×

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!

High-Frequency Trading For Your Private Data

Soulskill posted about 4 months ago | from the just-a-matter-of-time dept.

Privacy 75

New submitter fierman writes "In a work to be presented at the Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (ISOC NDSS'14), INRIA researchers show the privacy risks of Real-Time Bidding (PDF) and High-Frequency Trading for selling advertisement spaces. Combining Real-Time Bidding and Cookie Matching, advertisers can significantly improve their tracking and profiling capabilities. Both technologies are already prevalent on the Web. The research discusses the value of users' private data (browsing history) retrieved directly from the advertisers, leveraging an exposed information leak in RTB systems. Advertisers will pay about $0.0005 to display a targeted ad to a single user, while at the same time acquiring information about them. The research also shows evidence of price variation with users' profiles, physical location, time of day and content of visited sites."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

75 comments

Fuck You (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45655833)

Suck a cock in hell, you shitheaded psychopaths.

Re:Fuck You (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 4 months ago | (#45655899)

I agree! Wait... are you talking to high frequency traders, advertisers, both, or is this just a random, off topic, troll post?

SUCK A COCK (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45655855)

EAT SHIT advertising scum.

Re:SUCK A COCK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45655953)

So fucking hilarious, why the fuck don't you pay for every single fucking page that you view on the internet then? Companies need to be able to make money, they are not charities and they aren't going to give stuff away for free. You are commenting on a site supported by advertising, is slashdot really that evil? Sorry but I'd have to bet that everyone would rather have stuff freely available and supported by ads instead of paying for every single page. I find it so hilarious that people like you would argue that instead of some publisher paying for you to view stuff on the internet for free that you would rather pay for it instead. Why not shift the cost of using the internet to companies instead of the consumers?

Re:SUCK A COCK (4, Informative)

Wookact (2804191) | about 4 months ago | (#45655993)

You fail to think the issue all the way through.

I would MUCH rather pay 0.00005 cents per page view in cash then have someone bartering my private information. Ill put 10 bucks on the account and probably not have to refill it all year.

Re: SUCK A COCK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45656951)

That's not the price in the summary but i agree nonetheless.

Re:SUCK A COCK (2)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 4 months ago | (#45656031)

So fucking hilarious, why the fuck don't you pay for every single fucking page that you view on the internet then?

I wouldn't mind seeing ads (as long as they are not of the obnoxious type). I do mind getting tracked.

Ad-supported content without individual tracking seems to work well on newspapers, TV, radio, and basically everywhere you see or hear ads. Why shouldn't it work on the internet?

Re:SUCK A COCK (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 4 months ago | (#45658157)

Because it is new and it is possible, nay, impossible to prevent, them from doing so.

Re:SUCK A COCK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45660813)

English isn't your first (or second) language, is it?

Re:SUCK A COCK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45660381)

... on a mobile device

Re:SUCK A COCK (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45656163)

Funny how in the beginning years of the internet there WERE no ads. None. Zero.

And yet. It managed to survive and grow. And when it was big enough the leeches.. marketing and ad assholes wanted a slice of the money as if they were important and needed. When it was pretty much proven. They are not required.

Just admit you are scum and people hate your guts. You add no value to the world. If you all died tomorrow the internet would continue just fine without you. And the few fad sites that rely on deceptive advertising to survive.

You provide nothing of value to the universe. Be honest. Admit you are useless. At least be honest scum.

Re:SUCK A COCK (4, Insightful)

mythosaz (572040) | about 4 months ago | (#45656365)

Funny how in the beginning years of the internet there WERE no ads. None. Zero.

And yet. It managed to survive and grow.

That worked fine before 30 hours of content were uploaded to YouTube every second of every day. It's a different day. Running any website that isn't for hobbyists can get expensive fast. People are "on the internet" 16 hours a day.

I run a couple of websites that are similar in scope to "the beginning years of the internet." I host sites to direct people to my poker leagues, trade a few recipes, host a few easily hotlinkable pictures, lampoon a few friends, and passively sell some junk. I've got nearly zero ads. [One of my sites has streaming live video sometimes, and by advertising subtly for my video host, I get more bandwidth.] I pay a hundred bucks a year or so to keep my pile of domains registered and pay for some prosumer level hosting.

If my poker league's videos got wildly popular or my recipe site became a smash hit, I'd either have to restrict content, give it up, or find a revenue stream. I ain't made of money.

Also, my apologies for standing on your lawn.

Re:SUCK A COCK (1)

module0000 (882745) | about 4 months ago | (#45658179)

I wish the consumers would get the hell off *all* our lawns. I only want to deal with enthusiasts and engineers...you know, people as interesting as we are to ourselves. The rest of the users should come up with their own watered down "internet" of facebook and similar bullshit. Oh wait...don't know how? Brain full of sports statistics and beer preferences? Think sockets and ports are car-mechanic terminology? Too bad, you lose, GTFO. The unwashed masses were the worst thing to ever happen to the internet, and I really wish they piss off - kindly or otherwise. Just leave.

The "golden days" main appeal to me was that due to the technical difficulty of connecting to what people refer to as the internet(or ARPAnet then), ruled out the possibility of 99.999% of the current users ever having a chance at participating. *Sigh*, if only it could have stayed that way. I realize every idiots likes to feel "involved", and is thrilled to death to be here with their cat pictures and facebook "likes"...but really? They contribute nothing but e-commerce dollars and ad-views to companies of superior business cunning and intellect. Good for the companies I suppose, but bad for the enthusiats and engineers forced to breath the same air.

I realize this is just a big "get off my lawn" post...but really, get off ALL our lawns. It's disgusting, all of them are disgusting. This must be how genocidal maniacs felt about the cultures they were butchering - I *hate* them, can't stand them, and wish all the worst for them. Not sure how it's gotten this way, but for some reason I'm mainlining the Haterade(tm) on their account at this moment.

TLDR; I like the type of website you describe. A hobbyist and generally intelligent human is the only person who should have a right to be here.

Re:SUCK A COCK (1)

fatphil (181876) | about 4 months ago | (#45659191)

> That worked fine before 30 hours of content were uploaded to YouTube every second of every day. It's a different day. Running any website that isn't for hobbyists can get expensive fast.

Yet I've never seen an advert for youtube. They seem to be doing quite well for a business that doesn't seem to advertise much.

Only $0.0005? Great! (1)

Nanoda (591299) | about 4 months ago | (#45655861)

That's fantastic, 'cause I'll definitely pay $0.0006 to not see an ad. Someone show me how to buy up all my personal pageviews.

Re:Only $0.0005? Great! (5, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | about 4 months ago | (#45655901)

No doubt!

I'd like bid 5$ to buy the next 1,000,000 page views served to me. That ought to buy me an ad free internet for quite a while.

If that's the market rate to throw shitty ads in my face, I'm more than willing to pay the going rate to replace them with 1x1 clear gifs for my page views. (I'll also supply hosting and bandwidth cost to serving them to me.)

Re:Only $0.0005? Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45656021)

Oops, it's real-time! The price just went up

Re:Only $0.0005? Great! (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 4 months ago | (#45656041)

Does $5 buy 10,000 or a million page views at that 5/100ths of a cent each?

Re:Only $0.0005? Great! (1)

vux984 (928602) | about 4 months ago | (#45656201)

Does $5 buy 10,000 or a million page views at that 5/100ths of a cent each?

Sigh; yeah. I read $0.0005; as 0.00005 cents, not 0.005 cents.

Still $5 even for 10,000 views... I wonder how many months that would last me.

Re:Only $0.0005? Great! (1)

Tom (822) | about 4 months ago | (#45656575)

Days.

If I read correctly, this is per ad, not per page. So on your average online magazine, that's 5-10 per page. So that's 1000 page views. Your average article is split up over 2-3 pages these days, in order to generate more ad impressions. It also includes every article you click on, load the page, realize it's not interesting to you and leave again with a second or two.

Not sure how much you read, but for me, that would last me maybe a week, and if it includes sites I frequent a lot, less.

Re:Only $0.0005? Great! (1)

jfengel (409917) | about 4 months ago | (#45664077)

Five bucks a week, for All of the Internet... still a price a lot of people would pay to be truly free of ads and the tracking that goes with it. (At least, until they started finding ways to scam it; I'd be reluctant to let sites have direct access my money, even if only a limited pool of it. And of course it's a whole new way to track you, since there's some kind of line from the web site to the account to the way you fill that account.)

Re:Only $0.0005? Great! (1)

Tom (822) | about 4 months ago | (#45689495)

And it's still protection money. "Nice browsing experience you have there... would be a shame if anything happened to it."

