There has never been a better time to utilize a good and trusted online privacy service.

RT
www.anonymize.tk

Reply

You sir are an idiot. Screw companies trying to track what I do on the internet and screw the government for the very same reason. This is exactly why pirate groups exist. If you think that privacy concerns are moot then you will see the backlash from the internet saying the exact opposite and your opinion is NOT in line with the rest of the internet community.

Reply

Rubbish! The advertiser's ability to collect detailed information about website visitors has NOTHING to do with free content. In case you are not above the age of 15, free content on the internet existed BEFORE advertising. Even today, the content exists first and only after a large audience has developed to the advertising vultures show up to replace content with targeted ads.

The internet and free content do not need advertising. However, advertisers and the schmucks like you that try to capitalize on the internet readership would certainly like everyone to believe that rubbish.

The fact is that it should always be opt-in for everything, not just the internet. The opt-out model is so thoroughly disingenuous that it should be criminal. The only reason that it has not yet been criminal is because of powerful lobbyists and politicians on the dole.

It appears that the politicians MIGHT turn that around but, I suspect they are only threatening so as to receive another payout.

Your article is a pathetic attempt at fear mongering.

Reply

@BS:

Sure there is free content without advertising, ever been to geocities? Now if you want free QUALITY web content, there is going to have to be advertisments.

The question you have to ask is, would I rather have ads about things I may actually care about/want, or not?

Reply

Content providers need to make money. They can do this either through advertising or by forcing you to pay for access to their content. I'd much rather be hit by relevant ads.

@BS: The content available online prior to mainstream web advertising was minimal compared to what's available now. And yes, advertising swoops in when the audience grows - but only when the content provider warrants it. More traffic = higher costs for the website. These costs need to be covered somehow.

Things change. Deal with it.

Reply

You say "But privacy fears are, for the most part, abstract concerns. Measures can be taken to insure that advertisers get the rich data they need even as individuals remain safely anonymous."

Well, let's think back to 2006 when AOL leaked all that user data. If you have enough data, there is no more anonymity and no more privacy. Just ask Thelma Arnold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_data_scandal#Thelma_Arnold

Oh, and by the way, I can't help but notice a distinct lack of ads on Wikipedia... Funny that.

Reply

"If online ad rates don't rise, the universe of available free content is likely to contract considerably"

Ignore this article, complete and total self-serving propaganda. He is owned, and paid for, by advertising interests. The opposite of what he claims has
powered the internet to unprecedented proportions thus far. Free content has and will continue to expand considerably. Surprise! The people who make money off advertising want more advertising, at higher rates. And more tracking, and more control, and more surveillance! Cool, huh?

The remaining vast majority of us should speak in a loud, clear, and unified voice. Now you know what it looks like, call it by name when you see it.

Reply

This column has a tremendous conflict of interest--since it's part of one of the largest behavioral targeting companies in the world [via AOL's Platform A/Tacoda: http://www.platform-a.com/advertiser-solutions/audience-targeting/behavioral-targeting/audience-behaviors]

The current system harvests tremendous amounts of information about consumers. As experts have noted, much of what online marketers claim is "anonymous" isn't really so. Responsible marketers should support meaningful privacy policies that will help build consumer trust. We can have both privacy and a robust online marketplace.

Reply

Wow! The sheep line up to spew their blathering ignorance.

@Shane - There was a LOT more, not supported by advertising, content out there besides Geocities (which was, ironically, ad supported starting in '97.). Think of the educational stuff from universities. Think of the privately hosted stuff by people wanting to make a name for themselves. Think of all the companies that put out detailed information about their products and processes, trying to win customers. Sure, that in itself is advertising but, it is rich content, not BS banner ads or AdSense. There was and still is a metric crap-ton of free content out there that is not supported by advertising.

Finally, I don't have to ask the question you state at all. However, I will choose to answer it just for you. Though I generally hate ads of all kinds, I personally prefer broadcast or non-targeted ads. The serendipity of them introduces me to new companies and products that I may never have seen before. Whereas, targeted advertising seems to be exposing me to a smaller and smaller set of ads and companies that I have never and will likely not buy from. It's just wasted time, bandwidth and privacy. Every page I have visited today has had the same disgusting picture advertisement for some weight loss plan or company. I don't need it, don't want it, will never ever buy it, will never ever recommend it. But, some ad network is following me from page to page force feeding me the same targeted ad over and over again. Your implication is that this is a benefit to me? Rubbish!

@Andy - That there wasn't as much content 15 years ago is not necessarily due to a lack of advertising. The WWW itself was still a nascent concept then. Advertising has had an impact on the amount of content available I'll agree to that but, I think that you will agree that the volume of content alone does not represent value. eg MySpace, Twitter and so many more.

As you said, things do indeed change and we do indeed have to deal with them. But that doesn't mean, as you imply, that the change is good or that we shouldn't resist it. For instance; if your circumstances suddenly changed and you found yourself homeless in the streets would you: "Deal with it" by accepting it and continuing to live as a homeless person. Or, would you "deal with it" by fighting your circumstances and trying to get off the street and into a home of your own?

Think about it and then get back to me when you get a clue.

Reply

This is paid lobbiest banter from your favorite local multinational cabal. Thier motto is 'whenever there is no logical explanation that backs our raping and pillaging, just lay everything at the feet of economics, which none of the US education system dumbed down proles, has any clue about.'

Reply

Your mother knows more about the internet than you think when she says "you don't get anything for free." Just read the very interesting New York Times Magazine article from two weeks ago on infrastructure to understand exactly how much it costs to run the "free" internets and free services such as Facebook. http://ow.ly/gABU If you haven't noticed, a slew of "free" music services like SeeqPod have disappeared in the past 6 months, after burning through their cash with no sustainable model. Hint: they weren't free, venture capitalists were subsidizing your streaming playlist. Online content delivery is subject to the same pressures as offline content (music, journalism, etc.) aka supported by a combination of advertising and subscriptions. Consumers are going to choose one or the other. "IF" it goes opt-in and your choice is no Facebook/no NYTimes.com/no Pandora *or* anonymous tracking which will you choose? Its also the responsibility of the publishers and advertising industry to ensure there are boundaries.

Reply