As numerous commenters have noted, this article twists/omits facts, blows things out of proportion, and doesn't talk about the benefit to consumers.
Tracking is currently a hot topic in the US as well, where a different approach, labeled Do Not Track is being pursued. I happen to be at the thick of it, so I thought I'd add that to the discussion.
Do Not Track (http://donottrack.us/) is fundamentally an opt-out from tracking rather then an opt-in, which makes it much harder to claim that it will threaten the ad industry, startups, puppies, or anything else [1]. It is an HTTP header which, if enabled, signals to advertisers and other trackers to stop tracking you across multiple third-party websites. First-party tracking is OK.
The Do Not Track option has already been implemented in Firefox 4. As of yesterday it is an Internet-Draft[2], and on the legislation side, Congresswoman Speier recently introduced a bill to give the Federal Trade Commission powers to enforce Do Not Track.[3]
I'm a computer scientist and this is my first major foray into the policy arena, and having worked with most of the people/entities involved in this effort, I have to say I've been pleasantly surprised how the disparate parts of the technology/policy/regulatory machinery started to work together.
I don't want to get into which approach is better, but just wanted to describe how we're doing it in the US. Feedback welcome.
I'm always skeptical of a legal solution to a technical problem, but I wonder how this is to keep me safe from trackers on foreign soil? Wouldn't these companies just move there server a country over? What if our ISP allowed us to block traffic from those who don't comply with the don't track header, would that solve our problem?
Excellent question. One solution for this would be to prohibit US-based first-parties from doing business with noncompliant third-parties (similar to what you propose, but doesn't cut across different layers, so less messy, less potential for abuse). It is similar to how some other laws work, and it would be up to the FTC to make this rule.
This could be a good complementary way to tell the i.e. content provider you don't want to be tracked so it'd be no need to issue warnings.
Otherwise this measure is bland as it'd totally rely on the way the legislation is implemented or in the trackers' good faith.
Liability should be owned by the one providing the service you're consuming. The same way as they'd if I were paying them with my credit card in their commerce, I'm giving them my personal information as a retribution but instead of my credit card number.
It also gives flexibility back to site owners. If you business model depends on tracking (so much that a visitor who opts out of tracking costs you money) they are free to redirect the user away or throw up a paywall.
Tracking is currently a hot topic in the US as well, where a different approach, labeled Do Not Track is being pursued. I happen to be at the thick of it, so I thought I'd add that to the discussion.
Do Not Track (http://donottrack.us/) is fundamentally an opt-out from tracking rather then an opt-in, which makes it much harder to claim that it will threaten the ad industry, startups, puppies, or anything else [1]. It is an HTTP header which, if enabled, signals to advertisers and other trackers to stop tracking you across multiple third-party websites. First-party tracking is OK.
The Do Not Track option has already been implemented in Firefox 4. As of yesterday it is an Internet-Draft[2], and on the legislation side, Congresswoman Speier recently introduced a bill to give the Federal Trade Commission powers to enforce Do Not Track.[3]
I'm a computer scientist and this is my first major foray into the policy arena, and having worked with most of the people/entities involved in this effort, I have to say I've been pleasantly surprised how the disparate parts of the technology/policy/regulatory machinery started to work together.
I don't want to get into which approach is better, but just wanted to describe how we're doing it in the US. Feedback welcome.
[1] http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/6592
[2] http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/6633
[3] https://speier.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=48&itemid=6...