Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google May Replace Cookies With Unique AdIDs

timothy posted about 10 months ago | from the would-smell-as-sweet dept.

Google 147

markjhood2003 writes "According to a story published in USA Today, an anonymous source at Google familiar with the plan has revealed that Google is developing an anonymous identifier for advertising tracking, replacing the function of third party cookies currently used by most major advertisers. The new AdID supposedly gives consumers more privacy and control over their web browsing, but the ad industry is worried about putting more power in the hands of large technology companies. Sounds like the idea could have some promise, but at this point the proposal is not public so we will probably have to wait until Google reaches out to the industry, government and consumers to provide the details."

cancel ×

147 comments

Oh really? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44908877)

we will probably have to wait until Google reaches out to the industry, government and consumers to provide the details.

So what you're saying is you have to pass it to find out what's in it? How very Pelosi of them!

Re:Oh really? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44909063)

uhh ... mods ... how's that a troll? The quote referenced is on topic and relevant.

Re:Oh really? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44909161)

Probably because it combines an out-of-context quote from a major political figure with a content-less attack on Google without adding anything of substance. As a result, it's more likely to result in a political thread than doing anything to add information.

Presumably if this were about IPv6, you'd think "Oh, so we're finally getting rid of Al Gore's invention" is on-topic and not a troll too?

Re:Oh really? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44909171)

Except Slashdotters really do believe that sort of discourse is productive. Or at least worthy of a shit post.

Re:Oh really? (0, Offtopic)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 10 months ago | (#44909321)

Except Slashdotters really do believe that sort of discourse is productive. Or at least worthy of a shit post.

No. If they did, it wouldn't have been modded "Troll".

People who are on Slashdot and then act judgmental about "Slashdotters" have a distinct lack of self-awareness. Otherwise, instead of saying "Slashdotters...", they would say, "we...".

Give consumers more privacy? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44908893)

Or take away their ability to block tracking as they can currently do with cookies? Article doesn't say much about how the new ID is supposed to work.

Re:Give consumers more privacy? (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | about 10 months ago | (#44909085)

Or take away their ability to block tracking as they can currently do with cookies?

That's the basic idea. CNET covered this a few days ago. [cnet.com] "The AdID would be transmitted to advertisers and ad networks that have agreed to basic guidelines, giving consumers more privacy and control over how they browse the Web,"

Expect meaningless, easy to evade "basic guidelines", like TrustE.

Re:Give consumers more privacy? (4, Interesting)

M. Baranczak (726671) | about 10 months ago | (#44909195)

That CNET article is just a summary of the one in USA Today. Both of them are pretty light on information.

Does anybody know (or at least want to take a guess) how this shit's supposed to work? How do you store this unique ID without using cookies, or something that works just like cookies?

Re:Give consumers more privacy? (5, Interesting)

Bite The Pillow (3087109) | about 10 months ago | (#44909883)

Google has not made the proposal public â" although the company plans to reach out to industry participants, government bodies and consumer groups in coming weeks and months... ... the new tool will give users the ability to limit ad tracking through browser settings... ...The AdID may be automatically reset by the browser every year, and users will be able to create a secondary AdID for online browsing sessions they want to keep particularly private, the person explained.

It's pretty clear to me this is going to be implemented client-side in the browser, just based on the limited information available. Just like Windows Media Player's "send unique player id to content providers" option.

Firefox (funded largely by by Google) and Chrome are slightly under 40% market share, and Chrome is increasing.

All you need is Microsoft on board, or the advertising industry. They won't get the ad industry, so they need Microsoft. Or a plugin for IE that pops up an installer bubble when you use google search, gmail, or youtube. And I'm pretty sure Microsoft is on board, given their media player thing.

I expect an additional header in the HTTP request. I also expect an uptick in the number of people using a customized FireFox or Chromium that does not send this, or better yet sends a random number (leave the PRNG jokes and asides out of this, that's not the topic).

You asked for a guess.

Re:Give consumers more privacy? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44910367)

The simplest idea is that sites would require an ID to login and view content. Think OpenID, minus the open part. Sure you could change your ID, but Google would be in charge of assigning the IDs, and they're paying researchers to come up with algorithms to help figure out that ID#1234 belongs to the owner of ID#5678.

