Google doesn’t actually have a problem in serving contextual ads on their own properties, since they have plenty of context. The problem is with AdSense since there advertisers need some sort of user profile, plus in the EU bidding exchanges are in jeopardy due to the GDPR.
Why? I didn't consent for that.
i (and many others) believe that surveillance is like this. the effort that it takes to do what your describing does not scale, and cannot be used to implement dragnet surveillance and data collection (unless it's a police state and you have a lot of notetakers). lots of people (myself and many others) think dragnet surveillance (whether by private entities or governments) is a thing to be avoided (because it creates really bad power asymmetries, which i think are inherently a bad thing).
also, i don't think that large companies should be granted the same rights as individuals. just because a person can do a thing on their own doesn't mean that a large entity should be able to do something similar in spirit at thousands or millions of times the scale.
And in your case of the note taker, a better example would be somebody that frequently follows you, and takes notes about what you wear. In many places, that could be grounds for harassment claim. In other words, it’s not the act that matters to most people, but the frequency and scale at which the act takes place.
Stop thinking about data ownership. Ownership is irrelevant.
It's illegal to process any data about an identified or identifiable person unless you have a lawful basis to do so, and there are only a half dozen of those. "Because I own the data" is not one of them.
I think the fundamental problem here is that people in the EU will choose privacy over the ability of companies to make money. Its a different outlook on life. When its my interests versus the interests of business I choose me.
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/03/metadata_surv...
Quote:
"An easy thought experiment demonstrates this. Imagine that you hired a private detective to eavesdrop on a subject. That detective would plant a bug in that subject's home, office, and car. He would eavesdrop on his computer. He would listen in on that subject's conversations, both face to face and remotely, and you would get a report on what was said in those conversations. Now imagine that you asked that same private detective to put a subject under constant surveillance. You would get a different report, one that included things like where he went, what he did, who he spoke to -- and for how long -- who he wrote to, what he read, and what he purchased. This is all metadata, data we know the NSA is collecting. So when the president says that it's only metadata, what you should really hear is that we're all under constant and ubiquitous surveillance."
My point is that surveillance is not illegal and does not require any consent to accrue information through public observation.
I disagree completely.
We might not like it but it is legal and they own their observations.
> Whilst there is no strict legal definition of 'stalking', section 2A (3) of the PHA 1997 sets out examples of acts or omissions which, in particular circumstances, are ones associated with stalking. For example, following a person, watching or spying on them or forcing contact with the victim through any means, including social media.
--begin here--
Definition of stalking
Stalking is not legally defined but section 2A (3) of the PHA 1997 lists a number of examples of behaviours associated with stalking. The list is not an exhaustive one but gives an indication of the types of behaviour that may be displayed in a stalking offence. The listed behaviours are:
(a) following a person,
(b) contacting, or attempting to contact, a person by any means,
(c) publishing any statement or other material relating or purporting to relate to a person, or purporting to originate from a person,
(d) monitoring the use by a person of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication,
(e) loitering in any place (whether public or private),
(f) interfering with any property in the possession of a person,
(g) watching or spying on a person.
I mean, that's pretty clear.
First, most of this sort of spying involves using my own equipment as a weapon against me -- and actively subvert my defenses in order to do it. This is, in my view, not much different than them breaking into my home and installing surveillance equipment.
Second, the data gathered about me (even if it doesn't involve subverting my own equipment) is not kept in isolation. It is combined with a lot of other data about me and then mined for further insights. Every little data gathering act may be insignificant in isolation, but the end result is a degree of surveillance that is deeply immoral if done without my consent.
Not if that targeting is done using data gathered about me without my consent -- as it almost universally is.
Targeting based on context (what sort of website the ad is on, for instance), is fine.