Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Anti-Google Video Runs In Times Square

Soulskill posted about 4 years ago | from the what-kind-of-ice-cream dept.

Privacy 346

Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that Consumer Watchdog is running a 540-square-foot video billboard advertisement in Times Square, New York that shows Google CEO Eric Schmidt as an ingratiating ice cream truck driver who knows everything about everyone and happily offers free ice cream in exchange for full body scans. The group says its goal is to push Congress and the Federal Trade Commission to create a Do Not Track Me list, similar to the Do Not Call list developed to prevent telemarketers from aggressively calling consumers. 'Do you want Google or any other online company looking over your shoulder and tracking your every move online just so it can increase its profits?' writes the group's president, Jamie Curtis, at the group's web site. 'Consumers have a right to privacy. They should control how their information is gathered and what it is used for.' The FTC's consumer affairs group had no comment on whether the agency is considering creating a Do Not Track Me list."

cancel ×

346 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Free ice cream (2, Insightful)

KillaGouge (973562) | about 4 years ago | (#33467528)

I'd take free ice cream in exhange for a full body scan.

Re:Free ice cream (2, Insightful)

phyrexianshaw.ca (1265320) | about 4 years ago | (#33467636)

I'd give the full body scan away for free. the ice cream would be a damn nice "icing on the cake".

Re:Free ice cream (5, Funny)

silverglade00 (1751552) | about 4 years ago | (#33467690)

Now we know what you two would do for a Klondike bar.

CAN WE FINALLY GET A NEW GOOGLE ICON? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33468000)

Google is far move invasive than Microsoft, which /. always puts the Gates Borg King visage on the articles for.

I think the image of Schmidt at the end of the video would be perfect.

Re:Free ice cream (4, Funny)

camperslo (704715) | about 4 years ago | (#33467706)

Perhaps the Grateful Dead saw this coming? [wikipedia.org]

Re:Free ice cream (1)

frozentier (1542099) | about 4 years ago | (#33467792)

I'd take free ice cream in exhange for a full body scan.

Well sure, who wouldn't?

Re:Free ice cream (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | about 4 years ago | (#33468136)

I'd take free ice cream in exhange for a full body scan.

Be careful what you wish for. Are you familiar with what a colonic scan entails?

But, today is your lucky today! For I have a box of rubber gloves, a case of KY, and *plenty* of ice cream.

The irony is that Consumer Watchdog is ... (5, Interesting)

dc29A (636871) | about 4 years ago | (#33468228)

... tracking [businessinsider.com] you too. And that with Google Analytics. What a bunch of hypocrits.

So in order to Not Track Me properly (4, Insightful)

Even on Slashdot FOE (1870208) | about 4 years ago | (#33467544)

They'll have to be sure to remember who I am wherever I go, right? That way they can be sure they aren't, for example, mistaking me for J. Random Trackable guy?

Re:So in order to Not Track Me properly (4, Insightful)

GrumblyStuff (870046) | about 4 years ago | (#33467608)

Tracking should be opt-out by default.

If I wanted to be tracked, I'll make an account on your website.

Re:So in order to Not Track Me properly (2, Informative)

hedwards (940851) | about 4 years ago | (#33467734)

You meant tracking should be opt-in. Opt out is better than what we currently have, because at least you can get out if you want to.

Re:So in order to Not Track Me properly (0, Redundant)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 4 years ago | (#33467908)

What you said and what the GP said are exactly the same. "Opt-out by default" means that by default it is assumed that you have opted-out of the service. This would mean that to be tracked you would have to opt-in for it.

Re:So in order to Not Track Me properly (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 4 years ago | (#33468220)

Actually, the whole expression is retarded. The "by default" just confuses the issue, since the opt implies there is a default which is the opposite of the thing that follows "opt-".

Opt-in means you have to explicitly decide to be in; you default to out.
Opt-out means the opposite.

If I say "this bulletin board has a 'bite your nuts off if you get a frosty piss' feature which is opt-in by default what does that mean? Does it mean that unless the site admin edits some .conf file it's opt-in? Or does it mean that it defaults to opt-in, i.e. it defaults to out?