So in the end, the majority of the web will require an ID to view "free" content, and the price of the free admission is that you have to sign up for an ID that serves as an index into a vast network of advertising data. As with all Google services, you are the product.

Re:Give consumers more privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44910743)

Worse, you would need phone verification on new IDs. This scourge has already infested most of the big webmail providers and social networks, with the result those who can't afford or have no access to a basic phone, or choose not to for privacy reasons, are also locked out of an increasing number of major web services. True, those services are for now, most likely the ones which exist solely to erode your privacy (Google, FB). Now imagine you need this just to search, read the news or go on your favorite forum.

I think this would be the turning point when the internet splits into a commercial, Government panopticon version, and an underground version where efforts to remain anonymous, preserve freedom of speech, and resist shutdown would increase exponentially as the totalitarians increase their efforts to squash it. Obviously, at a not too distant point, accessing any non Government-approved, tracked and logged electronic network would become highly illegal.

Re:Give consumers more privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44910579)

Ask a central server or referrer whether you have seen ip/browser and get ID from it.
Instead of the browser carrying ID in cookies, the servers will pass the ID along.
It's just a way to track people opting out of cookies.
Less power for consumers, more power for google/advertisers.

Re:Give consumers more privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44909437)

So who would enforce the advertisers' adherence to the basic guidelines? Google?

I doubt it. When's the last time you needed to talk to a human at Google about one of their products and actually were able to get through to a human?

Re:Give consumers more privacy? (4, Interesting)

StripedCow (776465) | about 10 months ago | (#44909239)

Article doesn't say much about how the new ID is supposed to work.

They closely cooperate with the NSA. It's all give and take.

Re:Give consumers more privacy? (1)

game kid (805301) | about 10 months ago | (#44909851)

We give, they take.

Re:Give consumers more privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44910385)

Trust me, there's no "cooperation" there. It's all complying with legal orders, and based on how hard Google has fought them, we know they don't want to do it.

Re:Give consumers more privacy? (5, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | about 10 months ago | (#44909269)

Anonymous identifier.

Let's just say that repeatedly until the problem sinks into all of our brains.

Re:Give consumers more privacy? (2)

Bite The Pillow (3087109) | about 10 months ago | (#44909961)

They don't know who you are. They can put together a pretty good picture, but they don't have a name, address, phone number, or photo of you.

Not sure what your point is here. You are going to be tracked, and what you like and/or do will be revealed. Just like today.

They will be able to say that user 6865 dislikes Republicans, owns several Playstation products, lives in America, and has been posting on slashdot for 15 years. Demonstrates slight paranoid tendencies and distrust of authority. Between 35 and 37 years old, and has communicated frequently with Japanese sararimen.

I still don't know your name, but I know your number. I know a lot of other things, just from your postings on one website. I also know that you really want to yell at me right now about one of those details above.

Until you give me your name, I will never know you if I meet you in person, and you therefore remain anonymous. Unless you are the exception to John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. You have to admit, you do come off as abrasive sometimes...

Re:Give consumers more privacy? (2)

PlusFiveTroll (754249) | about 10 months ago | (#44910083)

People are traced back to their real life identities from their online postings all the time. Unless you avoid social media and give out very, very little information on your location you can be identified pretty easy.

Re:Give consumers more privacy? (3, Funny)

Seumas (6865) | about 10 months ago | (#44910203)

It is common knowledge that advertising data miners can determine with startling accuracy the identity of an individual with only a few accumulated pieces of correlated information referenced against a large commercial database of activity. This provides a further consistent identifier to tie all those strings together, while giving the impression that the identifier is to prevent identification. This is not about what they can conclude about your identity just from one website unto itself.

Re:Give consumers more privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44910529)

They don't know who you are. They can put together a pretty good picture, but they don't have a name, address, phone number, or photo of you.

Do you ever shop for physical things online that get mailed to you? That associates your real name and address to your "anonymous" identifier. That's just the edge case where there's not much you can do about it. Most people aren't concerned about typing in their real name and address into websites, even if there is no clear reason why that website would need to know - they want to know so they can sell the information about id2378462395's real name and address.

If there is an identifier that's shared across more than one website, you can't think of it as just one website tracking you. You have to think of it as someone watching everything you do on the internet. They DO know who you are and where you live. They probably could tell you things about yourself that you don't know and that you would find embarrassing. I didn't log in to Slashdot for this comment, but Slashdot has ads (I'm sure that my blocking is imperfect), so therefore someone knows which real-life person posted this comment.

