101–110 of 454 posts
If a company has no official office in Europe, how does this affect them? All advertisement and business focus is say only in the US, is it business as usual? What if an EU citizen decides to sign up?
Are US companies forced to deny customers not par of say an IP block (half assed method I know, but just speaking in general)?
One surprising side effect of this might be that the hordes of machine learners and data scientists who used to work for adtech might go to healthcare/bioinformatics where we might get new breakthroughs.
And that’s on top of the main problem: tracking people without their knowledge, approval or a court order is just flat-out wrong. The fact that it can be done is no excuse. Nor is the monstrous sum of money made by it. I use Piwik ( https://github.com/matomo-org/matomo ) and track visitors without their knowledge or consent, because I need analytics. Piwik is also configured to respect the "Do not track" header, so o…
You can disable the tracking parts in Piwik, or you can assume a legal stance under one of the 6 exceptions like "Legitimate interests" (https://matomo.org/blog/2018/04/lawful-basis-for-processing-...).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Isn’t this more or less the gist of GDPR and “right to be forgotten” laws? That my personal data doesn’t automatically “belong” to anyone else just because I entered it onto a server? Yes the EU invented a new right for its citizens which is the prerogative of the EU because of their bastardized idea of what constitutes privacy. Privacy is a basic human right, that much is obvious. There is no human right however to…
> The author of a creative work doesn't have the right to force me to delete something from my laptop if I obtained it lawfully. A valid point - the rights only address the USE of the photos. You can use them privately all you want and would not have to delete them (unless ordered by a court for whatever odd legal reason such as if they were stolen not uploaded). The difference with personal info is that the lawmaker…
Which is not true. Under the GDPR, you are not allowed to "process" any data unless you have a legal ground for doing it. One such legal ground is consent, but it can be withdrawn and so at that point you need to "stop processing". The thing is, "processing" is a broad term and includes not just storage but basically anything that happens to the data. So even use is not allowed.
Tracking cookies gave the ability for small advertisers to understand their customers and their other consumption in ways that only the largest marketers could. The author thinks big brands are everything and can't see how letting smaller players sell to customers could help the economy. He uses an arbitrary standard of privacy to argue on the behalf of the largest household brands. I think he's missing the forest fo…
From one of the references in the article: The Google consent interface greets site visitors with a request to use data to tailor advertising, with equally prominent “no” and “yes” buttons. If a reader declines to be tracked, he or she sees a notice saying the ads will be less relevant and asking to “agree” or go back to the previous page.
Google can't get it right. Their ads suck, and their Youtube suggestions aren't much better. Amazon can't get suggestions right in their own store.
The whole ad industry is a joke. Most people I know do not watch TV anymore, not because of the content, but because of ads. I enjoy reading magazines, but I don't bother anymore because they got full of ads. Now I read books instead. Most Youtubers either have some kind of sponsoring directly in the video, or a Patreon because Youtube ads are clearly awful and ineffective.
I think Patreon and Netflix et al. proves quite nicely that enough people are willing to pay for quality content without ads. For the companies who want to market stuff, I don't have a solution (otherwise I'd be rich), but I do know I'll go to great lengths to avoid seeing your shitty ads.
Completely oblivious and ignorant here: If a company has no official office in Europe, how does this affect them? All advertisement and business focus is say only in the US, is it business as usual? What if an EU citizen decides to sign up? Are US companies forced to deny customers not par of say an IP block (half assed method I know, but just speaking in general)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also can you explain why information that is placed on my server belongs to someone Isn’t this more or less the gist of GDPR and “right to be forgotten” laws? That my personal data doesn’t automatically “belong” to anyone else just because I entered it onto a server? > If someone has access to your laptop and downloads their photos onto it, who do those photos belong to? Rights to creative works, unlike personal da…
>Isn’t this more or less the gist of GDPR and “right to be forgotten” laws? That my personal data doesn’t automatically “belong” to anyone else just because I entered it onto a server? Yes the EU invented a new right for its citizens which is the prerogative of the EU because of their bastardized idea of what constitutes privacy. Privacy is a basic human right, that much is obvious. There is no human right however to…
I don’t see the connection between what’s a right and what’s a law here. If a majority of people want something they tell their lawmakers to turn it into law. It’s not a fundamental human right it’s a law like any other.
One surprising side effect of this might be that the hordes of machine learners and data scientists who used to work for adtech might go to healthcare/bioinformatics where we might get new breakthroughs.
There's a lot more stuff to do with ML and make money than ad targeting
From one of the references in the article: The Google consent interface greets site visitors with a request to use data to tailor advertising, with equally prominent “no” and “yes” buttons. If a reader declines to be tracked, he or she sees a notice saying the ads will be less relevant and asking to “agree” or go back to the previous page.
What if Google emotionally bribed people? eg "For every month you have targeted ads enabled, we will donate 10 cents to [INSERT CHARITY]."
After I opted out, I started seeing awful ads: mostly semi-naked bodies of people claiming to lose weight or bald heads.
Of course it's easy for Google to just say that this is what their economically optimized algorythm selects for a perfect stranger, because those are the only advertisers that risk spending ad money on someone they know nothing about.
Long story short: it's a sort of bribe already and you cannot prove it is happening.