Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Who's Afraid of the Cookie Monster?
Matt Welch's post about the Federal Trade Commission's efforts to save consumers from nosy marketers reminded me of a story The New York Times ran last week about the tailoring of online advertising:
Not only will people see customized advertising, they will see different versions of Web sites from other consumers and even receive different discount offers while shopping—all based on information from their offline history. Two women in adjoining offices could go to the same cosmetic site, but one might see a $300 Missoni perfume, the other the house-brand lipstick on sale for $2.
Scary stuff? When it comes to privacy, I have to admit, I worry more about, say, the government's ability to seize people's computers at the border, eavesdrop on telephone conversations without warrants, spy on people from low-flying aircraft, and manufacture probable cause for car searches with the help of cooperative canines. But that's just me. The Times assures me that other people find eager, well-informed salesmen creepy too:
Consumer advocates say such unseen tracking [linking Web users to information about their spending habits] is troubling. On the old Internet, nobody knew you were a dog. On the new targeted Internet, they now know what kind of dog you are, your favorite leash color, the last time you had fleas and the date you were neutered.
"The industry's love affair with persistent cookies has made it virtually impossible for users to go online without being tracked and profiled," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, in an e-mail message....
Paul M. Schwartz, a law professor and privacy expert at the law school of the University of California, Berkeley, said the unwitting participation by consumers makes online marketing different from offline.
"Interactive media really gets into this creepy Orwellian thing, where it's a record of our thoughts on the way to decision-making," he said. "We're like the data-input clerks now for the industry."
Yet the average consumer does not seem to be very worried about this situation (emphasis added):
Consumers can avoid cookie-based tracking by deleting cookies from their computers or setting their browsers not to accept cookies. But few do, and privacy advocates say it is easy for companies to add cookies without users noticing.
The Web has introduced new wrinkles to targeted marketing, but it has not changed the fundamental issues. Way back in 1992—in a Reason article that asked, "Do strangers with computers know too much about you?"—I argued that when alleged invasions of privacy do not involve the coercive power of the state, they should be prohibited only if they entail violations of contract or property rights. One implication of that argument is that you do not "own" information about yourself that you voluntarily disclose without conditions. As an online shopper interviewed by the Times puts it, "Every time you put out information about yourself—people have got to understand—it's going to be collected by somebody."
|8.5.09 @ 12:14PM|#
Which is more creepy, Amazon tracking what books you brouse and
sending you suggestions based on that information or some
government bureaucrat telling Amazon how they can and cannot
interact with their customers?
I am taking the latter.
|8.5.09 @ 12:18PM|#
Fuckin' nosy capitalists! Spying on me so small, niche businesses that wouldn't have been able to survive ten years ago can cheaply and efficiently reach their target audience. We need another Vietnam to thin out their ranks!
Cal Lipigian|8.5.09 @ 12:18PM|#
they now know...the date you were neutered.
Marriage licenses are public records.
Tomcat1066|8.5.09 @ 12:19PM|#
"Interactive media really gets into this creepy Orwellian
thing, where it's a record of our thoughts on the way to
decision-making," he said. "We're like the data-input clerks now
for the industry."
And let's be honest here...the government hates competition.
In more ways than one now that I think about it ;)
Fluffy|8.5.09 @ 12:20PM|#
I think a huge part of the problem here is the bizarre and
unjust way privacy is defined and debated in the first place.
If I enter into an economic exchange with someone, the information
arising from that exchange belongs to both of us, equally, unless
we agree in advance that it doesn't. It is absurd and tyrannical to
claim that I should be obliged to forget if someone buys
something from me. Quite simply beyond the pale.
But the state has managed to convince people that if I don't forget
about economic transactions I was half of, I'm violating
people's "privacy" - even as the state asserts the right to know
everything about everyone all the time.
|8.5.09 @ 12:22PM|#
Indeed, John, and this is one of those privacy issues that (to
me at least) seems entirely theoretical. How many documented cases
have there been of people being harmed by privacy-violating
cookies? Sure, you could spin out some hypothetical, but I want a
real instance.
I have a friend who won't get a Safeway Club Card for the
(substantial) discounts because she doesn't like having her food
purchases tracked. But who cares? To what evil use could Safeway
put this? So far it's just to give me coupons they think I might
use.
|8.5.09 @ 12:24PM|#
I like behavioral targeting. With companies like Amazon, I get
information about products that I actually might be interested in
buying. Can it be abused? Sure. But is it a huge threat? Probably
not.