And I bet that it wouldn't be long before someone eats the "acceptable advertisement" bait, like the idiots at Mozilla or the scammers at ABP did.

Re:Only $0.0005? Great! (1)

gmhowell (26755) | about 4 months ago | (#45656369)

I'd like bid 5$ to buy the next 1,000,000 page views served to me. That ought to buy me an ad free internet for quite a while.

You clearly don't view as much porn as I do.

Re:Only $0.0005? Great! (2)

cheater512 (783349) | about 4 months ago | (#45656019)

Count how many ads you 'see' (i.e. load a page with the ads on) in a month. Then reconsider.

Re:Only $0.0005? Great! (1)

SolitaryMan (538416) | about 4 months ago | (#45656223)

It actually would be kind of interesting to have that kind of addon for Firefox. I'm curious how much do I cost to advertisers.

Re:Only $0.0005? Great! (1)

core_tripper (749345) | about 4 months ago | (#45656703)

Firefox and Chrome extension to see how much you are worth are available @ https://team.inria.fr/privatics/yourvalue/ [inria.fr]
FF plugin directly from Mozilla: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/rtbwatcher/ [mozilla.org]

statistics so far from http://yourvalue.inrialpes.fr/ [inrialpes.fr]
Average price of users $0.001200
Price of the cheapest user $0.000076
Price of the most expensive user $0.008000

Re:Only $0.0005? Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45657649)

Adblock Plus shows you the hits per filter. I have 40k for google plus, and 11k for second place, which is apparently some ad network but I can't get the name from the filter..

Economics wont reverse. Re:Only $0.0005? Great! (1)

DalDei (1032670) | about 4 months ago | (#45658055)

The economics don't work in reverse. Paying $0.0006 to NOT see an ad generates very little revenue and takes a lot of people to do it. The people paying $0.0005 to put an ad in your face are buying lots of millions at a time and are expecting to make much more then that in aggregate by you buying their stuff. So from the advertising company they would push back against this. And even if they didn't the web host wont reverse the economics. From the web page hosting company if they wanted equal revenue, to make it work you would have to get as many people to pay to NOT see ads as you get paid for each ad delivered. But the ads delivered are bought in bulk - only a few people to invoice and paying you checks. Scale of billing is painful when your billing millions of people $0.0005 instead of dozens of people $1000. The cost it takes to bill and collect is generally linear per invoice not per amount. And then there is customer management and service. How much money will you spend answering emails and phone calls about "But I paid you 10 cents to hide 1000 ads ! I saw one today !" ... just answering that call/email will have eaten your profit for 1000 customers. So no, your not going to see add free paid-for services anytime soon ... the only way I could see this work is at an ISP level where as part of your ISP bill you strip ALL ads out ... but then do you really want the ISP mucking with your data flow ? Really ?

I have (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45655917)

always wondered if there is anyone who actually clicks on advertisement links, I mean, yeah I can see the type of people who would click on a lotto 999,999,999th visitor ad, but does ANYONE really buy things after clicking on them?

Re:I have (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 4 months ago | (#45656399)

I click on links because Google reads my mind...and by mind, I mean mail.

The higher the density of ads on a page, the more likely I am to ignore them all - either electronically or mentally. ...but when there's tastefully placed ad about something I'm genuinely interested in (see: Google reads my mind), perhaps offering me a discount or a new product from an existing line I'm familiar with, I'll sometimes visit the site.

...unless of course I hate your site. Then I'll visit the advertiser directly from the address bar. :)

Re:I have (1)

penix1 (722987) | about 4 months ago | (#45658171)

always wondered if there is anyone who actually clicks on advertisement links, I mean, yeah I can see the type of people who would click on a lotto 999,999,999th visitor ad, but does ANYONE really buy things after clicking on them?

In the 25+ years I have been on the Internet I have never, ever clicked an ad. In this day and age of malware it is very dangerous to do so. In fact, the more I see an ad for a particular product, the more likely I am to use a competitor's product that hasn't bombarded me with advertising.if I really want it just to be spiteful.

I do the same with political ads. I vote for the one I heard the least from. One sure way to get me to vote against you is for you to send me an unsolicited ad for your campaign. That is my way of saying the millions you are spending on advertising is working against you.

Kill em all. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45655921)

Advertisers are the worlds biggest scumbags and are nothing but a drain on the world.

