So it's no surprise that privacy advocates were elated to learn that Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) has introduced the Do-Not-Track Online Act of 2011. This is not the first federal bill of its kind (on the state level, California is considering similar legislation), but this one would allow consumers to "opt out", preventing ad companies and other networks from tracking their online activities. Chris Calabrese, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) legislative counsel, called Rockefeller's bill "a crucial civil liberty protection for the 21st century." But Do-Not-Track should not be compared with the Do-Not-Call list which prevented marketers from calling consumers. Rockefeller's bill is designed to prevent consumers from receiving targeted ads, but they will still be exposed to some ads.
If passed, the legislation would have far-reaching implications. Most notably for the online advertising industry and for mobile phone networks, both of which are key players in targeted behavioral advertising. The bill would allow for service providers to collect information needed from consumers to provide a particular service, but once that service has been provided, the information must be promptly deleted. It is likely that most consumers will welcome added online privacy protection, especially in light of the recent news that both Apple and Google were collecting data on the location of users of their respective mobile phones.
As both a consumer and member of the advertising/marketing industries I can see where both sides are coming from. However, one question that I would like answered is how will the proposed changes impact small to mid-sized businesses (SMBs) that advertise online? SMBs use targeted online advertising such as Google Adwords, disproportionally more than bigger companies. If lots of people choose to opt out, what sort of impact will this have on the online advertising efforts of SMBs?
This should be interesting.
Do you support the Do-Not-Track Online Act of 2011?
2 comments:
No, I do not.
While I understand the value to the consumer, it's a draconian measure that interferes with the business paradigm as it exists, while interfering with the consumer's need to be on top of things on their own. A well-intentioned bad idea.
Les L.
The industry itself was given latitude to do "self-policing", and that's a good thing. My personal experience is I haven't found myself bombarded with unwanted ads. I see this more as piling on from a politician.
Thanks so much for your comment.
Post a Comment