Live data from Hacker News

Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising

vivaldi.com

191–200 of 271 posts

Re: Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising

#191
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Are you also going to make gossip illegal?

Are customer reviews going to be illegal?

Re: Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising

#192
"In a population survey conducted by YouGov on behalf of the Norwegian Consumer Council, just one out of ten respondents were positive to commercial actors collecting personal information about them online, while only one out of five thought that serving ads based on personal information is acceptable. This resembles similar surveys from both sides of the Atlantic, and indicates that consumers do not regard commercial surveillance as an acceptable trade-off for the possibility of seeing tailored ads."

https://www.forbrukerradet.no/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/202...

In light of the evidence, should surveillance-based ads be opt-in (default, no need to figure out and change settings) or opt-out. Currently, tech companies make these ads opt-out. By default the ads are enabled. To disable them, the user must find, understand and change settings. Of course, most users do not ever change default settings. Many users may not even be aware that there are such things as settings.

Re: Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising

#193

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.

>Force companies who leak personal data to pay reasonable damages to all the individuals involved Doesn't this just consolidate power among FAAG even more? They can pay these fines and they don't often leak data- if ever. That's another thing- define leaking data. Sharing with 3rd parties? It's vague enough for them to beat that in court. We do somehow need to get back to advertising the old fashioned way rather than…

> We do somehow need to get back to advertising the old fashioned way rather than this surveillance capitalism arms-race.

Old fashioned ads were targeted based on the thing they were attached to. For instance, if you read the sports pages of a newspaper sold in your city, you probably got ads of presumed interest to people in your city who are interested in sports.

To restore that kind of system, you would need to focus on those kinds of issues: making advertising first party, distinguishing between parts of a site without distinguishing between users.

But once you've done that, you're still left with first parties that can spy on you and use that data in non-advertising ways, or even presumably for direct marketing (if you have some kind of an account).

I think it's better to focus on the surveillance. If they can't surveil you, then they can't use surveillance advertising. As you point out, focusing on leaks is irrelevant because I don't really feel better that only Google knows everything about me. Focusing on advertising doesn't stop them collecting data, it just limits how they can use it. If we don't want the data to exist, collecting it should be prohibited.

Re: Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising

#194
Why not go to the logical conclusion and ban advertising?

Why not have a yellow pages of cool stuff with proper discovery mechanisms instead. Anyone who's interested in new stuff can go and see what's new, what's happening, like reading the news.

Remember when you'd check the app store on your phone for cool stuff? Just have that, for everything.

Advertising is mind pollution, it's exhaust fumes for your mind and it's a giant industry that wastes everyone's time playing zero sum games too, ugh.

Re: Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising

#195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The simpler answer is to just ban it. The law doesn't need to be technically detailed or envision every single technological adaptation: it just needs to be sufficient for a judge to be able to recognise it when a prosecutor describes it and a defence lawyer attempts to pull the wool over their eyes. It needs to be focused on outcomes. Once banned, Google and Facebook will submit. They will attempt to lobby against t…

> law doesn't need to be technically detailed or envision every single technological adaptation: it just needs to be sufficient for a judge to be able to recognise it when a prosecutor describes it and a defence lawyer attempts to pull the wool over their eyes This is a terrible philosophy for legislating. It undermines the rule of law, i.e. that you should ex ante be able to determine if what you're doing is legal o…

Every important criminal law includes the idea of intent. Killing someone with a car because you sneezed is very different from intentionally running them over in the eyes of the law.

Re: Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising

#196

"In a population survey conducted by YouGov on behalf of the Norwegian Consumer Council, just one out of ten respondents were positive to commercial actors collecting personal information about them online, while only one out of five thought that serving ads based on personal information is acceptable. This resembles similar surveys from both sides of the Atlantic, and indicates that consumers do not regard commercia…

I think you will find that there is a certain part of the population that has bought into the story that surveillance-based ads are somewhat needed for the Internet to work. It is just a story. We have seen from GDPR that you cannot leave any holes. Lets not do it this time.

Re: Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising

#197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> law doesn't need to be technically detailed or envision every single technological adaptation: it just needs to be sufficient for a judge to be able to recognise it when a prosecutor describes it and a defence lawyer attempts to pull the wool over their eyes This is a terrible philosophy for legislating. It undermines the rule of law, i.e. that you should ex ante be able to determine if what you're doing is legal o…

Every important criminal law includes the idea of intent. Killing someone with a car because you sneezed is very different from intentionally running them over in the eyes of the law.