I propose we start selling hunting licenses for them. $1000 a day. Limit 5 scumbags a day.

The world would improve. I'm sure of it. And we could make some money. The advertisers would approve even. Because money!

Wowee (1)

BringsApples (3418089) | about 4 months ago | (#45656023)

So many people that I know have enough money to pay their bills, and very little left over, and they tend to save that money for things like car/house problems. Also, so many people are switching from cable to Netflix for their entertainment (no advertising there that I've ever seen). I really wonder if advertising is still as effective as once thought. I know I mentally block it all out if it's on a site (slashdot gives you a choice if you're logged in, and I love that). I have never ever ever ever seen an advertisement and thought, "Holy shit, that's something that I should get." I mean, I did when I was a kid, but not since.

Re:Wowee (4, Insightful)

neminem (561346) | about 4 months ago | (#45656101)

I occasionally see advertisements in real life, like on billboards and stuff, for tv shows or movies that look interesting, and as a result go home and google them. Then if the reviews are good, I might end up watching them (of course in the tv case, nobody is getting any money as a result of that decision anyway, but that's not my problem.)

Every once in a blue moon I might click on an ad for a web comic on a site where I specifically un-adblocked their ads because I want them to get money and they don't put awful spammy in-your-face ads up. But that's quite rare.

I certainly never go out and buy soda or clothes or cars or whatever the crap gets advertised by traditional advertising, though. But then, I never buy most of that crap regardless, either.

I do agree with you completely, though - kids are the obvious demographic to advertise to. They're the most likely to DESPERATELY NEED random crap they totally don't actually need, plus it's not *their* money that would be spent. MOMMY MOMMY MOMMY BUY ME THIS THING I SAW ON TV IT LOOKS AWESOME was certainly heard enough by my parents between the age of 5 and 12.

Re:Wowee (2)

mayko (1630637) | about 4 months ago | (#45656243)

Honestly I think this is the case with most users. Especially those who would be considered power-users. Ad blindness on the internet isn't something that publishers and ad agencies are unaware of. The idea is "the right ad, for the right person, at the right time." I would extend that to "through the right medium." In a perfect world the adverts you see wouldn't be intrusive and would be something that you could even consider valuable. Truly good products and services need to generate awareness after all.

I certainly never go out and buy soda or clothes or cars or whatever the crap gets advertised by traditional advertising, though. But then, I never buy most of that crap regardless, either.

The funny thing about this highly targeted stuff is that as it becomes more advanced and the data they have on you becomes more reliable, they won't even target you with these things because they know you aren't a good candidate for their brands.

Advertising gets a pretty bad rap (some of it deservedly so), but the money behind it powers one of the greatest resources in the world. In other words, at least it's not derivatives trading.

Re:Wowee (4, Informative)

neminem (561346) | about 4 months ago | (#45656373)

Oh yeah, totally. IF, and this is a big if:
* advertising were always clearly labeled as advertising
* advertising were off to the side rather than being interstitial or overlapping with content
* advertising didn't play music, jump around wildly, flash, grab your focus, attempt to create new windows, or do anything else distracting you from what you were trying to do
* advertising didn't try to download megs of data and refuse to fully render the page until it was done
* advertising never showed images that were NSFW (either because they were disgusting pictures of morbidly obese people, or because they were giant pictures of half-exposed breasts, and I have seen both of those exact ads on sites that had no business displaying either of those things)
* advertising actually announced what it was advertising, and in a way not clearly anticipating that I have the brain of a 4 year old
* advertising was actually relevant to my interests

IF all of those things were true, then I would totally be willing to turn internet ads back on, and might actually even click on them occasionally.

Unlikely, though.

Re:Wowee (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45657705)

I certainly never go out and buy soda or clothes or cars or whatever the crap gets advertised by traditional advertising, though. But then, I never buy most of that crap regardless, either.

The purpose of advertising isn't simply selling a product right then. Coke, for instance, spends more in advertising to keep their name in people's minds than to convince you upon seeing the ad that you need to ruin your teeth.

See how it works? I mentioned Coke instead of some random name soda or car company. That's what an unlimited propaganda budget gets ya.

Re:Wowee (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45660911)

You say "coke" and I think of coal or a white powder. And I don't do anything that involves either of those things. Of course, I don't drink soda pop, either, so maybe that's why the word "coke" doesn't really mean much to me.

