8 ms·

No, they can show you ads that don't use your data. You'd have to allow them to use your data to give you better ads, but you'd just get worse ads in the meanti

No, they can show you ads that don't use your data. You'd have to allow them to use your data to give you better ads, but you'd just get worse ads in the meantime.

djrogers 9y ago
Watch how you use those words - if one defines ‘better’ and ‘worse’ in the context of my privacy, then ads that don’t do creepy things are better.
- BigJono 9y ago
  Is there anything inherently bad about a site using your data to serve you more relevant ads, as long as your data is not passed on to a 3rd party?
  - djrogers 9y ago
    Show me a site that gathers data about me directly, transparently, and without any creepy cross-site tracking, and I’ll consider your question. Unfortunately that’s not how anyone works.
  - e12e 9y ago
    I'd say that highly targeted ads are harmful, as it's more likely to undermine the viewer (eg: political ads tweaked based on current family situation/emergencies derived from data mining). Eg: target people who recently lost loved ones to an attack by one of our times typical "lone gunmen" by ads advertising increased surveillance as a way to mitigate "terrorist" attacks. Or substituting in first names of friends in paid content ("<person with same name as your friend> give the following reasons to vote x!/buy this"). Not to mention that if advertising works - then it undermines the idea of a free marked where purchases are made by informed independent agents (I think that's a fantasy anyway, but it seems to be a somewhat popular idea).
  - danieldk 9y ago
    Is there anything inherently bad about a site using your data to serve you more relevant ads, as long as your data is not passed on to a 3rd party? Is there anything inherently bad about a stalker passively observing and recording your every move, as long as they don't disturb your daily routine or pass the data along? Even if you find the stalking behavior (cross-site tracking) of ad companies acceptable, there is a significant risk that your data leaks or is stolen. So, I should be able to decide who I trust with saving intimate data and who I don't.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Except we know that not passing data is a pipe dream. Between hacks and governmental abuses, no company can promise that, no matter how honest they are.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- DonHopkins 9y ago
  It's been looking really creepy after I purchased a Plush Cuddle Death Star, because now it keeps showing several repeated ads for them right next to each other. I already have one, and now they want me to buy a whole cuddly fleet of them! Oddly enough, I haven't seen any ads for the R2D2 mug I ordered with it.
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  Don't underestimate how bad bad ads can be. I turned off targeted advertising on my Android phone for a while. The result was that around 50% of ad banners I saw were ultra-spammy strobing things--presumably the only ones that will pay for untargeted ads--making apps with built-in ad banners essentially unusable. I wound up changing back. That may have been the intention. (An Android ad blocker would probably work best, but getting one running on my ancient phone was more hassle than I wanted.)
  - e12e 9y ago
    Curious - what apps do you use that has apps, but doesn't have a paid option (that you are willing to pay for)? I rarely see ads on my android (I do use ad blocker for Web browsing).
    - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
      Small-time games, mostly.
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    Recognise that the ad platform itself has an incentive to pump absolute bilge at you. I have an incentive to block that as hard as humanly, or computationally, possible.
    - Buge 9y ago
      They have an incentive to give you ads you will click on. If you're not going to click on it, then there's a disincentive to show it to you.
      - dredmorbius 9y ago
        There are two possible transactions: selling you ads, or selling you to a better class of advertisers. I see parallels to the 3rd class rail (or coach-class air) problem. If you improve the conditions of the lowest service class, nobody upgrades to higher levels of service. So the lowest class is intentionally bad.
Buge 9y ago
So I need to explicitly accept targeted ads from every company that shows targeted ads? Does this mean every website that shows targeted ads, or can a blanket large provider (e.g. Google) get a single consent and apply it to all websites hosting Google ads? This seems like it would give a market advantage to Google, because they have products that people want and can likely get a fair number of people to consent if the consent was among useful consents. But smaller advertising companies would have a much harder time getting consent, especially if people don't recognize the name as providing anything useful. And how does this apply to logs? It's common for web servers by default to record urls visited and IP addresses. Would that be legal without explicit consent?
- smueller1234 9y ago
  The blanket version. Google et al neither sell nor (generally) share your data with advertisers. They make the decision on what to show to you and thus, only they need to get your consent once for that express purpose. By the way: it's still a topic of heavy debate how much of this can be done through terms and conditions after all. Disclaimer/source: working for large Google customer, involved in GDPR compliance. Edit: spelling.
  - Buge 9y ago
    But does the website itself where the ads are shown need to get consent? How about this, what if I own a.com and embed an image from b.com (a completely different organization from me). And then b.com tracks the users' IP addresses, urls, referers, etc. Do I need to get permission for that? I'm not the one doing the tracking. Does b.com need to get permission for that? There's no opportunity for b.com go get permission, the user never is on a website controlled by them, there is never an opportunity to click an accept button for b.com . The user likely has never heard of b.com .
- e12e 9y ago
  > And how does this apply to logs? It's common for web servers by default to record urls visited and IP addresses. Would that be legal without explicit consent? I'm not certain on the details, but in eg Norway that is already much in line with the GDPR ip addresses are considered personal data, and as such regulated. However, there are provisions for storing such information for auditing purposes (both security, technical and financial/invoicing) - but would likely require explicit consent. ("i accept"/"i will not use this service" - more of an informational confirmation - like signs stating a shop is under camera surveillance - and you could choose not to shop the (even if: good luck finding a shop w/o surveillance cameras)). In general "personal data" is anything that can significantly help identify a single individual (time/place, ip, phone number/date, address, full name, email, etc). Ed: regarding logging ips for auditing - there's usually a fixed time limit. It's longest afaik for financial purposes (and the data storage directive explicitly states/stated minimum duration - effectively being lobbied into a tool to go after amateur copyright infringement by forcing isps to keep records longer than before). But from a data protection viewpoint, you can't say/get consent for "we log for auditing" and then keep the data indefinitely . More like 6 or 12 months.
jlarocco 9y ago
That's a rather perverse way to say it. In what way is an advertisement that's tracking somebody around the web "better"? My personal opinion is that there's no such thing as a "good" ad.

