact is... they do.

                                  I don't like it either (I've had my premiums raised for accidents where the other driver was at fault and his insurance paid the claim), but I'm not about to suggest that the government can tell a private company what prices it is allowed to charge.
                                  Signature
                                  "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2967582].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
                      Caliban,

                      Yes, most people do know those things happen. They also know that the various sources are not all linked together. Despite that, many resent even that much collection of data. And it's not that they think it should be limited only online. They think it should be restricted on a much larger scope.
                      I believe privacy as we understand it is dead. I believe it has been dying for a long time, and it is time to bury it.
                      I believe we need to find a new balance, and part of that involves giving people the tools to make up their own minds.

                      This is one of those instances in which there is no point in conversation between the two of us. We are simply not going to agree.


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

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2963742].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
                        Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

                        This is one of those instances in which there is no point in conversation between the two of us. We are simply not going to agree.
                        That is not the purpose of this conversation for me. If that's what it is for you, then you're right - there's no point in your participation.

                        I've been an advocate of ending privacy for years. You are not going to suddenly convert me to a privacy-lover. Not happening.

                        But I believe people are trying to solve the wrong problem.

                        The complaint from the consumer is "waaaaaaa, protecting my privacy is haaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrd."

                        And the government says "why, it is hard, let us see if we can't make it easier."

                        Trouble is, the consumer doesn't want it easier.

                        He wants not to protect himself.

                        It doesn't matter how many tools you give him or how easy they are.

                        All you are doing is complicating the process consumers already do not want and do not like and will not use.

                        What the consumer wants is for the government to dictate exactly how much privacy they can expect and when.

                        And I believe the only acceptable thing for the government to dictate is "none, ever."

                        Which is not, strictly speaking, the case. You CAN protect your privacy. But once we flip the switch to where you can't expect privacy unless you protect it, the consumer who doesn't want to protect it knows exactly what he's choosing.
                        Signature
                        "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2964778].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Silas Hart
                          As if I'm going to acknowledge the FTC rules anyways...
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2964805].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author jgant
                            Affiliate marketing, in my view, is in no harm.

                            Tracking cookies is only one method to track referrals. It's efficient, but not the only way.

                            If the FTC's proposed regs come into effect, AND affiliate marketer websites are implicated, there are alternative referral tracking methods.

                            TWO ALTNERATIVE AFFILIATE COOKIE TRACKING METHODS

                            Example #1, your vendor could create dedicated web pages for your referrals. When a referral completes a form or calls a dedicated phone number, you get credited. Moreover, the dedicated page gives an exclusive discount/offer being the incentive for the referral to take action then and there.

                            Example #2, an affiliate could be provided a dedicated code which gives the referred person a discount if they use that code, which also tracks the affiliate referral.

                            I actually have these types of arrangements with some vendors. I like these approaches because conversions are higher with the exclusive discount my referral receives. My referral gains a true benefit from me (in addition to all the information I give about the product/service).

                            These are just 2 simple solutions. I'm sure there are endless other methods to track affiliate referrals if forced.

                            That said, many alternative referral tracking methods will likely require a little more effort by the vendors to make these arrangements. This in turn may result in vendors being more selective with approving affiliates.
                            Signature
                            How I hit $10,000+ per month very fast w/ 1 niche blog - Click Here to learn more (no opt-in).
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2965499].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
              Originally Posted by Sylonious View Post

              Now, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with your business model, but some people might think that you are teaching people to spam the Google News Service.
              Those people don't know Suzanne.

              There are many people out there teaching this exact thing: how to get a site into Google News when it doesn't belong there.

              Suzanne is not one of them.

              If you think she is, then go buy some other fly-by-night marketer's guide to Google News. She won't hold it against you. She's quite happy to rely on the revenue generated by those who know she can be trusted to deliver the goods.

              As a product creator myself, I sit in awe of Suzanne's products. She's amazing. Overdelivery is an understatement.
              Signature
              "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2962380].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
    Race Is On to 'Fingerprint' Phones, PCs - WSJ.com

    Read that, and consider the integration of that system with databases like Google's. Then think about how many other systems are out there collecting that kind of data in smaller quantities. Link it all up.

    Yeah. That's really a "good thing," right? If you're concerned about government interference in your life, why would you think they wouldn't latch onto all that info themselves? Do you have even the faintest idea of the kinds of predictive algorithyms that exist and what they can do with that?

    Or just how badly mistaken they can be?


