5 ms·

The laws would hopefully stop the tracking of users. IS there a good reason why you can't analyze the page you put your ad in and decide what category on ads wi

The laws would hopefully stop the tracking of users. IS there a good reason why you can't analyze the page you put your ad in and decide what category on ads will fit, so on tech pages put tech related ads. Tracking me and creating a profile on me should be illegal. Showing ads is perfectly fine

lajhsdfkl 9y ago
> IS there a good reason why you can't analyze the page you put your ad in and decide what category on ads will fit, so on tech pages put tech related ads. There isn't and this is what many people do. But that isn't the argument is it? Can you tell me why observing what people do on my website is unethical and why it should be made illegal? Also can you explain why information that is placed on my server belongs to someone else if I didn't enter into a contract with them specifying that was the case? If someone has access to your laptop and downloads their photos onto it, who do those photos belong to? Put another way, if someone shows you a photo, who does the memory of that photo belong to?
- alkonaut 9y ago
  > Also can you explain why information that is placed on my server belongs to someone Isn’t this more or less the gist of GDPR and “right to be forgotten” laws? That my personal data doesn’t automatically “belong” to anyone else just because I entered it onto a server? > If someone has access to your laptop and downloads their photos onto it, who do those photos belong to? Rights to creative works, unlike personal data already has rather well functioning legal frameworks. The author of a creative work doesn’t give up any right to the photo without very specific circumstances.
  - lajhsdfkl 9y ago
    >Isn’t this more or less the gist of GDPR and “right to be forgotten” laws? That my personal data doesn’t automatically “belong” to anyone else just because I entered it onto a server? Yes the EU invented a new right for its citizens which is the prerogative of the EU because of their bastardized idea of what constitutes privacy. Privacy is a basic human right, that much is obvious. There is no human right however to be forgotten and there is no human right to not be observed when you are in public. >Rights to creative works, unlike personal data already has rather well functioning legal frameworks. The author of a creative work doesn’t give up any right to the photo without very specific circumstances. The author of a creative work doesn't have the right to force me to delete something from my laptop if I obtained it lawfully.
    - alkonaut 9y ago
      > The author of a creative work doesn't have the right to force me to delete something from my laptop if I obtained it lawfully. A valid point - the rights only address the USE of the photos. You can use them privately all you want and would not have to delete them (unless ordered by a court for whatever odd legal reason such as if they were stolen not uploaded). The difference with personal info is that the lawmakers saw two choices: prevent the use or the keeping of the data. They chose to outlaw the keeping of the data - which is why this law is huge, invasive and clumsy. But it’s also the only reason it makes a difference at all imho. I don’t trust anyone to keep the personal data of millions of people safe.
      - FooBarWidget 9y ago
        > They chose to outlaw the keeping of the data Which is not true. Under the GDPR, you are not allowed to "process" any data unless you have a legal ground for doing it. One such legal ground is consent, but it can be withdrawn and so at that point you need to "stop processing". The thing is, "processing" is a broad term and includes not just storage but basically anything that happens to the data. So even use is not allowed.
      - PeterisP 9y ago
