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.
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.