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

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2949313].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SageSound
    I'm sorry, but from what the OP stated, I cannot see how this will have an impact on affiliate sales.

    My website putting a cookie on YOUR computer does not in any way give ME the ability to collect private data about YOU. YOU are holding that cookie. YOU have the right to block cookies, delete cookies, modify cookies. YOU are in complete control -- as a consumer, web surfer, or whatever.

    I'm saying this entirely in the context of how affiliate marketing works. You click a link on my site for an affiliate product, a cookie is dropped on your computer so that the target website can figure out who sent you, and that's that. *I* am not "collecting data" on you. Neither is Clickbank, in terms of affiliate stats, unless you end up making a purchase. Otherwise the only info they have is the same data every web server in the known universe has, plus my affiliate ID.

    Speaking of web server data ... is there any chance that this proposal leaks over into what can be collected in terms of web server logs? I realize that not many people bother looking at them these days, but you can figure more out about people's behavior by analyzing server logs than just about anything else.

    It's when specific tracking cookies are combined with web log analytics that behavioral metrics are starting to encroach into privacy issues.

    I was told by the owner of a hosting facility once that he is approached frequently by companies offering to purchase copies of the aggregate server logs on the machines he administers. He says these guys offer a LOT of moolah for regular updates. He didn't say if he was doing that, but knowing this guy, he probably was.

    The question is ... do companies like HostGator earn more by selling the server logs to analytics companies than they earn from account holders? According to my guy above, this is a very real possibility.

    So you've gotta wonder what exactly the FTC is trying to address here.

    Take, for example, the Terms and Privacy Policies that virtually every web service provider has these days that says the information you post on their site belongs to them. Think about how many sites you visit every day, and consider how much behavioral information could be collected on you if the people who own those servers sell their server log data to third-party analytics firms. The FTC is saying consumers have to be told about this. Ok, that's another paragraph on an already overly-long bunch of legal mumbo-jumbo you have to agree to when you get a "free" account somewhere.

    I'm really not sure what impact these rulings will have as long as service providers basically require you to waive your rights in order to use their services. That's tough to do when you're paying them, but if it's a "free" service they're offering you, they're "free" to demand just about anything in exchange.

    -David
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2949373].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
    I love this bit.

    Among the factors determining the need for this legislation:

    * consumers’ lack of understanding and ability to make informed choices about the
    collection and use of their data;
    * the importance of privacy to many consumers;

    Let me clarify that, just in case you don't speak the language.

    We need this law because something is important to people who don't understand it and lack the ability to make informed choices about it.

    Let that sink in a little.
    Signature
    "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2950177].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
    Caliban,
    We need this law because something is important to people who don't understand it and lack the ability to make informed choices about it.
    Rephrase, in normal human terms, without the arrogant cynicism: "The language used to present the choices to consumers is deliberately obfuscated, if it exists at all, and they don't have sufficient experience to translate it into useful terms."

    As soon as I saw that you had posted to this thread, I knew it was going to be something like that.


    Paul

    Edit added: Google the phrase "reasonable man standard." That's closer to what the FTC uses for making determinations than "What would Caliban think?"
    Signature
    .
    Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2950195].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      Rephrase, in normal human terms, without the arrogant cynicism
      You seem to have missed the point.

      It's not that people can't understand what they've said. It's that what they've said doesn't make sense. If you can't make an informed decision about something, how can you possibly decide whether it's important?

      There is absolutely nothing in this legislation that even addresses the idea of whether what consumers want is good for them. Because that's what we're really supposed to be on about here: what's good for the consumer.

      And while we've established that the consumer does not like to have data tracked, and would prefer the ability to turn it off, we have never established that data tracking is in any way bad for the consumer. Just that they'd really rather have control over it.

      But control over something you don't understand is almost always a Bad Thing.
      Signature
      "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2955268].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author indexphp


    The report adds that, to simplify choice for both consumers and businesses, companies should not have to seek consent for certain commonly accepted practices. It is “reasonable for companies to engage in certain practices – namely, product and service fulfillment, internal operations such as improving services offered, fraud prevention, legal compliance, and first-party marketing
    Definition of "first party cookies"

    Served by the site you are currently using - typical for E-commerce sites.
    Affiliate Marketing is not dead people. The sky is not falling. Rest assured that you will pass Go and collect $200.