Re:Wowee (1)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | about 4 months ago | (#45659617)

Ads aren't there for you to click on, they're there to "raise awareness" of their product. If and when you ever decide that yo're interested in that "kind" of thing they sell, their name is already in your mind. I never drink Mountain Dew. But I know about it and if I ever was motivated to start drinking soda (why??!!!) , it's one of the one's I'd have a mind to try. That's advertising.

Another alternative is word of mouth which works for some things some times. Another alternative is *no one knows your product exists*. The fear of THAT is what keeps companies advertising budgets full.

You already know this. If you're a single gal, then you know you dress to impress. To be seen. To stand out in some good way or at least not the opposite. Similarly men display their status and wealth. You have to be known to exist for good things (money, love) to come to you.

Re:Wowee (1)

dj245 (732906) | about 4 months ago | (#45660081)

So many people that I know have enough money to pay their bills, and very little left over, and they tend to save that money for things like car/house problems. Also, so many people are switching from cable to Netflix for their entertainment (no advertising there that I've ever seen). I really wonder if advertising is still as effective as once thought. I know I mentally block it all out if it's on a site (slashdot gives you a choice if you're logged in, and I love that). I have never ever ever ever seen an advertisement and thought, "Holy shit, that's something that I should get." I mean, I did when I was a kid, but not since.

The key is to send your advertisement to the right person at their moment of greatest receptiveness. Suppose I walk out of a bar at 1AM. My phone knows where I am and what the local time is. Hours of operation data on most businesses is available online. I get a message "I see you have just closed Bob's Bar! Jane's Bar is open until 3AM and we are 2 blocks away! Click this button to put your phone into navigation mode".

Another example is a hot saturday morning. My phone knows location, weather data is easily looked up. I swipe my credit card at an auto parts store 4 miles away from my home at 9AM. A company connects these dots, and sends me an advertisement for 25% off iced coffee at a store on my way home. Will I take that offer? I'm probably starting (or in the middle of) some car repairs when I get home, during the hot day, so I probably would take that offer.

These are the right message for the right person at the right time. The likelihood that I will take their offer is quite high. I may even appreciate they told me about their bar. This is why companies are falling over themselves to get all the data they can about you. Their advertising budget ROI goes through the roof.

Nothing to do with High Fequency Trading (4, Insightful)

tomhath (637240) | about 4 months ago | (#45656179)

Other than both happen very quickly in human terms, this has nothing to do with High Frequency Trading. But I suppose that's a buzz word that gets peoples hackles up so they toss it around a few times. This is just selling advertising space to the highest bidder. The privacy issue is with the companies that collect the data, how they collect it, and who they share it with. Whether they sell that information in real time or the next day isn't particularly relevant.

Re:Nothing to do with High Fequency Trading (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45656625)

cant upvote but you are right

there are people left not using adblock? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45656313)

I don't know any, but I guess somewhere, there's someone browsing the net without adblock installed...

Re:there are people left not using adblock? (3, Informative)

mythosaz (572040) | about 4 months ago | (#45656411)

Yup. They're called, "people who believe that some sites should be supported by their primary revenue model."

I leave advertisements on when visiting /. Why? They're mostly harmless, and well targeted -- albeit a bit redundant. Someday I might actually see something I'm interested in and make these guys a few bucks.

Seems a fair thing to do in exchange for their services.

Re:there are people left not using adblock? (4, Insightful)

Tom (822) | about 4 months ago | (#45656619)

I have ads turned off on /. and I very much like that they offer the option - and that they offer it to a limited set of readers, those with high karma or post mods or whatever the factor is. Because it shows that /. understands an important thing: Without the comments, they wouldn't exist.

Re:there are people left not using adblock? (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 4 months ago | (#45656629)

822. Respect your elders indeed.

I've got the option, and I ignore it. They trust me. I trust them.

Re:there are people left not using adblock? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45659139)

The option is apparently offered to Anonymous Cowards as well. ...
And yes, I get that sites have to be funded somehow, but browsing the web without AB+ seems like a very idiotic thing to do.

Re:there are people left not using adblock? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45657049)

They're called, "people who believe that some sites should be supported by their primary revenue model.

And yet, the internet had a vastly higher signal to noise ratio before the legions of AOLers and their propensity to tolerate advertising on the internet showed up.