Let's not forget, too, that more efficient and less costly
advertising means, in the end, that fewer billions will be have to
be spent on marketing in the future. If that's the case, then we'll
all save some money, most likely.
|8.5.09 @ 12:27PM|#
Very good point fluffy. If I voluntarily give someone my personal information and they use that information to provide me with better services, I am sorry I can't see the harm. I really don't care that Giant knows what foods I buy. I do, however, care if that information is given to the government. The government, unlike Giant, can do me real harm.
|8.5.09 @ 12:32PM|#
While I'm generally not too worried about Amazon knowing my book tastes, it does worry me that their database is probably available to the government any time they decide to subpoena it. Or just take it. So although Craigslist doesn't scare me, the possibility that the FBI can get their records of my browsing does give me pause.
|8.5.09 @ 12:34PM|#
Geoff,
I mentioned that issue in an earlier thread. One of the objections
to cloud computing, for instance, is the ease in which corporate
records can be snatched by the government as compared to records
sitting on your home PC.
Becky|8.5.09 @ 12:35PM|#
The mindless way in which so many of you are willing to defer to
an organization that violates your privacy, tracking every move is
astounding--but it is all because they are PRIVATE.
If our rights are being violated does it really matter whether it
is being done by a nation, or a gargantuan Internet company with
more power and money than most nations--and which seeks to know
every single fact about every single living thing in the
Universe--so that they can help usher in their vision of a Better
world?
I do not advocate government regulation to rein them in--it would
be a bigger danger in the end. But, that does not lessen my disdain
for this type of behavior, as well as these entities.
Warty|8.5.09 @ 12:36PM|#
gargantuan Internet company with more power and money than
most nations
Google has an army now?
SxCx|8.5.09 @ 12:38PM|#
Is it Orwellian that the term "Orwellian" has been reshaped and trivialized into nothingness?
TallDave|8.5.09 @ 12:41PM|#
The mindless way in which so many of you are willing to
defer to an organization that violates your privacy, tracking every
move is astounding--but it is all because they are
PRIVATE.
And just because the government has that teensy meaningless
monopoly on using violence, while private companies are viciously
trying to sell us things we might want.
Fluffy|8.5.09 @ 12:43PM|#
The mindless way in which so many of you are willing to
defer to an organization that violates your privacy, tracking every
move is astounding--but it is all because they are
PRIVATE.
They can't kick my door down, or tap my phone.
All they can do is, after I call them up or go to their website to
buy some crap, write it down somewhere. Those
bastards.
The issue is really easy to understand if you personalize it. If
someone tells me something, should I get to remember it, or not?
Should I be entitled to make future decisions based on the fact
that I remember what I was told, or not? For me it's pretty simple:
if I come by information lawfully, no one has the moral right to
tell me to forget it. And if I assert this for myself, I am bound
by the maxim of my action to concede that this is true for Amazon
too.
|8.5.09 @ 12:43PM|#
"If our rights are being violated does it really matter whether
it is being done by a nation, or a gargantuan Internet company with
more power and money than most nations--and which seeks to know
every single fact about every single living thing in the
Universe--so that they can help usher in their vision of a Better
world?"
IF you voluntarily give them the information, what rights have been
violatd? If you don't like what they do with the information, don't
shop there. There is no reason to shop on the internet. You can
still buy anything you need from brick and mortor stores. You may
find this shocking, but if you are that concerned, just don't go on
the internet and you won't have any worries. I fail to see why your
horror over Amazon knowing some potentially embarassing fact about
your movie tastes (that you own a copy of every Judd Aptow film or
really like 70s bondage porn) should keep the rest of us who don't
care from shopping there.
|8.5.09 @ 12:48PM|#
"""To what evil use could Safeway put this? So far it's just to
give me coupons they think I might use."""
Safeway, no, but what happens when the government demands the data
to see if you're eating too much.
"""I think a huge part of the problem here is the bizarre and
unjust way privacy is defined and debated in the first
place."""
I agree we have problems defining privacy. And while we can't
really figure it out, government is redefining it.
Meta4|8.5.09 @ 12:51PM|#
"I really don't care that Giant knows what foods I buy. I do,
however, care if that information is given to the government. The
government, unlike Giant, can do me real harm."
With government health care, there could be a chance that your food
purchases will be scrutinized to determine if you "deserve"
treatment.
Spoonman|8.5.09 @ 12:51PM|#
Becky, can Google arrest me, or deny my request for an occupational license, write me a speeding ticket, or bust down my door?
Xeones|8.5.09 @ 12:53PM|#
the interwebs are watching you - please remove your hand
from your penis.
NEVER
|8.5.09 @ 12:56PM|#
The Privacy Act is pretty weak, considering that it's one of the principal laws for restricting government use of personal information. But no one ever talks about that. Businesses, on the other hand, are crazy scary if they know what I bought from them last month.
Allen P|8.5.09 @ 12:58PM|#
If I enter into an economic exchange with someone, the
information arising from that exchange belongs to both of us,
equally, unless we agree in advance that it doesn't.
