Mozilla's "Do Not Track" browser stirs up concern from advertisers

[David Tom]

Online businesses often rely on advertising to bring in revenue. Unfortunately, when tracking the activity of users in an effort to drive targeted ads, the line between innocent observation and privacy violation begins to blur. The use of third-party cookies is one of the easiest ways for a company to learn more about prospective customers; something that Mozilla plans to tackle in an upcoming version of the Firefox browser.

Mozilla first announced the “Do Not Track” feature back in February, but later said that it had to undergo further testing. Despite the ongoing hiatus, the company continues to face backlash from the advertising community, with many claiming that this will have a negative impact on the entire online network. Mike Zaneis, general counsel for the Interactive Advertising Bureau, called the new browser a “nuclear first strike” against advertisers.

It’s important to note that Mozilla does not intend to block all cookies, just those that are deemed undesirable. After all, cookies can be beneficial and serve purposes such as remembering settings for sites that we frequently visit. The company has been working alongside the Center for Internet and Society (CIS) at Stanford to develop the list of websites whose data gathering priveleges will be axed; an initiative being called the “Cookie Clearinghouse”.

Aleecia McDonald, director of privacy at CIS, added, “The Cookie Clearinghouse will create, maintain and publish objective information. Web browser companies will be able to choose to adopt the lists we publish to provide new privacy options to their users.”

In response to the statement, advertisers argue that numerous online businesses, many of which are small web establishments, will cease to function if cookie-blocking browsers become the standard. However, this already seems to be the case; Apple's Safari browser carries a similar privacy feature, while Microsoft's IE10 has made the "Do Not Track" technology its default setting.  “It’s troubling,” added Lou Mastria, the managing director for the Digital Advertising Alliance. "They're putting this under the cloak of privacy, but it's disrupting a business model."

What are your thoughts on Mozilla’s new feature? Do cookie-blocking browsers pose a threat to the sustainability of the internet, or are ad agencies just trying to protect their own livelihood?

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/52993-mozillas-do-not-track-browser-stirs-up-concern-from-advertisers.html

 

[GhostRyder]

Well I was tired of advertisements knowing where I was lol. Though personally I don't use Firefox anyway, except when I have to.

 

[Jad Chaar]

Ad agencies are trying to protect their livelihood. Mozilla is open source. Why would someone attack a non-profit company? That is the sad part.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Give me the names of these Advertisers. After I follow them around for a while, lets see how concerned they are with my abilities to stalk them.

 

[Jad Chaar]

Also, why are they attacking Mozilla, when there are tons of extensions on the internet that block ads/tracking, like Adblock, Disconnect, etc. Why not go after them? Why Mozilla?

 

[Guest]

A lot of whining for companies that are essentially collecting vast amounts of data about us without our knowledge. Then they make profit off of that data by selling it to advertisers. Behind the scenes these folks are straight up making money off activities we do that have nothing to do with them or their business models. I for one have no sympathy for these people. If they need to collect this kind of information about us to support their business model... their business model is based on some pretty deceitful practices to begin with. They should have to pay us for our information instead of secretly collecting it in the background. We should not be part of unwilling and unwittingly helping companies jam their stupid products down our throats.

 

[Guest]

I think it's great. Preemptive nuclear strike against the evil capitalists works form me. Now, if we could only make a law against electronic panhandling we'd have it made.

 

[davislane1]

As someone else pointed out, I'm surprised they aren't targeting some of the extension/plugin providers out there. Although I understand the difficulty of smaller online retailers to get traffic in an environment dominated by the likes of Amazon and other big name online stores, getting your ads nixed by browsers and browser plugins is a part of the risk associated with doing business online. You have to adapt or go out of business.

 

[Puiu]

Why attack mozilla? they will have the best implementation of this feature that should not disrupt businesses that work legally.

 

[Guest]

You all do realize that ANY free service isn't actually free to the one providing the service right? here you are posting and browsing techspot.... do you believe even techspot is free to operate/host/maintain/insure/license? How do you think things work? I swear all you kids have NO clue about the real world and how things cost money. Ads PAY for the very things you use for free each and every day. Grab a brain.

 

[cliffordcooley]

You all do realize that ANY free service isn't actually free to the one providing the service right? <snip> Grab a brain.

You do realize placing ads on a website and violating everyones privacy, is two completely different things.

I think it is you, who needs to "Grab a brain"!

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

I'm sure advertisers are an evil necessity otherwise we may have to pay for every site we visit but who gives a damn about or even notices the advertisement. I use Chromes built in anti tracker as well as Do Not Track Me, Ad Block and run CCleaner after every browsing session.

 

[Guest]

Do not worry as long as you use Chrome you're safe, this feature will never be implemented there, so be happy and use Choooome

 

[psycros]

"In response to the statement, advertisers argue that numerous online businesses, many of which are small web establishments, will cease to function if cookie-blocking browsers become the standard."

Laughable. Small online businesses rarely employ tracking cookies. What actually happens: the site owner allows Google and other ad networks to spy on the site's customers, and the site owner gets kickbacks. If your business is that dependent upon selling out your customers to highest bidder, you deserve to go under. And you will not be missed.