    Also, consider how many Americans will not even register or know about such list (the ones who convert HA!)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2950301].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author celente
      Originally Posted by indexphp View Post



      Affiliate Marketing is not dead people. The sky is not falling. Rest assured that you will pass Go and collect $200.
      No way, I very much doubt that affiliate marketing is dead. It more alive than ever.

      Karl Marx --> I would not read into him, he is a doomster and makes him money from doom predictions....very scary. Most of them are wrong!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2950311].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SageSound
    A word on "privacy" and the "reasonable man standard" ....

    I bet if you asked 100 "average" people on the street (presumably representative of the "reasonable man standard") if they believed the US Constitution guarantees Americans a "right to privacy", about 95 of them would say, "Of course it does!" and the other 5 would say, "probably". And 100 would say it definitely should if it doesn't.

    So much for a "reasonable man standard".

    I think that rather than whittling away at one thing after another trying to minimize the rampant and unchecked boundaries that the lack of a constitutional right to privacy would provide, we should just start a movement to pass a Constitutional Amendment that recognizes a citizen's privacy as another unalienable right. Today it's just another tool for marketers to abuse and the FTC to try to control.

    It's actually kind of mind-boggling to think that, of all the things our Founding Fathers were able to embrace with the relatively simple verbiage contained in the Constitution, the Right to Privacy was such an incomprehensible issue at the time that it is completely absent from that document. Yet I suspect it's going to become the single most important social and legal issue of this century, given how the internet and First Amendment rights are making it almost impossible to prevent the containment of data and punishing people who fail to safeguard it properly. Look at the WikiLeaks site.

    While the Constitution draws a fairly bright line around individual rights vs. public rights, since a "right to privacy" isn't contained therein, the potential legal issues effectively have no boundaries. I suspect the closest we'll get is a 4th Amendment case dealing with unlawful search and seizure (through unauthorized dissemination) of personal information by unauthorized parties.

    -David
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2950425].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
    David,

    There is also the right of the people "to be secure in their persons."

    The right to privacy is not specifically outlined in the Constitution, but it's been fairly well recognized by the courts. And it's one of those things that can cause a firestorm if the people get themselves in an uproar about it. I'd be inclined to help that process along...

    Yes, it's a contentious issue, legally, but it's an easy one in the court of public opinion. And if the government starts messing with this kind of data, that whole "papers, and effects" thing gets real meaningful.


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

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2950445].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author WD Mino
    Brian:

    So does this mean that all cookied sites will be in trouble?
    I have an affiliate program and that uses a tracking cookie to register the leads I think it lasts 3 months or a year i will have to look but how would an affiliate-sales person be able to earn from a product if cookied leads are no good now?

    What is the solution to avoiding this altogether without forfeiting a sales force for your product?
    What about places like clickbank etc would they then be shut down because of this?

    For those who think ah it won't happen. What is it about the fact the government can do whatever it wants do you not understand. You put them in office they make the laws you have to abide by those laws end of story. the arm of the ftc is a lot longer then people realize especially when a lot of countries are trade partners with the U.S.
    -WD
    Signature

    "As a man thinks in his heart so is he-Proverbs 23:7"
    Coming Soon http://graphicsdon.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2950467].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Gary McCaffrey
      Originally Posted by WD Mino View Post


      For those who think ah it won't happen. What is it about the fact the government can do whatever it wants do you not understand. You put them in office they make the laws you have to abide by those laws end of story. the arm of the ftc is a lot longer then people realize especially when a lot of countries are trade partners with the U.S.
      -WD
      Not end of story as far as I'm concerned. The government is there to serve the public, not herd them. In fact isn't the US constitution there so the people can overthrow a government that got too big for its boots?

      Anyway, lets not go there.

      Now I've had a chance to think about this, this law would eventually have little to no affect on affiliate marketing.

      All affiliate marketers have to do is block access to their sites unless the user changes their browser settings to accept 3rd part cookies, with the number of sites out there making this request everything would be as normal in no time. And with giants like ebay and amazon heavily involved in affiliate marketing...

      If they're trying to stop all the bullsh*t aggregators and internet mess makers, I'm all for it, but this isn't the way to do it.

      I still have no idea what this proposal is supposed to achieve if implemented.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2951085].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author WD Mino
        Originally Posted by Gary McCaffrey View Post

        Not end of story as far as I'm concerned. The government is there to serve the public, not herd them. In fact isn't the US constitution there so the people can overthrow a government that got too big for its boots?

        Anyway, lets not go there.

