NebuAd is Dead

Ironically, I have a somewhat schizophrenic viewpoint. I don't really mind if I am passively tracked for purposes of targeted advertising. However, I fully agree with you that “ISPs should stick to serving bits” So I draw a massive concrete wall when it comes to ISP “filtering” or otherwise “managing” your packets.

What I find particularly distasteful concerning public and congressional outrage over something like NebuAd is that both the public and our non-representing congressional representatives don't express this outrage when it comes to the demands of the MPAA and/or the RIAA demanding that ISPs act as private law enforcement arm for them. I am reminded of the moral outrage expressed by the New York Times in an editorial where a 13 year old girl was stripped search on a false allegation of misconduct. Yet the Times will publish stories implying support for the likes of the MPAA and the RIAA to “strip search” packets on the mere belief that some sort of contraband could be found! This is absurd.

That is the real outrage and the real invasion of privacy. In fact TechDirt has a nice write-up: Movie Studios Continue To Demand Australian ISP Admit To Supporting Piracy

Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, but the Technology Liberation Front seems to be “silent” on several other important stories as well. Such as Court Rejects Online Terms Of Service That Reserve The Right To Change At Any Time and a dress-down on the bogus opinion article in the Washington Post Laws That Could Save Journalism.

“I believe that ISPs should stick to serving bits and not get into the business of serving or helping to serve ads, so I’m glad to see NebuAd’s model fail.”

Why? What ever happened to marketplace experimentation? This sounds like welcome competition to me. And the fact that they got driven out of business by regulatory threats makes it even more troubling.

Dare I call this “preference imposition,” Harper?! [inside joke between Jim and me]

Seriously, though, Jim? What's the big deal? If you don't like NebuAd or Phorm, don't use them! At the very least, you'd have the opportunity to opt out and, in the case of Phorm, you'd be given an unmissable notice about the program.

I believe that ISPs should stick to serving bits and not get into the business of serving or helping to serve ads, so I’m glad to see NebuAd’s model fail. I’ve been made aware by a similar company

I don't have to like new products and services just because I support marketplace experimentation. And if there are ways of conducting business that I don't like, I can be against them for everybody – it's an essential role in markets for people with more information to advocate on behalf of those with less.

Among the Internet using population at large, few people realize that the success of these business models would help “open up” users' Internet traffic to greater scrutiny by governments and others without our interests in mind (such as copyright holders). If ISPs get good at tracking user behavior for advertising purposes, they sure can do it for private and public law enforcement. It's just a matter of devising a “Phorm for Terrorism, Copyright, and Illicit Drug Control.” Think of NebuAd and Phorm as having negative, privacy-threatening externalities.

Until everyone's encrypting everything and there are enough Tor servers to serve us all at a healthy clip, I have to advocate against inspection of Internet traffic by ISPs – for any reason. (And I will after our communications are well-masked too…)

[Turns out, yeah, what I'm doing is close to preference imposition - when a member of the Internet intelligentsia thinks that the market has failed because it doesn't serve his or her unique, often extravagant desires. But I'm not saying that the market is failing - in the case of NebuAd, it's working - and I'm not running to mommy government to get my preferences served.]

In your face, chorus of surveillance lovers!

@Adam: You asked “Why? What ever happened to marketplace experimentation?” I have to ask “Have you been living under a rock for the past 12 months?” Isn't the failure of the banking system after Glass Steagall Act's repeal enough of an example that not all market place innovation is automatically good? Or are you still drinking that libertarian koolaid?

But back to Steve's point: There are times that conflict of interest becomes an issue. People want to buy the bandwidth from ther ISP, they don't want it “bundled” with advertising service. The same way a client of mine would want to hire a building inspector and not get that service “bundled” with the construction of their project. That's just common sense. Government regulation is necessary to maintain transparency, as corporations have shown time and again that will conspire to sell information or build “synergies” that run against the interests of the consumer.

Part of marketplace experimentation is for customers like Jim to express and act on their preferences. Jim's (and my) dislike of NebuAd's business model is part of the market process, and NebuAd's failure is, in part, confirmation that many other customers shared our skepticism. Being a libertarian doesn't mean being agnostic about sleazy businesses, it just means believing that the market, not regulation, should be the primary way of dealing with sleazy businesses.

As an ISP and a fierce guardian of my users' privacy, I nonetheless recognize that — like the subjects of a recent MIT study — some of them would willingly sell a big chunk of their privacy for the price of a chocolate bar… or a $5 to $10 reduction in the monthly charge for their Internet service. The question is, should I stand steadfastly in their way if they want to do this? I don't have a good answer. What do folks here think?

As an ISP and a fierce guardian of my users' privacy, I nonetheless recognize that — like the subjects of a recent MIT study — some of them would willingly sell a big chunk of their privacy for the price of a chocolate bar… or a $5 to $10 reduction in the monthly charge for their Internet service. The question is, should I stand steadfastly in their way if they want to do this? I don't have a good answer. What do folks here think?

As an ISP and a fierce guardian of my users' privacy, I nonetheless recognize that — like the subjects of a recent MIT study — some of them would willingly sell a big chunk of their privacy for the price of a chocolate bar… or a $5 to $10 reduction in the monthly charge for their Internet service. The question is, should I stand steadfastly in their way if they want to do this? I don't have a good answer. What do folks here think?