NY lawmaker wants to outlaw targeted web ads

by Brad Linder Mar 20th 2008

The first time you notice an ad that seems to be targeted just at you, it might be kind of cool, or kind of creepy. Sure, it's great that you send an email to a friend using Gmail about a vacation you're taking in Mexico and then you noticed an ad for discounts on hotels in Cancun. But umm, that means a Google machine is reading your email, right? The same thing happens when you visit many other web sites that gather data about you and then serve up customized ads targeted toward you.

Apparently one New York legislator decided this was all rather creepy, not cool. Assemblyman Richard Brodsky has drafted a bill that would make it illegal to use your personal information without asking you first. Of course, there are many ways to ask for permission, like by burying a question in a long EULA that you have to OK before signing up for a web service. While the law would only affect New York state, the internet knows no state borders, so in order to comply companies would probably have to change their policies entirely.

On the one hand, we applaud Brodsky for attempting to protect the privacy rights of consumers who may not even realize that big companies are gathering and using their data. On the other hand, isn't it a few years too late for this kind of legislation? Aren't most of the folks who care this deeply about privacy rights already using anonymizing software on their PCs, opting out of everything they can opt out of, or unplugging their computers and moving into caves?

Tags: advertising, privacy, security

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Peter Kirn said 11:59PM on 3-20-2008

I'm all for privacy, but this actually seems problematic. The issue is, these ads *aren't* using private information -- they're using information that's already being delivered to you; i.e., in the case of those Google Ads, the data is all flowing downstream into your browser, *not* upstream to the advertiser without permission. And, ironically, what we may get from these kinds of initiatives is not more privacy, but *less* control over the data companies are collecting about us that IS our data.

James Churchman said 12:00AM on 3-21-2008

I hugely like targeted adds. They are ideal for all concerned. Google will "read" your emails anyways because it has to actually "read them" to actually display them as a webpage in order for your own eyes to be able to read them. But this "reading" is by a secure machine, not a real person.
I can not stand tv adds, as not a single one in one hundred actually appeals (or is even applicable) to me. So they greatly frustrate me, they are a waste of money for the advertised and they mean the tv channel gets less revenue because the measured impact of the add is less than it could be.

This means everybody looses. Now take targeted adds, i email my friend asking if he reckons buying a new ipod is a good idea to go traveling with and it suggests a place to buy an ipod, recommends a new accessory for the ipod that i did not even know existed but now cant live with out and it then offers a new travel destination that i had not prevosly though about. so i benifit, then google because i actualy do click that add, and then the company selling ipod acesories etc.. benifits too in a sale of their new fancy gizmo. (rather than being offered say car insurance when i don't even drive, double glazing when i don't own a house, cable tv when i already have it and any other service that is of no interest what so ever)

I do see the point that these big companies do not take the securety of your private information as seriosly as it should (you only needed to watch this exposay into how all emploies at some top uk banks have access to every signle record on your credit card spending your status etc... and this was then actively used in credit card fraud) so i think that when it comes to storage there is a different issue.

what i think should be made law is that any individual has the ability to view all information stored on themselves, has the ability to remove (or if posable even set filters on data not to be stored) and (and this is the most important) that adequate checks are done on the companies to ensure that data is only stored in a fashion not openly available to all the staff

The banning of targeted adds (or making it some opt in scheme) would cost everybody (consumer, advertised and advertising agent) dearly.

EB said 12:00AM on 3-21-2008

It's a bit shocking that to "care this deeply about privacy rights" will eventually lead a person to consider "moving into a cave."

Come on people. Why is my privacy by way of my ISP, which supplies me a utility, any different than the privacy I am granted from with other utility companies, i.e water, telephone, trash, etc.? I don't have people who work for those companies rummaging through my trash figuring out what I eat and drink, or what type of toilet paper I prefer this month (I like to vary it up monthly).Nor do I have to ask my telephone provider not to listen in on my phone calls (which they probably already do) and send me advertisements based upon the words I used for my calls. It's friggin ridiculous that a law has to be enacted that says "Hey Mr. ISP, it's probably not ok to stalk individuals." And let's face it people, that's exactly what this amounts to: stalking. Stalking mixed with a reluctance from individuals to stand up for their rights of privacy.

And regarding Mr. Linder's comments on it being too late: Sir, I am VERY glad you were not leading the Civil Rights Movement, nor the Womens Movement, nor any movement for that matter. People like you, ones who cave in to these large companies/institutions demands and wrongful ways of conducting business, are not doing the rest of us justice minded individuals any favors by stating that it's too late. As the old saying goes "Better late than never."

So I applaud Mr. Brodsky, deep within my cave, and wish him a pleasant day, as I unplug my computer. ;-)

vbb1964 said 8:34AM on 3-21-2008

In most cases I don't think legislators have any idea of what they are doing. In this case the intent is good and anything moving in the direction of privacy is a good thing. If he is so concerned about privacy maybe we should start with employers. We can then look at this digital water marking of music and video that is going to cause a great deal of harm to the people who can't secure their data.

What about insurance companies, credit reporting, and health care? One day we are going to look back at this mess and realize we were never free. It will look like the dark ages to future generations or much worse, we could be living under the umbrella of prying eyes.

HighTech On A Budget
thinkingbiggar.com

Tyler Darko said 12:00AM on 3-21-2008

It's funny that we care about targetted ads, but we have no problem with the government confiscating laptops and computer for no reason when you cross the border. America sucks.

RP said 12:01AM on 3-21-2008

First reaction to any new technology: control it, legislate it.

Although I can kind of understand users being annoyed that their ISPs are monitoring all their traffic. When I signed up for DSL, I never expected AT&T/Comcast to be sniffing all my traffic. Soon they'll be calling me at home offering me university diplomas.

TempusFugit said 8:37AM on 3-21-2008

I was surprised there was no mention or link with Phorm in this article, given that Phorm which is being implemeneted by the 3 major ISPs in the UK is all about having targetted advertising.

The thing with Phorm is that it is implemented at ISP level, and all your web browsing goes through their controlled systems - you no longer have a direct internet connection, there's no opting out, and they know all your surfing. I don't know about you, but personally I find this quite scary and worrying, and don't see this as being great at all.

At least with targeted advertising on websites, you can opt out, but not with Phorm.

Althoug you're safe in America at the moment, if it takes off here, it may well be heading your way too. You may want to have a look at at http://www.badphorm.co.uk

Targeted advertising is definitely becoming something a lot of people oppose, at least at this level.

sodapop said 4:05PM on 3-21-2008

I just dont see a right or law targeted ads violate. Its not a privacy issue because the individual is voluntarity broadcasting an ip and additional info

Rususeruru said 8:20AM on 3-26-2008

That's why I surf the web using an abacus! The only personal information they'll ever get is how many markers are to the left or right ah ha!

Featured Time Waster

Civiballs is a beautiful, soothing physics puzzle Time Waster

I have an absolute weakness for physics games, and while Civiballs isn't the strongest physics-based game, what it lacks in the physics department it makes up for a few times over in style and fun.

In Civiballs, you are presented with a few colored balls, and your goal is to get those balls into the same-colored urn on the level. The "civi" part of Civiballs is that there are 3 sets of levels to play, each representing a different civilization. While the civilization doesn't affect gameplay, the artwork for each level is beautifully themed to it's appropriate era.

To play the game, you are given only one tool - a sword with which to cut the chains that are holding the balls. The puzzle part of the game is in figuring out what order, and with what timing to cut each chain. Do it right, and all the right balls end up in the right urns, with no stray balls entering an urn (a no-no). Do it wrong, and you get to start over again.

Civiballs is not terribly deep on gameplay; the entire game can be completed in about 15 minutes. But if you enjoy this type of game, it will be a very enjoyable 15 minutes.

View more Time Wasters