Re:So in order to Not Track Me properly (3, Funny)

GrumblyStuff (870046) | about 4 years ago | (#33468332)

Yes, yes, I had it backwards. What's so hard about not misunderstanding what I didn't not say?

Jumpin' Jesus Christ on a cross....

Re:So in order to Not Track Me properly (1, Insightful)

phyrexianshaw.ca (1265320) | about 4 years ago | (#33467674)

You know, that's a very good point. the only way to NOT track somebody, IS TO TRACK THEM. unless you join a group of people, when all YOUR information only is removed, people will be able to generally infer what you do online, by comparing the results of the blanked tracking data with everyone else's.
by stating that you don't want to be tracked, you make yourself MORE identifiable.

Re:So in order to Not Track Me properly (4, Informative)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 4 years ago | (#33467984)

You know, that's a very good point. the only way to NOT track somebody, IS TO TRACK THEM.

Except it's not a good point and what you said is not true. It's very simple to not track someone without knowing a single thing about them. By default you set up your system to not store any information about a user of your website unless you've obtained their consent. Wow, that was hard.

Re:So in order to Not Track Me properly (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 4 years ago | (#33468086)

If the default behavior is to track everyone, and specific individuals choose not to be tracked, then you have to keep track of these individual to not track them. I think the more feasible option is to just block google services through something like noscript

Re:So in order to Not Track Me properly (0)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 4 years ago | (#33468176)

If the default behavior is to track everyone

Then you change it so that's NOT your default behavior. Wow, what a mind-blowing thing, right?

Re:So in order to Not Track Me properly (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33468266)

If the default behavior is to track everyone

Then you change it so that's NOT your default behavior. Wow, what a mind-blowing thing, right?

Yes, it is quite mind-blowing, they're not going to stop tracking 100% of people because 10% of people care.

You realise that they make money from tracking people so will do it to the extent allowed by law, right?

Re:So in order to Not Track Me properly (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 4 years ago | (#33468356)

You realise that they make money from tracking people so will do it to the extent allowed by law, right?

I do, but just because something is completely lawful doesn't make it ethical or a correct thing to do.

Re:So in order to Not Track Me properly (1)

Monchanger (637670) | about 4 years ago | (#33468114)

unless you've obtained their consent

But Google already does that, just like every other website out there.

The problem isn't requiring Google or others to get consent with a link at the bottom of each page pointing to a 30-page legal agreement.

The problem is people have no idea what those agreements mean.

Re:So in order to Not Track Me properly (1)

KshGoddess (454304) | about 4 years ago | (#33468248)

The problem isn't requiring Google or others to get consent with a link at the bottom of each page pointing to a 30-page legal agreement. The problem is people have no idea what those agreements mean.

You mean like that 30-page EULA for each and every piece of software you buy that no one reads? Yeah, yeah, I agree to give you my first born child. *clicks Agree*

Re:So in order to Not Track Me properly (4, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 4 years ago | (#33467680)

The FTC may ask everything they want, but the internet is not limited to the USA. Once again, they fail to understand the scope of what they're asking.

The FTC should instead recommend a technical solution about disabling cookies, going through proxies, etc.

The real question is: how much disabling and routing would it take to be 100% anonymous, at least as far as websites/marketing is concerned?

Re:So in order to Not Track Me properly (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 4 years ago | (#33468244)

The FTC doesn't cover everyone but Google sure as hell resides in the USA.

Re:So in order to Not Track Me properly (1)

rm999 (775449) | about 4 years ago | (#33467872)

Not really, identifying a user is not the same thing as tracking, it is just the first step. Tracking also involves recording some information in a table that utilizes the user as a key. Big practical difference.

For example, when you are logged into Google they have already identified you, and can avoid logging you by not writing to any of your records.

Re:So in order to Not Track Me properly (5, Insightful)

Americium (1343605) | about 4 years ago | (#33468238)

I don't get the concern, all the credit card companies are currently selling information about what we buy to whoever will pay. I love the way they go after Google, instead of the companies profiting by selling personal information about people by the 1000. Last I checked, you couldn't call up Google and ask for the addresses of everyone that eats out Italian at least once a month, within a certain zip code. But you can call plenty of other companies for that data.

