First the good news: according to MediaPost, the New York State legislature has gone home, effectively killing a proposed measure that would have forced advertisers who want to send out targeted ads to potential clients based on their web usage to (a) notify said clients that they were being targeted and (b) give them the opportunity to opt out.
Now there's nothing wrong with opt out systems, though personally I prefer to require people to opt in instead, which gives them even more control. There's a lot wrong with trying to legislate it rather than relying on the industry to police itself or relying on consumers to exercise a minimal amount of responsibility. There's even more wrong with trying to legislate it on a state-by-state level. That leads to the kind of nonsensical regulations we see embodied in the superfine print on every credit card statement - you know, "In Ohio, Arkansas and Peoria IL, this rate shall be capped at 31.5%" - the kind of thing that brings happiness to lawyers and does diddlysquat for the rest of us. How is a web advertiser supposed to make sure that - say - potential clients in New York are notified of point "A" while California consumers are warned about "B"?
Even more to the point, as far as I'm concerned, is that I like targeted advertising. Really. I don't ever want to see another ad for "Ciali$" or another piece of illiterate porn spam that is bulk emailed to everyone, but if I'm web-surfing looking for information about cameras, I don't mind if Canon or HP or a big photo store lets me know that they've got camera specials running now. For that matter, it's easy to ignore the ads I don't care about. I've had plenty of practice.
I said, that was the good news. Now the bad news: the bill's sponsor says he'll be back to keep pushing his act whenever the legislature reconvenes. Guess he's planning to run for re-election as a consumer champion. As Sam Goldwyn used to say, include me out. If only I could opt out of hearing from politicians as easily as I can opt out of advertising...