What's surprising to most people (and should be the focus of any litigation, imho) is precisely this third-party data sharing. It's partly why the cookie law drives me nuts, since it's made all tracking the bogeyman, and in reality, most first party "tracking" is completely benign. If companies would agree not to sell or share my data with third parties (law enforcement serving a warrant being the major exception) then I have no real issue with the tech. The blatant sharing, and especially ad networks make my blood boil.
I called Amazons customer service to complain about their suggestions. The representative said that their suggestions are based on my searches and purchases. I believe the suggestions are also based on the purchases made for that address.
My father doesn't even get an option to opt out of Amazon suggesting things he's purchased, to other people to purchase for him. There isn't an option for privacy.
There is a lot more disclosure about the use of cookies due to those laws. One of the things those disclosures will note is how many of those cookies are from third-parties. How many people have even reviewed a single disclosure? Of those who have, how many know how to disable third-party cookies? I am not surprised that tracking ended up as the bogeyman due to the amount of it, the dubious motives of most of it, and the limited control that people have.
Even if you eliminate third-party tracking and other forms of data sharing, the amount of tracking happening through first-party cookies is sometimes questionable. A company may be fully justified in figuring out how their services are used, but does that extend to creating profiles on individuals? There is a big difference between a business using aggregate data to improve sales and using data to tailor services to individuals. It is worth noting that many people would consider the former as being too manipulative, while it is reasonable to argue that the latter is exploiting the vulnerabilities of individuals.
Personally, I find any sort form of tracking beyond ensuring security and performance to be excessive since most of the other tracking is intended to establish a one-sided relationship to the benefit of the people doing the tracking. Arguing that it sometimes improves the lives those being tracked is missing the point since it is usually very much unintentional.
Perhaps more importantly, restricting third-party but not first-party sharing creates bad incentives. If Google could share search data with first-party services like Google Reviews, but not third-party ones like Yelp, what does that mean for Yelp? We'd just be encouraging the largest companies to bring even more of the world in-house.
I think views related to this topic somewhat depend on whether or not you consider Google a monopoly in the digital advertising space. If you do, it would seem that bringing more of the world in-house would be deemed illegal under anti-trust laws.
You think it is value add because you assume they are using the data to send you more relevant content. That's just not how data is always used. A google customer (eg an advertiser) might want to hit you with deliberately non-relevant ads, ads to divert you away from a competitor product. You might want to book a trip to visit family in Hawaii, but the Florida resort advertiser doesn't much care what you want actually. They will hit you with Florida ads in hopes that they can divert a potential traveler to a different destination. You will miss out on relevant Hawaii content simply because Florida has paid more to put content in front of you.
What would be surprising (to most consumers) is if the Florida resort advertiser, instead of bidding on some broad target demographic, has access to enough data to target me individually. However that comes about, that is the line that is crossed. Why does the third party have direct(ish) access to this data? Why wasn't I informed? Etc. Whether that is direct sale of the data, or indirect targeting through unusually specific ad campaign targeting, the effect is the same: it's creepy.
sure for the few minutes that that data is relevant to selling you stuff you're looking for right now, but why would you expect them to keep it for longer, as this seems to imply?
the time dimension matters too. keeping that data for more than a few minutes should also be explicitly opt-in, as it's data being collected and potentially shared in the future (intentionally or not).
reach and accessibility are naturally limited 'in the old days' where a salesperson might remember your preferences, even writing them down to share with other salespeople, but that data hardly leaked out to other retailers (and potential competitors). it seems that that should be our baseline, and any further gathering/sharing be subject to explicit opt-in.
In many countries (Russia, China, Myanmar come to mind) you would not give the law enforcement exception. How certain are you that, in 20-40 years, your current political beliefs won't get you in trouble with the government?
and yet after years of buying the same pair of shoes, year after year, amazon still doesn't know what's my shoe size and I have to check if my size is still available every time...
I believe they are not really trying to improve my experience, but their profits.
But I have no proof.
I once told someone something about my kid, and they responded, "why haven't you told me this before???" My flat reply was, "because it's not the most interesting thing about her." I'm about 50-50 on smart versus stupid answers, but occasionally I surprise even myself. That's one of my best one-liners.
Setting aside police/surveillance state dystopias for a moment: People try to make you small by labeling you. The more things they know about you, the more labels they have. If you don't believe me just look at the sewer that flows through replies to AOC's tweets. Having depression as a teenager should not define you. Being a survivor of assault or harassment should not define you. Having a working class upbringing should not pigeonhole you. Having an itchy groin should not be ammo for somebody to derail and deflect what you're trying to do. Mind your own goddamned business and keep the conversation on topics that are actually relevant, like your embezzlement conviction or my ongoing bribery lawsuit.
I would think that all that data is being shared. And if its not being shared now, it is being recorded. And an AI will run through all that information and process it in the future. Why anyone would trust self-serving governments and corporations with private information amazes me!