Re:So in order to Not Track Me properly (1)

COMON$ (806135) | about 4 years ago | (#33468240)

Ya you have a good point. Personally if I don't want to be tracked I wont be, it is not hard to hide yourself. Relying on some big brother to maintain a list of your IPs and information scares the crap out of me...When are people going to stop being lazy and take care of this themselves?

Gmail (2, Interesting)

memnock (466995) | about 4 years ago | (#33467552)

while i've set up a Gmail account, i've never actually used it. partly because of all the other ways that Google has of data mining their users, the Gmail account would like icing on the cake to them. they'd have access to all of the people you associate with, on top of your interests and usual WWW practices. the latter is enough info already.

Re:Gmail (4, Insightful)

Synon (847155) | about 4 years ago | (#33468124)

I have to ask, why do you care? Ok, great, they have all sorts of data that will give them insight on what products you might be interested in and who you associate with. You get to see small ads on the side with relevant products as a result. Why do you care if they have this info?

Free ice cream? (2, Informative)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 4 years ago | (#33467598)

I'm allergic to dairy, you insensitive clod!

Re:Free ice cream? (4, Informative)

bsDaemon (87307) | about 4 years ago | (#33467640)

Exactly, and the REAL Google would know that, unlike this fake-ass Google knock-off going around trying to kill off the lactose intolerant.

Re:Free ice cream? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 4 years ago | (#33468024)

Well then, I sure hope that Google uses vegan cookies...

Re:Free ice cream? (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | about 4 years ago | (#33468174)

They're not trying to kill off the lactose-intolerant. They'll just give you the ice cream and then display ads for Gas-X, Pepto Bismol, and toilet paper. That's the beauty of targeted advertising!

In exchange, I suggest you turn around, bend over, and do some "targeting" of your Hershey squirts to paint the bastards brown.

Re:Free ice cream? (1)

wwfarch (1451799) | about 4 years ago | (#33468348)

Bit of a nitpick here. There's a difference between a dairy allergy and lactose intolerance. With lactose intolerance you get an upset stomach. With an allergy you immune system attacks the protein in dairy. This usually results in a rash or swelling. In the worst cases (like my wife) you can die from exposure.

Re:Free ice cream? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33467668)

According to the video, Eric Schmidt already knows you are allergic to dairy. He's probably got a nice soy, rice, or almond based ice cream for you to enjoy. See...there's benefits to Google knowing everything about you. Now you no longer have to feel left out when everyone around you is eating ice cream.

People have all the privacy they want: (0)

phyrexianshaw.ca (1265320) | about 4 years ago | (#33467612)

just stop using the free services provided on the internet, and nobody will want your data anyways.

how is it news to people that somebody want's something in exchange for what they give away?

Re:People have all the privacy they want: (2, Insightful)

Shanrak (1037504) | about 4 years ago | (#33467746)

TANSTAAFL

Re:People have all the privacy they want: (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | about 4 years ago | (#33468224)

TANSTAAFL

Wait, point of order... shouldn't that be TINSTAAFL?

Or TANSTAFL (There are no such things as free lunches)? I question the subject-verb agreement of TANSTAAFL.

Re:People have all the privacy they want: (1)

barfy (256323) | about 4 years ago | (#33468324)

It's "ain't"" not "are"...

Though it SHOULD be. TANSTAAFI. Ice Cream. Not Lunch.

Re:People have all the privacy they want: (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | about 4 years ago | (#33468390)

Ah. That explains it... thanks for clearing that up.

Re:People have all the privacy they want: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33468342)

Wait, point of order... shouldn't that be TINSTAAFL?

Or TANSTAFL (There are no such things as free lunches)? I question the subject-verb agreement of TANSTAAFL.

Wait, point of order... shouldn't that be TINSTAAFL?

Or TANSTAFL (There are no such things as free lunches)? I question the subject-verb agreement of TANSTAAFL.

COCK - C0CK - COCK - C0CK - COCK - C0CK - COCK (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33467748)

Suck cocks for free!

