Euro privacy watchdog calls for end of targeted advertising plus a squeeze on the processing of personal info On Wednesday, Wojciech Wiewiorówski, the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), opined that Europe's Digital Services Act proposal should go further in its effort to promote online transparency and safety by eliminating targeted advertising. "Given the multitude of risks associated with online targeted advertising, the …
In respect of transparency, the EDPS opinion concentrates on that relating to online advertising, as this is a key element of the proposed Digital Services Act. However our research into online transparency in general strongly suggests that this narrow emphasis could result in yet more toothless legislation. We found that no online organisation in our large random sample had so far fulfilled the GDPR transparency obligation satisfactorily in practical terms, and that even official guidance currently contributes to this failure.
This really matters, as transparency is the absolute basis on which exercise of data subjects' rights rests. In its absence the GDPR is effectively nullified as a protection - you can't object to something you haven't been told about and you can't exercise your rights if you don't know what they are in respect of what you want to object to.
The biggest companies will only ever pay lip-service to any legislation which threatens their income and the fines will never be big enough to discourage them. Privacy should be written into the criminal law with mandatory minimum time-served sentences for directors and then they'll take notice.
@Headley_Grange
It's not just the biggest companies. Our research captured organisations of all sizes from megacorps to SMB in 39 verticals including government agencies, public services and legal services. None shone out as adequate.
The biggest problem, apart from the actual non-compliance, is a complete lack of active policing. Enforcement depends on complaints, and the regulators aren't equipped to handle high volumes of "small" cases. The second problem is that the large corporations can evade the issue by threatening to exhaust the resources of the regulators. Every megacorp case in the UK so far has resulted in settlement via downward negotiation of penalties.
"The second problem is that the large corporations can evade the issue by threatening to exhaust the resources of the regulators. Every megacorp case in the UK so far has resulted in settlement via downward negotiation of penalties."
Another argument in favour of making Directors criminally liable.
I hate advertising of any sort.I hate it on TV, I hate it on the Radio and I hate it on computers.
"Targeted" advertising seems to be mainly about asking me to buy stuff i have just bought or looked at. NOT INTERESTED. I turn of as much advertising as I can on my computer, and it is never enough.
On theTV in the UK I tend to avoid as much advertising as i can. Mainly by pre-recording stuff and then skipping the adds. In fact I find it so painful I really try and avoid watching programs "live". If we do then generally we just pause the TV whilst the adverts run.
Americans seem willing to put up with a lot more adverts than in the UK. Here a 90 minute game of football lasts 90 minutes (Plus the half time interval), when you have a sport that does not seem to care any more about the game itself and seems to be only concerned about showing adverts (Superbowl anyone). I mean a 1 hour game that can take 3 or 4 hours because of adverts. What are you people thinking!.
But then it seems the corporate interests seem to be paramount in America,
In Spain on many top tv programs you will see ad breaks of 15 minutes or more and sometimes a couple of minutes after a film has resumed there will be another shorter break.
I assume that hasn't changed as I haven't watched anything in at least five years.
The closest thing to a 'relevant' ad that I ever see on the internet are one or two of the ads at the top of a search page when I am actually looking for a product.
Google are complaining that the proposed legislation will affect such things as " nearest Thai food" requests, all the questioner has to do is change the terms to name the area or location.
The same applies to most of their objections.
In reality Targetted Advertising from Google and FB's point of view is an advertising ploy that targets the buyers of their services, ad companies, surprisingly enough are suckers for targetted advertising, as for the rest of us, not so much.
"In Spain on many top tv programs you will see ad breaks of 15 minutes or more and sometimes a couple of minutes after a film has resumed there will be another shorter break."
That's surprising, given there's an EU directive limiting the frequency of ad breaks, the duration of an ad break, and the total duration of ads in a given period (I believe it's 15 minutes over the course of a 1 hour programme, with no break being over 5 minutes)
I also dislike advertising, but we can't get away from the fact that it pays for much of what we have. Before all the various subscription platforms arrived it used to be calculated that UK independent TV got 3x - 4x as much income from advertising as the BBC did from the license fee. Remove it, and the money has to come from somewhere else.
Targeted advertising is so badly done as to be a waste of time, most targeted ads I see seem to be based on previous purchasing history, and as you say why would I want to see an ad for something I already bought? I have occasionally bought something as a result of an advert, but that was something I didn't know I wanted :) Targeted advertising would have been useless there.