        Now I've had a chance to think about this, this law would eventually have little to no affect on affiliate marketing.

        All affiliate marketers have to do is block access to their sites unless the user changes their browser settings to accept 3rd part cookies, with the number of sites out there making this request everything would be as normal in no time. And with giants like ebay and amazon heavily involved in affiliate marketing...

        If they're trying to stop all the bullsh*t aggregators and internet mess makers, I'm all for it, but this isn't the way to do it.

        I still have no idea what this proposal is supposed to achieve if implemented.
        I understand what you're saying. people could also just delete junk mail spam etc but it is now in a law. once the government is in place they make the laws that is not something that is negotiable on a person by person basis. how they enforce it is not really the issue the fact they are proposing it and the impact it could indeed have is very serious I just say be cautious and take steps to protect that which is your livelihood.

        You cannot win against the law makers in that sense it is the end of the story
        Cheers
        -WD
        Signature

        "As a man thinks in his heart so is he-Proverbs 23:7"
        Coming Soon http://graphicsdon.com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2951135].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Sid Hale
        Hey Gary,

        Originally Posted by Gary McCaffrey View Post

        Now I've had a chance to think about this, this law would eventually have little to no affect on affiliate marketing.

        All affiliate marketers have to do is block access to their sites unless the user changes their browser settings to accept 3rd part cookies, with the number of sites out there making this request everything would be as normal in no time. And with giants like ebay and amazon heavily involved in affiliate marketing...
        To clarify...
        affiliate cookies are NOT 3rd party cookies.

        In fact, normal affiliate links don't "cookie" anything, directly.

        Normal affiliate links simply make a request of the merchant web site to write a cookie (on the affiliate's behalf), onto the visitor's machine.

        I haven't read the actual publication, but if they are specifically targeting 3rd party cookies, then 1) the impact on normal affiliate links, and 2) the merchants' practice of recording the referring affiliate's info in a cookie in order to properly credit that affiliate with the referral - is NOT an issue (IMHO).
        Signature

        Sid Hale
        Coming Soon... Rapid Action Profits (Pro)

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2955694].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
    PS: There's the "reasonable expectation of privacy" issue, too. Wiretap laws, as an example...
    Signature
    .
    Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2950501].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SageSound
    After I posted that, I did a little Googling. Interesting stuff there.

    Seems a lot of privacy issues are falling under the 9th Amendment, as well as the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 14th. And the majority of cases are quite dicey and controversial -- contraception, abortion, homosexuality, pornography.

    Eg., the Sup Ct says it's ok to posses and view porn in the privacy of your own home, but [deleted] falls under a different umbrella.

    -David
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2950592].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      It's fairly complicated, depending on some circumstances. I very much doubt the Gub'mint would be able to just make free with all electronic communications, though.

      On the basis of the part that got marked [deleted], I suspect it's best we let this go...


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

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2950657].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Marc Rodill
        Internet Marketing "barrier to entry" increased +1 is all I see.

        And, it seems to be inevitable. Time to adapt once again.

        Originally Posted by ExRat View Post

        Hi Gary,



        Al Cookieda
        Ha. Love it.

        Originally Posted by Lee Wilson View Post

        I don't see it as anything surprising. Since the introduction of the data protection act (which done anything but protect peoples data)
        I've noticed with almost anything like that, it's quite often a play on words, skillfully designed to do just the opposite of it's so-called objectives, under false pretenses of course.

        They good. You know.

        Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

        We've done it to ourselves.

        Every one of you who says it's okay to spam backlinks on forums and blogs, every marketer who collects addresses and mails them without disclosing what the address will be used for, every spammer of any kind that floods communication channels, and every moron who sells their customer list to any of those people.
        Ah, yes, but please spare all of "us" categorization with "them."

        We're not all harvesting our unsubscribed, and spamming them later. Howie.

        His products. Specifically. Of course.

        If you do any of those things, you've contributed to this. You have no business yelling about regulation if you're one of the things people need to be protected from.
        Yes, I see what you're saying, but I would like to reason that many of us with gripes, did, in fact, NOT contribute to this mess. But that's neither here nor there.

        Plus, it's my opinion is that consumer protection mostly a lofty, abstract ideal. Buyer beware, and stuff. You know. But I get what you're saying. The feeble and likewise.

        "Please, for heaven's sake, don't swallow your toothpaste. It's toxic. And listen, while we're at it... plastic bags are not suitable toys for your children. OK? Got it? Oh, and by the way, that coffee's hot. Watch out if you spill it. It could burn you and stuff."

