UK Says Phorm Clickstream Tracking Is Okay... If Clearly Explained To Customers
from the we'll-see-what-customers-say dept
With US-based clickstream tracking company NebuAd on the rocks, similar UK competitor Phorm has actually received approval from the UK government, despite concerns over legality. Apparently, the UK has decided that as long as Phorm clearly states what's happening, allows easy opt-outs (even if users change their minds later), then it's fine. What's not clear, though, is how the government will treat Phorm's early tests, which did not include clear notification or easy opt-outs. In the meantime, if such programs really are clearly communicated to users, do you think enough people would opt-in to make it worthwhile?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: clickstream tracking, uk
Companies: phorm
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I doubt it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I doubt it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I doubt it...
Either way I can think of better self torture/ pranks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I doubt it...
I should still like to see some sanctions imposed on Phorm and their clients for trialling it without telling anyone, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They wanted TRANSPARANCY then refuse to release the discussions between itself & the EU.
The harder they try to take over our lives, the more we will push back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree with the gov't ruling that as long as Phorm is upfront and clear about what they are doing, this business model should be considered legal. I wrote as such in a TechDirt comment a month or two back.
But to Mike's question up top as to whether enough people will opt-in...
I am not sure; perhaps not. I might choose to sign up, but only if I perceived the value I got back from them tracking me to be sufficient enough. Phorm has not yet made their case to me. Google, on the other hand, I have tremendous leeway to.
But, as Mike as pointed out many times, it is not the role of the government legislate business models. I see this UK decision not as a victory for Phorm but as a victory for the separation of business model and state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Governments + tech == disaster
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
surfbot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mixed Feelings
But... if they let me pick and choose what kinds of ads will show up (i.e., I click a check box and no more animated Flash ads that move around my screen show up) then I might not be totally opposed.
If I can choose from a list of products and services, say "show me ads for upcoming sci-fi movies, new TV shows, Chinese restaurants in my area, pizza ads featuring coupons, etc.") and only those ads show up, then I would actually like the service.
They could even make it work like Tivo where I can give ads a Thumbs Up (show me more ads like this) or a Thumbs Down (don't show me ads like this) - if they could tailor it to my wants and needs as well as Tivo does, then I would buy stock in the company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Opt-in or opt-out?
If they are within the law making a deal with your ISP that all customers get "opted-in" when they sign up with the ISP (buried in the fine print) then all of a sudden you ARE opted in and most people will never even know it or know to opt-out.
If, on the other hand, they have to have a specific "This is to opt-in for our Services and here is what we do..." sort of check box then that I can live with.
I kind of like #7's idea as well. I don't typically bother blocking ads on the whole but if I could yea/nay approval per add then that would help me see only ads I want and help them see what adds people like/don't like. Maybe if enough people Nay/Thumbs Down those annoying animated ads marketers will get a clue and STOP making them...but I think that might be giving them too much credit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This article could have come jointly from the we’ll-see-what-the-European-Commission-says dept. It would be like the USA deciding on net neutrality and then allowing one state to go off and do whatever they wanted to with their little bit of the Internet. If a UK ISP is allowed to intercept the communications between one of their customers and, say, someone in Germany, they’ll be intercepting the communications of the Brit and of the German. Whether the UK government likes it or not, it has to fit in with the rest of the EU.
There is concern that the ISPs wouldn’t clearly communicate the implications of Phorm’s product to their customers. They’ll claim ‘better’ adverts and that your computer will be infected with malware or you’ll lose all your money to phishing, if you don’t sign up. All the negatives are likely to be downplayed and buried in a ‘privacy policy’, and I think we know Mike’s views on those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trial starts 30 September
The Register reports that BT’s third interception trial is to begin tomorrow. As I commented previously, I had little expectation that BT would properly explain the Webwise system to their broadband users. The latest example of the interstitial warning page is little different from the one sent to the ICO in March of this year.
BT Webwise is still to be sold as an anti-phishing system. The first, much more detailed point made on the invitation page is:
The second, smaller point only hints at the main purpose of Webwise:
There is no indication that the majority of your web browsing is to be intercepted and used to build up a record of your behaviour. Based on that single, short sentence, it might be assumed that Webwise is no worse than the context-based advertising provided by companies such as Google.
BT are using the marketing of scare tactics. The anti-phishing protection is, of course, completely separate from the behavioural targeting. BT could have offered their users this protection without requiring them to consent to being profiled. While some free email providers use your emails to target advertising, the vast majority of email providers manage to filter spam without the need to build up a long-lasting commercial profile on you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Im with
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they had to opt in in the first place, it would be a more useful question. But since most people are sheep and just take what is handed to them without too many questions, most will probably just stay opted in due to indifference.
Woadan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
online advertising?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Heinous
Btw, can you avoid getting tracked by phorm like services using the TOR network? It'd be a drag, but I'd switch to only browsing through TOR if it meant that my data was absolutely secure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Phorm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One more year
;0)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]