Feeds

back to article Ad slingers - obeying EU snoop code is NOT GOOD ENOUGH

Website operators that track internet users' online activity in order to serve targeted adverts do not automatically comply with EU privacy laws by following the industry code. This is according to a committee of all of the EU's national data protection regulators. The Article 29 Working Party said that solely adhering to rules …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Meh

Apparently http://www.youronlinechoices.com/uk/your-ad-choices can't contact Google as well as a bunch of others.

Does it work for anyone else?

0
0
Bronze badge

open up google type ad preferences. Follow the link.

0
0
Silver badge

Better yet...

...intall NoScript, AdBlock Plus, CookieCuller, Ghostery, TrackMeNot and BetterPrivacy; then tell the lot of them to piss off.

(Also, update hosts files etc)

4
1
FAIL

Yes! Indeed!

I noted that their site doesn't actually work very well. They must have some js/cookies that were trying to get in place before letting the punter have the whole page. Duh!

0
0
Silver badge

Wrong way round

This mean I have to store a cookie that says "Do not track" and this is clearly wrong.

What each ad network should be required to do is get explicit consent to store a "Please track" cookie. No cookie, no track.

Although I realise there are other methods to rack people that do no need cookies (browser, font, OS and plugin combinations are fairly unique).

6
0
FAIL

obeying EU snoop code is NOT GOOD ENOUGH

No....

Obeying EU snoop code is GOOD ENOUGH

But The IAB are not obeying the EU snoop code.

The IAB guidelines are NOT GOOD ENOUGH...

6
0
Facepalm

Non-working

The problem is that the e-Privacy directives are pretty much unworkable with any realistic understanding of how online advertising - or indeed site interaction - can work. The IAB has bent over backwards to try to work with the EC proactively on this subject, and while some of this is naturally in its own interests - it doesn't want publishers or advertisers hamstrung - at the same time it has a hell of a lot better idea of how the internet works, and how the majority of internet users use it, than the Working Party.

If the Working Party gets its own way, which isn't inconceivable, there'll essentially be a two-speed internet ad market: one for Europe, with a ridiculous number of popups at every website asking "please can we show you ads, please can we store your preferences, please please please"; and the other for the rest of the world, where 'Ad Choices' is perhaps not ideal, but is at least sufficient.

It's enough to make me want to read the Daily HateMail about how those Eurocrats are telling us how straight our bananas have to be...

2
6
Facepalm

As if.

The IAB have consistently done as little as they can possibly get away with. For example, why not honour DNT?

If people wanted to be stalked across the net, they would voluntarily choose to subscribe to it.

As for the new EU rules, it is the IAB's problem to make opt in work. And it is a problem entirely of their own making (cough, Phorm still members of the IAB, cough).

If the IAB can't make it work? Sucks to be you. Tough luck.

IAB will have to manage without covert tracking and surveillance. How sad.

1
0
FAIL

Cookie based opt out: Does this opt ME out, or just the PC?

If I opt out at work, say, will I still be opted out if I use my PC at home? Or any other PC?

I suspect not.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

catch 22

In order to opt out I have to provide personal information, why do I opt out, because I dont want to give personal information.

The EU rules are unworkable. Advertiser desire for more data is unacceptable. Now if only browsers set session cookies only as a default, and the public understood what cookies were it might all end happily.

3
0
Devil

"advertising tailored to the person's specific interests"...

Yeah rrrrrright.

If this would be the case, the ad-slingers would have realized by now that I'm not in the market for bloody anything: my disposable income is zero, so any advertising would be futile.

Instead, it appears that in these and similar circumstances, what you get is just the bottom of the barrel: advertising for gambling sites and dodgy dating sites. Haven't seen ads for loan sharks yet though :-/.

$deity bless ABP...

1
1
FAIL

Expect s single question on the way in

which will ask if you want cookies. If you say no, the web site won't work properly. The evil advertiser will ensure that the site navigation cookies, the basket, and what have you are commingled with the tracking information, so separating the two is a easy as uninstalling IE6.

We already have sites where the JavaScript to make the site work is so peppered with ad-tracking calls, that without knowledge of how to write script surrogates one is obliged to enable scripts from all sorts of undesirables.

1
0
Thumb Down

Not Really...

If I hit a site like that, I usually just move away and find a better site! (Possibly after investigating what the other script/cookie/site calls are).

1
0
Angel

Nice to know...

... that at least someone in the advertising industry reads this forum ;-)

0
0
Silver badge

Forget the IAB

These proposals^Dlaws are unworkable and thought up by morons. If they are actually applied, all of the sites I work on will probably sit behind an interstitial saying "No cookies, no website". How does that benefit the user, precisely…

0
1
Silver badge

I thnk that's the point.

It's intended to make the user aware of the motives of the website, much like how, in the US. most states require that all retail prices be posted PRE-tax, so that they become aware of how much extra they pay to their respective state governments (petrol is one exception owing to the fact it's covered under multiple taxes and normally purchased to a price rather to a quantity--taxes are posted by other means there).

If a site won't operate unless they track you, then it should make you pause and think, "Is there an alternative?" Now, it may well be that sites, losing advertising reveneues, may switch over to paywalls; this could well be the intention, an attempt to put an actual price on parts the Internet for public debate on the price of personal data.

1
0
WTF?

WTF? I'll say it again...

Opt out cookies? FFS. We all know that if they were serious then it would be explicitly opt-in.

Obviously 'Your Choices' want Joe Public to allow third party cookies to achieve this. Hmmm. Think not.

BRB...

Oh goodie... After allowing their bits-n-bobs through the usual add-ons I note that one cannot even view the info on the scumbag ad companies until one enables third party cookies - or so their intentions illustrate. Tw@ts.

So let me get this straight... To set my opt out I must:

1) Enable third party cookies

2) Disable ABP etc.

3) And - amongst others (CDN/stats) - let a script from secure-uk.imrworldwide.com* through.

*This is the same imrworldwide.com that:

1) Has no directly accessible site at that address

2) Is listed as 'suspected of possibly being a scam or site engaged in fraudulent activity' here: http://www.aboutus.org/IMRWorldwide.com (as well as being listed as suspicious, suspect etc. elsewhere).

3) Is treated by some as a purveyor of malware/spyware.

4) Is Red Sherriff's alter ego.

I could go on, but on the surface it looks like 'Your Choices' are not just in bed with the ad sector, but actively taking one in each and every orifice.

In reference to 'Your Choices', I say again... Tw@ts!

1
0
This topic is closed for new posts.