Re:Give consumers more privacy? (2)

some old guy (674482) | about 10 months ago | (#44910777)

They don't know who you are. They can put together a pretty good picture, but they don't have a name, address, phone number, or photo of you.

That is one hell of a naive or uninformed perspective. There are these amazing things called relational databases full of lovely tables overflowing with easily-queried nuggets of yummy identifiable customer goodness.

Do you for one moment think your utility company, ISP, your social media site, health insurer, and our wonderful government don't share easily cross-referenced data? Hell, Lexisnexis knows more about you than your mom.

What color is the sky in "they"s world, or yours for that matter?

Re:Give consumers more privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44910033)

Reminds me of Symbian's "asynchronous blocking".

Re:Give consumers more privacy? (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about 10 months ago | (#44910245)

Seriously who cares how they label the privacy invasion just stop doing it, it's very annoying. I am sick of adds targeting products I have just purchased, a really seriously annoying idea, now who was the idiot who thought it was a good idea ie search for product, find what your after and for weeks there in after get adds for it, why, what is the purpose?

Just align adds with the content, it is by far less jarring and honestly will produce the most positive response and the most likely click link reaction. It is really annoying when adds don't align with content, it throws impressions of both right off and if in any way shape or form gives off an impression of privacy invasion will likely result in script and cookie blocking as well as a thumbs down.

Also sound, don't even dare to spew screaming adds at me without my request and most certainly don't screw over pause and sound controls, basically your product and company is screwed from there on in with zero chance of purchase and guaranteed complementary script and cookie blocking on the supplying and advertised sites.

PS once you stick a unique identifier on someone's computer it is never ever anonymous as with the very slightest change of the requisite algorithms it is as anally probingly invasive as the sales perverts can make possible. Face it trust is long, long gone, so they can save the B$ we don't believe, what they say today has absolutely no relationship in any reality with what they will do tomorrow, as the next psychopath corporate executive seeks to monetize us.

Re:Give consumers more privacy? (5, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 10 months ago | (#44910389)

THIS is why I'm against it as not only does it rob you of privacy but it DOESN'T EVEN WORK when it comes to targeting ads so its fucking pointless!

The first time the whole "targeted ads" became a big thing I set up a browser at the shop with ZERO blocking, just so I could see if it actually worked. the results? Its actually WORSE than just picking ads based on what site they are on! For examples when my laptop was getting long in the tooth I decided to get an AMD netbook (as I had tried the Atom and it was painfully slow) so i did a little research and then for nearly 8 months I got nothing but ads for netbooks, long after I had quit searching for netbooks because i had bought one! My nephews use the shop PC only ONCE to find a release date for a game? i got console ads non stop for months, my mom when she came by the shop does a search to find out when the next book in a series comes out? Ditto.

The sad part is when i blocked all the "targeting" the ads got BETTER because they had only what site i was on to go for! As someone who works retail this whole thing just baffles the shit out of me, basic common sense says if I'm reading an article about SSDs you should show me ads for...drumroll...SSDs! How hard is that? Instead I got ads for car insurance, cell phones, anything and everything EXCEPT what I was fricking reading about and thus shown I had interest in! The only one I have seen do it with any skill at all is Amazon with their "well people that looked at this often buy that, would you like to see that?" and a good 9 times out of 10 yes i WOULD like to see that, as its actually relevant to what I'm fricking looking at!

This is why I'll block this crap just like I've blocked third party adverts, not because i give a crap if the ad company knows I'm pricing C2D chips for an upgrade for a customer but because the crap doesn't work. in a way it reminds me of the old MSN Search...anybody remember how badly that thing would guess? I'd have just done three searches looking for data storage so you would think when I typed in "D" it would give me data storage as the top option, right? instead it was like word salad, it would spew out "dog, delivery, dollar bills, duck ala orange!" and that is just what the targeted ads do only worse, as it'll ignore what I'm actively looking for and instead either give me ads for something I bought last year or ads for some stupid little thing I looked at once 6 months ago and promptly quit caring about. This entire thing is just dumb, doesn't increase the likelihood of getting a sale, and is generally a giant waste of time.

Re:Give consumers more privacy? (2)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 10 months ago | (#44910661)

for nearly 8 months I got nothing but ads for netbooks, long after I had quit searching for netbooks because i had bought one!

