Something very disturbing to all internet users are they're still being secretly tracked by companies from all over. Research shows they are more invasive than we thought. For example, when telemarketers got out of hand, the government responded with the 'Do Not Call' list, and now, Lawmakers debate the 'Do Not Track' list. There were very powerful responses from both lawmakers and witnesses on regulating online tracking. Susan Grant, the director of consumer protections at the Consumer Federation of America said, “companies already track consumers' every online move, often without their consent. If someone were following you around...tailing you and making note of everywhere you go, what you read, who you talk to, what you eat, the music that you listen to, what you buy, what you watch, you might find this disturbing.” Daniel Castro, a senior analyst with the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, said, “'Do not Track,' of course, doesn't actually stop online advertising, it only limits the ability of ad networks to deliver ads the user might actually want. Users who opt out of tracking would receive more – not less – unwanted advertising.”
Conclusion
The 'Do Not Track' list is actually extremely different from the 'Do Not Call' list. It's not like the companies like Sears can listen to all your phone calls and just interrupt with a Sears ad. The 'Do Not Call' list is a lot simpler and straightforward. The 'Do Not Track' list is more complex, there are good and bad sides to it because either way, there will always be ads on whichever site you visit, the only difference is if the ad actually fits the consumers need. I think the 'Do Not Track' list should not pass because you will always have ads, the only difference is it only limits the ability of ad makers to deliver ads the user might actually watch rather than having a completely irrelevant ad.
I agree that the "do not track" bill shouldnt pass because either way the consumer will be bombarded with advertisements only if they are part of the "do not track" list, the advertisments wont have anything they are interested in. At least now if you see and ad you are more likely to be interested in it and possibly buy something useful. On the other hand, it can be detrimental because you may end up buying more than you actually need or want.
ReplyDeleteI think it's very strange that companies have access to all your internet browsing and such, but I do not think that advertising online is as annoying as telemarketing. As long as they don't pop up in my screen I am okay with it. I don't think that companies should have access to what you are browsing on the internet though, because that's your own personal information. They should just advertise on websites that have to do with what they're selling. I'd rather have the bill pass then not, but it's not very important to me.
ReplyDeleteI believe that whether or not the the bill actually passed or not would have little effect on the way people viewed shopping online. Knowing different consumer preferences when shopping online does not really count as an invasion of privacy. I would probably side against the bill since the ads would then at least be relevant.
ReplyDeleteI don't think this will have much of an impact on the online shopping experience either. I would think most people ignore ads, although I can understand they can be invasive.
ReplyDelete