        GDPR is focused a lot on regulating the use of the data. In particular, one of the key aspects is the limitation of processing to a particular use - very often business will have a reasonable GDPR-approved reason to get and have the data, but (since this was often used to circumvent earlier privacy legislation) now they'll be limited to using that data only for that reason. For example, if I order pizza, the business (obviously) needs to have my delivery address; however, that obvious reason only applies for the actual delivery, and if they want to use that same address also for, say, direct marketing, then that's a separate use that's not covered and would (generally) need additional opt-in consent.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      The author of a creative work doesn't have the right to force me to delete something from my laptop if I obtained it lawfully. Maybe not technically, but in practice, yes. You may be able to keep them, but you can't actually open and view them. As per MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., loading something into RAM counts as copying, so you need a license to do that. And even if you had one once, it can be revoked (not all licenses are non-revokable).
- icebraining 9y ago
  If someone has access to your laptop and downloads their photos onto it, who do those photos belong to? Good analogy! They belong to the person who took them, as per copyright law, not to the owner of the laptop.
  - lajhsdfkl 9y ago
    The author of a creative work doesn't have the right to force me to delete something from my laptop if I obtained it lawfully. If a creator downloads their entire collection onto my laptop I can use that to train my models and target ads as I see fit.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      Nope, as I mentioned in my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17060447 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17060447 Loading into RAM counts as copying, for which you need a license.
- simion314 9y ago
  Ypu can track as much as you want but let me know that you are recording my browser screen, my mouse movement, you try to fingerprint my browser using maybe bugs in the browser, so basically inform me, we can see the tracking code so is better you explain on how you use the data then the users to guess.
  - lajhsdfkl 9y ago
    I'm not arguing against consumer protection and asking for consent. I'm arguing against stupidly burdensome regulation that practically makes ads as a monetization scheme impossible.
ocdtrekkie 9y ago
The funny thing to me is even at the height of me allowing tracking... Ads based on my data were never good. Is there really a value being lost if we make ads non-personalized, or is this just a myth perpetrated to ensure data collection houses control the ad market?
geocar 9y ago
KYC. Google almost rabidly doesn't want to connect who is sponsoring with what they're sponsoring. I'm an ad network that does (some) tracking of users. I make it a point to connect advertisers with the publishers I work with because I know all of my publishers. I think this service has value. Whilst I charge substantially more than Google does, I'm confident I don't participate in any ad fraud. If a Google rep. suggests they don't serve ad fraud, let me know, because I have proof otherwise.
- simion314 9y ago
  Can't you start a new kind of targeting, instead of tracking and analyzing the users you use your past expertise plus your data from non EU countries and profile the content, so on cat pictures you know what ads work well, on car sites you know what ads work, it would make more sense then seeing an IDE ad on a porn site.
  - geocar 9y ago
    Sure, but I (as an advertiser) don't want to buy advertising on cat pages, but to reach people who like cat pages. Google tells me this is their interest; that they have exhibited behaviours that lead them to believe this is their interest, and because they can make self-driving cars, I believe them. ... but: The truth is, it's just a cookie that is held by people who visited pages about cats, and people who like money.

