> I might have a PI follow that writer for a bit, so I can helpfully send reminders, to illustrate how badly ill-conceived this take is…

That’s not a healthy fantasy. The “following” part is especially creepy. There’s a contact the author link on the site. If you care to contact her it’s just a couple clicks away. No reason to hire a stalker.

Why are you so angry at the author and not at the people who actually made Chrome do this?

But there could be benefits to being followed by a PI. For example, if the author forgets to brush their teeth, the PI could remind them.

/s

We can be angry at both too.

Sure but the stalker fantasy was targeting the author specifically and made no mention of the people actually doing the thing.

Sure, the stalker fantasy might be a bit on the nose. Having someone follow you around in a 'physical' sense seems kinda creepy.

But; there is now the robot equivalent of a PI stalker in your browser. It's not a person, but it's still reporting all your browser activity. Except for the 'physical human', that seems like a pretty similar analogy, right? Because for me, it's equally creepy.

You can’t seriously consider an actual human being following you around to be the same as advertising tracking. Those aren’t the same and Google isn’t doing it to “prove a point”. The fantasy was clearly about intimidation in the real world of a real person.

You should really re-read the article. It does not support the change to Chrome or the tracking that Google does.

It’s so weird to me how taking away the “at scale” suddenly makes this bad.

Violating privacy is creepy, full stop.

Yes, that’s true. But fantasizing about hiring someone to spitefully stalk an actual specific person is especially creepy and unhealthy.

I can call out that danger without supporting widespread user tracking.

Oh please, as if they were serious.

It’s unacceptable even as a “joke”.

I agree but I think you are lost in the nuance.

There’s no nuance to “I wish I could hire someone to harass this person to prove my point”

That’s not an ok thing to say or believe.

Of course it isn't and op used that notion effectively to illustrate how it's also not acceptable for corporations to do variations of that also.

Except the argument is ineffective for two reasons:

1) The author doesn’t support what Google is doing.

2) The author isn’t tracking anyone.

> The “following” part is especially creepy.

I think that was the point. It's an analogy for what the article is talking about. The behavior of Chrome is legitimately creepy.

But it’s targeted at the author of this article and not the people doing the tracking.

I think that the point is to make the author understand exactly why it's creepy, so that next time they write something like this, they actually see the problem.

I'm not advocating this approach. But it's not entirely off base.

It’s way off base because it’s unacceptable in civilized society to pay stalkers to harass people to make a point. Do you seriously think it is ok to hire a PI to follow someone to “make a point”? I find that horrifying.

Further this is a pro-privacy article. The author seems to have a good grasp of the situation and has communicated it well to a general audience. It even concludes with how to turn the feature off and a call to reconsider how your data is being used.

> > I'm not advocating this approach.

But I do understand the temptation.

Yes I read your comment. My question was if you are ok with hiring stalkers.

No; that's kind of the point of my comment.

I believe the logic goes something like this:

- The author is defending analogous behavior

- Therefore the author is ok with this behavior

- Therefore the behavior is ok to use on the author

It's not actually ok, but nobody actually did it either. They just made a snarky comment on the internet to make a point, which has a much lower bar than actually doing the thing.

But the author isn’t defending analogous behavior. The author isn’t defending Google.

There are better ways to make a point than sharing a fantasy about having someone stalked. It’s a joke until it isn’t.

> The author isn’t defending Google.

My reading of the thread is that this is the fundamental presumption of the thread.

I think your differences with the OP go deeper.

> It’s a joke until it isn’t.

My reading wasn't that it was necessarily a joke, but making a point.

Sort of like threatening to put a camera in the bathroom of someone who says they have "nothing to hide" when discussing the patriot act.

It makes the point in a more visceral way than a simple argument ever could, and gets the point across quite well.

You read the thread but did you read the article? This entire thread is based on an emotional over reaction to a misreading of the article.

I did, it feels open to interpretation.

Top two readings on my end are that this is either a person who really didn't want to write this article that was ordered to, or someone who is trying to be maximally defensive of google without actually lying (possibly someone with nostalgia for the 2000-2005 era when they were the internet's good guys).

That'll teach me¹ the folly of badly using irony and hyperbole on the Internet!

You have simultaneously completely missed and directly stated the point I was trying to make. Yes the following part is creepy, and that is exactly what the author is extolling the benefits of in an online context.

Maybe for you² or I the collection of personal & habit data poses little risk when³ it leaks out. My life is too boring and on the beaten track to have much juicy to hide! But there are people for whom the collection and subsequent leaking of data about their habits could be significantly harmful. I do not trust that this system is safe from un-de-personalisation. And from a more selfish & mercenary PoV, if Google are going to use my device to serve their business plan⁴, they aren't doing it for free.

--

[1] no, it won't, if I was going to learn the lesson I would have done so on one of several past occasions…

[2] I presume

[3] not if, when

[4] by blocking third party cookies in their browser and replacing with a system they control, they would gain an advantage over other ad-tech businesses

You need to re-read the article. The author does not extoll the benefits of the tracking Google is doing. It’s actually a pro-privacy article. At least read the final paragraph:

> Lastly, it’s good to remember nothing truly comes for free. Software costs money to develop. If you’re not paying towards that, then it’s likely you – or your data – are the product. We need to revolutionise how we think about our own data and what value it truly holds.

You made some edits. It’s strange to me that you seem to be interpreting my position as somehow ok with what Google is doing. I am not ok with that. I don’t think the author of TFA is either.

I think an important point is the data that is sold by these aggregators are leveraged by PIs and will go to show how vulnerable this tech makes everyone. One should consider if they should promote something that they don't also want to be made a victim of.

These things don't change unless someone important becomes a victim, otherwise its just collateral damage.