9 ms·

> Streetlend made its money by selling your privacy data to advertisers through Amazon. So when you put up a power drill for lend, people would see power drills

by stef25 9y ago

> Streetlend made its money by selling your privacy data to advertisers through Amazon. So when you put up a power drill for lend, people would see power drills for sale at local shops, based on their online presence harvested through stuff like their Facebook account. If you mean he just slapped some Amazon ads on his site to support his side project, then accusing that guy of "selling your privacy data" requires quite a bit of mental gymnastics and is a pretty dishonest description of the facts. The blame here is wholly with the users for putting their data online in the first place (really, you can go a very long way with my.fake.name@gmail.com!) and especially Facebook for providing the framework that enables this all. *edited for grammar

rtpg 9y ago
If Amazon and FB make unethical tracking tools and you put them on the website, you are most definitely an accomplice to their acts. "But it's such a small site/ the person's side project" all the more reason to stay away from this. Having a code of ethics where you end up using the most profitable option anyways is not a real code of ethics The point of ethical judgement is that it's _not_ the best choice by other factors
- stef25 9y ago
  How do you go from Amazon ads for ladders to unethical tracking tool? He's not making a profit. Meaning he's actually paying out of pocket to allow neighbours to lend stuff to each other. Yet he's abandoned his code of ethics?
  - megaman22 9y ago
    It's mind-boggling that people are trying to cast some Amazon affiliate links into a nefarious invasion of privacy. On the advertising scale, from 1 to late-90s, I'm-probably-going-to-catch-a-virus-from-a-shady-ActiveX-component, this is maybe a two.
    - s73v3r_ 9y ago
      If all the author of the article was doing was Amazon affiliate links, then the entire premise of the article is unjustified.
  - rtpg 9y ago
    Sorry, I wasnt reading closely enough. I did not realize that the site might have been just affiliate links. I think affiliate links are not much of an issue, personally, mainly because they don't rely on tracking. But many ads are those that track you across pages and use many of the same stuff as Facebook to show you products. So if you're uncomfortable with that, it's important to put pressure on that. If he were just throwing up Google AdWords /FB ads or whatever he would be participating in an ecosystem that is unethical for many. It's helping to support a good cause, but wouldn't it be nice to get good things without contributing to an unethical system in the process?
    - syshum 9y ago
      >>If he were just throwing up Google AdWords /FB ads or whatever he would be participating in an ecosystem that is unethical for many. But likely in complete compliance with GDPR... As Adwords and FB Ads would be in compliance. That is the entire point of laws like GDPR, it has nothing to do with User privacy and everything to do with Ensure their can be no competition to Adwords or FB in the future.
cyphar 9y ago
You're completely ignoring the point of GDPR. The point is that users should be in control of their data, and when they give it to someone they have the right to know what it is used for and to be able to retract consent for its usage. Blaming users for providing their personal data is strange -- if the implication is that nobody should provide their personal data because it can be abused then is it not obvious that the use of personal data should be regulated? If the majority of banks lost your money regularly, would you blame customers of the bank for using banks -- or would you say that banks should have stricter regulations to stop people from being screwed? As for the Amazon bit, I think you're underselling it. Amazon tracks users in arguably unethical ways (due to the lack of consent, and the scope, and the inability to opt-out) and display their ads is inflicting that on your users. If you care about your users privacy (which is what GDPR is trying to enforce) then you would know that "just slapp[ing] some Amazon adds on [your] site" is not the correct approach to handling users' personal data. I do agree it's not trivial to handle GDPR if you don't have a lawyer (though you can get a data officer from a legal firm), but complying with laws is part of doing business.
- closeparen 9y ago
  >if the implication is that nobody should provide their personal data because it can be abused then is it not obvious that the use of personal data should be regulated? I honestly thought this kind of reasoning was a right-wing caricature. No, it is not obvious that choices with risks attached should always be regulated away. Disclosing information in proportion to trust is a basic life skill. I understand that many in the tech community are frustrated to see the general public failing to exercise this discipline, and maybe regulation is the best way to protect them from themselves, but that's not obvious. >If the majority banks lost your money regularly, would you blame customers of the bank for using banks -- or would you say that banks should have stricter regulations to stop people from being screwed? False dichotomy. You want a spectrum of financial products that depositors can choose from according to their risk tolerance. It's essential that we have stable, regulated, insured checking accounts. It's also essential that we have self-directed brokerage accounts. >"just slapp[ing] some Amazon adds on [your] site" is not the correct approach to handling users' personal data. A site sending your browser Amazon ads does not oblige it to execute or display them. And this isn't some secret backend upload. If someone is willing to use a site with this revenue model, why is that your business?

