Quote:
Originally Posted by ilago
It would, but remember that the ISP in the USA using NebuAd (WOW) didn't even advise their customers it was happening and simply changed their terms and conditions to allow it to happen anyway.
The NAI and eTrust pdfs I linked to are quite disturbing to me. Briefly the NAI really seem to think that behavioural targetting is OK, it's quite safe, the consumers have control, the "market" should be self-regulated and that "educating the consumer" (whatever that means when they say it) is all they have to worry about. They are completely ignoring the consumers who don't like it.
Where on earth did BT-Phorm get the idea that most people would prefer personally targetted advertising when the eTrust report pdf is quite clear that 57% of their survey in the USA didn't like the idea of it?
|
Having now fully read the documents you mentioned I see your point and I don't disagree. It is very interesting that targeted advertising is not as popular as what BT advertises when they are attempting to justify their WebWise adoption.
The problem as I see it is that to all intents and purposes the behavioural targeting areas they discuss and mention in those documents are not addressing the differing deeper privacy issues and worries that Deep Packet Inspection presents and that is what really concerns me more right now. DPI used in the manner it would be used in the Phorm/WebWise system, in my opinion, is a possibly far more dangerous beast than standard cookie tracking.
How can a market self regulate itself when the system like DPI is too complicated for all but the very technically minded to fully understand. How can average consumers regulate what they don't fully or can even begin to understand? When a systems operation is very complicated, the legal rules to how that system operates must be decided by independents who have at least the ability to understand the systems operation and its possible flaws. DPI brings a new level of complexity to the table when coupled with advert targeting.
Phorm, for instance claim that their WebWise system somehow enhances privacy.
The source code that lift, mirrors and profiles data from the web pages and performs the magic to meet their claims is hidden from inspection. It is not open source and subject to independent security checks. My worry is how can this code ever be trusted to not have flaws. How is this regulated? Even if all was rosy in the Phorm's 'coding' garden and ignoring any possible illegalities, people have flaws also. By giving an unpoliced unaccountable commercial system the ability to inspect everything a user sees and types on the internet, human nature over time in the Phorm/WebWise system also becomes an extra privacy worry for me.
Apart also from all the 3rd party cookie shenanigans that has already worried security experts, I personally cannot see how a complicated arrangement such as WebWise, added to an existing system, could possible enhance security and privacy over what is already available for free already. I can block standard cookie tracking but I currently could not stop a Phorm/WebWise system intercepting my data, opt-in or opt-out. (Unless the claims are really centred towards the (IMHO) Red Herring? anti-phishing component).
It is systems such as this that should be fully investigated by the regulatory powers that be and where necessary they should call on independent experts with the required levels of understanding to help them make any rules and decisions. Certain systems cannot self-regulate.