Google Voyeur (beta)
Keeping it real by keeping tabs.
You are being watched. Right now, probably. I can't say "definitely" because this website, you may have noticed, is not supported by advertising and contains only one cookie--at that only if you have chosen a style other than the default one.
When you go to other websites, though--particularly any that serve you ads--you are going to be scrutinised. You're going to be put under a microscope for the delicious bits of information that perusing your browsing history and search habits.
The theoretical reason for this is that targeted advertising is useful. If you are the kind of person who searches exclusively for Hannah Montana and Bratz, you are unlikely to respond to ads for the newest Chevy pickup truck; similarly, if your last ten searches have all been for computer parts, you might be the ideal person to respond to a Newegg ad.
Google is able to make money entirely because of this. I know that if I wanted to advertise my Furry Survey, for instance, Google would be able to seed the ads in places where people would be likely to respond to them--other furry websites that have subscribed to Google's ads.
In the discussion surrounding Microsoft's proposed Yahoo! acquisition last year, one thing that emerged was Microsoft's apparently-superior behavioural tracking abilities, which they could then leverage with Yahoo!'s market share.
People are thinking about this.
Well, marketers anyway. But what about the rest of us (er. rest of you, I suppose)? The unambiguously-titled study "Americans Reject Targeted Advertising (And three activities that enable it)" suggests that people are increasingly uncomfortable with the way that information is gathered about them online. So?
So. What do we do with this?
The study itself makes effectively two points. Firstly, Americans aren't happy with the concept of targeted advertising, nor of allowing their personal information to be used in selling them things. Secondly, they don't have a damned clue how targeted advertising works, that it's legal, or the complications in opting out of it (hint: clearing your cookies increasingly does JS these days--many if not most advertisers use Flash, and you have to go directly to Adobe to get those deleted).
I'm of a mixed mind. I can appreciate the concerns about the invasion of privacy (and then God said "let there be Tor") and I can certainly understand valid concerns (if you use the same computer for work and home, or the same for personal and family use, you don't always want your searches for leather whips informing the ads you see).
On the other hand, though, I like free stuff, and free stuff is made possible by advertising. This could conceivably make targeted ads a necessary evil, and in fact when couched in terms of getting people free stuff they seem to be a bit more understanding. All the same, it is a bit worrisome to think of what advertisers know about you.
Even anonymously, though I do admit to unending curiosity as to how much you could learn about someone from their search habits. And this all now makes me wonder. All the fuss about new smartphones supporting Flash. Is this a genuine response to customer demands, or just because Flash makes it so much easier--and so much less transparent--to track people's mobile browsing?
When you go to other websites, though--particularly any that serve you ads--you are going to be scrutinised. You're going to be put under a microscope for the delicious bits of information that perusing your browsing history and search habits.
The theoretical reason for this is that targeted advertising is useful. If you are the kind of person who searches exclusively for Hannah Montana and Bratz, you are unlikely to respond to ads for the newest Chevy pickup truck; similarly, if your last ten searches have all been for computer parts, you might be the ideal person to respond to a Newegg ad.
Google is able to make money entirely because of this. I know that if I wanted to advertise my Furry Survey, for instance, Google would be able to seed the ads in places where people would be likely to respond to them--other furry websites that have subscribed to Google's ads.
In the discussion surrounding Microsoft's proposed Yahoo! acquisition last year, one thing that emerged was Microsoft's apparently-superior behavioural tracking abilities, which they could then leverage with Yahoo!'s market share.
People are thinking about this.
Well, marketers anyway. But what about the rest of us (er. rest of you, I suppose)? The unambiguously-titled study "Americans Reject Targeted Advertising (And three activities that enable it)" suggests that people are increasingly uncomfortable with the way that information is gathered about them online. So?
So. What do we do with this?
The study itself makes effectively two points. Firstly, Americans aren't happy with the concept of targeted advertising, nor of allowing their personal information to be used in selling them things. Secondly, they don't have a damned clue how targeted advertising works, that it's legal, or the complications in opting out of it (hint: clearing your cookies increasingly does JS these days--many if not most advertisers use Flash, and you have to go directly to Adobe to get those deleted).
I'm of a mixed mind. I can appreciate the concerns about the invasion of privacy (and then God said "let there be Tor") and I can certainly understand valid concerns (if you use the same computer for work and home, or the same for personal and family use, you don't always want your searches for leather whips informing the ads you see).
On the other hand, though, I like free stuff, and free stuff is made possible by advertising. This could conceivably make targeted ads a necessary evil, and in fact when couched in terms of getting people free stuff they seem to be a bit more understanding. All the same, it is a bit worrisome to think of what advertisers know about you.
Even anonymously, though I do admit to unending curiosity as to how much you could learn about someone from their search habits. And this all now makes me wonder. All the fuss about new smartphones supporting Flash. Is this a genuine response to customer demands, or just because Flash makes it so much easier--and so much less transparent--to track people's mobile browsing?
| Galluskek 8.10.2009 - 1h46 |
As to the flash-as-evil concern, I can offer this, mobile companies already track what sites you visit, a holdover from the dark days of pay per KB. So unless advertisers are tired of asking for that sort of data and being rejected (if only I could be assured this), or would like it delivered in a format they don't have to pay quite as much for, is anyone's guess. In any case, I'm not that concerned about targeted advertisement. In fact, I welcome it. There is nothing more loathsome than mistargeted advertisement, I will never, EVER buy Yaz, no matter how accurate their commercial is according to the FDA. But I might be interested in the latest promotion at the Electronics Goldmine (might). The Yaz commercial will annoy me, the electronics one will make me seriously consider my need for miscellaneous transistorized detritus. I don't care if they make more money from targeting me for the right stuff (they won't I only base who I won't buy from from ads), I can take solace in the fact that I am an uninteresting data value in a computer that no one there cares about. The real problem comes from when it expands beyond that level of availability, when future employers can see me looking up sites on corporate espionage (because I'm curious) or pipe-bomb making (they said it was easy, but you do need some knowledge of electronics) or the aforementioned leather whips (I need to be kept in line? No justification available) I'll be out of a job because I'm curious. There is so little data about me out there already, that this sort of thing may become a problem for me personally. But for the general population with static IP addresses, registrations in their name, and credit cards, social networks,links to reality and such, it probably will just be a drop in the bucket in terms of collected data. It really takes a concerted, sustained effort to remain anonymous. This is just the latest in a long line of invasions and challenges. Call me when they implement something like the NHS where medical records are public records. |
| Comrade Alex 8.10.2009 - 2h01 |
My hunch is that targeted advertising is actually quite useful and that people probably do prefer it to the alternative. This does not seem to accord with the results of the study, although the numbers dealt with were rather small as I understand it. I'm not aware of a practical systemic reason why "anonymous data for advertising purposes" cannot be kept separate from "nonanonymous data the gov't/employers/romantic partners/etc can use against you", though the increasing availability of information may be solving this for us. Myself, I'm self-evidently not concerned. I use my real name fairly often, both because it's easier to remember and I find it keeps me from saying things that are too outrageous. This is a deliberate choice, of course. +ca |