I don't care for advertising much, so I just love those.
I constantly get ads for the new television I bought a few months ago and every once in a while I click on the ad to ensure I don't get other ads that might lure me into wasting money on products I don't already have.

Re:Give consumers more privacy? (1)

Windwraith (932426) | about 10 months ago | (#44910701)

Lure you? How?
Online advertisements are the complete opposite of "enticing", they have no creativity, no catchy jingles, and they don't even advertise stuff available in your country (if you aren't from the US). A far cry from what used to be professional marketing.

Re:Give consumers more privacy? (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 10 months ago | (#44910699)

Totally agree.

On the same note, Google's ads (that go along the search results) are often very useful. So much that I unblocked those in ABP.

I have used Google Ads myself to advertise. Click-through rates of ads on their homepage are like 100 times greater than those on their "affiliate network". Difference is to such an extent that I suspect that most of the clicks on the "affiliate network" are accidental... those click-through rates were like 0.01% or so.

Re:Give consumers more privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44909325)

They're going to build it into Chrome.

Re:Give consumers more privacy? (3, Informative)

Garridan (597129) | about 10 months ago | (#44909493)

This allows google and those who advertise with them to keep tracking despite the cookie legislation in europe. "Do no evil" is, yet again, looking more and more like "only do evil that can be veiled as altruism".

Re:Give consumers more privacy? (2)

Seumas (6865) | about 10 months ago | (#44910267)

Ultimately, internet advertising is a long-running scam that people will catch on to. People were sold a bunch of bullshit about the glory of advertising online. Scamsters tried to sell advertisers on the wonders of targeted demographics, precise statistics, interactivity, etc. The truth turned out to be that the statistics are meaningless, because they're often gamed and click-bot farms are abundantly scamming bucks off the advertisers. It also turned out that the interactivity didn't add anything to the impression they leave with viewers, because most people dislike online ads, have learned to block them out, or actually block them due to principal, being obnoxious, or relating to malware and tracking.

Content producers get screwed, too, because those from traditional mediums saw ad revenue dry on in a lot of places as it was redirected to the internet. Internet content producers found that it was hard to compete in a world where someone else is willing to provide what you provide, but for free -- and that it is hard to make money selling something that is infinite. There's a reason television and other mediums can get $30 CPM, but your commercial tech journalism website (that just regurgitates the day's news found elsewhere) has to settle for $3 CPM.

At some point, this will all collapse and they will have to find new methods of revenue to support themselves than internet advertising. In the meantime, it's just a lot of scummy bottom-feeders trying to change and manipulate the small details until the very final moment they're forced to give up the ship.

Re:Give consumers more privacy? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44909787)

Or take away their ability to block tracking as they can currently do with cookies? Article doesn't say much about how the new ID is supposed to work.

here you go [ad-id.org] and here's what it costs the advertisers [ad-id.org]

Re:Give consumers more privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44909953)

Wrong Ad-ID (also note the hyphen). This one uniquely identifies _ads_, like ISBN for books.

Re:Give consumers more privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44910173)

If I can't block the tracking, I'll block the servers. I don't really care what they do because they're not going to be able to trick my browser into fetching stuff that I don't want it fetching for long.

Sorry to say, but... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44908899)

You spelled AIDS wrong.

Re:Sorry to say, but... (1)

pellik (193063) | about 10 months ago | (#44909287)

That's because the AIDS are unique.

Google is a targeted ad company (3, Interesting)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about 10 months ago | (#44908915)

If it were concerned about giving consumers "more privacy" on a scale unprecedented in human history, in terms of reducing the amount of data stored about them, it could simply... wipe its hard drives and close its business.

Re:Google is a targeted ad company (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44908941)

Or just not do any evil. Instead of being built upon doing evil.

Google IS the New World Order. It's not a coincidence that it got so big. Or that it was founded by Jews.

Now watch me get "Score: -1, Troll" or something for telling the obvious truth.

Re:Google is a targeted ad company (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44909005)

Ever since Occupy Wall Street, the government has kept alive a culture of fear, telling us that we have to give up our freedoms to make sure it never happens again. You know why? They, and companies like Google, are profiting off that fear. Did you know that Google's employees don't even pay an income tax? We all must abandon our preconceptions about this issue.

