Issue 54: The Glorious Retreat from Surveillance Island  September 15th 2017

The Glorious Retreat from Surveillance Island

Apple wants to block cookies in browsers. Every advertising group on the planet thinks that’s a bad idea, obviously. They even penned an open letter to Apple and the public. A couple sections stood out to me in particular (emphasis mine):

We are deeply concerned about the Safari 11 browser update that Apple plans to release, as it overrides and replaces existing user-controlled cookie preferences with Apple’s own set of opaque and arbitrary standards for cookie handling.

And:

Apple’s unilateral and heavy-handed approach is bad for consumer choice and bad for the ad-supported online content and services consumers love.

I’m really confused right now. Not a month ago, the CEO of the IAB penned an op-ed in Business Insider about the ePrivacy regulations in Europe. The regulations set out to give consumers a choice on how they protect their information online, admittedly rather clumsily. But the general premise is that people with ad blockers shouldn’t be discriminated against because they’ve chosen to protect themselves from “surveillance marketing”.

Rothenberg quipped in the op-ed:

Buried in pages of amendments to the European Union’s latest privacy proposal, the ePrivacy Regulation, members of the European Parliament recently recommended language that would strip European publishers of the right to monetize their content through advertising, eviscerating the basic business model that has supported journalism for more than 200 years. The new directive would require publishers to grant everyone access to their digital sites, even to users who block their ads, effectively creating a shoplifting entitlement for consumers of news, social media, email services, or entertainment.

It's clear that Rothenberg believes people don’t have the right to dictate how their data is used by companies online (an ATW edition on the topic ran last month). But now that a pro-user stance can further the IAB’s interests, we’re suddenly jumping into the consumer advocacy pool with both feet?

To repeat a quote above, the open letter to Apple that was signed by the IAB reads:

We are deeply concerned about the Safari 11 browser update that Apple plans to release, as it overrides and replaces existing user-controlled cookie preferences with Apple’s own set of opaque and arbitrary standards for cookie handling.

If the IAB truly believes that consumers shouldn’t get to choose what they do on publisher websites, then its “user-controlled cookie preference” concerns are a rather offensive red herring designed to deliberately confuse.

The industry’s goal here is to keep the data flowing by any means possible. Opt-ing into the current model, which both of these letters are really about, isn't being addressed directly. So why aren’t we having an open conversation about opt-in versus opt-out models? Surely that’s a debate worth having.

It’s clear that the IAB is scared we’re heading down a path where consumers have to opt-in to marketing and advertising online. Sure, that’s less than ideal for the online advertising networks. But, maybe the industry should take a step back and ask themselves how we got here?

I mean, the ad tech complex dropped us here on Surveillance Island. But now consumers finally built a boat to get off of it. Why is the industry trying to torpedo it as we make our attempt to leave the tracking behind?

Instead of sailing towards glorious denouement, we're heading straight into the fire of this debate.