        Yeah. Them folk.

        All that aside, there is a very real line between commerce and invasion of privacy. If you don't grok that, you're probably just hoping you can cross it one day.

        ...

        Go ahead. Tell me how anti-capitalist I am. Watch anyone who knows me laugh in your face.

        Paul
        What's all caught up in your skivvies? You were not referenced personally either by mention or metaphor.

        Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

        LB,

        I didn't say it would work. I said we brought it on ourselves. Just like CAN-SPAM. Which, by the way, has virtually no impact on legitimate marketers. So, bad example as far as that one.

        CAN-SPAM has had some impact on spammers. Just not the way the Act was originally envisioned to. But it's been there.

        As far as the testimonials and income claims in some WSOs... I've said for a long time that the folks doing that had better hope the FTC never starts poking around in there. The people doing those things are sold on the idea that they're too small to attract attention, and I am sincerely hoping they're proved wrong.

        I'll tell you something. Years ago, as in 15 or so, I started telling people in this market what spam was going to end up like. Including the prevalence of viruses and trojans used to send it, and that it would eventually become the overwhelming majority of email sent. I predicted it would severely damage the effectiveness of even legitimate email marketing, as consumers got tired of the flood.

        The majority of people in this group, and elsewhere in the online marketing community, told me I was nuts. I was called everything from a communist to a net-Nazi to an anti-commerce thug. I was also told I was a stooge for the big ISPs, who wanted to control the industry.

        Right. I was one of the first email marketers who used purely permission-based (as in, real opt-in, all the time) marketing. And I've been a solo operation the whole time.

        Look at the current state of email. Turns out I was an optimist.

        You do not want to see what the future will be like if data aggregators are allowed to run uncontrolled.


        Paul
        I find it all quite silly and transient. But that last part perked my ears.

        What will happen if in the future?

        Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

        Caliban,Rephrase, in normal human terms, without the arrogant cynicism: "The language used to present the choices to consumers is deliberately obfuscated, if it exists at all, and they don't have sufficient experience to translate it into useful terms."

        ...

        Paul

        Edit added: Google the phrase "reasonable man standard." That's closer to what the FTC uses for making determinations than "What would Caliban think?"
        I must say: both with intentionally confusing words and aforementioned added edit sewn together, that did not seem in the least bit arrogant to me.

        Cheers. That's my refreshingly civil perspective.

        Still love you lots, Paul.

        Marc
        Signature
        Long Lost Warriors! The Secret Sales System! Act Now! Buy Now! Right Now!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2950972].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author WD Mino
          Originally Posted by Marc Rodill View Post

          Internet Marketing "barrier to entry" increased +1 is all I see.

          And, it seems to be inevitable. Time to adapt once again.



          Ha. Love it.



          I've noticed with almost anything like that, it's quite often a play on words, skillfully designed to do just the opposite of it's so-called objectives, under false pretenses of course.

          They good. You know.



          Ah, yes, but please spare all of "us" categorization with "them."

          We're not all harvesting our unsubscribed, and spamming them later. Howie.

          His products. Specifically. Of course.



          Yes, I see what you're saying, but I would like to reason that many of us with gripes, did, in fact, NOT contribute to this mess. But that's neither here nor there.

          Plus, it's my opinion is that consumer protection mostly a lofty, abstract ideal. Buyer beware, and stuff. You know. But I get what you're saying. The feeble and likewise.

          "Please, for heaven's sake, don't swallow your toothpaste. It's toxic. And listen, while we're at it... plastic bags are not suitable toys for your children. OK? Got it? Oh, and by the way, that coffee's hot. Watch out if you spill it. It could burn you and stuff."

          Yeah. Them folk.



          What's all caught up in your skivvies? You were not referenced personally either by mention or metaphor.



          I find it all quite silly and transient. But that last part perked my ears.

          What will happen if in the future?



          I must say: both with intentionally confusing words and aforementioned added edit sewn together, that did not seem in the least bit arrogant to me.

          Cheers. That's my refreshingly civil perspective.

          Still love you lots, Paul.

          Marc
          Marc:
          You seemed to have gotten a lot prettier
          Just sayin
          -WD
          Signature

          "As a man thinks in his heart so is he-Proverbs 23:7"
          Coming Soon http://graphicsdon.com

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2951042].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Marc Rodill
            Originally Posted by WD Mino View Post

            Marc:
            You seemed to have gotten a lot prettier
            Just sayin
            -WD
            You should try this stuff...

