FTC Wants 'Opt Out' Function on Social Networking Advertising

December 1, 2010 -

Ars Technica reports that the Federal Trade Commission has released a report (PDF) that urges social networks to offer an "opt out" on behaviorial advertising. The "Opt Out" would serve users much like the "Do Not Call" list aids telephone customers.. at least in theory. The difference between the "Do Not Call" list and an Opt Out option on social networks is that the social network owners would have to provide the option on-site. This proposed list, according to Ars Technica, would be maintained via cookies. A sliver of the report:

"The most practical method of providing uniform choice for online behavioral advertising would likely involve placing a setting similar to a persistent cookie on a consumer's browser and conveying that setting to sites that the browser visits, to signal whether or not the consumer wants to be tracked or receive targeted advertisements."

The report urges social networks to provide more security when it comes to user data and offer simplified privacy rules as well. The FTC says that these things could be implemented by industry standards or through legislation, but there needs to be enforcement and compliance.

Right now the FTC is soliciting public comment on the topic.

Source: Ars

Posted in

Comments

Re: FTC Wants 'Opt Out' Function on Social Networking ...

Facebook is notorious for running ads for dating sites, even to users who are not listed as single (Facebook's own policy says dating sites are only allowed to be shown to single users only, many ads get around it simply by not classifying themselves as dating ads)

I've also seen many ads that can be offensive to non-christians (e.g. "Jesus is the way")

岩「if Phyllis Schlafly wants to undo Women's Rights, she should lead by example and get back in the kitchen」

岩「…I can see why Hasselbeck's worried about fake guns killing fake people. afterall, she's a fake journalist on a fake news channel」

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Which group is more ethically challenged?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenThe original movie's Ecto-1 was a '59 Cadillac. I don't know cars but Twitter tells me this is an '84 Cadillac. The original Ghostbusters came out in '84. Cute!07/08/2015 - 1:14am
Andrew EisenHere's the back side: https://twitter.com/paulfeig/status/61862135787884953607/08/2015 - 1:07am
Andrew EisenNew Ecto-1! https://twitter.com/paulfeig/status/61860585924191846507/08/2015 - 12:58am
Goth_Skunk"The New Totalitarians Are Here" from The Federalist. http://ow.ly/Pjz3b07/07/2015 - 11:31pm
MattsworknameThere was a time in america when we needed unions and they served a good purpose, but that time hasnt been tbe case for about 20 years or more. The same could be said of our current system for teachers in higher educatoin,but thats a whole nother story07/07/2015 - 10:22pm
TechnogeekIn large part, though, that's an extension of the level of unjust deference given to police in general. Kind of hard to find any real grievances to defend against when the organizational culture views "complains about coworker" as worse than "murderer".07/07/2015 - 8:45pm
TechnogeekThat's a police union.07/07/2015 - 8:43pm
TechnogeekNo, police unions are worse by far. Imagine every negative stereotype about unions, then add "we can get away with anything".07/07/2015 - 8:43pm
Goth_SkunkeZeek: No, I do not agree they are union members.07/07/2015 - 7:48pm
E. Zachary KnightTeachers unions are just as bad as police unions, except of course you are far less likely to be killed by a teacher on duty than you are a cop. But they also protect bad teachers from being fired.07/07/2015 - 6:29pm
E. Zachary KnightGoth, so you agree they are still union members. Thankfully we have a first ammendment that protects people from being forced to join groups they don't support (in most cases any way.)07/07/2015 - 6:27pm
E. Zachary KnightAh, police unions. The reason why cops can't get fired when they beat a defenseless mentally ill homeless person to death. Or when they throw a grenade into a baby's crib. Or when theykill people they were called in to help not hurt themselves.07/07/2015 - 6:26pm
Goth_SkunkeZeek: Non-union employees have no right to attend meetings or union convention/AGM, or influence policy. The only time they get to vote is whether or not to strike.07/07/2015 - 6:24pm
Infophile(cont'd) about non-union police officers being given hell until they joined the union.07/07/2015 - 4:58pm
InfophileParadoxically, the drive in the US to get rid of unions seems to have left only the most corrupt surviving. They seem to be the only ones that can find ways to browbeat employees into joining when paying dues isn't mandatory. I've heard some stories ...07/07/2015 - 4:57pm
Matthew WilsonI am old school on this. I believe its a conflict of interest to have public sector unions. that being said, I do not have a positive look on unions in general.07/07/2015 - 3:59pm
TechnogeekWhat's best for the employee tends to be good for the employer; other way around, not so much. So long as that's the case, there's going to be a far stronger incentive for management to behave in such a way that invites retalitation than for the union to.07/07/2015 - 3:10pm
TechnogeekTeachers' unions? State legislatures. UAW? Just look at GM's middle management.07/07/2015 - 3:05pm
TechnogeekIn many ways it seems that the worse a union tends to behave, the worse that the company's management has behaved in the past.07/07/2015 - 3:02pm
james_fudgeCharity starts at home ;)07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician