For all the concerns of privacy online, I have to say that I think ultra-targeted banner ads are a good thing, and not an evil.

Whenever I work from home I get at least four calls from solicitors for newspapers, credit fraud protection dealies, or roofing supplies. I also get about 80 spam messages a day, not to mention a handful of Instant Message spams (vile vile vile). I'm anxiously awaiting California's statewide 'do not call' list, to be freed from the telemarketers, as I'm hoping for an eventual solution to the spam and IM problems.

What I don't mind (comparatively, anyhow) are advertisements that pay for content I want to read/watch/listen to. Advertising that pays for the sites I read, radio stations I listen to, or TV shows I watch, while annoying, are at least fair trade. A solicitor with a junkmailer or a phone bank provides nothing of value to me in trade for the intrusion on my time and brain.

Of course, TV and banner ads aren't as effective as direct marketing because they only reach broad, marginally targeted demographics. If this science were perfected, while still maintaining my anonymity, then a banner ad with only 1000 impressions to the right people would be more effective than a 50,000 impression ad buy.

Google's AdWords goes a good way toward that, in addition to preferred search results, for all the bad ink they've been getting lately.

For businesses to survive, they have to get the word out there, and almost universally people don't want to have 'the word' pushed upon them. But really, isn't a contextually relevant ad, given in trade for content that you actually want, a fair exchange?

The Open Source movement makes a distinction in the term 'free'. They note the difference between "free as in beer" meaning not costing money, and "free as in speech" meaning unfettered communication and distribution. A similar terminology might befit the privacy world:

• "Private as in invisible" should relate to not allowing tracking or profiling of any kind, as in cookies, registrations, or server log tracking.
• "Private as in citizen" should mean the inability of marketers to contact you without your consent, or in a form other than paid advertising in content you specifically request.
• Somewhere in the middle is "Private as in anonymous" where you can be tracked, but not individually identified.

I'd love to hear thoughts you guys have on this distinction, as well as better, more catchy terms...