 

[ravy]

I might start using Firefox when they'll release the update.

 

[captaincranky]

So basically what the advertisers are saying is that we have the inalienable right, to have our nose up the collective a** of everyone who visits our site, even if it's by accident, even if we had a lousy price, or didn't even have the product, we still have the right to track them.

FF's "do not track & privacy mode" is absolutely ruthless. It won't even try to remember a window the user himself just closed. And that's big thumbs up....(y)

 

[avoidz]

Something like this that puts some control back in the hands of users and consumers is a very good thing in my opinion.

 

[captaincranky]

Oh heck, I use Firefox in the privacy mode, 3rd party cookies turned off, do not track turned on, "NoScript running, and "Surf Anonymous Free", as my proxy.

Sometimes even I don't know where the **** I am on the web.

 

[FLWrd]

I liked the inclusion of the final quote: "They're putting this under the cloak of privacy, but it's disrupting a business model." That's a pretty cynical one, relying on the general admiration for entrepreneurs to get a wild card to do whatever they like. It is of course the other way around: "They're putting this under the cloak of a business model, but it's disrupting privacy."

 

[Guest]

"Do cookie-blocking browsers pose a threat to the sustainability of the internet?"
When I joined the internet way back when it was just email, chatrooms, kazaa.
There was no corporate take over from businesses. But then they moved in backed by the MPAA RIAA and all there ways to track you, find out what you are up to, to control you with advertising.
Many bad things came with these *****s.

Was / IS the internet not a place designed to share information and knowledge more freely?
Which in my mind is things like wikipedia. Sites which can help one learn something new and inform.

The internet is full of ads that you speak of, and they are just annoying. I dont look at ads and think oh I must click away and buy things. I think theres an advertisement ruining my webpage. Taking up space, which would be better served filled with a nice blank space. I hate seeing Amazon and Play.com shops I do use showing up on every page.

I know what I want, when I want it, and when I decide to go to an online retailer I will, but adverts never help IMO. They just slow web browsers loading up.

The internet won't fall just because some shops dont make their money back on the crap advertising slots they pay 1p for only when the link is hit? There are many other reasons for the internet to exist other than shopping.

 

[captaincranky]

]...[ ]...The internet won't fall just because some shops dont make their money back on the crap advertising slots they pay 1p for only when the link is hit? There are many other reasons for the internet to exist other than shopping.

No, it certainly won't. I've surely been waiting for people to wise up a bit, and quit pissing their money up Google's wall.. But frankly, Google seems to have the best snake oil sales staff on the planet.

As "currency" becomes less and less valuable, it seems that every interest group, from frivolous luxury peddlers, to those who deal in the necessities.of life, believes they're entitled to every last penny of your "disposable income". Like there is actually such a thing as "disposable income".

I block every thing I possibly can, and browse pages over and over until I make MY decision. I haven't really ever been swayed by some random drive by ad either. So the pay per click peddlers must be wreaking havoc with their clients budgets when I'm at their site.

I do get a perverse but tiny bit of pleasure from getting sold onto mailing lists, and then throwing $5.00 glossy catalogs into the trash without ever looking at them. But know what, they'll only add those costs back in to any merchandise you eventually might happen to buy.

Quite bluntly, this has become as nation of lawyers, salesmen, lobbyists, and "consultants", all vile parasites that prey on a populace so lazy, so entitled, and so worthless, that all that gets done is a bunch of endless yapping, on some stinking overpriced cell phone.

OTOH, the money for search engines, infrastructure, even free storage for free email servers, has to come from somewhere. So, if the web isn't funded by the private sector, then the burden would fall to the government to build and fund in the sameway they funded the interstate highway system. And the money they've been printing recently, is just as worthless to them, as it is to us!

 

[Guest]

A co-worker asked which browser I used at home.
Firefox I replied.
Now many add-ons?
About 30.
Your favorite?
Ad block plus.
You know that's how the sites make money.
I know.
Why use it then?
When the sites start paying a portion of my Internet bill for them using my bandwidth I'll quit using ad block.

Nuff said.

 

[Guest]

"Mike Zaneis, general counsel for the Interactive Advertising Bureau, called the new browser a “nuclear first strike” against advertisers."
Uhhh... Good?
I don't want to be inadvertently carrying data between every site I visit just so advertisers can advertise more. I'd much rather see a nuclear strike against all online advertisers and show them that just because it's easy to do it's not acceptable.
The way advertisers use cookies, it's the equivalent of following you from shop to shop, watching what you look at, then holding pictures up of something they sell that you might buy on it.
It's unacceptable and firefox have won me over by implementing this.

 

[Guest]

I don't like to be tracked so I use Ghostery & AdBlockPlus (the later allows some unintrusive ads to support some freeware sites) on my Chrome browser and I will continue to block tracking! Now why are they targeting Mozilla if I block trackers in Chrome too? I don't care what companies say I don't trust companies at all!

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

So Safari and IE have already been doing this, and now Firefox is on board. So that just leaves Chrome, which is run by the biggest ad seller in the world. Google...who's slogan ironically is 'Don't be Evil.'

All though as far as 'evil' things go I think this is pretty low on the list, but still... kinda funny.