No, they can show you ads that don't use your data. You'd have to allow them to use your data to give you better ads, but you'd just get worse ads in the meantime.

djrogers 9y ago

Watch how you use those words - if one defines ‘better’ and ‘worse’ in the context of my privacy, then ads that don’t do creepy things are better.

BigJono 9y ago
Is there anything inherently bad about a site using your data to serve you more relevant ads, as long as your data is not passed on to a 3rd party?
- djrogers 9y ago
  Show me a site that gathers data about me directly, transparently, and without any creepy cross-site tracking, and I’ll consider your question. Unfortunately that’s not how anyone works.
- e12e 9y ago
  I'd say that highly targeted ads are harmful, as it's more likely to undermine the viewer (eg: political ads tweaked based on current family situation/emergencies derived from data mining). Eg: target people who recently lost loved ones to an attack by one of our times typical "lone gunmen" by ads advertising increased surveillance as a way to mitigate "terrorist" attacks. Or substituting in first names of friends in paid content ("<person with same name as your friend> give the following reasons to vote x!/buy this"). Not to mention that if advertising works - then it undermines the idea of a free marked where purchases are made by informed independent agents (I think that's a fantasy anyway, but it seems to be a somewhat popular idea).
- danieldk 9y ago
  Is there anything inherently bad about a site using your data to serve you more relevant ads, as long as your data is not passed on to a 3rd party? Is there anything inherently bad about a stalker passively observing and recording your every move, as long as they don't disturb your daily routine or pass the data along? Even if you find the stalking behavior (cross-site tracking) of ad companies acceptable, there is a significant risk that your data leaks or is stolen. So, I should be able to decide who I trust with saving intimate data and who I don't.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Except we know that not passing data is a pipe dream. Between hacks and governmental abuses, no company can promise that, no matter how honest they are.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
DonHopkins 9y ago
It's been looking really creepy after I purchased a Plush Cuddle Death Star, because now it keeps showing several repeated ads for them right next to each other. I already have one, and now they want me to buy a whole cuddly fleet of them! Oddly enough, I haven't seen any ads for the R2D2 mug I ordered with it.
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
Don't underestimate how bad bad ads can be. I turned off targeted advertising on my Android phone for a while. The result was that around 50% of ad banners I saw were ultra-spammy strobing things--presumably the only ones that will pay for untargeted ads--making apps with built-in ad banners essentially unusable. I wound up changing back. That may have been the intention. (An Android ad blocker would probably work best, but getting one running on my ancient phone was more hassle than I wanted.)
- e12e 9y ago
  Curious - what apps do you use that has apps, but doesn't have a paid option (that you are willing to pay for)? I rarely see ads on my android (I do use ad blocker for Web browsing).
  - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
    Small-time games, mostly.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  Recognise that the ad platform itself has an incentive to pump absolute bilge at you. I have an incentive to block that as hard as humanly, or computationally, possible.
  - Buge 9y ago
    They have an incentive to give you ads you will click on. If you're not going to click on it, then there's a disincentive to show it to you.
    - dredmorbius 9y ago
      There are two possible transactions: selling you ads, or selling you to a better class of advertisers. I see parallels to the 3rd class rail (or coach-class air) problem. If you improve the conditions of the lowest service class, nobody upgrades to higher levels of service. So the lowest class is intentionally bad.

