Live data from Hacker News

Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising

vivaldi.com

111–120 of 271 posts

Re: Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising

#111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Then just post about your IDE on Elixir forums. Not all users of Elixir hang out on Elixir forums. There are plenty that spend the majority of their time on the internet elsewhere. >and I certainly don't want ad companies that are following me on random websites to know that I'm a programmer who is interested in Elixir or any other data about me. Why not? Systems can become more efficient if they know you better.

> Why not? Systems can become more efficient if they know you better. Not op but I've not clicked a single ad intentionally since Ads exist on the internet. I don't consider them a trusted source for recommendation and why should I? Why should anybody? Ads violate my attention and that's what they're made for. They do not help you find the best product. They want you to find THEIR product. Everybody knows that. The p…

> …"I've not clicked a single ad intentionally since Ads exist on the internet."

You and me both. I actually actively block ads on the Internet except on the very few sites that have earned my trust (https://readthedocs.org/, DuckDuckGo, etc) or sites where the advertising is directly connected to my existing purpose (to buy a thing) such as Amazon, eBay, Humble Bundle, etc. Everywhere else gets the block because they simply can't be trusted anymore.

Re: Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising

#112

Physical storefronts have over time learned how to optimise their presentation to achieve higher conversion. Initially it was experimentation with layouts, with time they added cameras which helped understand customer behaviours. This expertise is commonly outsourced to physical marketing companies who dispatch "merchandisers" to your store to help optimise your layout to fall in line with the layouts they have desig…

One thing I've wrestled with with the rise of online news and its effects on physical newspapers is how much I miss certain things about the physical newspapers. I don't miss the physical format, but I do think the old-school paper newspapers were much more enjoyable to read than most online equivalents.

At some point I realized that one major issue is that advertising in many of the paper copies was based around content area: if I went to the performing arts section, for example, it would be filled with ads for performing arts events. I loved this as it was actually useful and informative to me. I went to that section looking for performing arts, and that's what I got.

In online news, though, if I go to a performing arts, I don't get informative, unintrusive ads for performing arts events in my area, I get bombarded with random ads for things unrelated to what I'm looking at. Even if, say, earlier in the day I was looking for shoes, I don't want to see ads for shoes if I'm browsing performing arts, I'm interested in performing arts.

What you're talking about is a broader observation about identification of individuals per se versus patterns of interests and behaviors. However, I'd argue that a major failure of online advertising (with very important exceptions, including Google, DuckDuckGo, and many other places) is the recognition that what matters for ads is interest at any given moment, and not interests at any other time. I suppose someone might say "but a good ad is something that gives you what you are interested in even if you might not recognize it" but this is really difficult to get right, especially given that my interests in a given moment can shift from minute to minute.

If I'm moving from, say, shoe shopping to, say, performing arts, I'm deliberately moving my attention away from the former to the latter. Showing me ads for shoes is something that's specifically going against my current attentional goals. It's like saying "hey Honey, I'm done in the kitchen and am going to go into the garage to work on something" and then having some random stranger show up and pull you back in the kitchen.

This seems to be a fundamental screwup with a lot of online advertising: the failure to recognize that I'm functionally a different person from moment to moment, and when I move from one page to another there's a reason for that.

Email surveillance is maybe going even further in a worse direction, in that it's even more decontextualized and time-independent. Part of the brilliance of Google search ads, and things like DuckDuckGo, is that they catch you exactly in that moment when you're looking for something on a specific topic. Newspapers and everywhere else needs to take better advantage of that paradigm. Show me what I'm looking for now, don't take a shotgun guess at what I might want based on what I was doing in the past.

Re: Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising

#113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, rather than targeting advertising I'd prefer to get to the actual point, and target mass surveillance and collection of huge troves of personal data no matter the purpose . Ban monetizing data (no selling, no pay-for-access, no derived products) and make leaks guaranteed to be expensive, so companies only keep what they have to to operate, with some large multiplier attached to the leak fine if it was related t…

> The advertising is a symptom, it's not the disease. Advertising also stimulates mass overconsumption. If we want to save the planet, advertising is among the top things we should ban right away.

