X
    Categories: Uncategorized

Should the FTC set up a ‘Do Not Track’ database for online marketing?

With the rise of behavorial marketing online — where marketers serve ads based on where you’ve gone online — there’s also a rising concern about how much privacy we are giving up. Do we realize that marketers are tracking the sites we visit online and that we would need to erase our computer cookies in order to keep that info private? The Federal Trade Commission met to discuss privacy concerns at a public hearing earlier this month, and consumer groups said the FTC should set up a “Do Not Track” database for people to opt out of online tracking (similar to the “Do Not Call” database for telemarketers). But if enough people opt out of tracking, they might also be taking away online publishers’ most effective way of making money. What do you think? Do you care about the way marketers do behavioral or targeted advertising online, and what are you doing about it proactively, if anything? Share your thoughts in the comments and I’ll run the best ones in a future Your Take Roundup.

Mark Glaser :Mark Glaser is founder and executive director of MediaShift. He contributes regularly to Digital Content Next’s InContext site and newsletter. Glaser is a longtime freelance journalist whose career includes columns on hip-hop, reviews of videogames, travel stories, and humor columns that poked fun at the titans of technology. From 2001 to 2005, he wrote a weekly column for USC Annenberg School of Communication's Online Journalism Review. Glaser has written essays for Harvard's Nieman Reports and the website for the Yale Center for Globalization. Glaser has written columns on the Internet and technology for the Los Angeles Times, CNET and HotWired, and has written features for the New York Times, Conde Nast Traveler, Entertainment Weekly, the San Jose Mercury News, and many other publications. He was the lead writer for the Industry Standard's award-winning "Media Grok" daily email newsletter during the dot-com heyday, and was named a finalist for a 2004 Online Journalism Award in the Online Commentary category for his OJR column. Glaser won the Innovation Journalism Award in 2010 from the Stanford Center for Innovation and Communication. Glaser received a Bachelor of Journalism and Bachelor of Arts in English at the University of Missouri at Columbia, and currently lives in San Francisco with his wife Renee and his two sons, Julian and Everett. Glaser has been a guest on PBS' "Newshour," NPR's "Talk of the Nation," KALW's "Media Roundtable" and TechTV's "Silicon Spin." He has given keynote speeches at Independent Television Service's (ITVS) Diversity Retreat and the College Media Assocation's national convention. He has been part of the lecture/concert series at Yale Law School and Arkansas State University, and has moderated many industry panels. He spoke in May 2013 to the Maui Business Brainstormers about the "Digital Media Revolution." To inquire about speaking opportunities, please use the site's Contact Form.

View Comments (2)

  • Something like this exists already: It's called your hosts file, and there are some really easy-to-use tools out there that can help you take advantage of it... of course, the phrase "hosts file" is enough to make the non-techy flee flee flee for the hills, so maybe the FTC could use the idea and make it palatable with a name like "Fuzzy-Block" or "TrackrKillr" ...

  • In fact, there's already an industry Do Not Track list available for that will prevent tracking by most major (and legitimate) ad networks. The Network Advertising Initiative (http://www.networkadvertising.org/) allows you to opt-out of tracking and the major ad networks support it.

    I can see a valid argument for pushing for greater notice of the NAI opt-out (it tends to show up only in publisher privacy policies - several networks only work with publishers once the opt-out notice is in their policy).

    That said, regardless of what's out there already, it's a complicated problem. As you suggest here, if too many people opt-out publishers and networks will suffer. However, that's only one side - clearly you can argue advertisers suffer. Advertisers based on direct marketing/performance type deals lose out on more effective targeting and have to spend considerably more to reach the same sales.

    But the third part is that users suffer too. As long proper steps are taken to keep users private (make the data non-identifiable) and the data isn't abused in any other ways, users benefit from targeted advertising. Rather than a random clutter of useless ads, the user can actually see ads of value to them. The message isn't irrelevant and a waste of the user's screen real estate and time, but rather something that may actually drive value for them, the publisher/network, and the advertiser.

Comments are closed.