RSSCongressmen call for a halt to one CATV firm's Web tracking plans
By Jacqueline Emigh | Published May 19, 2008, 2:07 PM
Two founding members of the US Congressional Privacy Caucus have asked the US' fourth largest cable provider to hold off on testing a new "enhanced Internet service" that would collect private user data for targeted advertising.
On Friday, US Reps. Edward Markey (D - Mass.) and Joe Barton (R - Texas), senior members of the US House Energy and Commerce Committee, sent a letter to Charter Communications President Neil Smith requesting the cable company to put a temporary stop on plans for a new service that collects subscribers' Web surfing and search data for targeting ads, until they can learn more about it.
"We respectfully request that you do not move forward on Charter Communications' proposed venture...until we have an opportunity to discuss with you the issues raised by this proposed venture," the two Congressmen wrote.
Charter -- a company owned by Paul Allen, who previously co-founded Microsoft -- intends to test the new service in the four communities of Oxford, MA; Fort Worth, TX; San Luis Obispo, CA: and Newtown, CT.
Last week, customers in those areas received letters from Charter telling them about the new service, which will use the gathered information to deliver ads through ad company NebuAd that are oriented to "areas of interest" such as sports, fashion, and automobiles.
In its letter to subscribers, Charter reportedly described the new service as "an enhanced online experience that is more customized to your interests and activities." Charter is informing customers that the information collected "cannot be used by anyone to identify you," and that it is "completely anonymous."
Also, Charter is giving subscribers a chance to go to the company's Web site to "opt out" of the new service.
But in a statement, Markey contended that, "Simply providing a method for users to opt out of the program is not the same as asking users to affirmatively agree to participate in the program."
So what do Charter's customers get in return for Charter's data-mining of their surfing habits - besides targeted ads?
I love how Charter assumes that just because they provide the pipe they have the right to filter and analyse their customers' data and sell it off to advertisers.
I'm absolutely sick and tired of all these companies collecting and selling every bit of personal data they can get their hands on. Congress has been completely derelict in its duty to protect consumers from this form of constant privacy invasion.
It's for this reason that I, shockingly, wish my service provider was actually the government, such as a municipal wi-fi service, because the government as a provider would be governed by the "Bill of Rights," specifically the Fourth Amendment, making this form of data-mining illegal.
Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
This is exactly why government employees have far more privacy protections at works than do employees in the private sector. Private sector employers, because they own the equipment and facilities, have the right to spy on their employees in just about any manner they wish, especially, their employees' Internet and Telephone usage.
Score: 0
Their "opt out" is a farce. You have to visit a page, enter personal information, then receive a browser cookie. Then, only THAT browser on THAT computer on THAT windows login is opted out... and ONLY until either the cookie expires OR the user does the proper security practice of deleting their cookies, at which point, they'll have to remember to manually "opt out" again. Oh! And if they use Internet Explorer AND FireFox, they'll have to opt out with BOTH browsers. Have multiple PCs? Then you'll have to opt out of each PC. Have multiple family members using those PCs and multiple browsers? My home has 3 PCs, 4 users on each, 2 browsers in each account. That means 18 opt-outs. Then we have to keep doing it over and over, every time we dump our cookies. My FireFox settings are set to receive cookies only temporarily and to delete them as soon as I leave the site.
There is NO option to opt out for NON-browser software, such as chat/IM programs, any other programs that access the web (Google Earth, Virtual Earth, Microsoft WorldWide Telescope... etc... etc...).
This is the same opt-out farce they do with their DNS. If you mistype a URL, instead of getting the standard 404 not found page from your browser, the Charter DNS doesn't return an error and instead sends you to their ad-filled search page. This overrides your personal browser settings if you have your browser automatically go to yahoo or google on 404 errors. Now there's no way to do that. They completely override your settings and you can't get out of it. They are HIGHLY unethical.
BTW, for the DNS bit, go to your network settings and CHANGE your DNS settings to 4.2.2.2 and 4.2.2.3 and that'll use NON-Charter DNS servers.
Score: 0
The primary issue I have with the "Opt Out" joke is that it's only allowing you to avoid the targeted ads.
The real invasion of privacy is that some third-party company will be performing deep packet inspection on every bit of information you transmit or receive.
Score: 0
Is it an invasion of privacy?
Does a human have to see it for it to be an invasion?
Does it have to be made public to make it an invasion?
If it is only ever seen by a server, is it still an invasion?
I can pretty much guess where your answers lie, but that's not the point. This is merely to demonstrate that "invasion of privacy" is not so strictly defined in this manner.
In fact, in most legal areas, it's requires a human be involved. ;)
Score: 0
I read up on this a little more.
From what I've gathered, the advertisements Charter inserts actually take the place of ads already on the webpage. For example, it's possible that anyone viewing a Betanews article on Charter will see ads that Charter wants you to see, not what Betanews wants.
Additionally, the opt-out function is per browser. It's actually a cookie. You'd have to install it for every browser on every PC in your home. And if you clean out your cookies, you'd have to make sure you have the site to download the cookie bookmarked.
What is with ISPs these days?
Score: 0
As I originally understood it, an ad would be displayed in that area, regardless, from the same service providing the ad you'd see without the "direc6t marketing" version.
*shrug*
As such, that doesn't bother me. You'll see an ad regardless.
The opt-out bit sucks. This is a privacy issue and anything that skirts it should be opt-in, regardless of how easy or hard it is to opt-out.
Score: 0
Regarding ad poaching, I doubt that is what they are going to do. To alter existing ads would be outright theft of content from existing sites. I originally thought this as well, but after further reading, I think charter is just collecting the info, then selling that info to existing ad-networks (like Google adsense) and/or using the info in their own ad networks yet to come. They never actually said explicitly in their announcements that they were going to replace existing ads, just that the number of ads would not increase.
If ad-poaching was made legal, it would fracture and divide the entire internet; i.e. sites refusing to deliver web content to ISPs that are poaching ad space. So I doubt that is what is occurring here.
Score: 0