Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

See That Billboard? It May See You, Too

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 67 posts

Re: See That Billboard? It May See You, Too

#51

Post by tomytomy »

bsenftner wrote: post #6

I worked on an outdoor advertising system with tracking cameras that watched pedestrians as they passed, changing the billboard when various demographics were identified in front of the display. This was back in the 2009-2010 time frame. I was just consulting, and am pretty sure this company was purchased by someone like Clear Channel soon after. I think journalists are late to this one...

Hi, Do you know the software and algorithm that was used for the tracking? Cause this could be expanded to many related fields. Cheers, Thomas

Re: See That Billboard? It May See You, Too

#52

Post by ap22213 »

The thing is that location 'signatures' can be created from many types of sensors, as long as they're able to record an environmental factor that is discriminable on a position. It's not important that the signature is very accurate in itself, only that enough independent signatures can be combined together to make one accurate estimate.

Re: See That Billboard? It May See You, Too

#53

Post by megablast »

jMyles wrote: post #34
elorant wrote: post #2

So you block ads on your phone and next thing you know they're tracking you outdoors. Geez. We need some regulation pretty soon otherwise this whole situation will get out of hand. What if someone hacks into that billboard and routes the data elsewhere?

But how can you ever "regulate" people seeing what happens outdoors, in public? At best, you'll force honest companies not to do it, and dishonest ones to pretend they don't. I know that this argument applies to many things, but this one in particular seems utterly un-regulatable to me.

You can ban billboards, as some forward thinking cities have done.

Re: See That Billboard? It May See You, Too

#54

Post by giancarlostoro »

sciurus wrote: post #50
giancarlostoro wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not useful in most cases but setting your phone to airplane mode helps too for those who don't have opt-out links and aren't sure of this being in their carrier.

I don't see how disabling close to all the functionality of your phone is a solution. Sure, they can't track me, but nobody can call me either.

Some people don't get called often, and driving and talking on the phone isn't an option everyone enjoys, so airplane mode fits the bill for some as I've read in other discussions on HN by others.

Re: See That Billboard? It May See You, Too

#55

Post by chockZ »

stegosaurus wrote: post #47

What I worry about with all of this is the massive loss in productivity. As far as I'm concerned, there is a very clear externality here. If I walk through a city center and I'm bombarded with unavoidable billboards, it's just not good for my brain. I don't want it, it's pollution, poison. I would love a real-life ad blocker for public transport, for example. So what happens next? When do cities, local governments (L…

I think you're being a bit melodramatic. Outdoor advertising is not intrusive or annoying at all when compared to other forms of advertising. It's not like I'm trying to watch a video or read a news article on the side of a bus, on a billboard or on top of a taxi.

Additionally, government transit organizations make money off of the advertising sold on their vehicles and property which can in turn be used to re-invest in infrastructure to benefit the average user. Things like digital signage and free Wi-Fi are sponsored by the advertisements and improve the various transit systems they are implemented in.

Re: See That Billboard? It May See You, Too

#56

Post by WorldIsFucked »

sciurus wrote: post #50
giancarlostoro wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not useful in most cases but setting your phone to airplane mode helps too for those who don't have opt-out links and aren't sure of this being in their carrier.

I don't see how disabling close to all the functionality of your phone is a solution. Sure, they can't track me, but nobody can call me either.

It's not a solution, but there you go.

Large wealthy entities are going to act like assholes, and guess what we learned in kindergarten. All it takes is one fucking asshole to ruin a good thing that used work for everyone.

Sorry, but running around with a uniquely identifiable radio badge is now officially being used against you. It's not just about law enforcement using this system against criminals anymore. It's about anyone with enough money, exploiting every naive sucker minding their own business.

Welcome to the future.

Re: See That Billboard? It May See You, Too

#57

Post by pdkl95 »

dsmithatx wrote: post #9

"has partnered with several companies, including AT&T, to track people’s travel patterns and behaviors through their mobile phones." Basically what I make of this is that cell phone companies (for sure AT&T) have already agreed to sell Clear Channel your location data. Do they already disseminate this information out to anyone who is willing to pay for it or is this new? Edit - I found they do and below are there are…

As DJB said about his new job at Verizon, "I am the man in the middle!"

https://projectbullrun.org/surveillance/2015/video-2015.html...

