Charter cancels plans to spy on customers
Charter Communications announced yesterday that it would suspend it's controversial plans to spy on customers. This is great news for privacy advocates everywhere, and it shows that sometimes, the customer is actually right.
"Our customers are always our first priority," Charter said in its statement. "As such, we are not moving forward with the pilots at this time. We will continue to take a thoughtful, deliberate approach with the goal to ultimately structure an advertising service that enhances the Internet experience for our customers and addresses questions and concerns they've raised."
Unfortunately, it looks like Charter are planning on exploring other avenues which could very easily still involve spying. For now though, let's take this as a positive move by a company responding to customer feedback.
Perhaps now it's time to turn our attention to the company that would have facilitated the spying in the first place, NebuAd, who have been under fire for their business practices for a while now. For starters, there are questions over whether their deep packet inspection techniques conflict with US wiretapping laws since no prior written consent is given before the system is put in place.
Still, for now, Charter at least appear to have seen sense, and so I will not have to cancel my subscription with them. That gives me some relief because changing ISPs is a real pain.
- MysteriousStranger's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this Blog entry
- Printer-friendly version
-
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this comment
While I agree with you that the future of the newspaper industry is centered around the online distribution of news, the market for print still far outweighs that of online. There are currently no print-based news organisations with websites which can be considered "self sustaining". They all rely on the print products to bring in advertising revenue, which, in turn pays the bills. Certainly, the websites don't cost the company money, the salaries of the staff members who run the sites, hardware and bandwidth costs are more than offset by the revenue generated by the site. But the cost of actually gathering the news, paying reporters, editors, designers and the like outweigh what the website can recoup alone.
By way of clarification to your point, cookies are files which are put on our computers by websites as a way of tracking us. The things being tracked can be as simple as preferences for how we like to view the site, to items searched for, to simply the time we last visited. These are harmless enough for the most part.
What Charter were attempting to do was store information about it's customers on it's own servers, not locally on the client's computer. This means:
- Customers would not have access to the stored information.
- Charter could store anything it liked, from every website visited, to emails, to search keywords, a cookie from a website can only store things relating to the website.
- Charter would have the ability to alter the information that is supplied to it's customers. Esentially gaining the ability to serve up ads on websites it has no affiliation with, who would receive no compensation.
I don't know much about the political aspect that you mentioned, except to say that the US does not own the Internet, it's a global method of information exchange, and it's infrastructure is not all stored in one place. You can host a site anywhere in the world, and anyone in the world can visit it. That being the case, it will be difficult to legislate the sites themselves, which is probably why they haven't been already.
People won't pay for news online, and I very much doubt any serious news organisation will consider asking readers to pay to view their websites. Information wants to be free, and it's that exact ethos that has made Google the powerhouse that it is. The future is all about free information supported by advertising, and hopefully will not include spying on those looking for that information.
-
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this comment
THANK YOU...
Personally, I would be pleased if print continued through eternity.
Your clarification was very useful. I did lose sight of your earlier delineation that the data storage fell on the provider's side of the server. Now i can keep in mind that the server is a fundamental. Zounds! Consider that only a few months ago i thought a server worked in the dining room at Madonna's and The Apple Farm.
Also, you remind me that the internet is global. Now i must focus my analysis of the legal issues in an attempt to construct an analogy between the global legal precincts and our 57 states. I begin to see a cogent renewal of the bitter Commerce Clause debates. Though the extended applications have been almost irrational, the court has employed "The Clause" to preempt many legal areas considered by John Marshall to be reserved to the states.
Tortured to be sure! It is applied as the law. What might they do with those legal fictions in the coming Congress?
Then we can consider China's legal theories about the internet. Both Google and News Corp have accepted those dictates without a whimper. China has jailed a few owners and users under zone specific laws that cannot be supported by U.S. or British legal fundamentals; and three members of the U.S. Supreme Court have said that U.S. courts must entertain legal dogmas from other systems. The UN experts have indicated more of an interest in China's theories.
I have no clue where this is moving, though I perceive that anything is possible at the moment.
Thanks again for an interesting an informative interlude.
sirsuds said,
Wed, 06/25/2008 - 2:08pm -
YOU JOGGLE MY LEFT LOBE...
To be sure, I only hang on for dear life in your knowledgeable forays into cyber tech, though I do learn from your discourse. Your inadvertently raising the issue of Charter's revealing such a consuming interest in selling advertising on cable joggles my mind to connect two other seemingly discordant news developments in recent history.
I do understand the words advertising and filthy lucre.
Remember that McClatchey's Mr. Pruitt, an admirable youngster, made a cogent point at the time he bought the Knight-Ridder newspapers from Tonty Ridder. In effect young Mr. Pruitt, demonstrating wisdom, said that he was paying a premium price to obtain the wealth of internet facility and experience associated with Tony Ridder's obsession with newspapering on line.
At the time, we all knew that pulp papers were dinosaurs ready for the bone yard.
Our second bit of news came only a few days ago when the same Mr. Pruitt was forced to tighten McClatchey's belt, saying the old cash rtegister ring had slowed.
Here's the connection. It's the advertising on the Webb. Both Charter and Verizon are making noises that emulate newspaper publishers of old. Sell those ads!
Now your explanation, unless my limited ability has betrayed me, indicates that a critical tech question arises at the point of the "cookies." To sell ads you must have control of the cookies. Is that correct? Well to control the cookies, the cable or telephone provider must have a Cyclopian Eye in all of our computers; and that sticky wicket has not been resolved legally. The legal question is political and very likely will be answered when Congress takes control of the internet, bringing all functions under the exisitng FCC law, including the "Fairness Clause." I perceive from your instruction that the cookie problem will go away with the legislation that gives the providers immunity if they take over our computers or, if you will, cookies.
Is this the reason Mr. Pruitt has not made more progess in moving the Tribune and all other news properties into the internet?
We all know that he must. Newsprint costs are breaking his back. Tech talent to command the intricate technology of offset printing is becoming problematic.
Also, we know that the closest advisors to both McCain and Obama have made statements indicating they will bring the internet under federal law. If the legislation is introduced in the new Congress in February enabling the providers to use our cookies as they wish without fear of the old Bill of Rights, should I expect a quick move by cable, telephone and newspaper companies into the internet? Will there be a gold rush?
Of course that means we will be paying a hefty monthly bill for the Tribune on the internet. Essentially all of the goodies we now receive "without obligation" will be fee specific. Yes, Heather, you will be required to pay for news and ads and blogs and forums; but the old printed newspaper won't exist. You will have that money to offset the expense.
So there! Tony Ridder's dream of presenting news exclusively on the internet is interconnected with the recent scare in McClatchey's income and the sticky legal wicket of controlling cookies.
Don't misunderstand. I welcome the advent of the internet newspaper. Mr. Pruitt and Tone Ridder are my favorite newspaper people. (Certainly, I know Mr. Pruitt would be horrified covering a police beat. But as a business brain, he has no equal.)
Am I correct? Essentially, no tech problem exists. They have the tech knowledge to manage our cookies as we speak.