But then it seems the corporate interests seem to be paramount in America,
Not just America. Businesses aren't charities, someone has to pay for their products or there wouldn't be any products.
"....UK independent TV got 3x - 4x as much income from advertising as the BBC did......Remove it, and the money has to come from somewhere else."
But in the pre-web days this greater income didn't mean that ITV and CH4 made much better programmes than the BBC. Sure, they made some good ones, and CH4 revolutionized cricket coverage but there wasn't a quality gap that showed, IMO. I wonder where the money went?
Unfortunately, New Zealand seems to have gone down that route, too: you get ads roughly every ten minutes. It's disgusting. And most of the programmes are crap, too, but that's another story.
Here in Germany public television is permitted to advertise only between about (I think) 5.00 am and 8.00 pm. And even then, only between programmes, not during. Outside these times public television is ad-free. The private stations here advertise all the time but only every half-hour at the most. Ad-slots are between about five and ten minutes but that's OK because it gives you enough time to have a dump or make a decent cuppa.
I don't agree. As an individual I hate advertising as much as the next guy, but as a business owner I need advertising to market my product to customers.
People simply will not buy a product they've never heard of, no matter how much they claim to the contrary.
Targeted advertising is an exceptionally powerful tool for businesses to market their product to possibly interested customers. Killing it would be a great disservice to the economy as a whole.
This post has been deleted by its author
Targeted advertising is an exceptionally powerful tool
Properly targeted advertising may be, but targeting based on "you looked at holidays in Spain last year, so here are more Spanish trips for you" is useless. I probably want to go somewhere else this year.
Maybe if they could say "you went on a hiking holiday in the Alps, and seemed to enjoy basic hotels and Michelin 2 star restaurants, so here are some gourmet walking trips you might like in the Rockies" it would be useful, but I have no desire to give random businesses that much info about my lifestyle. When I want that sort of holiday I will contact the businesses that I think could help me, I do not want or need them to harass me.
But targeted advertising is only one of your tools. I don't see adverts: I don't watch telly, all my newspaper and mag. reading is done online and I have a couple of layers of shields that mean I don't see ads. I have a decent disposable income, which I like spending on myself, and an ambition to die with no money in the bank. How are you marketing your product to the legions of people like me who don't see your ads?
"How are you marketing your product to the legions of people like me who don't see your ads?"
What legions? You don't watch telly and you have a couple of layers of shields to prevent ads reaching you. In all likelihood, you represent such a tiny fraction of any market (except for anti-ad shields) that it's not worth trying to reach you, despite your wealth. On top of that, you're media-savvy, so it's probably not worth marketing at you because you're highly resistant to most kinds of marketing.
“People simply will not buy a product they've never heard of, no matter how much they claim to the contrary.”
Rubbish, I buy products that I have not heard of all the time. Small items such as food products in supermarkets to larger items. White goods I buy from the shops or online that deal in those goods nothing to do with advertising of the product. Hell, my kettle and fridge-freezer I never heard of makers I trust the shop that I bought from. I am sitting in a leather swivel chair bought from John Lewis and I have no idea who made it. I could go on though computer gear to hi-fi to electrical goods I buy, most of the time it is because I need them so I go to a recognised dealer/shop/site for those items.
Now not saying I have not bought items because of advertising but that tends to be the exception rather than the rule.
features like surfacing a map with the nearest restaurant in response to the search query "Thai food nearby."
I can't help thinking that this is a weak example for Google to use to try and defend their position!
That query isn't exactly a new feature, the only personal information it needs is the user's location at the time of the query (so continual tracking not required), it's a specific query (e.g. "Thai", not "restaurants I might like based on my past culinary history/food shopping"), and assuming that most Thai restaurants are not part of a large chain then the value proposition of Google/FaceBook (or other targeted Ads) to a single restaurant is pretty small....
Yep. And they are welcome to accept money to allow some restaurants to add a picture showing their Pad Thai or their lovely dining room to the map, as long as they don't suppress the results that don't pay.
Seems to be an excellent example of contextual advertising, but not in any way related to targetted advertising. But no remembering I previously asked about Thai food when I do a search just for "restaurants", or sending me Thai airlines ads when I look for flights to Asia.
You may be overestimating the effectiveness of your tracking countermeasures. I don't do anything like that and I still see ads for women's underwear and other stuff not relevant to me. After I became a parent it was years before I started to see ads for baby stuff, years too late.