Re: See That Billboard? It May See You, Too

#58

Post by themartorana »

WorldIsFucked wrote: post #56
sciurus wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how disabling close to all the functionality of your phone is a solution. Sure, they can't track me, but nobody can call me either.

It's not a solution, but there you go. Large wealthy entities are going to act like assholes, and guess what we learned in kindergarten. All it takes is one fucking asshole to ruin a good thing that used work for everyone. Sorry, but running around with a uniquely identifiable radio badge is now officially being used against you. It's not just about law enforcement using this system against criminals anymore. It's ab…

What's the cost-benefit ratio? Nothing exists completely altruistically. For me, Google apps (Gmail etc.) provide enough benefit for the cost (of being advertised to).

As much as selling my location is infuriating, I'm not likely to give up my pocket computer. The benefit to my life - instant maps and directions, communications, and access to the wealth of the world's information at my fingertips is enough of a benefit - for me, that is.

I hate that there has to be a cost that feels vicious, but it is what it is right now. I do hope the privacy pendulum swings back a bit.

Re: See That Billboard? It May See You, Too

#59

Post by WorldIsFucked »

themartorana wrote: post #58
WorldIsFucked wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a solution, but there you go. Large wealthy entities are going to act like assholes, and guess what we learned in kindergarten. All it takes is one fucking asshole to ruin a good thing that used work for everyone. Sorry, but running around with a uniquely identifiable radio badge is now officially being used against you. It's not just about law enforcement using this system against criminals anymore. It's ab…

What's the cost-benefit ratio? Nothing exists completely altruistically. For me, Google apps (Gmail etc.) provide enough benefit for the cost (of being advertised to). As much as selling my location is infuriating, I'm not likely to give up my pocket computer. The benefit to my life - instant maps and directions, communications, and access to the wealth of the world's information at my fingertips is enough of a benef…

Considering that this commercial aspect represents the potential for much larger, and perhaps less scrupulous operators (you know, private military, or who even fucking cares anymore, it's just too easy for it to happen to argue) ...to do the exact same thing at any time...

And sell the data to a single person who merely wants it, or maybe a motivated group of people who have an incentive, and can pay...

Or maybe someone looking to buy an election and maybe even sell an entire war... Which has never happened before, I'm sure. News Corp. Enron. Doesn't matter.

Who ever it was the last time, the next time, the names will be different, but we'll be blind-sided again, all the same. And how could this have possibly happened? Where did we go wrong?

But safety in numbers, relying on my own safety as one in a city of millions, means my data is surely worthless, right?

Who would care about me? And then everyone else says that too. And then you have the whole city that way.

Re: See That Billboard? It May See You, Too

#60

Post by chflags »

themartorana wrote: post #58
WorldIsFucked wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a solution, but there you go. Large wealthy entities are going to act like assholes, and guess what we learned in kindergarten. All it takes is one fucking asshole to ruin a good thing that used work for everyone. Sorry, but running around with a uniquely identifiable radio badge is now officially being used against you. It's not just about law enforcement using this system against criminals anymore. It's ab…

What's the cost-benefit ratio? Nothing exists completely altruistically. For me, Google apps (Gmail etc.) provide enough benefit for the cost (of being advertised to). As much as selling my location is infuriating, I'm not likely to give up my pocket computer. The benefit to my life - instant maps and directions, communications, and access to the wealth of the world's information at my fingertips is enough of a benef…

"I hate that there has to be a cost..."

Is there an assumption hidden in this statement? That the cost of map data _must_ be sending personal information to Google? Why can't the cost be a dollar value? What if it was? How much do you estimate it would be? Would you pay it?

Could there be a company that could create maps and directions of the same or better quality than the enormous, well-known one you mentioned? And could that company charge actual currency for licensing the data? In fact I believe there was such a company, until Google acquired them and their work became "Maps".

I also remember in the earlier days of the www getting directions without sending personal information to Google, via sites like MapQuest. I also remember map software that did not require internet connectivity.

"As much as [what Google chooses to do] is infuriating, I'm not likely to give up my pocket computer..."

Is there another hidden assumption in this statement? That it would be _impossible_ to build a pocket computer that can serve maps and directions from a local data store, without an internet connection?

"...but it is what it is right now."

Right now, and forever more. Because there is only one "proper" way to do things, and that's how they're being done now. Those are safe assumptions, yes?

Post reply on HN