Groups call for new checks on behavioral ad data
Privacy advocates released a series of guidelines Tuesday for legislators considering regulations on behavioral advertising, calling for greater transparency and giving Web surfers more control over how the data is used.
Ten groups, including the Center for Digital Democracy and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, are pushing the debate ahead of the return of Congress in September, when certain members have hinted they'd be receptive to ideas for legislation. At issue is the use of behavioral advertising techniques by large Internet companies and services that track a user's online activity across a number of different Web sites, and serve ads accordingly based on that history.
Those companies argue that such ads are far more relevant to users than simply spamming them with whatever is selling that week, but privacy advocates are concerned about the amount of data that is being collected and what might be happening with that data behind the scenes.
"You shouldn't have to give away your privacy to shop online," said Gail Hillebrand, senior attorney with Consumers Union. "The technology is outpacing the existing consumer protections."
Hearings on the issue were held earlier this summer, with representatives from Google, Yahoo and Facebook appearing before Congress to defend their policies. At that hearing Yahoo reiterated its plans to introduce a policy next year that would strip personally identifying information from the data it collects after 90 days.
The guidelines released Tuesday call for far more than that, however. A full list (click for PDF) and letters to several members of Congress can be found on the U.S. PIRG's Web site.
Advocates want the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to define exactly what constitutes sensitive personal data, suggesting that factors like finances, ethnicity, and race should be off limits. They suggest that companies should only be allowed to collect and use data on Web surfers for 24 hours. And they would like companies to be required to inform users upon request the scope and details of the data that company has amassed on the individual.
Such provisions are likely to be met with opposition from industry groups, who value behavioral advertising because it allows them to serve ads that are more targeted and relevant: thus generating more clicks and more sales. They also believe their privacy policies prevent harm to users; to no one's surprise, the privacy advocates disagree.
Tom Krazit writes about the ever-expanding world of Internet search, including Google, Yahoo, online advertising, and portals, as well as the evolution of mobile computing. He has written about traditional PC companies, chip manufacturers, and mobile computers, spending the last three years covering Apple. E-mail Tom. 
They should not be able to collect ANY personal data at all. I can't imagine going to a store and being told that if I want to do business there I would have to allow someone from the store to follow me around for the afternoon (or longer).
Sure, one could say "then don't shop there", and in a brick and mortar store that's exactly what I would do, but unfortunately there are not as many choices on the net. As well, just loading a webpage can activate the tracking cookie. If you have your browser set to prevent that, then you just get an error saying you must have cookies activated in order to visit that page. Since so many sites use these cookies, it can actually prevent you from finding what you're looking for. Most people don't realize that these cookies actually mean tracking as the sites bury this information in their privacy policy. Also, I would like to see a large banner at the top of these sites saying "Warning, this site will track your browsing after you leave, if you don't like it too bad".
I don't see how anyone could argue that tracking is not an invasion of privacy. If it was any more obvious it would smack them in the head.
I have gotten into the habit of exiting my browser and reloading it after I finish what I'm doing on a website, but I don't see why I should have to do that to prevent these sites from snooping on me (or looking into my virtual window). I have it set to delete cookies on exit, but of course this means legitimate cookies used for things like settings also get deleted all because of trying to prevent some sites from snooping into what's none of their business. What I do after leaving a premises is no ones business but mine.
In the non virtual world they would be arrested for doing this, but it's OK if it happens on the Internet.
http://www.privacychoice.net/cnet.com
To me, enhanced disclosure is much better than the prospect of clumsy government regulation. What amazes me is that the industry (including folks who make browsers and set privacy defaults) can't seem to get it together to do the simplest stuff, like this.