Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I don't want to start a debate but statements like these drive me crazy. Businesses control government because big government policies (like the regulations you suggest) encourage them to. If government doesn't have regulatory control of an industry, companies in that industry can't use government to benefit themselves. They must therefore compete based on their merits, not on who they know in Washington or the strength and number of their lobbyists. It's unfortunate that those who most deplore corruption support policies that create an environment in which corruption is inevitable.

The issue is that we need to discuss this - now more than ever... the Net demands it more than ever!

Why should I get emails from a website that I visit just once - without giving them "express permission" to contact me in the future? And those are the ones I can trace back with specific emails.

We may have to agree to disagree here - I see your point - but SCOTUS has said that corporations are on equal footing as even individuals.

Here is a novel idea - what about giving each registered voter the ability to contribute up to $500 a year to a group or lobbyist? We get rid of the incentive of like Big Oil to lobby for tax credits and such as we pay $4 a gallon for gas and they hide their profits from taxes that are due?
 
Little Snitch + Ghostery

Having ad companies harvest your online habits is more than a little creepy. If a car followed you everywhere you went and the people in it tried to sell you something every time you got out, would you be a bit concerned? Pissed off? Afraid?
 
I don't think people understand what a huge problem this is for advertising supported content going forward.

Not being able to track user movements from advertisements to company landing pages and so on, make advertisments virtually worthless. People opting out of such things will be cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Cutting off my nose to spite my face? What is my loss if I am not tracked? I do not want to be tracked. I can still get advertiser supported content, just not with targeted ads. And if I have to choose between free with ads, or pay, I choose pay. Or nothing, if its too many ads.
 
I don't want to start a debate but statements like these drive me crazy. Businesses control government because big government policies (like the regulations you suggest) encourage them to. If government doesn't have regulatory control of an industry, companies in that industry can't use government to benefit themselves. They must therefore compete based on their merits, not on who they know in Washington or the strength and number of their lobbyists. It's unfortunate that those who most deplore corruption support policies that create an environment in which corruption is inevitable.

A free market works in a perfect environment with perfect, long term motives. Unfortunately, people (and companies) don't work this way. They short sighted, personally motivated, slow to respond, and greedy in the short term. There are multiple examples of "the market" failing, and its NOT due to government intervention.

Saying "government is corrupt so we should end regulation" is crazy. Thats like saying "refs make mistakes so we should have no refs". Government regulation is needed to make sure companies play fair. The problem isn't government, its businesses playing outside the rules, buying influences, and corrupting the system. A tilted playing field is no good, but one without rules isn't either.

"If government doesn't have regulatory control of an industry, companies in that industry can't use government to benefit themselves."

So you essentially believe that because industry tries to use government to its own end, and succeeds, its the governments fault and not industries? Interesting mindset.

It makes more sense to let government be somewhat impartial, and ban corporate lobbyists and curtail campaign spending.
 
Kinda funny that people demand this kind of privacy control and at the same time post their privacy on facebook, twitter, gowalla,...
While ad companies should somehow be forced to oblige by your do not track me wishes, end-users also have a responsability(that is if they care for their privacy).
 
Kinda funny that people demand this kind of privacy control and at the same time post their privacy on facebook, twitter, gowalla,...
While ad companies should somehow be forced to oblige by your do not track me wishes, end-users also have a responsability(that is if they care for their privacy).
There is a difference from me knowingly posting something to a website from unwillingly being tracked.
 
I don't think people understand what a huge problem this is for advertising supported content going forward.

Not being able to track user movements from advertisements to company landing pages and so on, make advertisments virtually worthless. People opting out of such things will be cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Sorry to call your bluff, but you know nothing about advertising.

If what you say is true, explain why television, magazine and radio ads--all areas of advertising and marketing where "user movements" (as you put it) are virtually untraceable--continue to thrive. Advertisers and marketing companies have gotten spoiled in the last few years being able to mine all that data (for free) but there's no precedent for that nor is there any argument to be made that advertising and free content cannot continue without it. Advertising is all about keeping a brand visible to users/viewers, not about tracking user movement and invasive marketing techniques. That we've gotten to the point where this even has to be argued is sad, IMO.
 
It should be but it's not - making this feature essentially worthless. Now, if Apple really wanted to make a statement, they would give the end user control of whether or not they want to be tracked - not leave it up to the honor system.......
With respect, that is a bit tricker than it sounds given how the web works.
 
Pretty useless. It's like installing a lock on your door that only displays a message "do not enter", and the robber can decide to either comply with it or not.
 
Great feature, but I won't rely on web companies concerning my privacy. I will still have my adblock enabled with "EasyPrivacy" Tracking Protection List subscribed.
 
