There's no excuse for industrial-scale snooping

Michael Holloway, 07 July 2009

Following yesterday's news that BT have ditched Phorm, it is now reported that Carphone Warehouse have joined the list of big-name clients shunning the service.

Commenting on just why this behavioural advertising system causes such controversy, Nicholas Bohm (FIPR General Counsel and ORG Advisory Councillor) - one of Phorm's strongest critics - wrote this personal view for the Guardian:

The advertising industry claims that people browsing the Web and coming across advertisements would prefer the ads to be about things that interest them. That certainly isn’t true of everyone – I for one find the ads distracting, and more distracting if they’re about things that interest me. But for many people it may be what they want.

Phorm’s idea of how to decide what people are interested in is to have their ISP snoop on their web browsing sessions and analyse the pages they visit. This seems to me a grotesque intrusion. The fact that the ISP would have to get consent to do this might not be much protection. All too many of us click on buttons marked “Yes, proceed” without always appreciating the consequences, because you have to do it so often just to get anything done. And the ISPs considering deployment of Phorm’s system never explained how they would make sure that every individual user gave consent, as the law requires, and not just the one who held the account.

If people are really so keen to see ads for things of interest to them, then they would willingly complete a short online profile of their interests every so often, especially given some inducement. The truth is that most people would never bother, of course, which suggests that the claims of the advertising industry about what they would really prefer are exaggerated, and slightly influenced by self-interest. Using such dubious claims as an excuse for industrial-scale snooping seems to me just plain nauseating.

Ian Betteridge

Reply #5 on : Tue July 07, 2009, 13:39:37

"I for one find the ads distracting, and more distracting if they’re about things that interest me."

What a silly thing to say. "I'm not interested in ads, and if I found them interesting, I wouldn't be interested!"

But more importantly, in all the hoo-hah about Phorm, Google's DoubleClick DART scheme seems to have slipped under the radar. Google is "suggesting" that publishers amend their privacy policies or opt out of DART - but how many actually will? How many of the countless blogs that run AdSense even *have* a privacy policy? And of course, you can opt out on a personal basis - but if you clear your cookies, you'll need to opt out again, as the opt-out is handled by - you guessed it - a cookie!

J D

Reply #4 on : Tue July 07, 2009, 15:02:04

@Ian Betteridge

And how does the Phorm cookie find it's way into the Web Browser contents; it wouldn't be via the Phorm/Webwise DPI intercept equipment would it?

The other methods of delivering cookies require the visitor to go to the requested Website & it is therefore a different problem that will need sorting out!

Ian Betteridge

Reply #3 on : Wed July 08, 2009, 10:12:31

@JD Yes, it's a different problem, but the net effect - the behavioral targeting aspects which Nicholas is complaining about in the quote above - is the same.

And from a publisher perspective, it's opt-out, which I think is somewhat dodgy. As I mentioned, many many blogs carry AdSense, earning a few dollars per month. Many of those small publishers may not even realise they're taking part in behavioral targeting if, like me, they don't actually go to the Adsense site that often or just miss Google's note about it.

And, as I mentioned, for end-users the opt out isn't permanent: clear your cookies, use a different machine, and you're back in the game.

Personally, I don't have a problem with behavioral targeting. I think ads which are actually relevant to me is a good thing rather than a bad one, which is why I found Nicholas' comment about relevant ads being "distracting" a bad thing. But as I don't have a "privacy policy" on my blog and don't intend to have one, I'll be turning off DoubleClick DART, because I don't like its non-permanent opt outs for users and I don't like the fact that they've made it opt out rather than opt-in for publishers.

(Caveat, disclaimer, etc: BT is a client of mine. And I'm very glad that they're not taking up Phorm, because it's a very bad idea.)

Chris

Reply #2 on : Wed July 08, 2009, 10:41:13

Hmmm...

"What a silly thing to say. “I’m not interested in ads, and if I found them interesting, I wouldn’t be interested!”"

Due respect, I don't think that's what he said...you actually quoted him correctly but then made you're own interpretation which I'm not sure is quite what he was saying

The point is not just whether I'm interested but whether I want the ads (at all?) appearing because of my browsing behaviour. I'm very interested in technology but not at all interested in online dating (to take two examples, read into them what you will!). I would prefer ads from neither to appear on a page I'm browsing...but assuming they did, isn't Nicholas' point that I would ignore the dating one but might be more likely to be distracted by the tech one?

And of course, if Phorm had it's way, it would be the tech ad that appeared in front of me!

For me the key point is Nicholas' last paragraph - let me have the clear choice to sign up for this stuff...but of course I (and I would claim most people) wouldn't...and "they" know it!

Having said that, I couldn't agree more with your comment - I would guess Google are rubbing their hands with glee as the row over Phorm rumbles on...

Pete

Reply #1 on : Sat July 11, 2009, 13:18:18

As a provider of content, and also a user of content... I expect consent to be sought from both parties to a communication for interception to occur.

BT and Phorm have confused terms like 'impractical' and 'difficult' with 'unnecessary'. The law isn't so ambiguous, thank goodness.

Use of private and confidential personal/commercial communications data for competitive intelligence gathering is obscene and illegal. It is mass personal surveillance, industrial espionage, and copyright theft.

Internet users, both personal and commercial, pay their ISP to provide a private, security and interference free service.

Much of the content on the net is not (and never will be) funded by ads. It is funded by retail sales, offline sales, exports, imports, charity, subscriptions, and tax.

Trustworthy communication services are vital for freedom, democracy, and the economy to flourish.

BT Directors must be prosecuted and jailed for their part in the covert interception of the communication traffic of hundreds of thousands of people and the web sites that served them in 2006, 2007, and 2008. And for the malicious abuse of their private and confidential communications data.

Write a comment

Required fields are marked with *.