Re: Google to base ads on surfing behaviour

[James Matthews <nytrokiss () gmail com>]

When they bought doubleclick I knew this would happen....

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 12:59 AM, Nick FitzGerald
<nick () virus-l demon co uk>wrote:

> Bipin Gautam wrote:
>
> > google is evil :
> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,1000000097,39625962,00.htm
>
> That's news?    8-)
>
> > "These ads will associate categories of interest " say sports,
> > gardening, cars, pets " with your browser, based on the types of sites
> > you visit and the pages you view,"
> > ...
> > As with any other cookie, this tracking file can be cleared by the
> > user at any time. By visiting Google's ad-preferences page, the user
> > can opt out of having their surfing habits tracked, or input their own
> > preferences for the subject matter of ads they would like to see.
> >
> > However, as clearing the browser's cookies would effectively remove
> > the opt-out cookie itself, Google has also released a plug-in for
> > browsers that provides a permanent opt-out from the service.
> > ...
>
> Whatever happened to "default deny"?
>
> Oh, that's right -- it wouldn't be in _Google's_ interest to require
> surfers to opt into Google breaching their privacy.
>
> As the US government doesn't seem to care much, if at all, about
> protecting the privacy rights of its citizens (in fact, do US citizens
> actually have any legally-protected privacy rights worth talking about?),
> perhaps the EU should step up here and fine the crap out of Google until
> it "fixes" this latest egregious assault on our privacy...
>
> ...
>
> And would it be churlish to point out that Google is breaking its own
> principles with this move?
>
> Bipin has already alluded to the much-vaunted "do no evil" doctrine
> (actually, it is "You can make money without doing evil" -- point six at:
>
>   http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html
>
> and arguably does not preclude "but you can make more money by doing
> evil" if you read the whole thing), but there are others, perhaps most
> pertinent here are in:
>
>   http://www.google.com/corporate/software_principles.html
>
>   Software Principles
>
>   At Google, we put a lot of thought into improving your online
>   experience.  We're alarmed by what we believe is a growing disregard
>   for your rights as computer users. We've seen increasing reports of
>   spyware and other applications that trick you in order to serve you
>   pop-up ads, connect your modem to expensive toll numbers or hijack
>   your browser from the site you're trying to visit.
>
> Yet it seems that it is acceptable for Google to breach reasonable
> expectations of privacy "behind the scenes" (these principles seem aimed
> at client-side, rather than server-side, shenanigans -- hmmmm...).
>
>   We do not see this trend reversing itself. In fact, it is getting
>   worse. As a provider of services and monetization for users,
>   advertisers and publishers on the Internet, we feel a responsibility
>
> ...to ensure those trends continue?
>
> No -- actually, it continues:
>
>   to be proactive about these issues. So, we have decided to take
>   action. As a first step, we have outlined a set of principles we
>   believe our industry should adopt and we're sharing them to foster
>   discussion and help solve the problem. We intend to follow these
>   guidelines ourselves with the applications we distribute (such as the
>   Google Toolbar and Google Desktop). And because we strongly believe
>   these principles are good for the industry and users worldwide, we
>   will encourage our current and prospective business partners to adopt
>   them as well.
>
> ...but again, we won't apply these principles to the service side of our
> industry and actions.
>
> How gloriously myopic, or is that two-faced?
>
> The second of these proposed software principles is described thus:
>
>    UPFRONT DISCLOSURE
>
>   When an application is installed or enabled, it should inform you of
>   its principal and significant functions. And if the application makes
>   money by showing you advertising, it should clearly and conspicuously
>   explain this.  This information should be presented in a way that a
>   typical user will see and understand -- not buried in small print that
>   requires you to scroll. For example, if the application is paid for by
>   serving pop-up ads or sending your personal data to a third party,
>   that should be made clear to you.
>
> But, again, not if it's Google, DoubleClick, et al. twiddling bits on the
> back-end...
>
> And a few sections later:
>
>   SNOOPING
>
>   If an application collects or transmits your personal information such
>   as your address, you should know. We believe you should be asked
>   explicitly for your permission in a manner that is obvious and clearly
>   states what information will be collected or transmitted. For more
>   detail, it should be easy to find a privacy policy that discloses how
>   the information will be used and whether it will be shared with third
>   parties.
>
> But, again, not if it's Google, DoubleClick, et al. twiddling bits on the
> back-end...
>
> ...
>
> And to add another security-related issue to this thread, I'd rather that
> Google and DoubleClick spent some time and effort on fixing a couple of
> DoubleClick's biggest problems rather than on adding AdSense tracking
> integration to DoubleClick's cookie mechanisms.
>
> First is that DoubleClick really needs to work on not accepting "dodgy"
> ads such as the "fake AV" ads and such they've been serving increasingly
> often of late.
>
> Second, and much bigger, DoubleClick also needs to fix a huge security
> flaw across the whole of doubleclick.com.  doubleclick.com is an open
> redirector farm.  Depending on your school of thought, that might be
> considered what is known in web app security circles as a form of cross-
> site scripting (or XSS) flaw.  This has been abused by spammers, phishers
> and malware spreaders in the past and fixing it won't be trivial as the
> whole DoubleClick business model is based on this behaviour and the
> common, Q&D fix for this type of problem (referer-checking based
> solutions) is unviable when the expected referrers are virtually any
> domain on the planet (as required by DoubleClick's distributed ad serving
> business model).  It took Google the best part of a decade to (mostly)
> fix its own open redirector problems, but that should mean it can provide
> some valuable input to its new stablemate...
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Nick FitzGerald
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/



-- 
http://www.goldwatches.com/

http://www.jewelerslounge.com/

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/