FTC Chairman: 'Do Not Track' Rules Would Help Web Thrive

Online commerce and personal privacy are not incompatible

January 3, 2011 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (7)

Jon Leibowitz is chairman of the Federal Trade Commission

Let's say I stop at the mall to pick up a new jacket. As I browse through the stores, I am followed by a man with a walkie-talkie, reporting on every item I look at and passing that information to the other stores in the mall. By the time I reach the third floor, out of a store pops a salesperson, holding exactly the madras jacket I want, in the red-and-yellow plaid I favor as well as in my size.

Disconcerting? A little. Convenient? Absolutely. I buy the jacket.

But what if the man with the walkie-talkie sells information about my shopping behavior to my health insurer, who raises my rates based on my purchase of a deep-fat fryer? Or to my bank, which turns down my refinancing application after I buy the book The Winner's Guide to Casino Gambling?

As Americans trade mall lines for shopping online, our browsing is increasingly tracked—not by a hypothetical man with a walkie-talkie, but by a host of invisible data catchers that report your online clicks to marketing firms that, in turn, sell an astonishingly complete profile of your cyber behavior. The buyers are usually companies that target Internet advertising to your particular interests. Once you enter cyberspace, your private information—often without your consent or even knowledge—becomes a commodity out of your control. [See our slide show in Opinion: 5 Ways New Media Are Changing Politics.]

At the Federal Trade Commission, we want you to get that control back. We have proposed a "Do Not Track" mechanism that will allow you to easily specify what information you want to share about your browsing behavior and have those preferences travel with you to every website you visit. Technologies to create such a system exist; already, Google and Mozilla are considering ways to incorporate Do Not Track mechanisms in their browsers, and Microsoft has announced that its Internet Explorer 9 Web browser, due to be released soon, will have a Do Not Track feature.

Some in the online community argue that a Do Not Track system will "destroy" the Internet advertising business that currently relies on trailing consumers, often covertly. I disagree. Most consumers, including myself, like receiving Internet advertising designed especially for us and appreciate the innovative and free Web content that advertising supports.

Do Not Track does not stop advertisers from collecting information on consumers. It does require them to convince us not to opt out of tracking by explaining how tracking benefits us and assuring us they will treat our personal data with care. I am sure that the companies marketing on the Internet today are up to that task.

About 85 percent of consumers surveyed by Gallup have said that they want to be able to choose whether to be tracked as they surf. If companies don't step up to give consumers more choice, Congress may mandate Do Not Track. Privacy is a bipartisan concern, and we've seen strong support for more consumer choice on both sides of the aisle.

At the FTC, we don't buy the argument that a vital online marketplace has to be based on unauthorized Web snooping. We also believe, as do most American businesses, that no company loses by respecting the wishes of its customers. Do Not Track will allow the Internet to continue to thrive while protecting our basic right to privacy when we travel in cyberspace.

Read why 'Do Not Track' could destroy the internet by senior vice president and general counsel of the Interactive Advertising Bureau Michael Zaneis.

Tags:
FTC,
Congress,
healthcare reform

Reader Comments Read all comments (7)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

So, targeted advertising goes. the sites that use that targeted advertising to pay bills have to get revenue from elsewhere (id rather have the choice of service for free with advertising or pay to have advertising removed rather than no service unless you pay). Of course targeted advertising moves to server side programming instead of client-side cookies (at least I can use a cookie blocker now, impossible to stop servers reporting their logs to advertises <- outrageous no one in the EU committee thought about this...).

Cookies where designed never to be seen, now sites are going to stick a massive warning on every page I visit until I click off that page to their Terms and Conditions to accept cookies.

Mark Price 5:08PM May 31, 2012

"Out of a store pops a salesperson, holding exactly the madras jacket I want, in the red-and-yellow plaid I favor as well as in my size."

There is illustrated the myth behind behavioral tracking. On the surface, it certainly seems "convenient," but what else do you give up in the process? Obviously your privacy, but how about freedom? What about the ability to do price comparisons? What about simply browsing whatever's out there in search of a better alternative?

Companies like Google claim to know "exactly" what you want and to always act in your interest. In reality, there is plenty of room to exploit this type of data for unethical trades. Businesses regularly exploit the difference between their knowledge on specific customers and the consumer's lack (sometimes resulting from deliberate censorship, in the case of online services) of information about alternative products.

With behavioral targeting, you never get "exactly" what you want. Someone else is making the decision for you and they're not acting primarily in your interest.

How often do you tell a salesperson what you want, only for him to try to get you to buy something more expensive instead? How often do they try to direct you to an inferior product that their employer makes? How often do you look for something online where you see advertisements seeking to scam the person helpless enough to click it? To trick you into downloading spyware, purchasing something using their affiliate link, filling out unnecessary surveys, logging into phishing sites, or purchasing a pirated or counterfeited version of whatever you are seeking?

Maybe you will get the jacket you want, or at least a cheap imitation if you don't know better than the salesperson (they should already know if you're ignorant on this matter, since they already have your data). It may cost a bit more because they have to pay a person to stalk you and of course they can get away with charging more because they know how likely you are to make the purchase. Maybe they'll even convince you to purchase matching shoes of equal quality produced by one of their "partners" to go with it.

Big online advertisers fear consumers knowing the truth about behavioral tracking. Ads are designed to sell you something you wouldn't normally want. Isn't the promise of ads you do want a bit far fetched? The internet won't collapse without these types of ads exploiting people and cutting down competition.

"Personalized" ads makes it difficult for consumers to make informed decisions, budget their money, and to detect the scams. The problem with targeted advertisements and other forms of market segmentation is that it makes it harder for individuals to do business with more traditional, honest companies, and it enables scammers to personalize their offers or scare techniques in a way that's never been acheived before. I prefer my purchasing freedom, since it achieves the same ideal without the privacy implications or potential for abuse.

Zzzzz of FL 12:11AM January 29, 2011

I meant to send _THIS_ WSJ link:

Hiding Online Footprints

Makers of Firefox Browser Explore Do-Not-Track Tool After Scrapping Earlier Efforts

WSJ - November 30, 2010

Frank Earnest 2:25PM January 05, 2011

advertisement

Latest Videos

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

Oklahoma Tornado Reminds Us of the Value of Teachers

The Oklahoma tornado reminds us of all the roles teachers take on.

IRS, AP and James Rosen Scandals Strike at the First Amendment

The Obama scandals paint a picture of an administration at odds with the First Amendment.

Anthony Weiner Is Too Liberal to Be New York City Mayor

New York City doesn't need another Democratic mayor.

Organizations Masquerading as Tax-Exempt is the Real IRS Scandal

The real scandal at the IRS is electioneering groups getting tax-exempt status.

E.W. Jackson Proves the Tea Party Learned Nothing

By nominating E.W. Jackson, Virginia Republicans hope extremism will save them.

IRS, AP and Benghazi Are Not Obama Scandals

The word "scandal" doesn't appropriately describe anything going on in Washington these days.

Democrats Should Be Worried About Polls After Obama Scandals

Democrats should be more worried about President Obama's approval ratings.

Tea Party IRS Rally Should Wait Until After Moore Tornado Recovery

Tea party rallies against the IRS should wait until the tornado victims are taken care of.

advertisement