"opined that Europe's Digital Services Act proposal should go further in its effort to promote online transparency and safety by eliminating targeted advertising"
Hell no. Advertisements irritate people in general but indiscriminate adverts are worse. TV adverts with no relevance, or competing over something I dont care about. I (like others I expect) turn off as much advertising as I can but for the few that get through I would prefer something at least in the rough areas of interest even if I already bought it.
@Throatwarbler Mangrove
"You're just objecting to this act on general principles because it's a product of the EU, aren't you? Be honest!"
No. You might notice I didnt mention the EU or any government because my reasoning applies to whoever would impose such.
But I guess in your mind everything is about the EU? Or do you just wanna talk to me? Be honest? ;)
I generally don't like adverts. Not on TV or radio at least. But I don't mind adverts in magazines or newspapers, because it is so much easier to simply ignore the ones that are of no interest. Adverts on web pages are OK so long as they are not pushy or "in your face" The sidebars on El Reg are perfectly acceptable. Auto-playing videos or pop-ups that cover the content are not.
I recall as a nerdy 12 year old eagerly awaiting the arrival of the latest editions of "Practical Electronics" and "Practical Wireless" that I subscribed to. After reading the articles and projects, I would next spend many happy hours going through the pages of adverts and salivating over all the things I could not afford. And very occasionally seeing something that I *could* persuade my parents to buy me. The adverts taught me quite a lot about what was available - sometimes I'd see an advert for something I did not understand and would then do some research to find out what it was & how it worked. Proper research. By writing to the retailer or manufacturer (we did not have a phone at home). Or in a real library. Because this was all long before the concept of home computing and the Internet. Or even fax machines. Very, very occasionally a company I had written to would send me a free sample. Christmas!
Advertising has become pretty ridiculous and uses psychological tricks to persuade people to buy things that they don't need. But they do have their good points as well. If there were no adverts you would have far less knowledge of what products are available as a consumer so effectively limiting your choice, and there would be fewer things to fuel the imagination of inventors and design engineers.
The EU is instigating a trade war by banning targeted advertising.
Why don't they just mandate that targeted advertising can only done on groups of individuals of say, 10.000 people and outlawing all other forms which target individuals.
Besides, I doubt that European advertisers will want targeted advertising outlawed. Most likely the EU will then change the legislation so that targeted advertising is still possible for SME European enterprises, effectively handicapping the U.S. tech giants, which will inevitably lead to a trade war wit the U.S.
Better to propose: targeted advertisement is only possible when a user is logged in the advertisement system.
No automatic login either, of course.
By the way, I'd propose also to have a publicly accessible register of the firms lobbying the EU, with all the information about the firm accessible, as well as all the personal details of the lobbyists (including all the offshore accounts with the transaction details).
If they don't have anything to hide, they don't have anything to fear.
Individually-targeted advertisements are insidious and need to be banned.
Everyone who sees a traditional advertisement on TV, a billboard or in a newspaper sees the same advertisement. And this is important; because if the advertisement crosses any lines -- if it is racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, transphobic, relies on other offensive stereotypes or is just straight-up factually incorrect -- somebody who cares about such things will be certain to see it, and complain about it. Maybe some people are just over-sensitive, sometimes there is genuine offence; but there is always an inescapable background of responses to any traditional advertisement, giving some rough indication of its level of social acceptability.
Individually-targeted advertising totally subverts this social filtering mechanism. When an overtly racist advertisement is shown only to a carefully-selected audience who already harbour some level of racist sentiment and nobody complains about it because it was carefully hidden from anybody who might object, those racists are going to form the mistaken impression that the lack of complaints means the advertisement passed social filtering. Those pesky SJWs are using Facebook too; but they have not said a word about a video clip advertisement in which someone actually said the P-word out loud. Case closed, the P-word is now officially socially acceptable. If you snowflakes didn't complain about an actor using it in an advert that was all over the Internet, then you've no business complaining when someone says it in real life.
(It need not be racism, of course. It could just as easily be a straightforward falsehood; such as the absurd concept of a members-only institution offering a departing member better terms as a guest than they enjoyed during their membership.)
And so, unconscionable ideas get lent a veneer of bogus legitimacy. Because when you show somebody a targeted advertisement, you aren't just showing them an advertisement: you are also showing them a (false) background of (manufactured) acceptance, artificially created by violating the presumption of universality of experience.
Individual targeting of advertisements should be referred to as what it is: Psychological warfare.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