If there is "more content" now, it's 99.999999% cat videos and speculation about DWTS. Whereas before, it was valuable information, from actual people, without commercial intent, without astroturfing, without data-mining your every move, and without your precious "revenue models".

If we ban all advertizing from the net, the better version of it will return, and this clusterfuck will die off.

Re:there are people left not using adblock? (1)

crontabminusell (995652) | about 4 months ago | (#45661079)

Yup. They're called, "people who believe that some sites should be supported by their primary revenue model."

I leave advertisements on when visiting /. Why? They're mostly harmless, and well targeted -- albeit a bit redundant. Someday I might actually see something I'm interested in and make these guys a few bucks.

Seems a fair thing to do in exchange for their services.

Sorry, but if the only way you can monetize whatever you are doing is by placing ads for other people / organizations on your page, then maybe what you're doing isn't worth much. Everyone wants to think that whatever they have is worth something, and unfortunately for them that's usually not the case. That aside, I appreciate Slashdot's optional ads and I don't use Adblock on their site, but I leave it on for basically everyone else.

make it illegal - all of it (1)

Tom (822) | about 4 months ago | (#45656529)

It's come to the point where I honestly believe we need to outlaw all advertisement. Yes, I mean that. Make it illegal, absolutely all of it. Posters, mailings, newsletters, TV and radio, web, banners - the whole lot.

Make all of it illegal and then apply the same principle to it that we know works whenever something is dangerous and easily abused: Whitelisting. After pulling the plug, have a serious conversation about where, what kind and how much advertisement we as a society are willing to accept, and then make limited excemptions.

We know for a fact that blacklisting doesn't work. Nobody sane configures a firewall with allow-all and then block lists. You always start with deny-all and then open up services selectively.

Same approach. Outlaw it all, and then decide what is acceptable.

Advertisement poisons everything. It's time to put a stop to it and this is the only way we can do it without fighting over the topic for the next century.

Re:make it illegal - all of it (2)

MonkeyDancer (797523) | about 4 months ago | (#45656779)

The market is what regulates privacy. When companies overstep, there will be consequences, but so far the market has said consumers are more than willing to trade data for amazing free tools online.

Re:make it illegal - all of it (1)

BringsApples (3418089) | about 4 months ago | (#45656927)

I'm mostly with you. Honestly advertizing should have it's own channel or something, so that if people wanted it, then BAM there it is. If that were to happen, we must remember that things like most tv entertainment will no longer exist in the same 'state of things' as today - that includes foobaw (oh nos!)

Personally I'm fine with that, but so many people will be faced with the actuality of the void in their lives, and be forced to find another way to piss their lives away. Personally I'm fine with that, too. Maybe that's the zombies that usher in the new era.

Re:make it illegal - all of it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45657099)

Really?
And who would decide "what is acceptable"?? The only people that would benefit would be the lawyers (well, others would benefit, but you get the point)

OK, so the next day after issue your ruling...
All OTA TV stops working except PBS, and BBC in the UK. Cable/Sat stop working period... HBO/Showtime theoretically could stay, but I don't think the lack of economies of scale would like it all work out. $200/month maybe for "Basic" cable??
All radio stations stop. So does Pandora, iTunes match, etc.
ALL internet search engines stop.
Most people's personal email simply stops working as well. (Gmail, Yahoo, etc)
All magazines and newspapers simply fold up (see what I did there?)
Free porn and cracked software also dies without their own ads and thepiratebay.se to find those torrents. We can't have that!!
Loyalty cards at grocery stores stop working (they use those to target you for ads among other things)

So what's left??
PBS, Wikipedia, *.gov, *.edu sites. Various endpoint websites would still be around (Amazon, airlines, etc) but no way to find them.
Work email addresses, and internet provider (comcast, etc) provided email accounts

So here's my challenge then... don't use any product, service, or website, that in any way advertises to you... assume that if it receives advertising revenue, it would cease to exist after this would be passed. And see how long you can keep it up.

Personally I couldn't do without Google. Maybe I could move my email to my private server, and survive for a while without TV. Though lack of news would be the next tough nut.

Re:make it illegal - all of it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45657143)

Oh yeah, forgot no more Facebook and Twitter...

Re:make it illegal - all of it (2)

jythie (914043) | about 4 months ago | (#45657281)

Since the people who sell these advertising packages can not actually demonstrate an impact of their product, any consumer backlash is generally written off as "the market shifted, but your sales would have been even lower if not for our targeted ads!". It is a very self protecting system where consumers and the market have surprisingly little impact on it. Advertisers sell belief and authority.

