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

Google starts tracking what people buy in physical stores

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 252 posts

Re: Google starts tracking what people buy in physical stores

#211

Post by Shivetya »

pjc50 wrote: post #207
gub09 wrote: post #66

This is probably an unusual opinion, but for me privacy is similar to freedom. Freedom is usually defined as a negative: people are free of oppression, have freedom of speech (freedom from speech being constrained), freedom of movement (not forced to stay in one place), religious freedom (freedom to believe what one will and not be limited in practice or assembly), etc. Privacy is the freedom from being watched, from…

Remember that Roosevelt's famous "four freedoms" included two "freedom of" and two "freedom from". The "freedom from" elements have been de-emphasised lately as they're extremely unpopular with the right-wing: "The third is freedom from want—which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants—everywhere in the world. The four…

seems to me the only recent threats to freedom of speech have all been from the "liberal" side expressed quite well in colleges with heckler vetoes and codified in law with nebulous hate speech definitions. with regards to worship, same thing, you can have your beliefs but you have to bow to our laws which supercede.

we have lost freedom from fear because both politicians and terrorist profit by exploiting it.

Re: Google starts tracking what people buy in physical stores

#212

Post by rcar »

hyperbovine wrote: post #192
speedplane wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard that this is not a very big business for Visa/Mastercard. That's because the credit card processors don't get many details on the purchase, they just know the amount, the user, and the bank they are sending the money to.

My bank seems to know the origin and destination of all the plane tickets I buy (for example), so presumably the CC processor has this sort of information as well? I'm sure someone reading this is in the industry and can explain.

Plane tickets have an odd setup in CC processing systems where it actually shows origin/destination in the transaction information itself. The only other similar example I've seen has been in payment processors like Square or Paypal where they'll include both that it was a Paypal transaction and some customizable string showing the merchant who actually received the payment.

Other than those sorts of situations though, Visa/MC or the bank issuing the cards only know where the transaction occurred and how much it was and don't directly get SKU-level data on what was purchased barring some other sort of partnership with the merchant.

Re: Google starts tracking what people buy in physical stores

#213

Post by AdamN »

gub09 wrote: post #66

This is probably an unusual opinion, but for me privacy is similar to freedom. Freedom is usually defined as a negative: people are free of oppression, have freedom of speech (freedom from speech being constrained), freedom of movement (not forced to stay in one place), religious freedom (freedom to believe what one will and not be limited in practice or assembly), etc. Privacy is the freedom from being watched, from…

When you say 'freedom', you mean 'liberty'. Read up on the words and the Federalist Papers - you'll enjoy it.

Re: Google starts tracking what people buy in physical stores

#214

Post by hammock »

singron wrote: post #89
russell_h wrote: post #15

A Googler gave a talk at Real World Crypto in January describing a system that might back this. The relevant part of the talk starts around the 10 minute mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee7oRsDnNNc&t=10m1s In short, they're able to compute the intersection of the set of users who have viewed an ad with the set of people who purchased a product in a store, without either party disclosing their side of the set.

After studying the slides, it looks like they do a Diffie Hellman-like exchange of user identifiers. g_i = Google's identifier for customer i. s_j = Merchant identifer for customer j. If g_i == s_j then customer i == j. These identifiers might be phone numbers or email addresses or other identifiers that both parties have. Neither party wants the other to learn any identifiers it doesn't already known about. So Googl…

It's not a new and a very common process. A personal identifying variable is calculated in the same way on both sides (usually by a third party), then hashed. Hashed values are then compared/matched.

Re: Google starts tracking what people buy in physical stores

#215

Post by AdamN »

Are there concrete recommendations for being able to use a credit card (i.e. for an airline purchase where cash is tough) and maintain maximum privacy? I know Apple Pay helps vis-a-vis the merchant since the CC number is hidden. Are Visa, AMEX, MC different at all? Are there banks that have better privacy policies or does it not matter since the bank is just handling the final money transfer?

Re: Google starts tracking what people buy in physical stores

#217

Post by gergles »

hyperbovine wrote: post #192
speedplane wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard that this is not a very big business for Visa/Mastercard. That's because the credit card processors don't get many details on the purchase, they just know the amount, the user, and the bank they are sending the money to.

My bank seems to know the origin and destination of all the plane tickets I buy (for example), so presumably the CC processor has this sort of information as well? I'm sure someone reading this is in the industry and can explain.