> criminal law includes the idea of intent

Yes, but intent alone isn't sufficient. We need a precise, side-effect light definition of the kinds of activities we want to ban and by whom. To date, I haven't seen that.

Passing a law which bans "surveillance-based advertising" with little more specificity is a recipe for disaster.

Re: Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising

#198
post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 con…

> Email surveillance is maybe going even further in a worse direction, in that it's even more decontextualized and time-independent. Are any major email providers still selling ads targeted by the content of messages?

It's doubtful that any of us are in a position to know if they are or not.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that 100% of major email providers have stated they do not sell ads based on email content.

Next we have to either: take their word for it or have the means to verify their claims.

Taking their word for it is difficult because many major email providers have a spotty relationship with honesty. This issue of honesty is not necessarily very different from other large corporations and in truth might be a factor in what made them a large corporation in the first place.

(As First Baron Thurlow is claimed to have said: "Did you ever expect a corporation to have a conscience, when it has no soul to be damned, and no body to be kicked?")

And so we would instead need the means to verify the claims of these major email providers. I'm unsure of how to reasonably do that.

►Perhaps allow Qui Tam claims for privacy issues combined with a statutorily defined "cost" for each false claim instance?

Qui tam allows, for example, private citizens to file suit against bad-actor govt contractors in the name of the govt. The "whistleblower" then receives a share of recovered proceeds.

Here, if a statutory "cost" was defined for every false claim related to using the content of email messages (say $1 per message) then this might provide a way to help verify that the major email providers are being truthful in what they claim regarding their use of content in messages.

Email providers would know their employees are on the lookout for a big payday and might honor their public promises. And if they don't, a few large qui tam lawsuits would quickly get their attention (or drive them into bankruptcy).

Re: Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising

#199
post #133

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 platfo…

> a few actors can obtain competitive advantages by collecting data from across websites... This is going away: all the major browsers have said they are going to block cross-site tracking. (Disclosure: I work on ads at Google, speaking only for myself)

Nobody needs cookies to track users cross-site. Cookies are just convenient.

Re: Open letter: Ban surveillance-based advertising

#200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my perspective, both advertising and surveillance are bad, and both should be banned.

Yeah, I don't think our opinions diverge too much on that. My ideal world wouldn't feature much of either of them—I think well-marked, in some standard and easy-to-spot way, ads in publications aren't so terrible, for instance, provided it's made clear up-front, say with some kind of cigarette-box style notice or warning, that there are ads in it. Though, again, if paid advertising just went away, in all forms, entir…

I know we're comparing relative evils here, but that's interesting. I think my main concerns with surveillance are the chilling effects it has on those who would break the law for ethical reasons. But ultimately I think the tangible negative effects that surveillance has on most people are indirect. That's not to say they aren't important. But as important as advertising?

Advertising causes a great deal of surveillance, but it causes a lot of other issues, many of which affect almost everyone, very directly, and in some tangible ways. At a basic level, we're being lied to constantly in ways that hurt our self esteem, break our concentration, introduce us to new fears and angers: the exact intention of which is to create problems for us so that it can persuade us that giving them money will solve our problems. Advertising tells us our partners aren't hot enough, we aren't cool enough, our houses aren't big enough, our cars aren't fast enough, that we aren't doing enough for X cause. It tells us that our financial future is insecure, that we're missing out, that we're at risk for disease, floods, and car accidents. If a parent or partner told us these things, we'd call it emotional abuse, but from advertisers it's both accepted and commonplace. And it affects us deeply: we're overmedicated, overfed, overworked, and over-indebted.

And that's just the direct effects. When you consider the kinds of content that advertising funds, it's almost universally harmful. News that prioritizes clicks over information by inciting anger and fear. Informational resources that avoid speaking truth to power because power advertises. Social media that courts flame wars, conspiracy theories, and echo chambers because they all provoke engagement. Everything advertising funds is fast, shallow and emotional, because slow, deep and rational doesn't promote clicks.

Why even look for a compromise here? Easy to spot ads aren't better: they're still people shoving a lie in our face. There's nothing of value here. Ads are a tumor: even if we can find some part of it that's benign, there's no part that shouldn't be excised.

Post reply on HN