Re:People have all the privacy they want: (1)

cj_nologic (1649427) | about 4 years ago | (#33467814)

just stop using the free services provided on the internet, and nobody will want your data anyways. how is it news to people that somebody want's something in exchange for what they give away?

Google Analytics means that you can be visiting any of an ever increasing range of sites with no visible affiliation to Google, but still be being tracked by them.

Re:People have all the privacy they want: (2, Insightful)

gfreeman (456642) | about 4 years ago | (#33468064)

Google Analytics means that you can be visiting any of an ever increasing range of sites with no visible affiliation to Google, but still be being tracked by them.

So? Can I demand that the shopkeeper turn off the CCTV before I enter the store? Try buying gas without ending up being recorded on tape somehow.

If someone is that paranoid about being tracked, turn off the damned cookies in your browser. If you're super-duper paranoid, get off the internet - no-one is forcing you to browse.

Re:People have all the privacy they want: (1)

morphotomy (1655417) | about 4 years ago | (#33468262)

Just use adblock and block the tracking pixel. Its fucking trivial.

Re:People have all the privacy they want: (1)

The Moof (859402) | about 4 years ago | (#33468068)

just stop using the free services provided on the internet

And if you quit using Google's free services, they still have other methods of tracking you. Namely, by offering Google Analytics to sites for "free" to help monitor their traffic. So, despite you telling Google "no thanks, I'll find an alternative to your services," they still track you. Or, instead of Analytics, by loading jQuery libraries? Or perhaps you e-mailed someone with a GMail account?

I think the real issue isn't making money. It's Google's omnipresence on the web, and their primary method of profit is tracking, collecting, profiling marketing information about users.

How much did Microsoft pay them to do this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33467630)

Coming up next, our most recent study showing that Linux is more expensive than Windows.

Re:How much did Microsoft pay them to do this? (3, Informative)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | about 4 years ago | (#33467720)

Coming up next, our most recent study showing that Linux is more expensive than Windows.

For most businesses, Linux is more expensive than windows. Anyone who can tie their own shoes can set up a Windows server. Linux, on the other hand, requires someone who at least kind of knows what they're doing, and that commands more money. Not to mention the cost of training the Luddite employees on a new operating system, when it took them 10 years to get used to the last one.

Re:How much did Microsoft pay them to do this? (1)

phyrexianshaw.ca (1265320) | about 4 years ago | (#33467780)

Anyone who can tie their own shoes and really understands why a knot stays tied can set up a Windows server.

FTFY

Seriously, though I COMPLETELY AGREE that this is one of the easiest things to setup in the modern world, I can think off the top of my head of 20 people I know in the "IT Industry" that can't perform this basic task.

it's funny what passes for a "tech" these days.

Re:How much did Microsoft pay them to do this? (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | about 4 years ago | (#33468142)

... is the basic task setting up a Windows server, or tying a shoe? It's not clear from your post.

Re:How much did Microsoft pay them to do this? (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | about 4 years ago | (#33467930)

For most businesses, Linux is more expensive than windows. Anyone who can tie their own shoes can set up a Windows server. Linux, on the other hand, requires someone who at least kind of knows what they're doing, and that commands more money. Not to mention the cost of training the Luddite employees on a new operating system, when it took them 10 years to get used to the last one.

Linux config can be pretty fire-and-forget these days. But even so - it's a dangerous thing to bet your business on an IT infrastructure set up by someone who's qualification is the ability to tie their shoes. It can be done. But it's going to cost you eventually. As for the Luddite employees - no IT environment is without change.

Re:How much did Microsoft pay them to do this? (1)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | about 4 years ago | (#33468050)

For most businesses, Linux is more expensive than windows. Anyone who can tie their own shoes can set up a Windows server. Linux, on the other hand, requires someone who at least kind of knows what they're doing, and that commands more money. Not to mention the cost of training the Luddite employees on a new operating system, when it took them 10 years to get used to the last one.

Linux config can be pretty fire-and-forget these days. But even so - it's a dangerous thing to bet your business on an IT infrastructure set up by someone who's qualification is the ability to tie their shoes. It can be done. But it's going to cost you eventually. As for the Luddite employees - no IT environment is without change.

