How does the type of hoarding Sift does work with regulations like GDPR? The type of data collected seems like one big violation.
Do they simply avoid operating in places with GDPR (or equivalent) laws? Is that even possible?
I Got Access to My Secret Consumer Score
291–300 of 341 posts
Re: I Got Access to My Secret Consumer Score
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
Targeting doesn't work. There is no baby.
I recently bought a set of clamps on Amazon to join two shipping containers together. Since then I've seen a bunch of related ads, such as for shipping container vents, shelving, etc. I clicked on a couple of those ads, and while I didn't buy anything, I did learn some useful information. I probably would have learned less, if anything, from untargeted ads in those same slots.
> while I didn't buy anything
And so targeting didn't work!
Yes, "targeting" can put stuff in front of your eyeballs that may occasionally have marginal utility, but for sales? Nu uh.
In the baby/bathwater metaphor, you saw some ads for strollers. Still no baby.
Re: I Got Access to My Secret Consumer Score
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you receive any information yet?
No, but I would not expect that so soon. (A confirmation email, by contrast, generally arrive within minutes. A two-hour delay is very unusual.)
Same here. Did confirmation and sent emails to all the other services linked. Will post here when and if they reach out.
Re: I Got Access to My Secret Consumer Score
#294There is a scene at the beginning of the movie Brazil [1] where a literal bug falls into a tele-type, causes an error that starts a chain reaction that frames the events of the movie. The bug is a metaphor in the movie, just some nice visual story-telling to indicate how errors in automated processes can have unintended consequences. I honestly fear that entire lives will be ruined by AI systems mis-analyzing some da…
Its already happening to hundreds of business owners who sell their own products on Amazon. Anyone who had a successful FBA business is now diversifying away from Amazon as it seems almost impossible to resolve mistakes caused by their algos.
Re: I Got Access to My Secret Consumer Score
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
What the hell are you talking about? I'm not libertarian or ranting, I'm saying this is a complex issue and the "LETS REGULATE IT" feels premature given how complex and subtle the issue is, and how hard laws are to change once they're on the books. Methinks you're projecting more than a little bit. Also your comment is some of the most toxic I've seen on HN in a little while, and I'm not exactly a ray of sunshine on…
> I'm saying this is a complex issue and the "LETS REGULATE IT" feels premature given how complex and subtle the issue is, and how hard laws are to change once they're on the books.
There is a difference between "This specific regulation fails to take X into account" or even "This is a complex issue which requires carefully crafted regulation" and your stance which seems to be that regulation is impossible or undesirable due to the complexity of the issue or because it might be annoying to change later. That very much suggests your problem is with regulation itself.
Just out of curiosity, if you think regulating this is a bad idea, what do you propose to fix the problem? Appealing to the good will of companies who would gladly exploit us to make money?
Re: I Got Access to My Secret Consumer Score
#296Anyone who's ever worked with Sift knows this is an unfair characterization. It reads like every other article in the NYT about tech or cybersecurity - uneducated fear mongering.
Re: I Got Access to My Secret Consumer Score
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
I recently bought a set of clamps on Amazon to join two shipping containers together. Since then I've seen a bunch of related ads, such as for shipping container vents, shelving, etc. I clicked on a couple of those ads, and while I didn't buy anything, I did learn some useful information. I probably would have learned less, if anything, from untargeted ads in those same slots.
> while I didn't buy anything And so targeting didn't work! Yes, "targeting" can put stuff in front of your eyeballs that may occasionally have marginal utility, but for sales? Nu uh. In the baby/bathwater metaphor, you saw some ads for strollers. Still no baby.
It didn't work for the advertiser, but it did for me. I learned about options and prices for container accessories, which will help me make future choices. I would not have been better off if those ads had been less interesting to me.
Re: I Got Access to My Secret Consumer Score
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a perceptible difference to a consumer who has been flagged as "fraud" when they are not, in fact, someone who has committed fraud? If not, then there's no difference.
First off no one is saying "you look like fraud", they're saying details of your purchase looked suspicious. This is the first place where people need to pump the brakes, there is not some dire sinister plot, you went to make a purchase, it looked weird, we want to make sure it all checks out. This happens _all the time_ with credit card purchases, historically from the card issuer, but card issuers are actually enco…
Yes, this is why I wanted to distinguish between a binary score and a continuous one. A continuous one allows for a flag for review at one threshold or an outright refusal at another. It's exactly what credit cards do. A purchase may go through, but it is suspicious so they call you to verify. Or it could be really suspicious so they block it and you have to contact them. It's happened to me both ways.
Re: I Got Access to My Secret Consumer Score
#299There is a scene at the beginning of the movie Brazil [1] where a literal bug falls into a tele-type, causes an error that starts a chain reaction that frames the events of the movie. The bug is a metaphor in the movie, just some nice visual story-telling to indicate how errors in automated processes can have unintended consequences. I honestly fear that entire lives will be ruined by AI systems mis-analyzing some da…
But is this really about AI? Almost all aspects of our lives are already controlled by the enormously complex soulless machines of bureaucracy we call firms and governments. Is there any essential difference between a computer bug and a clerical error? If anything, I would assume the former is easier to fix.
But that’s not how it works, it’s not one in place of another; it’s one that depends on another.
If your physical bureaucratic entity delegates decision making to an AI, you have no hope of redress unless due process was mandated.
If you cut the bureaucratic middleman then you have to build an AI that can question itself and correct errors.
AI will never do that. So what you get instead is negligence because a computer makes a mathematical computation and the human element treats it as infallble.
Re: I Got Access to My Secret Consumer Score
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
What the hell are you talking about? I'm not libertarian or ranting, I'm saying this is a complex issue and the "LETS REGULATE IT" feels premature given how complex and subtle the issue is, and how hard laws are to change once they're on the books. Methinks you're projecting more than a little bit. Also your comment is some of the most toxic I've seen on HN in a little while, and I'm not exactly a ray of sunshine on…
I mean, you saw "regulations are written in blood because people died and resulted in them getting passed" and thought a proper response was "let's not have any regulations at all because they're hard to get rid of and slow business down" so you're at least taking the libertarian position, regardless of whether you identify as a libertarian.
And no, nobody else has ever interpreted "regulations are written in blood" in that fashion, nor is that a valid interpretation of that saying. That is in fact the opposite of what the saying means.
There are wrong answers to questions, I understand that it may be uncomfortable to be told that but it doesn't change the fact that nobody else ever interpreted that saying that way, nor does it really make any sense to interpret that way.
Your jumping into semantic arguments about well I said it therefore it's a viewpoint is especially unproductive to the overall discussion. Like sure, but (a) that's not relevant, and (b) not all viewpoints are good, it's not a valid viewpoint just because it's a viewpoint. It's also where you start seriously leaning off into sealioning/tone argument instead of, you know, discussing why regulations are written in blood.
Hope this helps, I'm trying to keep this as even-keeled and matter-of-fact as possible - which certainly poses a challenge once you've poisoned the well by throwing around accusations of toxicity. That's a burden on me, everything I argue now has to be sugarcoated lest it further reinforce you as being the victim, which is of course the whole reason you dove into tone arguments.
That is part of the problem with "no offending anybody" type rules - it becomes very easy to cry "toxic" and play the victim and that lowers the quality of discourse, because nobody's opinion can ever be wrong lest they get offended.