Forum Moderators: phranque

Message Too Old, No Replies

Time to Ban Surveillance Based Advertising

Norwegian Consumer Council and others

         

iamlost

12:30 am on Jun 25, 2021 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



Forbrukerrådet (The Consumer Council) is the Norwegian government’s independent consumer protection agency.

This past Wednesday, 23-June-2021 they released an open letter addressed to EU and US policy makers signed by a few dozen consumer rights organizations, civil rights groups, NGOs, and academics.
Call to action against surveillance-based advertising [fil.forbrukerradet.no]. (PDF 4-pages)

Surveillance-based advertising permeates the internet today, creating a number of highly problematic issues for both consumers and for businesses. We are writing to you in order to ask for action on this issue on both sides of the Atlantic. In the EU, we urge you to consider a ban on surveillance-based advertising as a part of the Digital Services Act. In the US, we urge legislators to enact comprehensive privacy legislation.

The following report was attached:
TIME TO BAN SURVEILLANCE-BASED ADVERTISING [forbrukerradet.no]
The case against commercial surveillance online (PDF 34 pages)

Commercial surveillance and exploitation of consumers is now the norm across the internet. As we use various digital services, we are constantly monitored by a large number of commercial actors under the guise of showing us more relevant advertising. It is time to take a step back and consider the problems that this model has created and to imagine a new normal that empowers and protects consumers.


The challenges caused and entrenched by surveillance-based advertising include, but are not limited to:
* privacy and data protection infringements
* opaque business models
* manipulation and discrimination at scale
* fraud and other criminal activity
* serious security risks

In the following chapters, we describe various aspects of these challenges and point out how today’s dominant model of online advertising is a threat to consumers, democratic societies, the media, and even to advertisers themselves. These issues are significant and serious enough that we believe that it is time to ban these detrimental practices.


A ban on surveillance-based practices should be complemented by stronger enforcement of existing legislation, including the General Data Protection Regulation, competition regulation, and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. However, enforcement currently consumes significant time and resources, and usually happens after the damage has already been done. Banning surveillance-based advertising in general will force structural changes to the advertising industry and alleviate a number of significant harms to consumers and to society at large.


A ban on surveillance-based advertising does not mean that one can no longer finance digital content using advertising. To illustrate this, we describe some possible ways forward for advertising-funded digital content, and point to alternative advertising technologies that may contribute to a safer and healthier digital economy for both consumers and businesses.

SumGuy

1:54 pm on Jul 4, 2021 (gmt 0)

5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



HOSTS file. But seriously, if your device doesn't allow you to access (and modify/customize) the HOSTS file (or equivalent to your OS) or to attain equivalent functionality in your browser, then it's your fault for continuing to use the device and you get what you deserve. (speaking as someone who never has and never will own/use a "smart" phone).

I've looked at the attached PDF file, and there is no way to enforce or ask for an end to the current ad-ecosystem and data-collection schemes. If a country wants this to happen for its citizens then it must put firewalls at the network boundaries of its borders to block their citizen's devices from interacting with these ecosystems.

A real solution would be a truly open OS for cell phones, but again that will never happen ultimately because the gov't security agencies do not want citizens to have cell phones that are under the full control of their owners.

I don't own/use a smart phone because (a) I only use computing platforms over which I have full control of it's underlying operations (I'm currently typing this on a Win-7 PC, my other desktop systems are running Win-98 believe it or not) and (b) I would not find a cell phone sufficiently ergonomic to use as an interface to the internet even if it were running an open OS. And I have absolutely no use and no interest for what seem to be the driving force behind cell phone adoption and use (fecebook, twitter, and any number of other social-media cancer applications and portals you can name).