7 ms·

Try as I might, I just can't be bothered to care if someone wants to know what I've been buying so they can show me advertisements relevant to my interests. Bu

Try as I might, I just can't be bothered to care if someone wants to know what I've been buying so they can show me advertisements relevant to my interests. But I'm weird, I don't think advertising is inherently evil or annoying.

QAPereo 9y ago
Inherently evil and annoying? No, but in practice it's annoying and online at least, potentially problematic on other levels as well such as security and performance. Telemarketing isn't inherently evil and annoying either, but it's become a playground for scammers with robocalls and constantly shifting spoofed numbers. That, maybe, should tell you something about the nature of the medium, or at least the nature of the medium when it's being exploited by a broad population.
- CivilianZero 9y ago
  I think telemarketing is annoying, it's also intrusive and requires effort on my part. Passive advertisement on the internet does not. Note I am not saying there are not annoying advertisements, but that's an issue of implementation, not the concept of targeted advertising. If anything, Google would know I will never click on an annoying ad if they "invaded my privacy" more than they do now.
robteix 9y ago
To be honest, I don't either. But the data is still there. You don't know if in ten years Google is going to start losing money and is forced (by its shareholders) to find alternative means of monetization. You can't really say Google is perfectly secure and will never ever ever be hacked and leak your data either. Maybe it will never happen, maybe it will. Therefore I believe I should have the right to say "hey, I don't want this private corporation to have my credit info".
- QAPereo 9y ago
  Or potentially worse, if they're compromised/hacked in some way and that data simply enters the wild ecosystem.
  - CivilianZero 9y ago
    I still can't see why I should care if some stranger has my purchase history. I suppose some people might feel weird letting strangers or anyone know what they buy, but that's an argument for the ability to opt-out, not for filing a complaint with an agency or starting a lawsuit.
    - vertex-four 9y ago
      There's plenty of people who get up to things that would result in severe professional damage if it became public knowledge - I know a handful of teachers who are into BDSM in their private lives who are eternally terrified of their employers or a journalist catching wind. "Some stranger" isn't necessarily the issue, it's someone who has the ability to harm you that's the issue.
      - digi_owl 9y ago
        Or look at the short term Mozilla CEO that was ousted over a public outcry regarding similar private matters. Edit: Hrmf, never mind. Egg on my face.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        Publicly-disclosed (by legal mandate) financial sponsorship of a public advocacy campaign on a public policy matter is about as far as you can be from a “private matter”.
        digi_owl 9y ago
        Hrmf, did i get my CEOs confused. Could have sworn there was some BDSM stuff involved as well. Or was that some other FOSS project?
Spivak 9y ago
Do you want it to be sold to your insurance company? We see that you're a regular coffee drinker which is correlated with increased risk of heart problems -- here's a rate increase.
- Eridrus 9y ago
  Maybe we'll get universal healthcare at some point and people will stop rolling out this tired argument.
  - Spivak 9y ago
    Okay, how would you like your purchase histories to be used to determine your wealth and companies charge you more for goods and services because they know you can afford to. "I'm sorry sir, our system says your wealth rating is 600, our discounts only apply to people with 400 or lower."
    - jackpirate 9y ago
      This sounds amazing to me :)
    - digi_owl 9y ago
      We already see this with how airlines alter the pricing depending on when the ticket is bought and whatsnot (because if it is bought for a middle of the week trip etc, it is likely to be a business trip).
      - dave5104 9y ago
        But the key difference is that applies to everyone who wishes to make that purchase, not just particular people.
  - gbacon 9y ago
    You can’t change just one thing. VA For Everyone will increase arguments of “Well I’m on the hook for your healthcare, so I should have a say in whether or not you …”
driverdan 9y ago
Something like this should be opt-in for people like you. By default our private spending information should not be shared with 3rd parties.
jancsika 9y ago
> [...] so they can show me advertisements relevant to my interests. That's the benefit to you. The other is that the business model supports the Google services you use. The perfunctory question is: what are the costs to you and everyone else? The question that piques my interest: why do you assume there aren't costs, or that the costs are negligible? Why does your belief that an institution isn't evil or annoying mean you only do the first half of a cost/benefit analysis?
- CivilianZero 9y ago
  Because all evidence I've seen is either sensationalized and based on emotion: "Oh no! My privacy!" Or...I haven't seen any evidence there is a noticeable cost to me as a person?

