I am surprised ...
that this is not already the case.
Belgium's data protection authorities are set to make a ruling which could have far-reaching implications for the multibillion-euro online advertising market in Europe. IAB Europe, an international digital marketing and advertising association, is the subject of complaints about its approach to sharing data on individuals' …
You can't expect a business who's business model depends on ignoring privacy laws to interpret the laws in a way that suits itself. And then it takes some time for an interested party to gather enough evidence to persuade a national data protection body to take action. And then it takes time for that action to happen.
Compared with the response Shrems got from the Irish data protection people, this one seems to have happened quite fast.
re: "global market for advertising ... worth as much as $27.2bn by 2024"
School buildings need maintenance, healthcare is neither universally available nor universally useful, people are fighting over increasingly scarce water and arable land, and in the midst of all this $27.2 billion is being spaffed on advertising. We're so doomed. (Not, I hasten to add, that I am anywhere near the first to point this out, nor that $27.2 billion will solve it all.)
I wonder what would happen if there was a simple customer survey performed that asked customers if
1. They like adverts getting in their way all the time when they are trying to do something else.
2. They want to see adverts about things they (or someone else on the same device) looked at once and then decided not to bother with.
3. How relevant those adverts are for a new washing machine or set of pots and pans - given that you ordered one already and its already fitted in your house.
4. How much it annoys people
Now if only they do that without trying to make all the questions double negatives and partially linked to how much the person supports seal clubbing (well they need a night life too!!)
Personally, I gave up watching TV years ago, but last night, I tried to watch one video on YouTube on the TV, but I couldn't watch it due to the constant adverts being rammed at you, so I simply stopped watching the video and went to the PC instead. I'm now looking at a PiHole as a forthcoming addition to the network.
Absolutely agree that marketeers need to be accountable for their dubious practices, but think that rounding them all up and sticking them on the B-ark would be the best route.
I have a couple of subscriptions, but I couldn't afford to pay for every site I visit - the sites I pay for hide all ads for logged on subscribers.
There has to be a balance, but that doesn't mean tracking me across the Internet. Target the page I'm viewing and show an advert relevant to that!
The adverts should simply target the page that you are viewing. The adverts will probably be more relevant than the "targeted" advertising we currently get.
At the moment, YouTube doesn't seem to know what to advertise to me, on the one hand, it is telling me to get my baby vaccinated (normal baby vaccinations), but also that due to getting old, I should watch out for shingles and get my vaccinated, and also I should look at pain medication for rheumatism...
The thing is, I am not a retired person who has just had a baby...
I know at least one person who stopped serving advertising because it was the advert servers being hacked to provide all that html 2.0 Web malware to visitors.
Given how you have no control over what advertising fills the box on the page why the F should you be in charge of the data protection responsibility?
It's your website, how is it not your responsibility?
What, you want to sell your site visitors to the advertising industry? You're happy to put them at risk of malware as a result of visiting your site? You make money from invading their privacy? Too right you're responsible.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022