Occupy Wall Street disrupted the lives of countless civilians when it took place, and it appears that the Pentagon is engineering a repeat of this tumultuous event.

Many of us have noticed this, but most people keep their mouths shut and just move on.

If you listen to radio waves coming from the constellation of Orion, you will be shocked to hear what sounds like routine transmissions from the Pentagon -- but why are they coming FROM outer space?

Most people won't know about this until it's too late.

No moral person can in good conscience stand by while these injustices persist!

Re:Google is a targeted ad company (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44909173)

Look man if the Orions want to deport all the niggers back to Africa than they have my support!

There's your reparations biatches!

Re:Google is a targeted ad company (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44909825)

and all the slopes back to Asia, and all the wetbacks to South America, and the dingos to Australia, and the WASPs, and papists back to Europe, and... um Penguins back to Antarctica! Viva bears and racoons! the dominating North American animals.

Re:Google is a targeted ad company (3, Interesting)

fermion (181285) | about 10 months ago | (#44909385)

This is certainly a ploy to compete with Facebook and the like. Right now Facebook has probably has more tracking cookies set in more machines than google. I know that I don't allow facebook cookies, but I have also been more restrictive on the Google cookies, simply because they are not providing as many services. Facebook will win on the cookies front. Google need a proprietary technology to lock advertisers into Google.

Re:Google is a targeted ad company (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about 10 months ago | (#44909457)

the way it's easy to get targeted advertising wrong makes me wonder if they would get better advertising with completely random ads.

you see, if you get it wrong then you will not get a single click on an advert. with totally random there's at least a chance at a click, but I ain't going to buy silicon boobs even if I googled for big boobs.

this adid thing though.. how is it different than cookies except that google gets all the data?

Re:Google is a targeted ad company (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 10 months ago | (#44910715)

The ads that target my search terms, are often quite relevant to me. It advertises goods or services that I happen to be interested in there and then. And if I'm indeed looking for commercial results, possibly after looking for reviews and other information on a product, good chance I'll click them.

And no need for invasive privacy. They don't really need to know my age or anything - just my location. And that they can see from my IP address. And if looking for highly local services like a restaurant around where I am "right now" I'm happy to provide a coordinate for even better results. There is just no need to know anything about "me" to properly target advertisements.

Awesome! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44908919)

Now how do i block them?

Re:Awesome! (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | about 10 months ago | (#44909121)

Install Firefox. And if Firefox adopts it, patch and rebuild it.

Re:Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44909935)

NoScript might work on that too. And the new AdIDs thing might explain why I'm getting a whole bunch of XSS notifications from NoScript when I go to YouTube now.

Here's how I'll use my newly gained power... (3, Funny)

bogaboga (793279) | about 10 months ago | (#44908923)

...The new AdID supposedly gives consumers more privacy and control over their web browsing...

I'll disable tracking by default. And Google should take my "threat" as guaranteed. I am not alone I know.

Re:Here's how I'll use my newly gained power... (1)

KiloByte (825081) | about 10 months ago | (#44909341)

Might be quite hard to do if they're sneaky enough. Let's better disable all requests to tracking and ad servers altogether.

Which differs from current only sane state... how?

Re:Here's how I'll use my newly gained power... (2)

pla (258480) | about 10 months ago | (#44909535)

I'll disable tracking by default. And Google should take my "threat" as guaranteed. I am not alone I know.

This!

At first glance, "anonymous" tracking sounds like an ideal compromise. We get to support websites we visit, without giving up our privacy in the process... Right?

Now drop this dream-scenario into the real world. Google intends to provide a way to globally, uniquely identify "you", anonymously. That works juuust fine - Until you give someone's "partner" (like Amazon, NewEgg, Expedia, etc) one teensy bit of PII. Then... Game over, man, game over! The entire spamming cold-calling advertising world now "knows" more about you than you know about yourself.

Fuck that. You guys just don't get it, do you? We don't want to "play nice". We want you to either:
1) Effectively act as a charity, giving us content for free,
2) Find a viable revenue model that doesn't involve treating us as the product rather than the customers, or
3) FOAD.

Simple as that - Yes, really.

Re:Here's how I'll use my newly gained power... (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 10 months ago | (#44910721)

I guess ABP will take care of this one before it's released. So nothing to worry about.