It is a perfectly rational hypothesis to consider that a lot of the reasons governments use to take civil liberties away, are ones that they orchestrated themselves to facilitate their power grab. To not consider this as a possibility, in psychological terms, is like being the co-dependent in a narcissistic relationship, or like the victim in Stockholm syndrome - you can't imagine that someone would be that abusive, even though you know already that governments and corporations do NOT have your back.
All government conspiracy aside, anyone can see that one makes lots of decisions to do things (or not) on account of what it means to be in public. In your mind, contrast the idea of being in public in a busy city versus a quiet country road. You do not act in the same way! You are under greater stress in a city, you will conform with the social norms as you perceive them, you will not 'flower' as an individual.
This stuff is all known. We are better managed in cities hence 'they' want to move the mass of people into 'smart' (spy) cities. Its not a secret. Its been being planned for a long time. Look into technocracy.
I'm not trying to separate myself from society. I'm just trying to keep the stalkers away.
A lot of companies seem to want to act less like members of society and more like stalkers.
This logic would be fine if all google did was search, if all amazon did was shopping, but they don't. They have federal government contracts, they work with defense contractors and law enforcement, they control huge amounts of the internet infrastructure. Google, amazon, facebook gathering your data is more than just a search engine, a store front and a social network gathering it, even if theh share it with nobody other than their internal businesess, those ternal businesses have massive control over the internet qnd many people's lives.
So you don't like Cambridge Analytica, but Google, Twitter and LinkedIn using your data for goodness know what purposes is fine? I'm pretty sure they're running all that data through all sorts of machine learning algorithms and some of that might be used at some point for surveillance and censorship purposes or dystopian stuff in general. Not might, will be, if already isn't. Because you'd have to be stupid to have this amount of data and not use it to further your political agenda.
> I don't mind if the building security records me entering the building, or the bank records me using the ATM
Actually, I would pretty much bet the government in a bunch of states in the world can access your bank records. Places like the US, or China, or Russia. But let's ignore that.
> What I object to is if all of those are stitched together and handed over to advertising agencies or my employer.
The thing is, once the information is gathered, and stored, it's an easy transition to feed it somewhere. And judging by current trends, - some company will soon offer pay those disparate surveillers to feed such data to it, constantly - since it can processed and analyzed en masse, and monetized. Oh, and they'll probably send the government a copy of everything too (judging by what FAANG do, for example).
> Likewise I don't care that Google knows what I searched for
That's not "likewise". Google is already a huge stitcher of surveillance - the kind you said you disapprove of. And, again, they send everything to the US government.
> that latter is mainly between me and Amazon.
You mean between you and the entity controlling a huge chunk of all on-line commerce and whose operations are larger in monetary terms than most states in the world? And that acts like a government with its own body of rules and internal judicial system for disputes? ... yeah, it's "just" between you and them.
If the email account you use for Amazon is a Gmail account they email a receipt of purchase to that account, which Google will use for 'relevant ads'.
But of course in that case you are expressly granting permission for Amazon to contact google. If it was done via a TOS agreement or something then yes I agree, that would be concerning.
But technologically, they are postcards sent to a business. And we just visit the business to pick up our postcards. Imagine every time you bought something, they sent the receipt to walmart for you to pick up. Not in an envelope, just handed to the guy at the counter and put into a box for you. We never should have let email get this far, but we did.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/technology/gmail-ads.html
On one hand the internet and the big data platforms of Amazon, facebook etc. have allowed this economy and communities based on esoteric interests, but on the other hand they are able to manipulate us else like nobodies business and greed ensures that if it isn't being used adversarially now it will certainly be in the future.
While I agree with most of what you say, and also almost everything from me is relatively easy to find, my parents and family experience living under Salazar´s dictatorship, or the lasting effects from Stasi over here in Germany, keeps me always aware to keep a good price in what we give away.
Your viewpoint come across as extremely naïve until you've had political persecution, targeted harassment, or stalking issues. Privacy isn't something you or anyone else gets to decide no one else needs because you don't understand it or value it, but you're free to try living in a fantasy world so long as you don't put the lives of reporters or refugees at risk, or condone the invasion of the lives and personal effects of others.
Likewise I don't care that Google knows what I searched for, or that Twitter knows what I tweeted, or that LinkedIn has my employment history. What I don't want is all of that being sold to Cambridge Analytica to then aggregate and sell on to someone else for goodness knows what purposes.
An awful lot of my life and interests are easily searchable. My handle here is basically just my name, and I use the same handle or even more complete versions everywhere I can. When I'm out in public, the public can see me. When I post in public, the public can read what I say. That's fine, that's why I said it.
However my private correspondences with my wife and kids on iMessage or WhatsApp are nobody else's business. My bank transactions and online shopping likewise, that latter is mainly between me and Amazon. Where I would get upset is if Amazon sold that data to Google to show me 'relevant ads', or show my purchases to my friends. Remember Facebook Beacon? There need to be clear, hard lines in the sand.