11–20 of 271 posts
A few typos in the article: > Were the regulator to find in favor of the plaintiffs, that could undermine the foundations of the data-driven model on with the online ad industry - forecast by research firm eMarketer to grow to $273 billion this year - depends. with = which The GDPR is the first data privacy regime that foresees heavy fines for serious violations - of up to 4 percent of a company’s global turnover. fo…
This comes at the same time that Malwarebytes starts flagging Brave as malware[1]. [1] https://twitter.com/lukesawczak/status/1039854898068815873
That has nothing to do with Brave, it's just another failure of antivirus / antimalware approach. Nothing new. EDIT: not sure why they prefer blacklisting to whitelisting, anyone know the reasons?
Its admirable what brave is trying to do. Practically speaking, its one of the best chance we have of creating a new internet where the incentives are more privacy focused. Hope they succeed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Generally speaking, ad networks don't sell personal data. That's their secret sauce - selling it is largely counterproductive. I can't call up Yahoo, and ask to buy the personal data of "forapurpose". If I could, it would take me a few million dollars to build a clone of their most valuable asset - their user database. What they sell is ad spots in webpages, when those webpages are visited by people who satisfy some…
Thanks. How does that apply in this case? Does GDPR allow the collection but ban the selling of data? Also, per the article, the complaint claims that the collected information is shared with many other companies. How does that square with what you are saying? Are they sharing it with partners but not selling it to them? Does that make a difference under GDPR?
Its admirable what brave is trying to do. Practically speaking, its one of the best chance we have of creating a new internet where the incentives are more privacy focused. Hope they succeed.
Call me crazy, but in no future can I imagine anyone willingly paying their browser vendor for anything. Brave isn't the future, it's yet another cash grab.
The real future is fully-decentralized websites, and it doesn't require new browsers.
Edit: Fixed inaccuracy pointed out by Brave developer
They are arguing that the surveillance core of adtech is a GDPR violation, if I understand correctly. > The complaint argues that when a person visits a website, intimate personal data that describe them and what they are doing online is broadcast to tens or hundreds of companies without their knowledge in order to auction and place ads. It would be great if someone with real expertise in GDPR or adtech could provide…
This comes at the same time that Malwarebytes starts flagging Brave as malware[1]. [1] https://twitter.com/lukesawczak/status/1039854898068815873
Malwarebytes has had a few (seemingly) false positives lately. Anecdotally, I was just hit by it falsely flagging BeyondCompare and my password manager. I assume they have just upped the ante of their heuristics, but am still concerned about the fallout, since I am starting to ignore them. Not related, but considering that it does not scan except on demand, why is it ALWAYS running? Who vouches for Mr. Malwarebytes?
They are arguing that the surveillance core of adtech is a GDPR violation, if I understand correctly. > The complaint argues that when a person visits a website, intimate personal data that describe them and what they are doing online is broadcast to tens or hundreds of companies without their knowledge in order to auction and place ads. It would be great if someone with real expertise in GDPR or adtech could provide…
Generally speaking, ad networks don't sell personal data. That's their secret sauce - selling it is largely counterproductive. I can't call up Yahoo, and ask to buy the personal data of "forapurpose". If I could, it would take me a few million dollars to build a clone of their most valuable asset - their user database. What they sell is ad spots in webpages, when those webpages are visited by people who satisfy some…
An ad network answers the question 'what is the best way to spend $$$ and win this election' _using_ personal data of millions of people, but not _revealing_ the personal data to the paying customer. The paying customer is highly unlikely to have the technical acumen to turn personal data into actionable insights anyways, service readily provided by the ad network. The fact that personal data was not revealed is irrelevant, the end effect was bought by anyways.
The evil is in collecting personal data to begin with, not in the technical manner it is used against the people it belongs to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Generally speaking, ad networks don't sell personal data. That's their secret sauce - selling it is largely counterproductive. I can't call up Yahoo, and ask to buy the personal data of "forapurpose". If I could, it would take me a few million dollars to build a clone of their most valuable asset - their user database. What they sell is ad spots in webpages, when those webpages are visited by people who satisfy some…
Thanks. How does that apply in this case? Does GDPR allow the collection but ban the selling of data? Also, per the article, the complaint claims that the collected information is shared with many other companies. How does that square with what you are saying? Are they sharing it with partners but not selling it to them? Does that make a difference under GDPR?