Is 37 Signals Selling Behavioral Targeting Data?
news.ghostery.com
news.ghostery.com
Our Product Blog (which is referenced in the screenshot) is hosted on Typepad.
It looks like Typepad injects javascript from Quantcast and cdn.media6degrees.com at the bottom of Typepad-hosted pages. This appears to be related to Typepad's internal analytics reporting. More info here: http://support.typepad.com/cgi-bin/typepad.cfg/php/enduser/s...
Check out some other Typepad hosted blogs (http://www.avc.com, for example) and you'll see the same code. In fact, I can't seem to find a Typepad-powered blog that doesn't have this code. Here's a long list: http://featured.typepad.com
This code appears to be what Ghostery is picking up and calling out.
Damn it, I just bought a pitchfork and really wanted to use it for something!
The difference here is that Media6 Degrees collects your behavioral data ties it with your social graph (your friends) data packages it up and resells it to other ad networks to target you.
Google Analytics data doesn't get sold to 3rd parties nor is it used by AdWords/AdSense to target ads at you (at least that is Google's claim).
Sorry if this came off as an ad, its not.
Much better than a website with an about page :)
Interesting
Seriously, it's impolite to publish articles that are angry accusations without (a) consulting the accused and (b) limiting one's accusations to the evidence at hand.
Your article makes it sound like they collect confidential data from their apps and sell it for money. Can't understand why so many people would upvote this.
I think we the users should decide what info gets shared with who. I also think we have the right as their user to publicly call them on questionable practices.
I'm a fan of their products too, just not a fanboy, there's a difference.
If you're publicly accusing them of doing so, and doing so for monetary gain, then yeah, it does seem like some measure of journalistic integrity would require at least a half-assed attempt at getting the other side of the story. Even TechCrunch shoots out an email so they can say that they asked the company what their side is.
If you're really searching for the truth, you should have approached them and asked, especially since your title is a question and you have this line in your post:
I can’t figure out why 37 Signals would be selling this information to ad networks.
Your post is making an implication that something nefarious is going on, without actually having the guts to come out and say it. Instead, you pretend to be confused, and state that you're really not sure what's going on. If that's actually the case, why not just ask them?
As it is, it appears that you think you do know what's going on, you want to stir the pot and get some publicity for your product, and by keeping it vague, you protect yourself if you're wrong.
Not interested in a flamewar but happy to follow-up and clarify.
1. I'm not a journalist.
2. The fact that Media6 Degrees, a behavorial targeter is on their site is binary. Look at the source, it's there, pretty simple.
3. See #2 for the truth.
4. Depends on your world view. For people who don't want to be targeted by behavioral ad networks this is nefarious. For those who don't care it isn't.
5. I couldn't care less about "getting publicity" for my product. It's free and I don't need the publicity.
The reason is that Typepad, which hosts their blog, does this on all their hosted blogs.
You could have found this out by asking 37signals, or doing some basic research. Instead you chose to fling feces their way and get some attention for your product.
Classy.
Yeah, and they wait all of twenty minutes before posting the article anyway with a "XXX could not be reached for comment". Class act, that.
Because you have a conflict of interest this pushes the post past merely poor form.
I realize FreshBooks, your company, is a 37 Signals partner but that's ok with me. I still believe you can be impartial, hope you share the same faith in me for my free "product".
I find full disclosure is best.
It's not the target of the post, but the way you wrote it. I have the same issue with their last post speculating why Mint sold their company ("The next generation bends over"). I sense that Jason lost more from that exchange than he gained.
I have no qualms with the intention of holding 37 Signals to account. As now I'm holding you to account. However, it's important that I'm giving you fair the chance to state your own case.
2. The fact that Media6 Degrees, a behavorial targeter is on their site is binary. Look at the source, it's there, pretty simple. That is a fact and not a rumor or a guess.
3. 37 Signals has the best possible platform to state their case, their blog.
4. This is the reason I created Ghostery, transparency and user education. Every tracker it identifies has a page explaining what it purports it does, who owns it and contact info for that company. After reading all that, you the end-user, can selectively block trackers.
5. The belief that an average user should track down what trackers are on every site they visit and then contact each one of those sites for their side of the story before saying or doing anything on their end is flawed IMO. That should fall at least equally on the publisher to disclose.
And now the real problem is that you have tarnished your own credibility as 37 Signals has actually shown the facts of the case. If you had simply asked them before going public, you could have avoided that and might have even found a real culprit after some detective work.
I don't agree with troll marketing. 37 Signals hurt their own reputation with the blog post about Mint just as you are hurting your own. They were roundly thumped for that as well.
And yes, I do have some kinds of relationships with 37 Signals, Mint, and TypePad. However, no relationship in the world will distract from this fundamental idea: if you're going to accuse someone publicly, you should get your facts straight first.
These are false, AKA "Fact-Free" and based on nothing but you're own world view: 1. That this is some publicity stunt I dreamed up. 2. That my aim to "profit" from this somehow. That is laughable/delusional. The product is free and I donate my time and money to it for my own gratification, 3. That I'm looking to HackerNews as a source of "personal credibility".
I don't care that you have, at the very least an implicit, financial relationship with 37 Signals. I do ask that you be explicit and transparent about that #credibility
Thank you for discussing this with me like an adult. I commented publicly because I wanted to discuss it, and you made fair points. It's too bad this was our first encounter with each other.
P.S. I hope your efforts to fight for better privacy rights are successful. That's something I care about deeply.
The impressions I get of you from the article and this thread are, roughly in order:
1. Hm, why not ask them about this in case there's a simple explanation? That's the standard practice when you're accusing someone of doing something nasty.
2. Oh look, the top comment on the article (and in the HN thread) provides the simple explanation.
3. So, basically this dude's pushing a non-story to try to sell his product? That's kinda sketchy.