            It's the **** berries... Honest!
            Signature
            Long Lost Warriors! The Secret Sales System! Act Now! Buy Now! Right Now!
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2951088].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SeanIM
    I like nutter-butters...they can change cookies all they want.

    At the end of the day it's just about who can shovel the most relevant traffic to an offer that converts... We don't need no stinking badgesss for that
    Signature
    Sean Mitchell -
    Online Marketing & Tech Consultant Since 1999
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2950645].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LetsGoViral
    And how are they going to control this exactly?
    Signature
    Time of thinking is over.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2950801].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mathmo
    Your ability to track gets handcuffed. And analytics is VERY important in IM
    Signature
    Terso IT: for Web Development and SEO Latest blog post, on the mindset of outsourcing: How to Outsource: 2 kinds, which are you?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2956455].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Sylonious
    Originally Posted by kindsvater View Post

    This applies to direct and indirect, online and offline marketing:

    - To obtain consumer consent before using affiliate tracking cookies.
    I really don't think they are talking about Affiliate Marketers. I think they are talking about a company like Amazon taking consumer information and sharing it with Zappos.

    Affiliate websites usually don't set cookies. The cookie isn't set until the visitor clicks a link and reaches a vendor/seller website.

    If anything this might stop you from collecting accurate analytics data. So you won't know what keywords got you sales.

    Of course, if they block cookies you won't get sales from return visitors, but it wouldn't kill affiliate marketing. They will still be able to track sales by IP address. I sometimes have the same Ip address for a month so it's not the end of the world.

    The presentation outlined the virtually ubiquitous collection of consumer data that occurs in multiple contexts and at numerous points throughout a given day - for instance, when consumers browse websites, purchase items with payment cards, or use a geolocation application on a mobile device. In addition, the presentation depicted how companies that collect data through such activities share the data with multiple entities, including affiliated companies, as well as third parties that are many layers removed from, and typically do not interact with, consumers. - ftc.gov
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2956930].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      Caliban,
      You seem to have missed the point.
      Given the phrasing, that's possible. I'm not sure it matters much, having read your comments below.
      It's not that people can't understand what they've said. It's that what they've said doesn't make sense. If you can't make an informed decision about something, how can you possibly decide whether it's important?
      I think the comments about consumers' lack of ability to understand has more to do with proper disclosure than their intellectual capability.
      And while we've established that the consumer does not like to have data tracked, and would prefer the ability to turn it off, we have never established that data tracking is in any way bad for the consumer. Just that they'd really rather have control over it.
      So, you're recommending that someone other than the consumer is better equipped than they are to make that choice?

      When it comes to personal privacy, I reject that notion.

      Each person should have as much control over how their personal data is used as they want to have. The default should not be, "We can find out without telling them, so we have the right to do so, and to do whatever we wish with that information."

      I can pretty much bet that what's good for the customer is not the primary concern of merchants using those kinds of data bits. It may overlap with that, but it's not the main consideration.
      But control over something you don't understand is almost always a Bad Thing.
      Are you suggesting that people don't understand the idea of privacy?


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

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2957668].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Sylonious
        It's amazing to me how many of you people seem to be so against affiliate marketing yet you sell "get rich quick" and "make money online" products yourself.

        How do you plan on selling stuff like that if affiliate marketing suddenly dries up? Same thing with cheap article writers and video production. Aren't affiliates and businesses that depend on affiliates a big chunk of your customer base?

        Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

        Caliban,Given the phrasing, that's possible. I'm not sure it matters much, having read your comments below. I think the comments about consumers' lack of ability to understand has more to do with proper disclosure than their intellectual capability.So, you're recommending that someone other than the consumer is better equipped than they are to make that choice?

        When it comes to personal privacy, I reject that notion.

        Each person should have as much control over how their personal data is used as they want to have. The default should not be, "We can find out without telling them, so we have the right to do so, and to do whatever we wish with that information."

        I can pretty much bet that what's good for the customer is not the primary concern of merchants using those kinds of data bits. It may overlap with that, but it's not the main consideration.Are you suggesting that people don't understand the idea of privacy?


        Paul
        Most people were worried about GOOGLE tracking their internet activity, yet somehow they are exempt from these new regulations.

        That doesn't smell a little fishy to you?