Re:make it illegal - all of it (1)

Tom (822) | about 4 months ago | (#45689545)

And who would decide "what is acceptable"?

Is that a serious question? We live in a democracy, in case you didn't notice.

OK, so the next day after issue your ruling...

We understand that plastering everything with ads is not a sustainable business model and move to something else. None of the strawmen you put up will come to pass. People will very quickly learn that they just might have to pay for things. And they will. Markets will shift, some sites will go down because nobody thinks they're worth it, but others will emerge. The sky won't fall.

On the other hand, we will all of a sudden have several hundred billion dollars we can spend on productive things. The financial crisis would be over.

Re:make it illegal - all of it (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 4 months ago | (#45658131)

More complicated then it sounds.

My inlaw had a nice business of real estate going before the do not call thing hit. No she does not spam people. Rather she can be sued for calling customer back or picking up the phone and calling someone who has a phone number on a for sale sign.

Hey that is cold calling sale NOPE can't have any of that can we even if the person is wanting to sell?!

Where do you draw the line?

If you owned a business and wanted to partner with another company where both you and the other company would benefit would that be illegal? After all that is advertising and sales related because you contacted them. What about calling a customer back? Is that illegal to call one? That is also advertising etc.

I agree I do not want to see erection disorder drugs when the kids watch Nickelodeon for crying out loud! But sales is part of standard business which would cease to function without it as far as I am concerned. This is complicated and of course the marketing and advertising agencies would claim it is free speech and the conservative supreme court would probably agree.

Re:make it illegal - all of it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45659165)

>Rather she can be sued for calling customer back or picking up the phone and calling someone who has a phone number on a for sale sign.
That isn't actually true. Calling people back or calling people who have stated in advance they want to be called is okay, as far as the law is concerned.
What I think is that your inlaw was presenting a rosier picture of her business than justifiable, as inlaws are wont to do.

Re:make it illegal - all of it (1)

fatphil (181876) | about 4 months ago | (#45659179)

> do not want to see erection disorder drugs when the kids watch Nickelodeon

"Is daddy grumpy all the time?"
"Buy him the new purple power pill for christmas!"

"Is mummy grumpy all the time?"
"Buy daddy the new purple power pill for christmas!"

Re:make it illegal - all of it (1)

Tom (822) | about 4 months ago | (#45689505)

You missed the point that I made after saying "make it all illegal".

I understand there is legitimate and even wanted advertisement, especially in the B2B segment. Or, for example, trailers for upcoming movies.

The point is to make everything illegal and then define exceptions, instead of the way we're currently running things that very obviously isn't working: To allow everything and define exceptions that we don't want.

But for how long.... (1)

jythie (914043) | about 4 months ago | (#45657267)

Right now much of this is based on the rather unsubstantiated idea that such targeted advertising and tracking actually results in an increase of sales. There is a lot of faith and bluster involved, it could easily turn into a house of cards if it turns out all these fancy tricks do not actually do anything for the clients.

leak (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | about 4 months ago | (#45657335)

Anyone red the papet and can explain where the leak is? All the interesting stuff is supposed to occur outside of browser reach, so how did they did it?

Re:leak (1)

privtz (3459399) | about 4 months ago | (#45658527)

Please see: https://team.inria.fr/privatics/yourvalue/ [inria.fr] And the linked description. Long story short: RTBs encrypt the value of prices... But in some cases this does not happen and even those careful enough find themselves be leaking this infos while using OTHER non-encrypting systems. So the leak is due to the fact that some of them encrypt, others do not, but the detection phase requires looking up the encrypted ones.

On IPhone they pay ME USD 4.25 per 1000 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45658067)

That is almost 10x the story, and it's not even targetted. Somebody is making out like a bandit.

horrible summary, poor research paper (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45658197)

As a programmer who develops RTB systems I can tell you that the conclusions in this "paper" are largely incorrect. In fact they are NOT supported at all by the content of the paper itself. Here is one simple example:

The last sentence of the abstract:

We show that user's browsing history elements are routinely being sold off for less than $0.0005.

And its "support" in the introduction:

Cookie matching enables the possibility of linking the profiles of a single user in databases of two independent companies and is an integral part of RTB.