Anyone else smell bullshit? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44909011)

Google, the Oh Holy - Do nothing wrong God of the internet says - "Hey use our new cookie! You'll have much more privacy!"

It's clearly, on the record, that Google is a TOOL used by the NSA to spy on whoever they like, who passes info throught their servers.

And after all of that ass-fucking you still trust Google in regards to anything relating to privacy?

Google instant search is a keylogger, plain and simple.

Is this the twilight zone? Am I living in an alternate reality ? Maybe all those chemicals in our food is permanently making human being docile and apathetic.

Then again it only takes 5% to change the 100%

Re:Anyone else smell bullshit? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about 10 months ago | (#44909059)

Google instant search is a keylogger, plain and simple.

You're obviously presenting only the cynic's side of the argument, but even so, it's even more obvious now than ever that combining the address and search text boxes in a web browser really is a security/privacy risk.

Re:Anyone else smell bullshit? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 10 months ago | (#44909775)

You're obviously presenting only the cynic's side of the argument, but even so, it's even more obvious now than ever that combining the address and search text boxes in a web browser really is a security/privacy risk.

yeah, wow - great point (assuming typeahead is active)

Re:Anyone else smell bullshit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44909215)

You're just being paranoid. Google only uses their massive network of web bugs to build totally anonymous marketing profiles, so they can show you relevant ads.

There's no way they are connecting this information with your real name accounts and using it to build psychographic profiles for the NSA, CIA, and FBI. It would violate their privacy policy.

Re:Anyone else smell bullshit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44909255)

Then again it only takes 5% to change the 100%

Far less than 5% can bring about a very large change :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavrilo_Princip

First in line... (4, Funny)

Alsee (515537) | about 10 months ago | (#44909077)

Oh goodie! Another ID number to protect my privacy!
Can get AdID #1?
I want to be the first and most anonymous.

-

Online Advertising is terrible (5, Insightful)

kawabago (551139) | about 10 months ago | (#44909081)

They are always trying to sell me things I looked at but decided I didn't want, or things I already have. They seem to wait till I buy something, then try to sell me more of that. How many potato peelers do they expect me to buy?

Re:Online Advertising is terrible (1)

Anrego (830717) | about 10 months ago | (#44909151)

Pretty much this.

I don't actually have a problem with advertising in general.. it just seems to really suck. Only time I ever really click on an ad is when the ad is so out there that I just have to know what they are selling (which I know is a tactic, but when they get me with it I figure they've earned my eyes for a minute or two).

Re:Online Advertising is terrible (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44909333)

I don't actually have a problem with advertising in general.. it just seems to really suck.

That's because you still think you can separate the act of advertising from the type of person who is attracted to the profession and desires to perform this sort of spying, deception, and manipulation.

Once you realize this kind of reductionism is a self-limitation, you will understand how and why it sucks and why it's not going to be fixed. Advertising, marketing, and PR as we know them today are concepts that cannot be reformed. They are flawed and exploitative and easily abused at their core. No amount of tinkering will fix them. No one with the power to do so is motivated to fix it. Ergo they, as concepts and principles, must be rejected in their entirety.

Re:Online Advertising is terrible (1)

Bite The Pillow (3087109) | about 10 months ago | (#44910005)

I don't actually have a problem with advertising in general.. it just seems to really suck.

If it sucked, or weren't effective, or gathered no sales, or just in general didn't work, it would not be a billions of dollars industry. You are probably not one of the common sheeple who follow predictable patterns. You don't fit the model, so they fall back on the potato peeler you bought.

I have several plugins to discourage tracking, and I get the most ridiculous nonsense, for the lowest common denominator. "Want sex? Find women in [city that's kinda close] now."

For the kind of people who click on stuff, get viruses, and then STILL CLICK ON STUFF, advertising is effective. And the more effective it is, the more information they have and the more effective it is. It works best on the type of people it is designed to work best on. Rather redundant, but if you thought advertising was effective you probably would find that description insightful.

Re:Online Advertising is terrible (4, Insightful)

Dodgy G33za (1669772) | about 10 months ago | (#44910031)

I don't actually have a problem with advertising in general.

I do. At least the billboard / banner headline compete for eyeballs sort of stuff. Pre-Internet I can see that it had its place in letting people know that products existed. But now there are a plethora of ways that people can get their product known, so it is just one of those pointless activities that the rest of us have to pay for wrapped up in the product we buy, for no added value.

