Do Not Track hits the
big time
Written February 2011 by Cliff Feldwick
That certainly didn’t take long. It was just on December 1
of 2010 that the Federal Trade Commission proposed a “do not track” idea for
internet browsing, although the idea must have been around for a while before
all this publicity. Based loosely on the fabulously popular “do not call” list
for phone solicitations, “do not track” would limit the ability of marketers to
track your web browsing habits and thus place targeted advertising.
In some ways this is just a more sophisticated cookie-blocking mechanism. Cookies, as most users vaguely know, are bits of code placed onto your computer by websites that you visit. They can be simple “you’ve been here twice before” counters to password stashing mechanisms that supposedly enable you to log into favorite websites more quickly. I say “supposedly” because sites have much better ways to do this, including the password savers built into Internet Explorer and all other browsers.
The whole idea that websites can and do place their code onto your hard drive drives some people bonkers. They rail on about privacy, as if this is worse than the tracking on your location (enabled by knowing where your IP address is registered to which Internet supplier) and how you got there (by the history that is handed on from one site to another). Because of this, many people use the content manager and privacy settings on their browsers to block cookies. OK, except many sites will not work with cookies turned off. Frustrating.
Cleaning out cookies periodically is a good practice.
Ironically, this can clean out the “opt out” cookies that you can set on some
networks to block further cookies.
Thus, the concept of adding a feature as part of the browser itself that takes care of foiling tracking is appealing.
The Quick Ones
Google’s Chrome browser is probably the first one to actually implement a Do Not Track add-in, as opposed to talking about it “in the next edition” like Microsoft. Mozilla, creator of Firefox, has also announced this addition, and will no doubt have it fully implemented by the time you read this. Just another good reason to use them, in addition to the fact that they are considerably faster than their larger cousins.
What’s not to like
Well, some people will find a hole in anything. A Business Week columnist complains that limiting tracking will push advertisers to bigger, more expensive sites and put smaller more focused out of business. In this way of thinking, blocking the fact that you have clicked on yacht sites means that advertisers will have to use Yachting Magazine as their ad buy, rather than more obscure cheaper sites. Most of us can live with that.
Actually, the amount of advertising will probably not decrease. It will just become more random. For those of us who find it somewhat creepy to watch the ads target us and change to follow our browsing, that’s fine.
Oh, and for the “Privacy is dead – get over it” gurus: kiss my shorts, as someone once said. Giving up is not the same as seeing the future.
One down
In another “that was quick” moment, one of my last month’s Fearless Predictions has already hit the dust. Yep, I believed that AT&T would continue to keep their stranglehold on the iPhone. Probably before many readers saw that piece of prognostication, they saw the Verizon ads for the phone. Oops. My bad for actually thinking that all the rumors were just that, as they always had been. Is this good for Verizon customers? Sure is. Is this good for those of us who had to switch to AT&T if we wanted an iPhone, with minimum length contracts? Not so much. And the ads from AT&T showing cheap iPhones, in an obviously reactive move? Nope, not for existing customers. Bah, humbug.
Cliff Feldwick is president of Riverside Computer Consultants, Inc, and provides PC troubleshooting and network setup services, when not gazing at a slightly cracked crystal ball. He can be reached at 410-880-0171 or at cliff@feldwick.com.