My point though is that it's not just about the IT. Most slashdotters' lives center around IT in one way or another, so we have a strong bias toward keeping up with current technology. Most normal people, OTOH, couldn't give a crap about the computer except in so far as it allows them to enter basic info into some random app and lets them look youtube when the boss isn't around. These people will resist change with every fiber of their being, and you need to pick your battles with them.

Re:How much did Microsoft pay them to do this? (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 4 years ago | (#33468282)

Average users aren't going to be that confused much more than a transition to a newer version of Windows, and they can generally do less damage in Ubuntu.

Re:How much did Microsoft pay them to do this? (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | about 4 years ago | (#33468120)

Anyone who can tie their own shoes can set up a Windows server.

Finally, an explanation for the size of my spam folder!

Re:How much did Microsoft pay them to do this? (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 4 years ago | (#33468144)

I'm not sure if any reputable TCO studies have actually shown that, at least over any decent length of time.

Re:How much did Microsoft pay them to do this? (1)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | about 4 years ago | (#33468230)

I'm not sure if any reputable TCO studies have actually shown that, at least over any decent length of time.

And how many of these managers really care about the cost over a 2+ year period? They care about their quarterly bonus, and that's usually all they care about.

Re:How much did Microsoft pay them to do this? (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 4 years ago | (#33468344)

If your management can't plan long term, there's a good chance your company won't exist long term.

Re:How much did Microsoft pay them to do this? (1)

Monchanger (637670) | about 4 years ago | (#33468236)

Anyone who can tie their own shoes can set up a Windows server

... which is practically guaranteed to be taken over by botnets.

You get what you pay for.

And what users do you have to pay to use a Linux server? How lazy can you be? At least spend the ten seconds it takes to pick the right FUD for the occasion.

Re:How much did Microsoft pay them to do this? (1)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | about 4 years ago | (#33468364)

Anyone who can tie their own shoes can set up a Windows server

... which is practically guaranteed to be taken over by botnets.

You get what you pay for.

And what users do you have to pay to use a Linux server? How lazy can you be? At least spend the ten seconds it takes to pick the right FUD for the occasion.

There's two arguments in here.. One for the back end, which is the one you addressed. The other is for the desktop, which you seem confused on.

Think like a businessman. What happens if you switch from Windows to Linux? Suddenly mission-critical app X no longer works (or only half works in Wine), you have to hire a full time sysadmin, and half the users' productivity drops to nothing because they spend all their time bitching about how they can't install iTunes. Now imagine you really don't care about FOSS ideology, or even technical superiority, but only net profit, and then only net profit over a 3 month cycle. Really, what would you do?

Re:How much did Microsoft pay them to do this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33468378)

Luddite

I don't think that word means what you think it does. Same shit with the Office ribbon. Change for the sake of change, and if I complain that you are raping my productivity in the ass for no valid reason, or maybe, just maybe, your "solution" isn't really the best for someone who isn't you, I get insulted. Fuck you, shitbag IT geek. Now go watch some hentai and pretend some more that "nerds took over the world" or some other delusion you pasty, fat, pencil necked dogfuckers piss on about.

Nevermind Google. (3, Funny)

jedidiah (1196) | about 4 years ago | (#33467656)

Nevermind Google. Howabout a "do not track me" list for local governments and law enforcement that want to place tracking devices on me and my car?

Re:Nevermind Google. (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | about 4 years ago | (#33467774)

Or tracking license plates [wacotrib.com] ? Seriously, how is that different? Because we're "protecting the children?"

Credit (5, Insightful)

DuoDreamer (1229170) | about 4 years ago | (#33467664)

Why don't we have this option with credit companies? I don't care for them to make money off of my personal information either. I'm certainly not getting any dividend from it.

What all the fuss? (1)

alphatel (1450715) | about 4 years ago | (#33467732)

We should all be happy that we're being tracked and monitored and body scanned and probed and the government doesn't even need a warrant for anything anymore and my rights are on hold for the next 20 years and we attacked Iraq and murdered its leader and Afghanistan is the new war on terror, and my mother makes awesome apple pies and we all live in a great country you can tell (please don't burn the flags), and we all like the same things including guns and there's a revolution coming, and you need to be a maverick and unseat popular Alaskans and corporations can now donate to politicians yes of course that makes sense and for heaven's sake it's all in the name of Free Things so be proud!