I agree completely.
I also sometimes wonder how many of the people that get upset about
this freak out when they walk into their favorite book store the
owner lets them know that they just got something in from their
favorite author. And if they don't, what their explanation for the
distinction is.
|8.5.09 @ 1:00PM|#
TEH COPORASHUNS!
(Ah, crap. I forgot to get my Yes Men DVD back to Netflix! I really
need the next one soon to tell me what to think!)
T|8.5.09 @ 1:04PM|#
The only aspect of this I find worrisome is the possibility of the government getting their grubby little hands on the information. I am am completely confident if push comes to shove, the .gov will browbeat the companies into compliance and immunize them from lawsuits after the fact, just like they did with the telecoms.
|8.5.09 @ 1:10PM|#
SugarFree,
Was that film any good? I worked on a product placement deal for
Yes Man.
|8.5.09 @ 1:10PM|#
They can't kick my door down, or tap my phone.
I am a long time Victoria's Secret customer. OMG!!! What if they
sent over a platoon of those hot brunette models and busted down my
door in high heals and shoulder less dressres? Stare me down with
those luscious dark eyes and demand, "You WILL buy these new laced
garters you see before you."
They continue and pin me down with a knee covered in a netted
stocking. "Oh OH. AGH EEE. Stop. .. a little to the left...OGH
AGHH... Stop... stop... stop it some more. Please."
Oh the humanity. I can't bear to think about it anymore. Where did
I put my lube?
$Plug$|8.5.09 @ 1:17PM|#
Of course, this is one reason I use Mozilla Firefox: you can set it up to delete your cookies and cache and everything else automatically when you close it. You can have it do this without asking you whether you want it all deleted, but in case the browser crashes and I need to cancel the deletion, I've got it set so that it always asks me.
lhooq|8.5.09 @ 1:21PM|#
Not subpoenaed or otherwise gov't-involved, but in the '90s a
guy sued a supermarket for PI (yogurt spill) and corporate counsel
tried to use his record of alcohol purchases against him. (Please
forgive Salon link.)
http://archive.salon.com/21st/feature/1998/10/14featureb.html
|8.5.09 @ 1:22PM|#
Hey, I've been superbusy all day. Anyone seen robc around? I'm hoping he made it through the floods unscathed.
kinnath|8.5.09 @ 1:52PM|#
While I'm generally not too worried about Amazon knowing my
book tastes, it does worry me that their database is probably
available to the government any time they decide to subpoena it. Or
just take it.
Under Patriot Act IV, book retailers will be required to report all
book purchases to the US government to support data mining and
profiling to identify potential terrorists.
kinnath|8.5.09 @ 1:58PM|#
Of course, Patriot Act III had already required the installation of a mandatory cookie on all computers connected to the Internet that reports all URLs visited by said computer to the Cannibal project (offshoot of Carnivore) . . . .
|8.5.09 @ 2:50PM|#
SugarFree,
Ah, I see. I wasn't joking, but now I understand your
comment.
Say, when is USA Patriot getting repealed?
|8.5.09 @ 3:21PM|#
I'm pretty sure P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act I allows the government to recieve your internet habits from your ISP with a national security letter, and it's illegal for your ISP to tell you.
MattXIV|8.5.09 @ 3:22PM|#
On the old Internet, nobody knew you were a dog. On the new targeted Internet, they now know what kind of dog you are, your favorite leash color, the last time you had fleas and the date you were neutered.
Actually, on the old internet, they knew you were a dog, you just
didn't know that they knew. Sniffing info from cookies is as old as
cookies themselves. Using the internet has never been an anonymous
activity - every single action leaves a tremendous amount of logged
information on both sides, mostly uncrypted and free for the
plucking. The assumption of anonymity comes from the fact that most
of this information is useless so it gets purged on a fairly
regular basis - nobody was watching, so people assumed nobody could
watch. You were never anonymous - it was just that nobody cared
before they figured out how to monetarize all the transactional
crap you leave in your wake.
MattXIV|8.5.09 @ 3:29PM|#
Also, this pisses me off since I voluntarily trade my transaction data for money and discounts whenever I have the opportunity.
Marc Rotenberg|8.6.09 @ 7:41PM|#
I'm always amazed by how much Sullum's slam on privacy advocates resembles the arguments of law enforcement against privacy. Since you "voluntarily" disclose personal information, their arguments go, you have no expectation of privacy. EPIC has opposed that worldview in case after case after case. Where was Reason? Deleting cookies, no doubt. (Oh, that doesn't work 'cause marketers use "opt-out" cookies, i.e. if you delete their cookie, they take that as consent to be tracked. Did users consent to that? You be the judge.)
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245