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

The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

elnion.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 140 posts

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#51

Post by anonym29 »

voidpepe wrote: post #15
bobim wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insurance companies are very interested by your workout routine and how you drive your car, so they can adjust their offering specially for you… We can’t get laws banning this soon enough.

Insurance companies get these information from more direct sources. For example how you drive your car is sourced straight from the car manufacturers. And they pay big time for it. I can confirm this at least for one large automotive company that I cannot mention because of legal reasons, but they were founded by one infamous failed artist.

>For example how you drive your car is sourced straight from the car manufacturers.

This is why I do not, and never will, own a car with telemetry capabilities. I'm happy with my old dumb car. No smart crap for me.

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#52

Post by BiteCode_dev »

IAmNotAFix wrote: post #30
z_ack wrote: post #12

I did an experiment: I deleted all the cookies using privacy settings of my browser then I avoid to click anything about cookies' authorisation, i.e. if a page present that kind of requests I immediately close the page itself. At the and, I verified that cookies are presente on browser's storage despite my absence of authorisation, even third parties cookies. So, yes, I agree: commercial surveillance is creepy and I…

Only tracking cookies require consent. Cookies could be about the last time you saw the website's weather content, in which case it's purely functional and need no consent.

Third party cookies are usually for tracking though.

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#53

Post by tomjen3 »

duxup wrote: post #8
afpx wrote: post #5

What do they even do with this information? The ads they feed me haven’t become more relevant.

Even straight up first party information is an accurate. Amazon thinks I’m a woman despite buying men’s products. Google is convinced I’m a fan of a rival sports team despite obvious information otherwise. I have even told them I don’t want stories about the other team, but they keep popping up. I feel like most places are gathering information enough to somewhat fulfill their goal of getting a profile for advertisin…

I swear the people who works on those algorithms must be sabotaging it - Facebook had decided that I must like clothes and makeup because a significant fraction of my friends group did.

Apparently they don't have women as friends.

Of course the real issue is that everything sold via ads must be crap, or overpriced. Frequently both.

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#54

Post by BiteCode_dev »

Swizec wrote: post #39
z_ack wrote: post #12

I did an experiment: I deleted all the cookies using privacy settings of my browser then I avoid to click anything about cookies' authorisation, i.e. if a page present that kind of requests I immediately close the page itself. At the and, I verified that cookies are presente on browser's storage despite my absence of authorisation, even third parties cookies. So, yes, I agree: commercial surveillance is creepy and I…

> I avoid to click anything about cookies' authorisation, i.e. if a page present that kind of requests I immediately close the page itself. At the and, I verified that cookies are presente on browser's storage I have recently had to implement some of these banners. Here’s what I learned: click reject . The way America’s version of the cookie banner law (not sure about EU) works is that cookies are default allowed . T…

In Europe at least, the law doesn't forbid cookies or mandate banners. It's about tracking and informed consent. It turns out companies love tracking, massively use cookies for this, and chose obnoxious cookie banner dark patterns to request consent.

But there is not such thing as a "cookie banner law".

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#55

Post by hedora »

cmilton wrote: post #42
ThaDood wrote: post #10

I mean, I know its not practical for everyone or every application - that being said I have made it my highest priority to go out of my way to not use services or products that require apps to be installed. Obviously I make exceptions for stuff I deem "required" but for coffee chains, fast food restaurants, grocery stores and other services if they need an "app" for me to use it. I just won't use it. Or I will go out…

>That being said, I am now running into what I call the "Non-App Tax". The most prominent example I can think of in my own experience is my towns local parking payment system. You actually don't need to use the app to find parking or pay. You can scan a QR code and pay via text. Then I looked at the prices on the app vs prices via text and the prices were a decent amount higher ($1-2 more) and less flexible than if I…

It says “this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private” on every dollar bill.

I wish that was actually enforced.

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#58

Post by thfuran »

23B1 wrote: post #43
thfuran wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Heavy top-down regulation won't work, never has. That's utter nonsense. There will never be perfect compliance, but regulations absolutely can curb undesired behavior.

I wish you were right, but unfortunately 'regulations' always have carve-outs for the government itself, and they're one of the largest consumers of this data.

I work in medical software and I can tell you from first hand experience that regulations absolutely affect how companies gather and handle data. That regulations don't constrain what they don't regulate is sort of tautological. That's an argument against specific regulations, not against regulation. At any rate, it simply isn't true that all regulations have special carveouts for government.

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#59

Post by mcpackieh »

friendzis wrote: post #34
IAmNotAFix wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only tracking cookies require consent. Cookies could be about the last time you saw the website's weather content, in which case it's purely functional and need no consent.

No. Unless you have other lawful grounds of processing, all functional cookies still have to be session scoped at worst

Strictly necessary cookies do not have to be session cookies. If you read https://gdpr.eu/cookies/ it says they generally will be session cookies, not that they must be. If you think it is appropriate for your users to be already logged in the next time they run their web browser, using a persistent cookie for that is permitted.

Re: The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)

#60

Post by anonym29 »

ta988 wrote: post #46
malfist wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does that do that using uBlock with a decent block list doesn't? Not trying to be contrarian here, genuinely curious and wondering if I should install it on my phone.

I use a similar one called TrackerControl (from fdroid) it is just incredible the number of trackers inside a single app. Some have over a dozen, this is getting out of hand.

I'd never heard of this and went to go try it. I very disappointed to find it required me to turn off my existing VPN and wanted me to disable DoH :(
Post reply on HN