Buge 9y ago

So I need to explicitly accept targeted ads from every company that shows targeted ads? Does this mean every website that shows targeted ads, or can a blanket large provider (e.g. Google) get a single consent and apply it to all websites hosting Google ads? This seems like it would give a market advantage to Google, because they have products that people want and can likely get a fair number of people to consent if the consent was among useful consents. But smaller advertising companies would have a much harder time getting consent, especially if people don't recognize the name as providing anything useful. And how does this apply to logs? It's common for web servers by default to record urls visited and IP addresses. Would that be legal without explicit consent?

smueller1234 9y ago
The blanket version. Google et al neither sell nor (generally) share your data with advertisers. They make the decision on what to show to you and thus, only they need to get your consent once for that express purpose. By the way: it's still a topic of heavy debate how much of this can be done through terms and conditions after all. Disclaimer/source: working for large Google customer, involved in GDPR compliance. Edit: spelling.
- Buge 9y ago
  But does the website itself where the ads are shown need to get consent? How about this, what if I own a.com and embed an image from b.com (a completely different organization from me). And then b.com tracks the users' IP addresses, urls, referers, etc. Do I need to get permission for that? I'm not the one doing the tracking. Does b.com need to get permission for that? There's no opportunity for b.com go get permission, the user never is on a website controlled by them, there is never an opportunity to click an accept button for b.com . The user likely has never heard of b.com .
e12e 9y ago
> And how does this apply to logs? It's common for web servers by default to record urls visited and IP addresses. Would that be legal without explicit consent? I'm not certain on the details, but in eg Norway that is already much in line with the GDPR ip addresses are considered personal data, and as such regulated. However, there are provisions for storing such information for auditing purposes (both security, technical and financial/invoicing) - but would likely require explicit consent. ("i accept"/"i will not use this service" - more of an informational confirmation - like signs stating a shop is under camera surveillance - and you could choose not to shop the (even if: good luck finding a shop w/o surveillance cameras)). In general "personal data" is anything that can significantly help identify a single individual (time/place, ip, phone number/date, address, full name, email, etc). Ed: regarding logging ips for auditing - there's usually a fixed time limit. It's longest afaik for financial purposes (and the data storage directive explicitly states/stated minimum duration - effectively being lobbied into a tool to go after amateur copyright infringement by forcing isps to keep records longer than before). But from a data protection viewpoint, you can't say/get consent for "we log for auditing" and then keep the data indefinitely . More like 6 or 12 months.

jlarocco 9y ago

That's a rather perverse way to say it. In what way is an advertisement that's tracking somebody around the web "better"? My personal opinion is that there's no such thing as a "good" ad.