Which is why I block the hell out off all advertising. When I want to buy something, I research and make my choice. When I am not buying I want products to keep the fuck out of my face.

Re:Online Advertising is terrible (2)

SammyIAm (1348279) | about 10 months ago | (#44909197)

Ugh, I know! I tried actually emailing the companies hosting the ads about this. I really just want an "I bought this already!" button that makes that particular ad go away. It could even then show a link to allow me to review the product that I already bought. They're wasting their time trying to get me to buy the same thing over and over again.

Re:Online Advertising is terrible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44909443)

Ugh, I know! I tried actually emailing the companies hosting the ads about this. I really just want an "I bought this already!" button that makes that particular ad go away. It could even then show a link to allow me to review the product that I already bought. They're wasting their time trying to get me to buy the same thing over and over again.

If you still see ads on any site ever, you're doing it wrong.

I'd like a "stop advertising this" button and so w (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about 10 months ago | (#44909699)

That's a good idea. More generally, "stop showing me ads for this, I'm not going to buy it (or don't care to have it show up where other people might see it on my screen). That would be a win-win for consumers and advertisers.

I don't care for the fact that advertisers have a profile of me, but I do like seeing ads that might actually interest me. eBay does a good job of showing me listings I might want to look at.

Re:Online Advertising is terrible (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 10 months ago | (#44909351)

How many potato peelers do they expect me to buy?

One for yourself each time the one you bought for yourself wears out, and one for each of your friends. You aren't so selfish that you'd buy yourself a potato peeler and not buy one for you best buddies, are you? How do you expect them to peel their potatoes? Do you do the peeling for them?

Re:Online Advertising is terrible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44910087)

I think it is great, never been distracted by an ad

Re:Online Advertising is terrible (1)

Tom (822) | about 10 months ago | (#44910623)

See, they are only thinking of you when they ask you for access to all your private data, because if they only knew you already have 7, they can stop trying to sell you more. It's for your benefit. Really...

Advertising ID? (3, Interesting)

camperdave (969942) | about 10 months ago | (#44909099)

I thought cookies were for storing session independent settings, not for advertising.

Re:Advertising ID? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44909123)

Would you like to buy a bridge I own in Brooklyn?

Ads and Trackers? (4, Interesting)

utkonos (2104836) | about 10 months ago | (#44909283)

I haven't seen ads or trackers for a very long time. Every once in a blue moon one slips through my combination of AdBlock and Ghostery, but I always report it so they can add it to the block list. All I see is a little number representing how many cooties were blocked for the page I'm on. Hopefully everyone does something like this and the commercial internet dries up and withers away.

Re:Ads and Trackers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44909455)

I haven't seen ads or trackers for a very long time. Every once in a blue moon one slips through my combination of AdBlock and Ghostery, but I always report it so they can add it to the block list. All I see is a little number representing how many cooties were blocked for the page I'm on. Hopefully everyone does something like this and the commercial internet dries up and withers away.

This. The only "ad" that I really ever see is the fake ad on Ars Technica telling me that if I somehow fork over, I don't have to see ads. Ha ha, more fool them!

Re:Ads and Trackers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44910481)

Actually ghostery is showing a large number for the number of cookies it blocked these days.

Here is a Google alternative : (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44909293)

This site at least claims to respect privacy and it does not set cookies,
at least not that I have been able to detect. However, if some of you are
more technically astute than I am and know that this site cannot be trusted
any more than Google can, I'd love to see such info.

https://www.ixquick.com/

No thanks (2)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about 10 months ago | (#44909315)

I'll stick with no-script and private browsing mode. I'm sorry if you are making a living on advertising revenue but your revenue stream has basically come down to invasive douchenozzeling and I haven't any use for that. Go put up a billboard, maybe I'll drive by it.

Re:No thanks (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44910503)

You don't understand private browsing mode. It does not make you private on the Web. It only (unsuccessfully) attempts to clean up your browser histroy to provide privacy from your spouse/children/parents.

what a choice (4, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 10 months ago | (#44909327)

On the one hand. I have Google. On the other hand, I have the ad industry.

Eww, let me go wash my hands.

Re:what a choice (1)

BlackPignouf (1017012) | about 10 months ago | (#44910635)

Google *is* the ad industry.

