The other side of the proposed Do-Not-Track bill
The Do-Not-Track Online Act of 2011 has been proposed by the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Jay Rockefeller (D-W. Va). The bill would create a service by which people to opt-out of being tracked online, and give the FTC power to pursue companies that violate these rules. It can be likened to the Do Not Call list which prevents telemarketers from calling someone on the list; because, similarly the Do-Not-Track bill would allow people to opt-out of all tracking without having to opt-out of each tracking service.
In those terms, sure tracking seems creepy, and it seems like a given that people should have this right. The thing is: people not only already have this right, but they have the tools to make it happen. And, many people don't understand the full benefits of tracking and ramifications of too many people choosing a Do-Not-Track option without understanding the whole issue.
Let's not forget that our "private data" has been used this way for a long time before the Internet existed. Any time you filled out a raffle in a store, your address would then be sold to companies which would send you flyers in the mail. The Internet just makes the process more efficient. Let's also not forget that all of the "free" services on the Internet and on our mobile devices are not really free, but are more often than not ad-supported, and those ads are much more valuable when targeted to users based on their location and interests.
Targeted advertising is much more effective and profitable for businesses and advertising companies. If a company knows that you like to buy their brand of socks, they'll pay a little extra to send an advertisement your way, and they'll pay a little more to send that ad around the time it is likely that the last pair of socks you bought might be wearing out. And, the value isn't just added for those selling the ad or recommendations, but for users too.
The new trend of special deals wouldn't be possible without "personal data" either. Stores can't offer you coupons without getting your location, or knowing that you like a certain store or product.
Who are You?
Another trouble with this debate is that there is no demarcation between "personal data" and "personally identifiable data". While many companies may sell your location to a company to target an ad better, many times that company doesn't know who you are. The data doesn't know that Stephen Clarkson is in the area, it knows that there is someone with a mobile phone in this area, and maybe that person would like a cake from the shop around the corner. Or, the data knows that the person using your device likes to read stories about Seth MacFarlane, so a story about a new Family Guy DVD might be of interest, but there isn't necessarily a link to you personally.
There are companies that will put a name to that information, and there should be ways to stop that, but if companies were more clear about what information of yours is shared, people might not be so wary of sharing.
The Browser Push
On a certain level, it seems like overkill to need a federal law for something like this, because the market has already pushed browser makers to add Do-Not-Track options, even atop those options that had already existed. For years, browsers have had the option to turn off cookies, which are most often used to track user behavior and history. More recently, browsers have been adding "private browsing" modes which not only don't allow cookies, but also do not keep any history of a user's activity.
Requiring work on the part of the user is not a flaw, it is training. The world will not be going backwards; it will continue on forwards. Social is a trend that will continue on the Internet, so people have to be trained to control their own data. People have been trained to not fill out every flyer they get in the mail for "free products", and people have learned that maybe it isn't the best idea to tell a stranger where you live or what your name is. The same ideas need to be brought to the Internet.
People need to be educated about both the negative consequences as well as the benefits of sharing on the Internet, and people need to learn how to best navigate those choices. We need to teach people how to use their fancy new smartphones to turn off location tracking, and present both sides of the debate.
It is not all pure benefit for consumers, there are companies that are making quite a bit of money from this information. Google is probably the biggest example of that. Google's entire empire is built on the back of serving ads and making those ads more relevant and therefore more lucrative. But, we do need to keep in mind that while Google may be making big profits by using this information, that ad revenue has subsidized projects like Google Maps, Gmail, and even Android. So, any blanket reaction to the ills of online tracking will serve to not only punish those who would use your information maliciously, but those who use that information responsibly and at little risk to you. There need to be protections against abuse of tracking and personal information, but if those protections go too far, many of the benefits and "free" services that we've come to enjoy could start disappearing.
source: Nokia Conversations
1. SPcamert (Posts: 56; Member since: 06 Feb 2010)
I think this is the most objective piece of reporting I've seen on PhoneArena in a while. Well worded, thought out, and pointed. This is the kind of thing I like to see.
6. Michael Heller (unregistered)
Thanks! Monday was my first day writing for the site. Nice to have good early feedback.
15. thinnairr (unregistered)
Admittedly I had only read this article now (through the convenient use of self-citation), but this truly is a beautifully written article.
I think, more broadly, articles like this highlight the gains of decentralized news media.
2. mr. droid (Posts: 278; Member since: 21 Aug 2010)
I dont want ANYONE tracking me for ANY reason, PERIOD. I will opt out of anything I possibly can.
4. Joe (unregistered)
well then maybe you shouldn't have a smartphone.
5. The_Miz (Posts: 1496; Member since: 06 Apr 2011)
Then get off the internet you moron. I suppose next you want the government to tell you what to do next.
3. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
Agreed. This is way above the normal level of reporting on the site. Kudos.
8. codymws (Posts: 237; Member since: 17 Jun 2010)
I'm honestly fine with CERTAIN companies tracking me. There are certain sites I trust with info about me. The biggest one is probably Google. If the public found out about Google using personal info for anything but services that would be useful to the user, their reputation would be destroyed.
Somehow Apple has avoided alot of this, probably because of their hardcore fans defending them. With that whole tracking incident earlier, Apple is on the do-not-trust list of mine.
11. Dave FL (unregistered)
Nonsense. Utter nonsense. We buy phones for our convenience, not that of fax businesses, spam businesses, or advertisers. Anyone want me to do work to escape what they do- PAY ME! Anyone want to call my phone to sell me something, pay a toll.
This nonsense all started with the JFK statement of "ask not what your contry can do for you... ask what you can do for your country." Well guess what? This country was created FOR THE PEOPLE, the people were not created for the country as the fascists would have you believe.
Much as I would prefer paying for the ten TV channels on cable I want and f#%k the rest, which the fascists will not let us do, I would be more than happy to pay for the web sites I actually use rather than having the sh!t spammed out of me as I walk down the street.
Personal responsibility choice, I guess.
14. Sean Z. (unregistered)
This story was well written! I agree with "SPcamert" and the others! I liked it!