by stef25 9y ago

rtpg 9y ago

If Amazon and FB make unethical tracking tools and you put them on the website, you are most definitely an accomplice to their acts. "But it's such a small site/ the person's side project" all the more reason to stay away from this. Having a code of ethics where you end up using the most profitable option anyways is not a real code of ethics The point of ethical judgement is that it's _not_ the best choice by other factors

stef25 9y ago
How do you go from Amazon ads for ladders to unethical tracking tool? He's not making a profit. Meaning he's actually paying out of pocket to allow neighbours to lend stuff to each other. Yet he's abandoned his code of ethics?
- megaman22 9y ago
  It's mind-boggling that people are trying to cast some Amazon affiliate links into a nefarious invasion of privacy. On the advertising scale, from 1 to late-90s, I'm-probably-going-to-catch-a-virus-from-a-shady-ActiveX-component, this is maybe a two.
  - s73v3r_ 9y ago
    If all the author of the article was doing was Amazon affiliate links, then the entire premise of the article is unjustified.
- rtpg 9y ago
  Sorry, I wasnt reading closely enough. I did not realize that the site might have been just affiliate links. I think affiliate links are not much of an issue, personally, mainly because they don't rely on tracking. But many ads are those that track you across pages and use many of the same stuff as Facebook to show you products. So if you're uncomfortable with that, it's important to put pressure on that. If he were just throwing up Google AdWords /FB ads or whatever he would be participating in an ecosystem that is unethical for many. It's helping to support a good cause, but wouldn't it be nice to get good things without contributing to an unethical system in the process?
  - syshum 9y ago
    >>If he were just throwing up Google AdWords /FB ads or whatever he would be participating in an ecosystem that is unethical for many. But likely in complete compliance with GDPR... As Adwords and FB Ads would be in compliance. That is the entire point of laws like GDPR, it has nothing to do with User privacy and everything to do with Ensure their can be no competition to Adwords or FB in the future.

cyphar 9y ago

You're completely ignoring the point of GDPR. The point is that users should be in control of their data, and when they give it to someone they have the right to know what it is used for and to be able to retract consent for its usage. Blaming users for providing their personal data is strange -- if the implication is that nobody should provide their personal data because it can be abused then is it not obvious that the use of personal data should be regulated? If the majority of banks lost your money regularly, would you blame customers of the bank for using banks -- or would you say that banks should have stricter regulations to stop people from being screwed? As for the Amazon bit, I think you're underselling it. Amazon tracks users in arguably unethical ways (due to the lack of consent, and the scope, and the inability to opt-out) and display their ads is inflicting that on your users. If you care about your users privacy (which is what GDPR is trying to enforce) then you would know that "just slapp[ing] some Amazon adds on [your] site" is not the correct approach to handling users' personal data. I do agree it's not trivial to handle GDPR if you don't have a lawyer (though you can get a data officer from a legal firm), but complying with laws is part of doing business.

closeparen 9y ago
>if the implication is that nobody should provide their personal data because it can be abused then is it not obvious that the use of personal data should be regulated? I honestly thought this kind of reasoning was a right-wing caricature. No, it is not obvious that choices with risks attached should always be regulated away. Disclosing information in proportion to trust is a basic life skill. I understand that many in the tech community are frustrated to see the general public failing to exercise this discipline, and maybe regulation is the best way to protect them from themselves, but that's not obvious. >If the majority banks lost your money regularly, would you blame customers of the bank for using banks -- or would you say that banks should have stricter regulations to stop people from being screwed? False dichotomy. You want a spectrum of financial products that depositors can choose from according to their risk tolerance. It's essential that we have stable, regulated, insured checking accounts. It's also essential that we have self-directed brokerage accounts. >"just slapp[ing] some Amazon adds on [your] site" is not the correct approach to handling users' personal data. A site sending your browser Amazon ads does not oblige it to execute or display them. And this isn't some secret backend upload. If someone is willing to use a site with this revenue model, why is that your business?