Re: Embedding links in email

From: Brad Jensen <brad_at_elstore.com>
Date: Fri 03 Mar 2000 13:50:25 -0600

CARMEN PAULINO WROTE:
> Cookies, used as they
> are intended, track an IP number -
> you and I are anonymous.

Well, actually, no they don't. Many people can share an
IP address, and if you dial in, your ip address may
change each time you dial in.

Actually the cookie doesn't track anything, You the
user acceopt it from me. I put the information I know
about you into it. Then you give me the cookie back the
next time you hit my site.

I'm not sure if the serving of an add banner gives me
the opportunity to give you a cookie, or get one back
from you. (We're going to test that soon ourselves.)
Certainly a clickthru redirected theu an ad site does.

In some cases, the browser even reports the email
address to the web server. I can track your behavior in
a fashion that could be rather intrusive, and it is
only my self- restraint (or sense of self-preservation
or ethics) that keeps my from providing your email to
an advertiser.

Right now, one site cannot get a cookie placed by
another site. However, it could be possible to pass
along information url-encoded, if the page was actually
a cgi, asp, or other generated page.

I am in favor of cookies, not against them.

As long as you contact my domain , madclick.com, I can
get your cookies back, and I can give you a new cookie.

> Is anybody complaining
> about the government's census tracking?

Yes.

> So the question is, when was the last time you or I
> went into a store and demanded that the owner stop
> gathering his/her shoppers' patterns and usage
> information because these retailers do not have our
> permission ? Is it practical to ask each individual
> shopper for permission to trace his/her shopping
> behavior?

No, but an advertiser push to explain what they are
doing might be useful.

> The *essential* nature
> of a cookie is not a Big Brother tactic.

Well...

> This is a fait accompli to date, and
> well within the Web operator's and advertiser's right,
> if only by inheritance from the traditional business
> world.

Until Congress takes it away.

> If, despite all of the alerts about
> traffic pattern and usage tracking we still voluntarily
> cruise the Internet and click on advertising, then
> until a law by the people and of the people [yeah,
> right :-] states otherwise, we are all giving our
> effective permission to the practice - just like in the
> real world. We all have a right to not surf any
> particular Web site or to not go on the Internet at
> all. It's *the Choice.*

I think a code of privacy ethics for advertisers makes
a lot of sense.

> Further, pattern and usage information is closely
> guarded by each Web operator because it is strategic
> data that is essentially trade secret. The information
> and data gathered is not distributed to other operators
> or to the general public because it would be a foolish
> business decision to do so. Just like in the real
> world.

I don't think people are worried about the statistical
nature of things. I think they don't want you telling
their momma that they visit Suze Randall every morning.

Look at Duetch, the former CIA director. All those
porno cookies (and I'm afraid I might have a few
myself, only from extensive Wally-style throughput
testing over extended periods) are what will hang him.

> I say, ad servers do what *people* tell them to do.

They do what their pocketbooks tell them to do.

CHRIS BRANDLON WROTE:
> it is bad business for advertisers and Web
> publishers.

TO WHICH CARMEN PAULINO REPLIED:
> This latter is unequivocally only true if
> persons who insist on permission-getting represent
> the majority voice of the Internet population.

What is going to happen, si some advertisiser will
decide to be user-friendly, educate the user, and ask
permission. Then they will guarantee not to collect
information from people who do not want any preference
choices recorded.

Those advertisers will compete in the marketplace for
consumers and advertisers, and perhaps they will win.

> The overriding issue is not whether Web operators
> should post privacy statements - I would imagine most
> would do so without a problem - but *how* would the
> Privacy Advocators recommend that Web operators obtain
> *each individual's permission?* What is the Privacy
> Advocators' solution? They want government
> intervention. What is government's usual response?
> Taxation. What generally derives from all of these
> activities? Higher costs, which are passed on to you
> and me, and often, diminished quality. We all lose. How
> do you regulate this on the global basis on which the
> Internet is founded? Do we, the USA, tell every country
> in the world that it has to do the same? I don't think
> so. So the ultimate question to the tight and narrow,
> we will take no prisoners, Privacy Advocates is: what
> is your solution? I *still* haven't heard one that
> makes sense or that is practical on a global basis.

Simple. On the first clickthru to an advertiser, stop
and explain about preference gathering, and then ask
for a permission level - some, none, or all. Let the
person review their information from time to time. Let
them correct or block parts of it.

> Most advertisers or Web publishers have no way of
> tracking or tracing an individual user because all they
> have is an IP address.

This is fundamentally untrue with cookies and
collaborative filtering. I may not know who you are,
but I know you are individual #1250607, and I know
where you have been, what you have looked at, what you
have responded to. I know you respond to blue shoes,
green handbags, and John McCain. And I won't forget.

> I would agree with the rest of your very thoughtful
> comments if they were developed a bit more.

I can't believe the energy you have put into this
yourself.

As a caveat, I do not know exactly how cookies work for
doubleclick et al., because I don't know how smart they
are. I am basing my conclusions on the writeup in
'what makes people click', and my knowledge of cookies
from my own cgi programming experience.

Sterne's book is an excellent introduction.

Speaking form a technical point of view, the first time
you visit my banner site, you have no cookie. I make
you a blank one, and give you a unique number. I
record your present behavior and add it to the cookie.

Each time you visit me after that, you tell me
everything about yourself with your cookie. I add any
new information I have (like, you just came to me from
Drudge Report on a Credit Card ) back to you and put
it in your cookie for you to hold.

The next time you see me, I will know even more about
you.

If I want to, I don't put anything in your cookie but
your id number. Instead, I keep a database record on
my banner server, that has your information in it.

Or I keep the information in both places.

In the words of Dave Barry 'I am not making this up.'

--
Brad Jensen brad_at_elstore.com
President
Electronic Storage Corporation Tulsa OK USA
918-664-7276
LaserVault Report Retrieval & Data Mining
www.Laservault.com




Received on Fri Mar 03 2000 - 13:50:25 CST