31–40 of 187 posts
It'd be useful if the author revealed how she managed to obtain her data. I am pretty sure that a request with just your real name wouldn't reveal much. I assume that most data is collected under some identifier which isn't matched to your real name in order to thwart this kind of request.
It's enough to email from the address thats associated with the account. Generally speaking.
These kinds of articles always make me think about how big a privacy risk the laws that make these possible are. We're worried about user privacy, so we mandate that companies build a way to connect PII to otherwise-pseudonymous browsing data in case the user asks for it. What if someone else asks for it? Huge security risk. That's not to say these laws are bad, just that the giant additional privacy risk they pose i…
It'd be useful if the author revealed how she managed to obtain her data. I am pretty sure that a request with just your real name wouldn't reveal much. I assume that most data is collected under some identifier which isn't matched to your real name in order to thwart this kind of request.
This latest trend is so annoying: there is either "Accept" or: "See purpose". And the "Don't accept" stuff is hidden under "See purpose". Infuriating.
The personal data industry is truly disgusting but the really funny thing is that most of the data is actually worthless. Its collected only because it can be. Not because its valuable or worthwhile. These companies are basically hoarders. Hoarders that rummage through your trash and spy on you from afar. They are awful, the business is awful and is a viable case of "just because you can, should you?"
This latest trend is so annoying: there is either "Accept" or: "See purpose". And the "Don't accept" stuff is hidden under "See purpose". Infuriating.
And, an "accept" holds for seemingly till the end of time, while a "I don't accept" is valid not much more than the mouse button click echoes through my room before you stand before the dialog box yet again, contemplating why you don't do something more useful with your life.
This latest trend is so annoying: there is either "Accept" or: "See purpose". And the "Don't accept" stuff is hidden under "See purpose". Infuriating.
There are sites (like wwe.com) where after you have successfully located the preference to opt out from everything it shows a "processing" screen which is stuck at 98% for about a minute. But accept is "processed" in an instant. Another dark pattern is showing you have opted out but some sites cannot receive opt out requests through https which is written in small fonts. By doing this they have successfully targeted…
Proximus [0], the partially state-owned and largest telecom provider in Belgium, uses this pattern too.
Additionally, on mobile, scrolling through the cookie-usage options automatically selects the maximum invasive option. The 'scroll-touch' is registered as a regular touch selecting the option.
It's hard to believe this is by accident.
Basically like being a hacker in the 1980s and 90s, or even part of early rave culture, where the sort of people who work in marketing would be afraid or uncomfortable with being associated with you before the culture is gentrified by people preoccupied by their reputations, and you can be free to create and innovate without being co-opted.
No doubt they still have a category for you, but it's marked as a minefield, which is as good a moat as any.
It occurred to me that if you want to see fewer ads and be generally left alone by marketers, get your IP and online data footprint associated with pariah topics like fringe news sites, weird subcultures, edgy politics, drug use, and privacy. Basically like being a hacker in the 1980s and 90s, or even part of early rave culture, where the sort of people who work in marketing would be afraid or uncomfortable with bein…