American life so Unbelievably Spectacular Awesome. Those other countries have no idea what freedom is!

Do not track me list (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33467738)

How is the federal government supposed to enforce this? It's a nightmare in the making. Once permission is given, and the feds get their talons into your servers, it's only a matter of time before they're monitoring that data 24/7.

What about credit cards, and the WWW? (5, Insightful)

cwgmpls (853876) | about 4 years ago | (#33467742)

If "consumers have a right to privacy", this same Do Not Track Me list would have to apply to credit card transactions and every retail website on the internet. They have been collecting and using similar information longer than Google. Right now, the only way to guarantee privacy is to always use cash and never give any identifying information on the internet. I'm all for privacy, but it is meaningless if the rules don't apply to everyone who currently collects individual consumer behavior data.

What about credit ratings? (1)

bradley13 (1118935) | about 4 years ago | (#33468088)

What about the credit ratings agencies? Why do they have the right to record information about you without your consent? And to share this with random third parties who want to know something about you - again without your consent?

This would be illegal in most (if not all) other Western countries.

Re:What about credit ratings? (2, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | about 4 years ago | (#33468172)

Because the terms are probably written into the credit card agreements that no one reads when they open up the "pre approved for xxxxx" letters they get in the mail and go "wow, now i can get a new TV!"

Re:What about credit ratings? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33468360)

Hence why I felt deeply disturbed when I discovered the credit rating agencies existed. I still find it disturbing that an independent third party accountable to no one can gather information about me and use it in a secret formula to tell others what I'm allowed to buy. If a smaller more localized organization did that it'd be called harassment.

Re:What about credit cards, and the WWW? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33468184)

Anyone who has ever tried to hide, knows the solution is to become part of the system, not hide from it. Nowadays, everyone has a credit card, a phone, a home, a car, buys gas etc. Those that exist but do not have those, are the ones drawing attention. Look at social chameleons, they're the best at this thing, and no matter how much the system changes they'll hardly be noticed.

Re:What about credit cards, and the WWW? (1)

morphotomy (1655417) | about 4 years ago | (#33468352)

Yup, hide in numbers.

That's kind of closing the barn door... (1)

forkfail (228161) | about 4 years ago | (#33467756)

... after the horses have bolted.

The data's already out there; now, it's a matter of the controls on who can use it and how, and what controls can be put on access to said data.

Not new (1)

Itninja (937614) | about 4 years ago | (#33467764)

Does Google 'track you' any more than a telco does? My phone company has a list of every call I make, and where I made it from. This applies to landlines, mobile phones (though exact location is tricky), and VoIP. If I start using a different company, then I might be able to 'cover my tracks', as it were. But one could do the same thing by getting a new ISP and creating a different Google account.

Re:Not new (4, Insightful)

jdogalt (961241) | about 4 years ago | (#33467950)

"Does Google 'track you' any more than a telco does?"

Last I heard your telco wasn't using the _content_ of your communications to choose which ads to serve you. I'm a total privacy zealot, and despite following all the news, was really rather surprised just this past week to see a news article say that gmail actually scrapes the content of your mail for targetted advertising. I myself find that beyond creepy in and of itself, let alone the more disturbing (though fundamentally no different) situation of a telco selling the words of a private conversation to advertisers in order for them to better psychologically profile you and thus serve you a more persuasive advertisement.

Of course, we all know that becoming a telco is every companies wet dream, especially Google's.

Re:Not new (2, Insightful)

Itninja (937614) | about 4 years ago | (#33468322)

The only reason telcos don't do that is because there is no tech (yet) to do it cheaply and accurately. Even Google struggles with transcribing the human voice well.

Personally I think Google has every right to do whatever they want on their servers. There are lots of legal precedents regarding how an employee has no 'reasonable expectation of privacy' when they are using a work PC, bandwidth, etc for personal surfing or email. Their employer has every right to monitor and record (including keystrokes) everything they do. Why would Google be any different? If you don't want your activity and personal emails scraped by Google, don't use Google. Or at the very least sign out of Google before you go to www.hotunderagehorserape.com (god I hope that's not a real site).