        And really what does affiliate marketing have to do with their Privacy concerns?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2957820].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
        Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

        So, you're recommending that someone other than the consumer is better equipped than they are to make that choice?
        The FTC is proposing to dictate the options available for that choice.

        That's making choices for the consumer, too. And I don't believe every market wants the same options.

        Are you suggesting that people don't understand the idea of privacy?
        Yes.

        People say things like "I do not want some stranger to know I shop at this store AND at that store. I have a right to my privacy."

        But there's a stranger at the mall watching you walk from one store to another, and you don't say a thing.

        Two cashiers talk in the food court. One points you out as you walk by and says "he bought X at my store." The other says "well, he bought Y at mine."

        The stockboy from your grocery store is behind you in line at another store. The next day, at work, he sees you in the store and quietly tells the cute cashier at the pharmacy counter what you were buying.

        Your discount card is tracked and collated at a central office every time you shop at a particular store. That store may be owned by another company which owns a second store, where you also shop.

        Fifty cameras owned by a dozen people take video footage of you as you go through the mall.

        This sort of thing happens all day long to all of us.

        Yet somehow, people think that on the internet, they should be protected from it.

        I don't believe they should. I believe privacy as we understand it is dead. I believe it has been dying for a long time, and it is time to bury it.
        Signature
        "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2962206].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garyv
    I kind of like merchants being able to know a bit about me, and place relevant ads in front of me. It beats what we had through the 90s, which was an avalanche of irrelevant flashing banner ads everywhere you looked. And besides, it's not like they're spying on you in the shower or something by placing a cookie.

    If the Govt goes this route, you can bet that you'll see a lot more crappy irrelevant ads everywhere, as well as a huge influx in the porn industry. Because it's the only thing that can sell without tracking it.

    And by the way - a free market can control itself if it is TRULY free. But usually a market will fail because the market's ability to do what it needs to to regulate itself is severely hampered by Govt. regulations.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2957794].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GuerrillaIM
    White labeling is the way forward!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2957810].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DogScout
    A St. Kitts or Nevus server with a Nevus blind trust seems more and more attractive every day.

    The only problem I can envision is. whenever any new law or regulation gets enacted to curb abusers, it does usually have a small detrimental effect on 'ethical' or 'good' marketers while abusers have already figured out how next to abuse the system.

    Paul, I think you give the 'average' or 'mean' intelligence way too much credit. By definition, the average I.Q. is 100. I suspect the average I.Q. of this forum is some 20 or 30 points higher than that. I put it to you that YOU would go stark raving mad if forced to only be allowed to interact with someone of average intelligence for a week. Does that make me an 'elitist'? I guess to a degree. Even the US forefathers had checkpoints in place to make sure that those of 'average' intelligence could not completely decide issues, even in what is supposed to be a democracy.

    Sometimes it seems 5% of the population is able to progress civilization and the rest are just along for the ride. Lol. So maybe I am an elitist, however, I won't put myself in that top 5%. (How's that for off topic?)

    Mark
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2958120].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      Mark,
      I think you give the 'average' or 'mean' intelligence way too much credit. By definition, the average I.Q. is 100.
      Ya know, it's funny. I've found that expecting people to be smarter than they're given credit for is a self-fulfilling process. That's true online and off.

      Most folks will be what you expect them to be. You get to choose your level of expectations.

      As far as IQ, that's not really a measure of much, aside from a person's skill at taking tests. I've never found a whole lot of correlation between that and a person's character.
      I put it to you that YOU would go stark raving mad if forced to only be allowed to interact with someone of average intelligence for a week.
      That assumes a lot of things that don't fit with reality.


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

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2958323].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
        Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

        Most folks will be what you expect them to be. You get to choose your level of expectations.

        As far as IQ, that's not really a measure of much, aside from a person's skill at taking tests.
        I agree with both of these statements. My IQ tests very, very high - it has, on more than one occasion, been impossible to measure because the charts don't go that high. Most times, it comes out something over 180.

        But it's not that I'm extremely smart. It's that I am good at taking tests. I have a good memory and I'm good at logic. There are MANY people who test much lower on IQ tests than I do, but make me look like a moron in day to day life.