I'm not really too fussed about advert tracking to be honest. If I'm going to have to see adverts then I'd rather they be of stuff that's relevant to me.
1. I don't get adverts that are relevant to me. I get adverts that some stupid computer programmed by an even stupider programmer according to the wishes of an even more stupid marketing person thinks are relevant to me. Adverts that make me say "I know I get this advert because..." but are completely irrelevant. Like adverts relating to Christmas presents that I bought online for someone else three years ago.

2. I do get adverts that are not relevant to me, but to another user of the same computer. Which is quite annoying when you find out that way what birthday present you will get. When I get adverts targetted at my wife, that is a very severe violation of her privacy, and vice versa.
 
Pretty useless. It's like installing a lock on your door that only displays a message "do not enter", and the robber can decide to either comply with it or not.

I'd rather compare the situation to putting up a sign with "No Ad Mail Please" on your mailbox than a lock to protect from burglary.

At least in my region that sign works very well. Aside from rare human errors, I don't get any junk from "respectable" companies. Just as hypothetically no "respectable" company would use an ad-network that doesn't respect the "do not track" flag.
 
I don't think people understand what a huge problem this is for advertising supported content going forward.

Not being able to track user movements from advertisements to company landing pages and so on, make advertisments virtually worthless. People opting out of such things will be cutting off their nose to spite their face.

I like people who actually realise that the annoying advertising is actually the price you pay for so much quality internet content. I wonder how long MacRumors and other similar sites would last without the income they get from advertising? The less effective online advertising becomes (through restrictions on tracking or adblockers), the less money will be put into the medium.
 
It should be a mandatory system not voluntary. If I don't want to be tracked they should have no choice but to comply. Same as the "do not call" lists.

Absolutely.

For services that give out free stuff: CHARGE.

It's not my fault if you don't charge or if you created your business model based of advertising. It's my info/habits/actions/activities, that I wish to protect.

Simple and Fair.
 
Sorry to call your bluff, but you know nothing about advertising.

If what you say is true, explain why television, magazine and radio ads--all areas of advertising and marketing where "user movements" (as you put it) are virtually untraceable--continue to thrive. Advertisers and marketing companies have gotten spoiled in the last few years being able to mine all that data (for free) but there's no precedent for that nor is there any argument to be made that advertising and free content cannot continue without it. Advertising is all about keeping a brand visible to users/viewers, not about tracking user movement and invasive marketing techniques. That we've gotten to the point where this even has to be argued is sad, IMO.

But I think there's more to it than that - traditional media ads may not actively track, but they still position themselves for the most appropriate exposure that they can - toy adverts rather than bank adverts on kid's TV channels and car ads rather than oven cleaner ads in men's magazines.

OK, so things like Google adSense can still do this sort of content-based targeting, but as an advertiser, wouldn't you pay more to target your latest running shoes to someone who you knew was actively looking for running shoes, than just indiscriminately advertise them on fitness sites?

You're right that advertising has succeeded in the past in other mediums without tracking, but that's not to say that the ability to track and scrape data hasn't brought a price premium to internet advertising that advertisers are unlikely to be willing to pay should the capability be degraded.
 
Absolutely.

For services that give out free stuff: CHARGE.

It's not my fault if you don't charge or if you created your business model based of advertising. It's my info/habits/actions/activities, that I wish to protect.

Simple and Fair.

So you're saying MacRumors should charge for access/membership?
 
There is a difference from me knowingly posting something to a website from unwillingly being tracked.

Not really. For example, do you read every "Terms of Service" document put in front of you? My guess is not... if you're a normal person. You've probably consented to more instances of what you might retroactively consider "invasions" of privacy than you think.
 
I don't think people understand what a huge problem this is for advertising supported content going forward.

Not being able to track user movements from advertisements to company landing pages and so on, make advertisments virtually worthless. People opting out of such things will be cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Have you ever bought something because of a banner ad on page?
 
Have you ever bought something because of a banner ad on page?

Maybe he hasn't, but advertising works on other levels, including brand awareness. Just because I'm not going to click on the Adobe CS5 banner ad I can currently see on the top of my web page doesn't mean that the ad isn't making an impression on me. In fact, I've just noticed it says I can get up to 80% off with the Student and Teacher Editions, that's something I might remember if I'm looking at buying a creativity package in the future.

Another example, say I was looking for a new hard drive and I knew about Toshiba and Samsung and had been visiting their product pages. Then I go to an unrelated website with tracked advertising and I start seeing loads of ads for Western Digital who I'd never heard of before - now I'm probably going to investigate WD hard drives as well.

At the end of the day, if web advertising didn't work, why would advertisers keep throwing money at it?
 
I don't think people understand what a huge problem this is for advertising supported content going forward.

Not being able to track user movements from advertisements to company landing pages and so on, make advertisments virtually worthless. People opting out of such things will be cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Let us guess, you work for said advertizing companies.



It is like many things we are told we "require"

they weren't nessesary, until someone found a way to LEECH off of others.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.