Do not track me list? (1)

bucktug (306690) | about 4 years ago | (#33467782)

Isn't keeping a list of who not to track a form of tracking?

Opt-In not opt-out (1)

Script Cat (832717) | about 4 years ago | (#33467784)

It's like putting your email on a do not spam list and giving it to all the spammers.
Tracking activity must be prohibited unless a someone opts-in.
This "watch dog" group is disingenuous. Laws are already being violated.
This group wants to make this OK.

Re:Opt-In not opt-out (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33468162)

It's like putting your email on a do not spam list and giving it to all the spammers.

You mean sort of like putting your phone number on a do not call list and giving it out to callers?

What about your ISP? (1)

LinuxFreakus (613194) | about 4 years ago | (#33467800)

Seriously, everyone keeps shouting and yelling about all these "free" online services tracking their users but nobody ever mentions the ISP. Your ISP really does track your every move, they can see every site you visit, etc, etc... much worse that google, or anyone else. All that data is available for sale, they won't admit it if you ask them... because it is "collected anonymously" but really, it boggles my mind that they get a free pass in all of this mess.

What Are You Hiding? (0, Troll)

Some.Net(Guy) (1733146) | about 4 years ago | (#33467818)

Sure I understand that you have a right to privacy, but if you aren't doing anything wrong, why do you care? I don't care that Google scans the content of my email to provide me with relevant ads. I never look at them or click on them. I'm not doing anything I shouldn't be doing online, so if Google knows that I go to a certain website (say, slashdot) more than others and makes it pop up when I type the letter "s" in the address bar, that's awesome for me. I seriously think people are blowing this out of proportion.

Re:What Are You Hiding? (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 4 years ago | (#33468150)

Sure I understand that you have a right to privacy, but if you aren't doing anything wrong, why do you care?

So you keep your house unlocked all the time so people can freely enter and leave all they want? You make sure that every all your windows are uncovered and you have no fences around your property so everyone can see in, right? You have all your phones tapped for any police organization who would want them? You make sure to forward all copies of your snail mail, emails, IMs, texts, etc to all relevant police organizations?

If you don't, why don't you? It's not like you have anything to hide, right?

Failed already (1)

drmacinyasha (1717962) | about 4 years ago | (#33467822)

So for this list to work, you'd have to have a database of people on the list. That defeats the purpose right there. On top of that, you'd have to have some way to mark yourself as a person on that list, while you're browsing. That mark would then have to alert the web servers and whatnot, which would create log entries, which would have to include a unique identifier of that flag. Again, defeating the point. So by putting yourself on the list, you just let Google and everyone else track you better. How about you do what people already do: Incognito/Private Browsing, wipe cookies/cache, and wear tinfoil hats.

Google Tracking You (1)

dontgetshocked (1073678) | about 4 years ago | (#33467862)

In public you have no expectation of privacy as far as the law is concerned,at least as far as I understand it.Although I am not a fan of invading anyones privacy without there permission.

CHOICE : You don't have to use Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33467884)

Google is just one company offering service, there are other alternatives.
You have a choice and do not have to use Google if you do not wish to.
If somebody offered a new service that did not track you, how could you trust them or ensure this is that case?

Alternatively there are services such as Tor that help users limit their privacy exposure.

Great idea. As long as people realize that ... (0)

BrianRoach (614397) | about 4 years ago | (#33467894)

Great idea. As long as people realize that it will also serve as the "I no longer get services such as email, social networking, and search for free" list.

"free" in the "my credit card isn't charged monthly" sense, obviously. And yes, that's ignoring the technical nightmare of trying to do such a thing in the first place.

google has an opt out for google analytics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33467928)

http://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout

Personally, I have the analytic hostnames pointing to 127.0.0.2 in my hostfile.

