AOL CEO Promises 'The Market' Will Keep Verizon, AOL Honest About Sleazy New Stealth Cookies
from the trust-us,-we're-the-phone-company dept
If you recall, Verizon has been under fire for much of the last year for the company's new stealth "cookies," which involve modifying user traffic to inject a unique identifier traffic header (UIDH) into each packet. This header allows Verizon and other companies to track a user's online behavior and build complete online user profiles, and can't be disabled via the traditional browser settings. Verizon initially tried to claim this unencrypted data attached to packets couldn't be used to build profiles by third parties, right before a third party showed just how easy it was to apparently do so.As we recently noted, Verizon's new UIDH system has now made its way to the AOL empire after Verizon acquired the company for $4.4 billion earlier this year. The fracas was "covered" by Verizon-owned TechCrunch (bonus points: try to find one sentence in this article that describes the potential downside of what Verizon/AOL are doing), which quoted AOL CEO Tim Armstrong as declaring that "the market" will somehow protect you, the consumer:
"He said the market would prevent companies from abusing the swaths of data they collected. "If consumers don’t trust you it’s not worth whatever you’re going to do with the data,” Armstrong said. “Verizon is probably more sensitive to data than most Internet companies.” Armstrong said he would not want to be at a company in the future that had the opportunity to gather and optimize data and didn’t use it. “Data is oil for this economy,” Armstrong said. “Oil can be used really well, and oil can be used really poorly."Yeah, here's the thing, Tim. Nobody trusts Verizon. Whether it's the company's relentless attacks on net neutrality, its ripping off of countless towns, states and cities, or Verizon's ham-fisted belief in closed networks and locked-down devices, "trust" isn't a word anybody really associates with Verizon. And no, Verizon isn't "probably more sensitive to data" than other companies, as the millions of users who've had their data shoveled over to the NSA can attest. If there's a company in the United States that's likely to use data irresponsibly and "really poorly," there's a pretty damn good chance it's going to be Verizon.
Remember, it took security researchers two years to even discover what Verizon was doing to user traffic. It took another six months of relentless media criticism for Verizon to even let users opt out of the practice. Does that sound like a company that's using user data responsibly? Does it sound like a company that's "more sensitive to data" than most Internet companies?
Meanwhile, this idea that magic market forces will somehow keep data-collection parasites honest is something Verizon's been arguing for years. Back in 2008, while trying to shoot down improved user privacy protections, Verizon insisted that public shame would keep the company honest:
"A couple of years back during the debate on net neutrality, I made the argument that industry leadership through some form of oversight/self-regulatory model, coupled with competition and the extensive oversight provided by literally hundreds of thousands of sophisticated online users would help ensure effective enforcement of good practices and protect consumers."And yet "hundreds of thousands of sophisticated users" had no idea Verizon was secretly modifying their user traffic for two full years, so how exactly did that work out for end users? Yes, there are times you should trust in the ability of "the market" to sort itself out, especially if dealing with fragile emerging ecosystems. But in this case it seems abundantly clear that what "the market" wants is for consumers to be docile cash cows who nod dumbly as every shred of data is collected and monetized, and their personal privacy preferences are utterly ignored.
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: advertising, stealth cookies, tim armstrong, tracking
Companies: aol, techcrunch, verizon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The results aren't suitable for sensitive eyes. "Trust" wasn't a word returned unless "not" was included.
At the bottom of the results, a disclaimer:
"By using our product or services, you agree to have AOL restart its daily campaign of flooding your mailbox with CDs.
Yes, we still have them, and yes, we need to get rid of them.
Welcome back to AOL. We knew you couldn't stay away... by choice."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It will keep them honest, about what they tell the advertisers, but not in what they tell the users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the U.S.A.
Nixon would have loved this U.S.A., and this U.S.A. would have loved him back. Threaten a president with impeachment because he tried an end run around due process? What was America thinking? Bush and Obama have ordered thousands of extrajudicial murders and everybody loves them for it.
Well, outside of the countries where America is raining death and destruction on civilians, that is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Oligopoly Market?
We the people ought to be putting more strings on spectrum licenses besides just the leasing fees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Oligopoly Market?
If we want a more free, more fair market we're not going to get there by voting with our wallets, people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you were consistent would apply your logic and invective to Google a thousand times over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you were consistent would apply your logic and invective to Google a thousand times over.
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20150820/10454632018/google-lobbied- against-real-net-neutrality-india-just-like-it-did-states.shtml
Or for being painfully inconsistent int its principles?
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20100812/17291310611.shtml
You mean like that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If you were consistent would apply your logic and invective to Google a thousand times over.
That said, there are two extremely important differences between Google and Verizon (or AT&T or Comcast, etc.)
1. If you think Google is nefarious, you can choose to use another provider for web-search, e-mail, etc. OTOH, most people cannot choose another ISP. If (or when, as you prefer) they are scummy, nefarious, or diabolical you can either suck it up or go without internet service.
2. Google, and most other widely-used content providers make their money by advertising. You may disagree with the practice, but you must at least admit they have a market-conscious reason for wanting your data, so they can provide more targeted ads, so they can charge more for ads. But Verizon customers, in theory, pay Verizon a monthly fee for use. Typically if I pay you X dollars for Y good/service, and you provide Y, the transaction is over. So, what valid market reason do ISPs have for scooping up this data?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you were consistent would apply your logic and invective to Google a thousand times over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you were consistent would apply your logic and invective to Google a thousand times over.
What a sad, pathetic, lonely life you must leave if this is how you get your kicks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If you were consistent would apply your logic and invective to Google a thousand times over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If repeated enough, it eventually becomes "true"
Your call is important to us
We respect your privacy
Our employees are our greatest asset
How can I help you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We don't need laws either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trouble is, telecom isn't a free market. And when conditions of freedom don't exist in the marketplace, because the industry is dominated by anticompetitive actors, then free market principles break down and you need a completely different toolset--monopoly economic principles--to correctly analyze it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It can, certainly. But it fails to work that way often enough that it is a mistake to rely on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unless his comments were more in depth than what AOL-owned TechCrunch reported, he generally just waves his hand in the general direction of accountability and suggests everything will just kind of work out.
"Trouble is, telecom isn't a free market. And when conditions of freedom don't exist in the marketplace, because the industry is dominated by anticompetitive actors, then free market principles break down and you need a completely different toolset--monopoly economic principles--to correctly analyze it."
Absolutely. Whether it's Verizon's domination over the last mile for fixed line broadband, or the duopoly retail power it enjoys with AT&T over wireless (and backhaul), we're talking about an entirely different potato.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AOL TL;DR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then stop
If that's the case, then stop stealing my goddamned oil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That said, using a vpn for your phone is a little excessive, but apparently necessary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]