Right, but the alternative in question is banning surveillance-based advertising. I'd prefer to curb surveillance itself, having the side-effect of eliminating surveillance-based advertising.

Separately, yes, I'd like to see practically all public advertising banned (billboards are blight), and while I'd have to think on it some more before supporting a blanket ban on all advertising (I'm not sure it's workable, for one thing) I'd also not be sad if I woke up one morning and learned that such a law had been passed.

Re: Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising

#114
post #66

I think there's a simpler way to achieve this. Force companies who leak personal data to pay reasonable damages to all the individuals involved, on the scale of 10-100 dollars, depending on how much personal info has been leaked. That would make businesses very quickly reassess how much data they need to keep, and how careful they need to be with it, without requiring any really radical legislation.

Yeah but what is a leak ? Do you consider it a leak when a data transfer to another company is intentional ? Companies like Google are probably secured like fortress and will probably not leak data anytime soon (lets hope) so your idea wont have any effect against giants that takes security seriously. However, I really like your point and you'll probably have a good side effect on middle size companies. But giants ar…

> Yeah but what is a leak?

Any time someone who's not me or a direct party to a transaction or conversation learns something about me then that is a "leak".

> Do you consider it a leak when a data transfer to another company is intentional?

If I do business with my bank then the bank should have no right to sell my information to a third party for any reason whatsoever.

If I do business with my hair stylist then the credit card processor should not have any right whatsoever to do anything with the facts:

- where was the hair stylist? That's private.

- who was the hair stylist? That's private.

- when was I at the hair stylist? That's private.

- what did the hair stylist sell? That's private.

- why did I go to the hair stylist? That's private.

Nobody except my hair stylist and myself should have this information.

Re: Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising

#115

I think there's a simpler way to achieve this. Force companies who leak personal data to pay reasonable damages to all the individuals involved, on the scale of 10-100 dollars, depending on how much personal info has been leaked. That would make businesses very quickly reassess how much data they need to keep, and how careful they need to be with it, without requiring any really radical legislation.

This is what happened with pollution. Leaks were common. But it cost to fix. Then regulations came in to fine any leakage. It works, but is always the lowest priority for any company. Because it's a profit drain not profit growth.

Re: Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising

#116

Do we have a good proposed legal definition of surveillance-based advertising?

I think it's advertising targeted to a group (where a group size of one is an individual).

Some of the unintended side effects (which aren't necessarily bad) include ending virtually all store loyalty programs.

Re: Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising

#117

I think there's a simpler way to achieve this. Force companies who leak personal data to pay reasonable damages to all the individuals involved, on the scale of 10-100 dollars, depending on how much personal info has been leaked. That would make businesses very quickly reassess how much data they need to keep, and how careful they need to be with it, without requiring any really radical legislation.

I don't think the letter writers' goal is data security.

Re: Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising

#118

I think there's a simpler way to achieve this. Force companies who leak personal data to pay reasonable damages to all the individuals involved, on the scale of 10-100 dollars, depending on how much personal info has been leaked. That would make businesses very quickly reassess how much data they need to keep, and how careful they need to be with it, without requiring any really radical legislation.

I don't think that's gonna cut it, but definitely on the right track. Its going to require some kind of legislation, or an insurance requirement that renders the insurers as de-facto regulators. This is still crazy hard due to the possibility of regulatory arbitrage, just open shop in Anguilla or wherever. Without the auditing, compliance, and domain experts to verify and implement this, its going to be extremely har…

The problem is it is not easy to asses the security risk of small businesses in a cost effective way for insurance companies. It's really hard to come up with a set of regulations here that protects users data and doesn't completely disadvantage startups and small businesses.

Re: Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising

#119
Not a ton of depth in the letter itself, but I like the angle they take. It's not all about privacy or data security.

"In addition to the clear privacy issues caused by surveillance-based advertising, it is also detrimental to the business landscape."

"In the surveillance-based advertising model, a few actors can obtain competitive advantages by collecting data from across websites and services and dominant platform actors can abuse their positions by giving preference to their own services."

In many senses, Google & FB have achieved what net neutrality wanted to prevent ISPs from doing. In the developing world, FB has actually achieved it. If AOL had succeeded, we would have ended up approximately here.

Post reply on HN