lajhsdfkl 9y ago

> IS there a good reason why you can't analyze the page you put your ad in and decide what category on ads will fit, so on tech pages put tech related ads. There isn't and this is what many people do. But that isn't the argument is it? Can you tell me why observing what people do on my website is unethical and why it should be made illegal? Also can you explain why information that is placed on my server belongs to someone else if I didn't enter into a contract with them specifying that was the case? If someone has access to your laptop and downloads their photos onto it, who do those photos belong to? Put another way, if someone shows you a photo, who does the memory of that photo belong to?

alkonaut 9y ago
> Also can you explain why information that is placed on my server belongs to someone Isn’t this more or less the gist of GDPR and “right to be forgotten” laws? That my personal data doesn’t automatically “belong” to anyone else just because I entered it onto a server? > If someone has access to your laptop and downloads their photos onto it, who do those photos belong to? Rights to creative works, unlike personal data already has rather well functioning legal frameworks. The author of a creative work doesn’t give up any right to the photo without very specific circumstances.
- lajhsdfkl 9y ago
  >Isn’t this more or less the gist of GDPR and “right to be forgotten” laws? That my personal data doesn’t automatically “belong” to anyone else just because I entered it onto a server? Yes the EU invented a new right for its citizens which is the prerogative of the EU because of their bastardized idea of what constitutes privacy. Privacy is a basic human right, that much is obvious. There is no human right however to be forgotten and there is no human right to not be observed when you are in public. >Rights to creative works, unlike personal data already has rather well functioning legal frameworks. The author of a creative work doesn’t give up any right to the photo without very specific circumstances. The author of a creative work doesn't have the right to force me to delete something from my laptop if I obtained it lawfully.
  - alkonaut 9y ago
    > The author of a creative work doesn't have the right to force me to delete something from my laptop if I obtained it lawfully. A valid point - the rights only address the USE of the photos. You can use them privately all you want and would not have to delete them (unless ordered by a court for whatever odd legal reason such as if they were stolen not uploaded). The difference with personal info is that the lawmakers saw two choices: prevent the use or the keeping of the data. They chose to outlaw the keeping of the data - which is why this law is huge, invasive and clumsy. But it’s also the only reason it makes a difference at all imho. I don’t trust anyone to keep the personal data of millions of people safe.
    - FooBarWidget 9y ago
      > They chose to outlaw the keeping of the data Which is not true. Under the GDPR, you are not allowed to "process" any data unless you have a legal ground for doing it. One such legal ground is consent, but it can be withdrawn and so at that point you need to "stop processing". The thing is, "processing" is a broad term and includes not just storage but basically anything that happens to the data. So even use is not allowed.
    - PeterisP 9y ago
      GDPR is focused a lot on regulating the use of the data. In particular, one of the key aspects is the limitation of processing to a particular use - very often business will have a reasonable GDPR-approved reason to get and have the data, but (since this was often used to circumvent earlier privacy legislation) now they'll be limited to using that data only for that reason. For example, if I order pizza, the business (obviously) needs to have my delivery address; however, that obvious reason only applies for the actual delivery, and if they want to use that same address also for, say, direct marketing, then that's a separate use that's not covered and would (generally) need additional opt-in consent.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    The author of a creative work doesn't have the right to force me to delete something from my laptop if I obtained it lawfully. Maybe not technically, but in practice, yes. You may be able to keep them, but you can't actually open and view them. As per MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., loading something into RAM counts as copying, so you need a license to do that. And even if you had one once, it can be revoked (not all licenses are non-revokable).
icebraining 9y ago
If someone has access to your laptop and downloads their photos onto it, who do those photos belong to? Good analogy! They belong to the person who took them, as per copyright law, not to the owner of the laptop.
- lajhsdfkl 9y ago
  The author of a creative work doesn't have the right to force me to delete something from my laptop if I obtained it lawfully. If a creator downloads their entire collection onto my laptop I can use that to train my models and target ads as I see fit.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Nope, as I mentioned in my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17060447 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17060447 Loading into RAM counts as copying, for which you need a license.
simion314 9y ago
Ypu can track as much as you want but let me know that you are recording my browser screen, my mouse movement, you try to fingerprint my browser using maybe bugs in the browser, so basically inform me, we can see the tracking code so is better you explain on how you use the data then the users to guess.
- lajhsdfkl 9y ago
  I'm not arguing against consumer protection and asking for consent. I'm arguing against stupidly burdensome regulation that practically makes ads as a monetization scheme impossible.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

The funny thing to me is even at the height of me allowing tracking... Ads based on my data were never good. Is there really a value being lost if we make ads non-personalized, or is this just a myth perpetrated to ensure data collection houses control the ad market?

geocar 9y ago

KYC. Google almost rabidly doesn't want to connect who is sponsoring with what they're sponsoring. I'm an ad network that does (some) tracking of users. I make it a point to connect advertisers with the publishers I work with because I know all of my publishers. I think this service has value. Whilst I charge substantially more than Google does, I'm confident I don't participate in any ad fraud. If a Google rep. suggests they don't serve ad fraud, let me know, because I have proof otherwise.

simion314 9y ago
Can't you start a new kind of targeting, instead of tracking and analyzing the users you use your past expertise plus your data from non EU countries and profile the content, so on cat pictures you know what ads work well, on car sites you know what ads work, it would make more sense then seeing an IDE ad on a porn site.
- geocar 9y ago
  Sure, but I (as an advertiser) don't want to buy advertising on cat pages, but to reach people who like cat pages. Google tells me this is their interest; that they have exhibited behaviours that lead them to believe this is their interest, and because they can make self-driving cars, I believe them. ... but: The truth is, it's just a cookie that is held by people who visited pages about cats, and people who like money.