Yeah, this is called "Level 3 data" and can include line items from a receipt and other details of transactions.

Re: Google starts tracking what people buy in physical stores

#218

Post by mattnewton »

ac29 wrote: post #94
mattnewton wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They won't in the medium term because of how much they hate the credit card company's cut. 3% is a lot on an already low-margin transaction at Walmart.

There is no way Walmart pays 3% when a small business with minimal documentation can pay less via Square, PayPal, etc... And as mentioned elsewhere, cash has a cost as well (theft, miscounting change, counting in and out cash drawers during shift changes, arranging daily deposits, trips to the bank, etc). As someone who worked retail 10+ years ago, I can assure you all these things happened, and probably added 2-3% t…

3% is probably inaccurate, it may be 2% with a cap of 21 cents or something like it, I don't know the average percentage. I do know it is upsetting enough to Walmart to sue for 5.9 billion in 2014[1] and join a class action lawsuit for 3 billion in 2003[2], to go in on a electronic mobile payments processor with rivals target and stores rite aid and cvs[3]. I got all this perspective following the news that Walmart would not back Apple Pay because it was holding out for it's own system [4] with lower fees called "CurrentC" (that I think died? I haven't heard about it since).

That last article quotes it at up to 3% but most say 2%, so I am assuming there is a percentage and a fixed cost, and possibly a cap. In any case Walmart had a long history of being very unhappy with the relationship.

[1] http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA2Q2BJ20140327 [2] https://mobile.nytimes.com/2003/06/06/business/merchants-may... [3] http://www.computerworld.com/article/2839144/heres-why-rite-... [4] http://time.com/money/3541247/apple-pay-walmart-current-swip...

Re: Google starts tracking what people buy in physical stores

#219

Post by bingojess »

pdkl95 wrote: post #183
adjkant wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's important to note the definition of privacy you use is important. For me, in my daily life, all of this is completely "private". Google having my data in mass and an identity profile on me that no human will ever specifically look at is just as good as private to me. The fact that computers will be handing this data, not other humans, is an important distinction for me. No human will ever see my individu…

> the definition of privacy you use is important Yes, it is. Defining privacy to mean the very opposite of "private" is pure doublethink/newspeak. > Google having my data You're not giving your data only to google. You're also giving it to anybody that hacks Google's servers to take their data at any point in the future (and anybody that buys it from the hackers), and any government (or other entity with sufficient p…

I agree with what you are saying but given the probabilities (I don't see the big 5 having a significant data breach any time soon) it is something I'm willing to trade off or sacrifice so to speak. I guess the ideal scenario would be that all corporation and the government does not store my data, even anonymously. But this is unrealistic and I haven't bothered looking for alternatives that are safer/have more privacy.

Focusing on unlikely events is inefficient in that the preparations or measures taken against them often are not worth the expected benefit. Pointing out that there is always risk of improbable events is not always useful especially when mitigating these risks is costly. We increase the chances of being hit by a car when we leave the house or when we jaywalk.

Personally for me, the benefits from using services provided by Google or any other company outweigh the risks of my information falling into the wrong hands. The worst that I can hypothesize would be a political opponent using some data to pin a crime on me and throw me in jail. Or maybe some of this data could lead to me losing my job. Both unlikely scenarios. I am fortunate however because I live in a country where politicians are less likely to abuse their power (still a possibility of course) and I am not a political dissident nor a criminal. The same can't be said for everyone, so for people where the risks are far greater, they take extra precautions because it is worth it for them.

Re: Google starts tracking what people buy in physical stores

#220

Post by mattnewton »

creepydata wrote: post #196
mattnewton wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't mean they like the arrangement and are going to shill for the credit card companies though. That was my point.

Um... Walmart IS a credit card shill, they have their own credit card - https://www.walmart.com/cp/walmart-credit-card/632402 We don't know Walmart's feelings, they may like the arrangement. Business go cash free for all kinds of reasons. Customers that use credit spend more money than cash customers. Walmart probably isn't one of those places that benefit as much as a pub but they may have a small credit spending bo…

A walmart branded card gives them money back though, I see it more as a way to slow the bleeding on transaction fees they are going to have to pay no matter what. See my cousin comment on the whole "CurrentC"[0] debacle for where I am coming from on this. Walmart has a long history of sueing the credit card companies over their rates and had tried to make a competitor.

[0] http://time.com/money/3541247/apple-pay-walmart-current-swip...

Post reply on HN