Do Not Track Registry Likely to Include Exemptions

by on April 25, 2008 · 6 comments

Last week a scad of stories from Reuters to News.com covered the growing push for a “Do Not Track” registry similar to the “Do Not Call” list that serves to protect US households from mid-dinner sales calls. While I understand the concerns expressed by folks like Marc Rotenberg of EPIC and Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy, who were both cited by Anne Broache in the News.com piece from last week, I think that asking the government to hold a master list of IPs and consumer names is a bad idea, or at least one that won’t do much to really protect consumers.

First, tracking people online is a bit different from calling folks in their homes. Telemarketing, while highly effective in terms of sales produced per dollar of marketing money spent, is still orders of magnitude more expensive than spamming or collecting data online without consent. Both of these activities are illegal today, but they still occur. They occur so much that spam-filtering technology contains some of the most advanced natural language recognition and parsing software created. Cory Doctorow has mused that the first artificial intelligences will emerge from Spam and anti-Spam computer arrays.

So this list wouldn’t be the magic wish that privacy advocates and legislators might dream it to be. It would cause law-abiding companies like Google, AOL, and Microsoft to stop collecting data, but so could privately developed and enforced systems.

Anne Broache notes that cookies are a bad solution for stopping data tracking as many anti-spy-ware programs delete cookies, since cookies are often used for the purpose of data tracking. But why not just create a new variety of cookie? Call it a cake, a brownie, a cupcake–maybe even a muffin. Whatever you call it, just specify that a standards-compliant browser must contain a place for something similar to a cookie to be placed that will opt consumers out of tracking schemes. This isn’t a technological problem at all, it’s just a matter of industry deciding to follow this course.

My other concern is something that fellow TLFer and former CEI staffer James Gattuso pointed out in a 2003 piece in regard to the “Do Not Call” list, namely that the government will likely exempt itself from the rules. In our post-9/11 world (whatever that means) we should expect government–the supposed protector of our rights–to make these sorts of moves. But you don’t have to trust my assertion, look no farther than Declan McCullagh’s Wednesday post at New.com. The FBI is pushing hard for Internet companies to retain data so that they can later sift through it. It’s doubtful that the government will place itself on “Do Not Track” list if they believe they can gain useful intelligence by tracking people online.

So, by and large, this proposed registry seems unnecessary and ineffective. Industry can easily work out a way to allow consumers to opt-out and the two groups I’m most afraid of–the Russian Mob and the U.S. Government–won’t pay heed to any registry anyway.

Instead or wringing our hands over advertisers tracking what duvet covers we buy, can we turn our attention to what our freewheelin’ executive branch is trying to pull-over on us? Seems to me they’re cooking up exemptions to more than just this registry–a few of my favorite Constitutional Amendments spring to mind.

SHARE: 6 comments

About Cord Blomquist

Cord Blomquist spends most of his time pining for the singularity. To pass the time while waiting for this convergence, he serves as the New Media Manager at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Before landing this sweet gig, Cord hocked policy writing for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, toiled in the halls of Congress, and even worked in a crouton factory. In college, Cord spent his hours studying political philosophy and artificial intelligence, resulting in an unhealthy obsession with Lt. Commander Data. All of these activities will, of course, be viewed as laughable when he is ported from this crude meatspace into the nanobot cloud.

Read more articles by Cord Blomquist.

  • http://www.democraticmedia.org Jeff Chester

    The Center for Digital Democracy does not support a do-not-track list. We want federal rules that give individuals control over their data–so it can’t be readily used by advertisers or government. The commercial surveillance system put in place tracks and analyzes our activities online. It’s not a debate about people selling “duvet covers” via digital marketing. It’s preventing, if an individual desires, from having a system used by others that includes sensitive information about our lives (health concerns, political interests, etc). At a time when a growing majority, especially young people, are living their lives online, do we want either Big Brother/Big Sister from Washington or Madison Ave. always peering over our (digital) shoulder?

  • http://www.democraticmedia.org Jeff Chester

    The Center for Digital Democracy does not support a do-not-track list. We want federal rules that give individuals control over their data–so it can’t be readily used by advertisers or government. The commercial surveillance system put in place tracks and analyzes our activities online. It’s not a debate about people selling “duvet covers” via digital marketing. It’s preventing, if an individual desires, from having a system used by others that includes sensitive information about our lives (health concerns, political interests, etc). At a time when a growing majority, especially young people, are living their lives online, do we want either Big Brother/Big Sister from Washington or Madison Ave. always peering over our (digital) shoulder?

  • http://cordblomquist.com Cord Blomquist

    Jeff, sorry if my first paragraph made it sound like you endorsed the plan, which I now you don’t. I wanted to state that I empathize with your concerns and that I don’t think the list is a good way to address those concerns. So we agree on that front.

    What specifically do you and CDD want to see done on the federal level? The do-not-track list seems flawed, but is there a better solution that can be implemented via federal law?

  • http://www.cordblomquist.com cordblomquist

    Jeff, sorry if my first paragraph made it sound like you endorsed the plan, which I now you don’t. I wanted to state that I empathize with your concerns and that I don’t think the list is a good way to address those concerns. So we agree on that front.

    What specifically do you and CDD want to see done on the federal level? The do-not-track list seems flawed, but is there a better solution that can be implemented via federal law?

  • http://infoadvocate.org gr

    “I think that asking the government to hold a master list of IPs and consumer names is a bad idea, or at least one that won’t do much to really protect consumers.”

    The Do-Not-Track list is unfortunately named, as people are led to believe what you just did: that it tracks consumers. It works more like an offender database: it tracks the advertisers, and then the consumer can just download the list and make the choice to protect themselves. So it is quite what you want to be: an easy way for industry to allow consumers to opt-out.

    I blogged about this when the list was first introduced:

    http://infoadvocate.org/blog/2007/11/04/do-not-track-lists-and-registries/

    On your cookie idea, if we create a special kind of cookie that anti-spyware doesn’t delete, then malware and trackers will start using it.

  • http://infoadvocate.org gr

    “I think that asking the government to hold a master list of IPs and consumer names is a bad idea, or at least one that won’t do much to really protect consumers.”

    The Do-Not-Track list is unfortunately named, as people are led to believe what you just did: that it tracks consumers. It works more like an offender database: it tracks the advertisers, and then the consumer can just download the list and make the choice to protect themselves. So it is quite what you want to be: an easy way for industry to allow consumers to opt-out.

    I blogged about this when the list was first introduced:


    http://infoadvocate.org/blog/2007/11/04/do-not-…

    On your cookie idea, if we create a special kind of cookie that anti-spyware doesn’t delete, then malware and trackers will start using it.

Previous post:

Next post: