June 6, 2008 at 10:21Big Brother on order
- Transfer
The new system of behavioral advertising, which determines the interests of users through long-term surveillance, has stirred up the public.
What is this - another invasion of the privacy of Internet users or a new profitable business model for online advertising? A new approach to "behavioral" Internet advertising, pioneered by companies such as Phorm , NebuAd and FrontPorchcan be called both at the same time. The principle of operation of this advertisement is that Internet providers install special software on their networks that allows you to intercept requests from web pages that come from Internet users. Each requested web page is delivered to the user as before, but at the same time its content is carefully scanned for different keywords in order to compile a personal profile of interests for each user. Then, these files can be used for high-precision advertising.
For example, a person is looking for travel related sites. It goes to pages that contain words such as “weekend,” “flight,” and “hotel.” The behavioral targeting system monitors him and makes a note to himself that the interests of this user include travel. Later, when he goes to the site of a social network to read his feed of friends, next to new records and pictures of friends, he will be shown an advertisement for air carriers and other travel agencies.
For advertisers, the above sounds, of course, very tempting. Firms that engage in behavioral targeting flashed here and there in the markets of Europe and America, offering to inform the client the most intimate thoughts of the user, even before he himself has time to realize them. If this technology really works, then the advertisers will have to shell out for the placement of their advertising, since it will become more effective. In turn, this means that Internet sites will be able to raise the price of ad space on their pages. A certain share will also be due to providers who actually collect the same personal files.
Companies that are involved in promoting this technology assume that users will only be happy if, thanks to more precise targeting, Internet advertising turns into a useful service. “This system will reduce the amount of trash that spills out on Internet users,” says Phorm CEO Kent Itagral.
However, not everyone welcomes this idea. Opponents of behavioral advertising raised the biggest scandal in the UK, where, it would seem, this technology has taken root most successfully: the three largest Internet providers (BT, Virgin Media and TalkTalk), which account for% 70 of the market, have signed contracts for the use of Phorm technology. Since the news of their plans appeared in February, more than 13,000 people have signed an online statement against the system. Lawyers, as well as experts on the Internet, argue that this is an illegal “wiretap” and therefore illegal. Cambridge University computer security expert Richard Clayton, who carefully examined the Phorm system, did not at all like what he saw. Summing up his research, Richard said behavioral targeting “believes that if people understood the technical side of the issue, they would simply be delighted. Nevertheless, although I figured out the technology, I do not feel any enthusiasm. ”
Phorm, which is now trying to push its technology also to American providers, emphasizes that consumers will have the opportunity to cross off their candidacy from participating in the system, as soon as they have such a desire to appear. The company also indicates that information about what the user does on the Internet will be stored by providers (who already have access to such information) and that personal dossiers will associate keywords not so much with names as with anonymous ones serial numbers. In addition, the dossier will not record information from such piquant sources as online banking sites, and porn sites will not be advertised in the system.
However, observers are worried that behavioral advertising is seriously undermining the trusting relationship between providers and their customers, as it allows third parties to monitor the personal lives of millions of people. They are also concerned about how Phorm has acted in the past. Until the previous year, she was known as 121Media and collected information about the interests of Internet users, slipping them to download special software that came with other programs. This software monitored user behavior on the Internet and, based on the data collected, showed ads on pop-ups that once already caused a major scandal on the network.
All this was completely legal until the people discovered that the software from 121Media is extremely difficult to remove from their computer. The fact that the company, which was later renamed Phorm, was convicted of conducting secret tests of its new behavioral advertising technology in 2006 and 2007, observing the behavior of thousands of users without their knowledge, did not in any way benefit its reputation.
As the passions heat up, the word “Google” is increasingly slipping through. For years, Internet service providers have enviously watched how Google enriched itself at the expense of its user base, while they themselves were relegated to "water pipes" that pump Internet traffic to their customers without any access to at least a part of profit that went to the giants of the advertising business. Phorm, however, promises to change this situation by offering providers a share of the juicy pie of online advertising. Firms that provide behavioral advertising services are also trying to portray themselves as defeated, but not broken players, who rebel against the almighty Google. Unlike Google, which retains information on user searches for up to two years, Phorm emphasizes that she doesn’t store detailed information about user behavior. (Recently, the Commission of the European Communities demanded that Google delete such information after six months). “If people only knew what was stored there, they would be shocked,” Itagral of Phorm says. According to him, their system is a "model for online privacy."
Despite this, most Internet users are ready to use the services of Google, which provides a search engine in exchange for the right to display relevant advertising. Itagral claims that through behavioral targeting, providers will start to profit from online advertising, which will, in turn, enable them to improve the quality of their services without raising the price for customers. “Such a symbiosis can be a great way to fund the Internet,” he said.
Behavioral targeting may turn out to be a good idea, however, if you implement it without the knowledge of users, they will feel hurt when they find out about it. Without appropriate moral preparation, the option to refuse to participate in the system will be perceived as an unsolicited invasion of privacy. However, a system based on the principle of voluntary participation, and which will be accompanied by the necessary PR company, looks quite real.
Translation from English:
Roman Rabwe
Crossposted from worldwebstudio
What is this - another invasion of the privacy of Internet users or a new profitable business model for online advertising? A new approach to "behavioral" Internet advertising, pioneered by companies such as Phorm , NebuAd and FrontPorchcan be called both at the same time. The principle of operation of this advertisement is that Internet providers install special software on their networks that allows you to intercept requests from web pages that come from Internet users. Each requested web page is delivered to the user as before, but at the same time its content is carefully scanned for different keywords in order to compile a personal profile of interests for each user. Then, these files can be used for high-precision advertising.
For example, a person is looking for travel related sites. It goes to pages that contain words such as “weekend,” “flight,” and “hotel.” The behavioral targeting system monitors him and makes a note to himself that the interests of this user include travel. Later, when he goes to the site of a social network to read his feed of friends, next to new records and pictures of friends, he will be shown an advertisement for air carriers and other travel agencies.
For advertisers, the above sounds, of course, very tempting. Firms that engage in behavioral targeting flashed here and there in the markets of Europe and America, offering to inform the client the most intimate thoughts of the user, even before he himself has time to realize them. If this technology really works, then the advertisers will have to shell out for the placement of their advertising, since it will become more effective. In turn, this means that Internet sites will be able to raise the price of ad space on their pages. A certain share will also be due to providers who actually collect the same personal files.
Companies that are involved in promoting this technology assume that users will only be happy if, thanks to more precise targeting, Internet advertising turns into a useful service. “This system will reduce the amount of trash that spills out on Internet users,” says Phorm CEO Kent Itagral.
However, not everyone welcomes this idea. Opponents of behavioral advertising raised the biggest scandal in the UK, where, it would seem, this technology has taken root most successfully: the three largest Internet providers (BT, Virgin Media and TalkTalk), which account for% 70 of the market, have signed contracts for the use of Phorm technology. Since the news of their plans appeared in February, more than 13,000 people have signed an online statement against the system. Lawyers, as well as experts on the Internet, argue that this is an illegal “wiretap” and therefore illegal. Cambridge University computer security expert Richard Clayton, who carefully examined the Phorm system, did not at all like what he saw. Summing up his research, Richard said behavioral targeting “believes that if people understood the technical side of the issue, they would simply be delighted. Nevertheless, although I figured out the technology, I do not feel any enthusiasm. ”
Phorm, which is now trying to push its technology also to American providers, emphasizes that consumers will have the opportunity to cross off their candidacy from participating in the system, as soon as they have such a desire to appear. The company also indicates that information about what the user does on the Internet will be stored by providers (who already have access to such information) and that personal dossiers will associate keywords not so much with names as with anonymous ones serial numbers. In addition, the dossier will not record information from such piquant sources as online banking sites, and porn sites will not be advertised in the system.
However, observers are worried that behavioral advertising is seriously undermining the trusting relationship between providers and their customers, as it allows third parties to monitor the personal lives of millions of people. They are also concerned about how Phorm has acted in the past. Until the previous year, she was known as 121Media and collected information about the interests of Internet users, slipping them to download special software that came with other programs. This software monitored user behavior on the Internet and, based on the data collected, showed ads on pop-ups that once already caused a major scandal on the network.
All this was completely legal until the people discovered that the software from 121Media is extremely difficult to remove from their computer. The fact that the company, which was later renamed Phorm, was convicted of conducting secret tests of its new behavioral advertising technology in 2006 and 2007, observing the behavior of thousands of users without their knowledge, did not in any way benefit its reputation.
As the passions heat up, the word “Google” is increasingly slipping through. For years, Internet service providers have enviously watched how Google enriched itself at the expense of its user base, while they themselves were relegated to "water pipes" that pump Internet traffic to their customers without any access to at least a part of profit that went to the giants of the advertising business. Phorm, however, promises to change this situation by offering providers a share of the juicy pie of online advertising. Firms that provide behavioral advertising services are also trying to portray themselves as defeated, but not broken players, who rebel against the almighty Google. Unlike Google, which retains information on user searches for up to two years, Phorm emphasizes that she doesn’t store detailed information about user behavior. (Recently, the Commission of the European Communities demanded that Google delete such information after six months). “If people only knew what was stored there, they would be shocked,” Itagral of Phorm says. According to him, their system is a "model for online privacy."
Despite this, most Internet users are ready to use the services of Google, which provides a search engine in exchange for the right to display relevant advertising. Itagral claims that through behavioral targeting, providers will start to profit from online advertising, which will, in turn, enable them to improve the quality of their services without raising the price for customers. “Such a symbiosis can be a great way to fund the Internet,” he said.
Behavioral targeting may turn out to be a good idea, however, if you implement it without the knowledge of users, they will feel hurt when they find out about it. Without appropriate moral preparation, the option to refuse to participate in the system will be perceived as an unsolicited invasion of privacy. However, a system based on the principle of voluntary participation, and which will be accompanied by the necessary PR company, looks quite real.
Translation from English:
Roman Rabwe
Crossposted from worldwebstudio