"support" in section IV - C - 1:

Cookie Matching facilitates potential cooperation between these systems to exchange their users' data and possibly build larger user profiles.

In the abstract the authors definitively state that THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS and then in the rest of the paper all we get is "possibility" and "potential?" Here are some uncomfortable facts for the authors: companies like Facebook and AppNexus do not exchange information about users' browsing history. In fact, here is an important possibility they never considered: exchanges don't store this information and prices are very low because we know next to nothing about the user. What does a partial IP address, user agent and base domain you're visiting really tell me? The purpose of an exchange is to connect web sites or apps that want to serve ads with advertisers. Even if they had this data, why would they give it to a potential competitor? The main purpose of cookie matching (at least for my company) is to facilitate opt-outs. It is VERY challenging (technically) to honor a user's opt out request when every web site, app or exchange has a different cookie id. This is why we use cookie matching; to ensure that requests coming in from your 50 different apps/sites will be recognized and marked as "opted out."

If you would like to know more about RTB, the newest OpenRtb spec can be found at: http://www.iab.net/guidelines/rtbproject. There you can read about what information is sent as fields in a "bid request." Be sure to note that most fields are marked as "optional" which means that they will likely not be present (why do more work than required?).

If you would like to opt out please visit Evidon's web site because we do honor it: http://www.evidon.com/consumers-privacy/opt-out

Re:horrible summary, poor research paper (1)

privtz (3459399) | about 4 months ago | (#45658587)

Hello, I am glad a developer behind RTB is here. RTB faciliates tracking and profiling. It makes it easier. Also, sites are being sent in the bid requests... Price for an ad on site X.com is different than on Y.com. How else do you explain the price difference? Do you seriously want us to believe that you don't know the site you're displaying ads on? Also, where is the list of bidders which receive bids with my data, when I visit a site? Why is the technology so untransparent? Prices for users in USA are higher than in some other places, retargeted ads receive higher prices... Please be more elaborate than just spotting wordings in abstracts and text.

Re:horrible summary, poor research paper (1)

privtz (3459399) | about 4 months ago | (#45658597)

OpenRTB is actually in the references of this paper. As well as other docs. Which RTB are you developing? Because there are important differences between them.

Re:horrible summary, poor research paper (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45658637)

i understand that you, as a RTB developer, don't like this type of results ;) ... but this is what is happening and users should be aware of it!!!
Either you are naive, or you don't want to admit the truth...

I would actually like to thank the authors of this paper for their great work...

-you wrote: "companies like Facebook and AppNexus do not exchange information about users' browsing history"...really? You are kidding right?
  Please read the following paper to find out:
"http://www2.research.att.com/~bala/papers/wosn09.pdf "
-you wrote "Even if they had this data, why would they give it to a potential competitor?"... really??, this answer is here:
http://www.arpitaghosh.com/papers/paper.pdf

As a RTB dev., you should now these references.
Once again, this is the fact... our data is being sold off by advertisers that want to make money...

I think this is a great piece of work! Congratulations to the authors and keep publishing this type of results...
  we need more of these "tracking the trackers" research projects...

Let me save you $0.0005 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45659419)

I can save advertisers their $0.0005 with this simple statement:

Your ad is horrible. It's not relevant to me, and even if it was, your attempt to trick me into clicking your links or otherwise accidentally visiting your web site mean I'll make a point of not going any further with you. I'll make a mental note to avoid you for as long as my memory allows.

Should you decide that a clearly marked, modestly sized, unobtrusive, passive advert is your next best option, then by all means show it to me. Then I have the choice of clicking it or not. Sure, your click-throughs might go down, but at least if I do click it, I was at least interested for a few seconds. You'll have less to tell your client, but you'll be giving them better information. If that's not what your client wants, then your client probably needs to adapt, or else they can be sure I'll use as many ad-blcokers and other tools to avoid whatever they're peddling.

I want to see my profile. How can I do this? (1)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | about 4 months ago | (#45659473)

I want to see my profile. I want to know who they think I am (my real identity) and how they characterize me and what information they have. How can I do this? If it's for sale, can I buy it?

Advertising (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45660215)

Has pretty much IMO killed television and now they are going to try to do it on the net.

Here is a thought:
Why can I not charge a royalty to anyone using any data related to me? Sort of like the music industry does. Then I can issue take down notices and fine them astronomical amounts of money for sharing MY data.
just a thought...

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...