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

61–67 of 67 posts

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

#61

Post by executesorder66 »

timv wrote: post #46
guelo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did the camera identify the demographics? BTW this isn't using cameras, it's using location tracking from the mobile phone companies.

Not the parent poster, but I also worked in the tech space of outdoor advertising. The camera based systems I saw used facial detection. The vendors were very keen to refer to "detection" not "recognition" since they (supposedly) only looked at faces and analysed them for demographic information, they didn't track you as an individual. (I'm sure they would have eventually - there's too much money at stake to not trac…

Can you post of a picture of one of these adverts with one of these cameras?

I'm wondering what's stopping people from just covering up the camera with tape or something.

Edit: Never mind. I found one: http://static01.nyt.com/images/2008/05/31/business/31billboa...

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

#63

Post by stegosaurus »

chockZ wrote: post #55
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…

'When compared to other forms of advertising' is a cop out in my view.

Those other forms are generally avoidable with either zero cost, or a (debatable) net gain.

For example, one can simply choose to not watch broadcast TV, or read newspapers, preferring instead ad-free sources (which are generally better in my experience anyway).

I can't opt out of outdoor advertising without leaving employment opportunities behind or moving away from family and friends.

So that makes the baseline zero against something.

We have Piccadilly Circus/Times Square style moving LED billboards popping up in more and more places now with inane products on them. I don't want to look at pointless consumerist nonsense all day, I want to see life, not capitalism. If you think that's easy to just 'block' I suspect you're quite different to me.

Taking the LU as an example: there are ads above and in front of your head at all times, at stations (every minute) there are ads on the walls (which sometimes move), the escalators have moving LCD screens with advertising on them. Then you get outside and there's probably an advert in front of your face (because the station is a heavily trafficked area).

TV is no comparison! That's 10 minutes completely ad-free with a break that you can stand up and walk away from.

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

#65

Post by FilterSweep »

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…

It will soon become bad enough with law enforcement alone - with automated license plate readers increasingly being used.

Say you have a speeding ticket on your record: (X1, Y1) coordinates at time A (X2, Y2) coordinates at time B

Where X1, X2, Y1, Y2, are all accessible via your cellular data. With an accurate enough signal, your speed can be accurately measured, given A & B. All of this is becoming a reality as faster "LTE" (and soon, 5G) speeds are just enabling the transmission of your data faster to hands you weren't aware of.

The automation of speeding tickets is just waiting for a developer to sell to overstaffed PDs strapped for cash. Sending in a speeding ticket in the mail as if one ran through a red light with a traffic camera. As adoption increases, they won't even need a previous offense on your record.

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

#66

Post by FilterSweep »

chflags wrote: post #60
themartorana wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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?

I live out this sentiment in my donations to Wikimedia whenever they start bugging us for donations.

I do have a tangible "value added" from going to their site and using Wikis, and thus I'm more than happy to shell out some sheckels for what they offer.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of people are simply not aware of the implications of these "free" services they use (picture me doing the double quote hand gesture when I say "free" here). I don't want to call them ignorant, as many have a general understanding that they are being data mined, but they are unaware of the _implications_ of such, compared to your average HN reader who often has been around big data, or handled it themselves. (Read: "Nothing to hide" argument)

> 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?

THe bright side is that they are safe assumptions until people start waking up and learning of ways to minimize (not completely remove) their "data footprint" - NoScript, Ghostery, uBlock, Disconnect, etc. etc.

Businesses will have to react, whether that's getting into the trenches (ie: FuckAdBlock.js, force javascript), or considering a different monetization approach.

And perhaps there is a niche market for a Non-Internet-Required "MapQuest" style iOS/Android App, waiting to be struck ;).

Post reply on HN