QAPereo 9y ago

Inherently evil and annoying? No, but in practice it's annoying and online at least, potentially problematic on other levels as well such as security and performance. Telemarketing isn't inherently evil and annoying either, but it's become a playground for scammers with robocalls and constantly shifting spoofed numbers. That, maybe, should tell you something about the nature of the medium, or at least the nature of the medium when it's being exploited by a broad population.

CivilianZero 9y ago
I think telemarketing is annoying, it's also intrusive and requires effort on my part. Passive advertisement on the internet does not. Note I am not saying there are not annoying advertisements, but that's an issue of implementation, not the concept of targeted advertising. If anything, Google would know I will never click on an annoying ad if they "invaded my privacy" more than they do now.

robteix 9y ago

To be honest, I don't either. But the data is still there. You don't know if in ten years Google is going to start losing money and is forced (by its shareholders) to find alternative means of monetization. You can't really say Google is perfectly secure and will never ever ever be hacked and leak your data either. Maybe it will never happen, maybe it will. Therefore I believe I should have the right to say "hey, I don't want this private corporation to have my credit info".

QAPereo 9y ago
Or potentially worse, if they're compromised/hacked in some way and that data simply enters the wild ecosystem.
- CivilianZero 9y ago
  I still can't see why I should care if some stranger has my purchase history. I suppose some people might feel weird letting strangers or anyone know what they buy, but that's an argument for the ability to opt-out, not for filing a complaint with an agency or starting a lawsuit.
  - vertex-four 9y ago
    There's plenty of people who get up to things that would result in severe professional damage if it became public knowledge - I know a handful of teachers who are into BDSM in their private lives who are eternally terrified of their employers or a journalist catching wind. "Some stranger" isn't necessarily the issue, it's someone who has the ability to harm you that's the issue.
    - digi_owl 9y ago
      Or look at the short term Mozilla CEO that was ousted over a public outcry regarding similar private matters. Edit: Hrmf, never mind. Egg on my face.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        Publicly-disclosed (by legal mandate) financial sponsorship of a public advocacy campaign on a public policy matter is about as far as you can be from a “private matter”.
        digi_owl 9y ago
        Hrmf, did i get my CEOs confused. Could have sworn there was some BDSM stuff involved as well. Or was that some other FOSS project?

Spivak 9y ago

Do you want it to be sold to your insurance company? We see that you're a regular coffee drinker which is correlated with increased risk of heart problems -- here's a rate increase.

Eridrus 9y ago
Maybe we'll get universal healthcare at some point and people will stop rolling out this tired argument.
- Spivak 9y ago
  Okay, how would you like your purchase histories to be used to determine your wealth and companies charge you more for goods and services because they know you can afford to. "I'm sorry sir, our system says your wealth rating is 600, our discounts only apply to people with 400 or lower."
  - jackpirate 9y ago
    This sounds amazing to me :)
  - digi_owl 9y ago
    We already see this with how airlines alter the pricing depending on when the ticket is bought and whatsnot (because if it is bought for a middle of the week trip etc, it is likely to be a business trip).
    - dave5104 9y ago
      But the key difference is that applies to everyone who wishes to make that purchase, not just particular people.
- gbacon 9y ago
  You can’t change just one thing. VA For Everyone will increase arguments of “Well I’m on the hook for your healthcare, so I should have a say in whether or not you …”

driverdan 9y ago

Something like this should be opt-in for people like you. By default our private spending information should not be shared with 3rd parties.

jancsika 9y ago

> [...] so they can show me advertisements relevant to my interests. That's the benefit to you. The other is that the business model supports the Google services you use. The perfunctory question is: what are the costs to you and everyone else? The question that piques my interest: why do you assume there aren't costs, or that the costs are negligible? Why does your belief that an institution isn't evil or annoying mean you only do the first half of a cost/benefit analysis?

CivilianZero 9y ago
Because all evidence I've seen is either sensationalized and based on emotion: "Oh no! My privacy!" Or...I haven't seen any evidence there is a noticeable cost to me as a person?