        What they test on an IQ battery is not necessarily important; I may know how to spell, pronounce, and define "synecdoche" - but that has never made one whit of difference in my life, and in my teens I would have traded that esoteric and worthless piece of knowledge for just a bit more ability to communicate with other human beings.
        Signature
        "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2962243].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author DogScout
        Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

        That assumes a lot of things that don't fit with reality.
        Paul
        Had to bring 'reality' into the picture? Lol.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2962476].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dagaul101
    It's long been coming, sure it will be a little disruptive, but the government will always meddle in extra sources of revenue
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2962292].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jaiganeshv
    These laws are making the online earning complicated and tough, atleast for newbies
    Still FTC's laws seems to be a healthy note..
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2963631].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MichaelHiles
    Paul, the problem is that the younger generations coming up do not value their privacy like older generations. They've lived a life of virtual transparency, and they even go so far as to believe that things which are hidden, must be hidden because they are bad (along with profit and independent thinking and action).

    So it's sort of moot either way because your next few generations of voters simply don't share the same worldview or value structure.

    It's a losing battle.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2963859].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      Michael,
      Paul, the problem is that the younger generations coming up do not value their privacy like older generations. They've lived a life of virtual transparency, and they even go so far as to believe that things which are hidden, must be hidden because they are bad (along with profit and independent thinking and action).
      They will learn. It will be painful, but they'll learn.


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

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2963998].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2963873].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GarrieWilson
    I think this is a pointless law. The technology is already available to stop tracking.

    As far as what Susan posted about PornTube (good read, thanks), turn off history.

    Big brother doesnt need to hold peoples hand. Online, we tend to take better care of the world. Look at spam as an example... Companies helped slow it more than the government ever could.
    Signature
    Screw You, NameCheap!
    $1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:

    SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2963985].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Bane
    Dear FTC, the Internet is not America.

    Thankyou.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2967520].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Sylonious
    Most importantly, if “Do Not Track” really did work as billed, it could fundamentally upend the unwritten quid pro quo that governs online content and services: Consumers get lots of “free” sites, services, and content, but only if we generally agree to trade some data about ourselves and have ads served up. After all, as we’ve noted many times before here, there is no free lunch. The cornucopia of seemingly free services and content at our fingertips didn’t just fall to Earth like manna from heaven. Data collection and advertising made that all happen. If we undercut this goose that lays the Internet’s golden eggs, consumers could see charges on many services that they currently pay little to nothing for. Do you want to pay $20 a month for your favorite social networking site? A dime per search on your preferred search engine? Well, that’s the future that could await us if we continue down this regulatory road. - Source
    Wow, that's going to be crazy. There are going to be a ton of people scrambling to disable their "Do Not Track" settings so they can log into Facebook. Once they disable "Do Not Track" they will enable cookies for all websites.

    Almost everyone uses some sort of free service on the internet.

    Soon after its release, Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) said he would introduce a privacy bill that would give the FTC more rule making authority to carry out some of its recommendations. Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) has introduced legislation in the House and will hold a hearing on a Do Not Track mechanism Thursday. - Source
    It seems like they are rushing this through pretty quickly. We'll see what happens Thursday. I'd like to see what stance the conservatives take on this issue.

    Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

    That's not the issue. The issue is whether the insurance company has the right to raise your rates for whatever damn reason they want, and the fact is... they do.

    I don't like it either (I've had my premiums raised for accidents where the other driver was at fault and his insurance paid the claim), but I'm not about to suggest that the government can tell a private company what prices it is allowed to charge.
    Yeah, I agree. I think letting the insurance company get away with stuff like that is probably the lesser of two evils. The Government will only come in and make things worse.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2967968].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
      Originally Posted by Sylonious View Post

      Yeah, they are going to do a Universal "do not track" setting for all browsers.
      A point that I think is being missed here...

      This is not the same as "block cookies." There are all kinds of new technologies out there which track data differently, including the Flash "supercookie" thing people are talking about now. That's what's driving this, because now there are cookies and there are supercookies and you have to turn off both.

      This is a very real problem that has caused very real concern. The consumer issue isn't just complete BS.

      I still stand by my philosophy on the matter, but understanding the problem is important.
      Signature
      "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2968007].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Biggy Fat
    I'm sure we'll start to see the "IM is dead" BS pretty soon.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2969072].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JennSpencerIM
    Have there been any updates on this lately? Or will we see anything talked about soon?

    I don't do affiliate marketing but have people market my products so regardless it will have an effect in that way. I'm assuming it would effect everyone and not just affiliate marketers, correct??

    Do they realize how many billions of dollars a year damage they will be causing the US economy?

    I don't understand politics/govt/etc. but to me this just doesn't make sense!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3117828].message }}

Trending Topics