Anonymous? (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 10 months ago | (#44909331)

If I have to sign into google in order to create and/or manage the adID, then it is not anonymous.

Re:Anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44910515)

Correct. Although formal signin to google may not be necessary. Google will still track you fully, they will provide an Id to their advertising customers through proxying/hosting the ads themselves.

It is also a move against other ad serving parties. To participlate you will need to use google as your ad broker.

isnt a cookie already a number (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44909415)

so its like a uuid number
they will probably need us to login with our "google id" before they can generate a lasting number
otherwise we can just change the number
here is a option
---------->find out somebody elses "google id" # and circulate it amongst a group
--------->everyone changes thier number to that single id #
--------->PROFIT !!

captcha=brainy

Re:isnt a cookie already a number (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44909827)

captcha=brainy

The generator is confused—the profit meme comes from gnomes, not smurfs.

A third-party cookie by any other name.... (4, Insightful)

NoKaOi (1415755) | about 10 months ago | (#44909589)

...would stink as bad. So all it really is is a cookie that's completely controlled by Google. Well played Google, well played.

Embrace and extend (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44909621)

First the lousy shebang URLs, now their own version of cookies. The hate on Slashdot for Google and Apple never rises to the level of hate for Microsoft though. They still get a free pass.

Google wants to give (2)

The_Star_Child (2660919) | about 10 months ago | (#44909639)

Google wants to give us Anonymous IDentifiers.
Yay for AIDS!

Aptly named (2)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about 10 months ago | (#44909653)

It's like giving your computer AIDS.

Am I the only one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44909863)

Who first read that as AIDs ?

Oh, the irony. (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 10 months ago | (#44909909)

but the ad industry is worried about putting more power in the hands of large technology companies

I guess they'd be the ones to know how sleazy an industry can be.

I am working on a plugin idea (2)

Ralph Ostrander (2846785) | about 10 months ago | (#44909915)

That switches them with other plugin users making them useless.

Wait... the internet has ads? (1)

seifried (12921) | about 10 months ago | (#44909993)

I've been surfing with ad blocking so long I sometimes forget the Internet is plastered with ads. I'm teaching my kids that any device showing ads is broken (TV, tablet, computer, you name it) because well, it is.

Google experience (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 10 months ago | (#44910095)

I logged on to YouTube today it said I appear to be logging in from an "unusual location" (e.g. same IP I've used for years) please give us your telephone number so we can verify you.

Unless someone can explain how providing information I never gave them in the first place (and will never provide) can possibly serve to verify my YouTube account the motive for this was never "For your protection" as stated it was to get more information about my identity..spun into a big fat LIE.

I have long since lost any trust in anything Google says. This sounds like yet another "privacy policy" which enumerates all the ways you agree your information will be sold to anyone willing to buy it.

One Thing Google Has Never Studied (1)

Greyfox (87712) | about 10 months ago | (#44910161)

One thing Google has never studied is whether or not there's a market for an ad-supported dildo. Increasingly, everything else they do is about equally as appealing.

Does Anybody Still Allow Those Connections? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44910165)

I've got every ad server I've identified pointed at my own dummy pixel server because I kinda like pages to paint instantly instead of taking forever for doubleclick or edgewhatever (jeez, I haven't seen them in so long I've started to forget their names) to get around to sending something I don't want. Am I the only one doing that?

Google will give me AIDs??? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44910277)

I DON'T WANT AIDS!!!

Anonymous Identifier (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44910283)

How can you write that and not burst into flames?

Re:Anonymous Identifier (1)

peppepz (1311345) | about 10 months ago | (#44910477)

It's anonymous. Google would have to do nothing less than an INNER JOIN between two tables of their database in order to associate your name with the identifier. Therefore you can assume that your privacy is 100% safe.

follow the money (1)

Tom (822) | about 10 months ago | (#44910621)

Always, always follow the money.

Googles main business is selling ads. So who will profit from this?

They wouldn't. (1)

MrL0G1C (867445) | about 10 months ago | (#44910707)

This just makes it too easy, too easy to turn off AdID or install a plugin which truly muddies the waters by giving back a random AdID every time it is requested.

It's much harder to turn cookies off because of all the functionality they provide. AdIDs on the other hand - no functionality for us.

Re:They wouldn't. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44910737)

I don't expect they'll let us turn these off. No profit in that after all.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...