Who sponsors this? (3, Insightful)

airfoobar (1853132) | about 4 years ago | (#33467982)

I bet putting up "a 540-square-foot video billboard advertisement in Times Square, New York" costs a small fortune. So, where did a consumer group get that kind of money?
No doubt, from a hostile company. But who? Microsoft? Apple? Viacom?

Re:Who sponsors this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33468054)

Oracle?

Re:Who sponsors this? (1)

NevarMore (248971) | about 4 years ago | (#33468118)

Not only that, but the video billboards in Times Square are the pinnacle of consumerism. Its not exactly incompatible with a Consumer Watchdog, but I can't imagine they're on the same team either.

Re:Who sponsors this? (4, Informative)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 4 years ago | (#33468246)

There are quite a few signs pointing to Microsoft funding them. Searching 'Microsoft' on http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/ [consumerwatchdog.org] gives you mostly Google results, despite Microsoft being a convicted monopolist with a long history of abuse, which is the kind of thing a consumer watchdog should be reporting on

I'm OK with tracking (1)

koan (80826) | about 4 years ago | (#33468014)

If I get a cut.

if Net Neutrality does not pass (1)

Dan667 (564390) | about 4 years ago | (#33468022)

then these people have nothing to worry about privacy. The internet will be carved up into a unusable CompuServe like mess with nickel and dime plans similar to the crap cable tv bundle plans by the telecoms.

Either they have $$$ to waste on advertisements (1)

Shompol (1690084) | about 4 years ago | (#33468080)

... or they got indirectly sponsored by Bing, Do Evil(TM), We are OK with China Laws (c)

This is idiotic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33468122)

The idea of a do-not-track list is ok, but this retarded video is a f***ing joke. This is going to do nothing but convince people that the ones who made this are complete f***ing idiots.

A Do Not Track Me list? (1)

mr100percent (57156) | about 4 years ago | (#33468148)

Guess it's time to bring this post out, and update it:

Dear Consumer Watchdog

Your post advocates a

( ) technical ( X) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante

approach to fighting invasions of privacy. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

( X) Those invading privacy can easily use it to target people who want to hide their info
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
(X ) Google will not put up with it
(X ) The police will not put up with it
(X ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(X ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for data collection
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
(X ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(X ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, jerk! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!

Consumer Watchdog = troll sponsored by Microsoft. (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33468234)

Consumer Watchdog = troll sponsored by Microsoft. More here: http://techrights.org/2009/05/04/consumer-watchdog-exposed/

"consumer watchdog" (1)

seeker_1us (1203072) | about 4 years ago | (#33468300)

Did Microsoft Hire Consumer Watchdog to Attack Google? [techrights.org]

That is a year old story. According to it, "consumer watchdog" is a hired gun.

See that last bit? It’s important. Consumerwatchdog.org is linked to Grassroots.com, which is Grassroots Enterprise. ...

Grassroots Enterprise is not about grassroots. It’s about AstroTurfing.....

It’s a business. It hires people to do jobs for companies (clients).

Don't track me bro! (1)

gotpoetry (1185519) | about 4 years ago | (#33468312)

If you don't want to be tracked:

On the internet run Tor with on a browser with ad block and no-script and turn off cookies. Don't use free products like Gmail. Modify this configuration for how much of a crippled internet you can stand.

Don't use a credit card. Credit card companies maintain profiles on your purchases.

Only user a prepaid phone that you paid for in cash. Phone companies know every person you've called and who's called you.

Stop using ATM's. They have cameras and your banking activity is logged.

Those Loyalty cards supermarkets and chain stored give you has the potential for abuse. Pay more for your food.

Local and Federal government agencies share personal information about you for administrative purposes. Perhaps you should consider which non compulsory entities (other than the IRS, etc) you interact with.

BUSTED! (5, Informative)

richtaur (1234738) | about 4 years ago | (#33468350)

The company that ran this promotion (Consumer Watchdog) has been using Google Analytics. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/09/03/businessinsider-anti-google-privacy-group-consumer-watchdog-is-tracking-your-clicks-with-google-analytics-2010-9.DTL [sfgate.com] Hypocrite, much?

ma8e (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33468384)

keep/, and I won't That have raged Confirmed that *BSD www.anti-slash.o8g Irc.easynews.com
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?