????上周四，美國參議院議員再次提請法案，旨在允許互聯(lián)網(wǎng)用戶禁止廣告商追蹤自己的上網(wǎng)行為。不過，它通過的可能性微乎其微。

????這項(xiàng)名為《限制追蹤實(shí)施法》（Do Not Track Online Act）的法案聽起來很像10年前獲得批準(zhǔn)的鼎鼎大名的《限制呼叫實(shí)施法》（Do Not Call），后者允許用戶登記自己的電話號(hào)碼，從而屏蔽掉令人生厭的推銷電話。

????雖然在線追蹤可能更嚴(yán)重地侵犯了用戶隱私，但目前來看，限制追蹤法案獲得的支持很少，這與2003年頒布的《限制呼入實(shí)施法》情形迥異。當(dāng)時(shí)，后者獲得了大量支持。原因在于電話營銷意味著無休無止的騷擾電話，但在線廣告追蹤通常在幕后進(jìn)行，用戶基本不會(huì)察覺。既然后者不會(huì)打擾用戶，那么用戶也不大可能投訴，就算他們了解細(xì)節(jié)。而且，許多人頗為喜歡精確投放的廣告，大量的免費(fèi)網(wǎng)站也離不開個(gè)性化廣告的支持。

????法案是由西弗吉尼亞州參議員杰?洛克菲勒和康乃狄克州參議員理查德?布魯門塔提出的。依據(jù)法案，用戶可以在瀏覽器中設(shè)置選項(xiàng)，從而告知廣告商等第三方不要追蹤其瀏覽行為。追蹤技術(shù)能幫助廣告商依據(jù)用戶的上網(wǎng)行為更精確地投放廣告。

????廣告業(yè)強(qiáng)調(diào)，數(shù)據(jù)收集完全是匿名的（會(huì)記錄個(gè)人計(jì)算機(jī)地址，但不會(huì)記錄姓名等個(gè)人信息），整個(gè)行業(yè)旗幟鮮明地反對限制追蹤法案。去年，廣告商們曾保證會(huì)提出解決方案，讓用戶可以禁止追蹤。但迄今為止，沒有任何一種方案付諸于行動(dòng)。所以，限制追蹤法如今再度被提上日程。廣告業(yè)“辜負(fù)了對大家的承諾”，洛克菲勒在一份聲明中擲地有聲地表示。“我的法案使用戶有機(jī)會(huì)對任何想收集其在線信息的人說不。就這么簡單?！?/p>

????法案將賦予聯(lián)邦貿(mào)易委員會(huì)和各州總檢察長執(zhí)法權(quán)。廣告業(yè)大聲疾呼自己應(yīng)獲得“自我監(jiān)督權(quán)”，不過目前整個(gè)行業(yè)尚未形成這樣的機(jī)制。追蹤限制法面臨著行業(yè)游說人士的強(qiáng)烈反對，而且公眾的支持也寥寥無幾，目前看來很可能成不了什么氣候。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：項(xiàng)航

????Legislation to give Internet users the right to prevent advertisers from tracking their online activities was re-introduced in the Senate on Thursday. It has little chance of passing.

????The proposed Do Not Track Online Act sounds a lot like the very popular federal Do Not Call legislation that was passed a decade ago, creating a registry where people can enter their phone numbers to be screened out of receiving obnoxious telemarketing calls.

????Even though online tracking by advertisers is potentially much more of an intrusion on privacy, there is very little in the way of a groundswell of support for legislation restricting it, as there was for the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act of 2003. That's because whereas telemarketing calls involve annoying, disruptive phone calls, online ad-tracking takes place behind the scenes, often entirely unbeknownst to Internet users. And since it doesn't disrupt anybody's day, people are much less likely to complain about it even when they know the details. Also, many people like having advertising aimed particularly at them, and personalized ads help finance free Web sites.

????The legislation is sponsored by Sens. Jay Rockfeller (D-W.Va.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). It would allow users to opt in to a browser setting that would tell third parties, usually advertisers, not to track their browsing activity. Tracking enables advertisers to target ads at specific users based on their online activities.

????The ad industry insists that data is collected anonymously (individual computer addresses are tracked but not names or other personal information), and the industry has been stalwart in opposing legislation restricting it. Last year, advertisers pledged to work to come up with a solution that would allow users to opt out of tracking, but so far, no such solution has been forthcoming. Hence the re-introduction of the bill. Advertisers have "failed to live up to that commitment," Rockefeller said in a statement on Thursday. "My bill gives consumers the opportunity to simply say 'no thank you' to anyone and everyone collecting their online information. Period."

????The bill would give enforcement power to the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general. The ad industry has argued that the industry should be allowed to police itself, though it hasn't yet come up with a mechanism for doing so. The legislation faces tough opposition from industry lobbyists, and given the relative lack of public clamor, it seems likely at this point that it will get very far.