Comments on: Think You Own Your Own Clicks? Think Again.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:19:26 +0000

Why is it that no one cares that Yahoo and Google and MSN are already doing this? You don’t think their ads are already targeted to you?

I agree with Tom, this is much hoopla about nothing.

By the way, this page the article is on is covered with Ads that are paying for this website. A bit hypocritical there, GigaOM?

By: tom

tom — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 01:39:43 +0000

it seems to me that once a 3rd party has an ISP Address database, then all they need to do is correlate that to your identity by learning who owns things like yahoo accounts. Since your yahoo mails is often sent from one or two ISP addresses, then it would be easy to build a database that could track all your web activity.

This seems very feasible, no?

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 22 May 2008 06:04:49 +0000

Get real. That is why I say you are all paranoids. What phone calls and what mail. This is web pages that you already are visiting and like it or not will be getting ads on them. no harry and no dick will call you. the back end system will show us ads that will be relevant hoping that we click on them and they make a few pennies. Believe me, the government can get all the dirt on you when they need to, and this won’t be their way, since this isn’t trackable back to you as an identifiable user anyways. If you think this is bad, then what would you say about every search you do on Google while you are logged into your gmail acct. Now, that is your identity. You think that doesn’t leave a track on you? If I were you, I would stop using the web and all other electronic communications altogether since I would be too worried someone out there cares about what crap I like and will be tracking me to show me an ad. Go get a life.

By: John Swaringen

John Swaringen — Mon, 19 May 2008 01:39:29 +0000

As a Charter subscriber when I got the letter I was stunned. I’ve written my congressman (Joe Barton) and can’t believe that they would be allowed to do something like this. Conspiracy theories aside, this is an invasion of privacy and should be stopped. Viva Net-Neutrality!

By: 1984 has come

1984 has come — Sun, 18 May 2008 17:06:23 +0000

Maybe Tom won’t mind his phone calls being wiretapped so that he can receive a more thorough profiling for enhanced targeted telemarketing calls from Dick and Harry.

I don’t suppose there any prizes on offer for guessing the type of business Tom is in!

By: warescouse

warescouse — Sun, 18 May 2008 16:25:36 +0000

So Tom thinks much hoopla about nothing.

I suppose he is also happy for all his private and personal letter mail to be opened by his mail delivery man to ensure he gets better targeted paper advertising as well!

“Sorry, I will forget read that personal letter from the bank manager!” says the postman. “Honestly”

There is little difference.

By: Tom

Tom — Sun, 18 May 2008 07:03:33 +0000

Much hoopla about nothing. This is the way of the future. I much rather get ads that are related to what I like and might need than getting Ads that are just cluttering the page with no usefulness. We should all be happy on this as this will make the browsing experience much more fulfilling. Chill out and don’t be so paranoid.

By: Robb Topolski

Robb Topolski — Sun, 18 May 2008 05:01:10 +0000

Public Knowledge did a piece this week on Charter’s decision to ~~sell out their customers~~improve the marketing experience for their users. You’ll find their take here: http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1574

By: Pete

Pete — Sat, 17 May 2008 22:55:32 +0000

I wrote a browser add on for Firefox to cover Phorm. With a little adaptation (and help from US counterparts) it might be possible to make it work for nebuad too.

Opt out is the wrong way for consumers. This should be opt in. These DPI systems are so intrusive, and users consent cannot be assumed.

Bear in mind too, apps like Microsoft Word, Open Office, Outlook, will all access content from the net from time to time. And these requests often can’t be distinguished from a web browser.

But perhaps, in the context of webworkerdaily, the most significant concern is the server side… and the completely bogus assumption these sites make that all unencrypted communication is public and/or public domain.

They violate the privacy of business communications, such as ecommerce sites. They steal copyright content ‘on the wire’ (rather than making a separate identifiable request for it). And they take visitors away from your web site using competitive advertising.

If regulators won’t act (and thankfully it seems the US are more switched on than our hopeless UK regulators)… one option is copyright protection.

I understand it is reasonable cheap to register a copyright in the US, and the penalties for wilful abuse of copyright are substantial.

Good luck. We’re about 3 months ahead of you. Come and join us for a chat at BadPhorm… or enjoy http://www.parasitestxt.org over a coffee.