6 ms·

A lot of attention in the press is given to Google et. al. about purchase profiling and tracking for ads. But the concept of purchase profiling has existed real

A lot of attention in the press is given to Google et. al. about purchase profiling and tracking for ads. But the concept of purchase profiling has existed really since the invention of the credit card. As others have mentioned hedge funds have brokered this data for decades - but for some reason it has not been covered as excruciatingly as it has for tech companies. While I disapprove of the practice overall I would bet that tech companies are actually a more responsible steward (jail warden?) for this data than credit card bureaus, precisely because the spotlight is on them and also we have come a long way for data security in general. There needs to be much more coverage of this in the contemporary press as it is applied to credit card companies, agnostic of tech co.'s making it a joint venture. I believe credit card co.'s gave this process momentum early on and tech co.'s are just taking it and running with it. The same can be said for Google location tracking vs. Verizon's straight-up selling that data as an asset.

mrep 8y ago
It is somewhat ironic that Google is probably more privacy focused and has better security than any other company in the fortune 500 and yet they seem to get some of the most negative criticism here.
- i1856511 8y ago
  Yes it is. Personally, I dislike tracking and don't mind disparaging Google for it - but I think in this case reporting like this manages to miss the heart of the problem and mischaracterize the situation.
- ehnto 8y ago
  You can be extremely ethical about your factory farm but it's still a factory farm. Google is in the business of utilising your data in the interest of advertising. No matter how you sugar coat it, the core of the business is tracking people and exploiting that data. Are they doing their best to be careful and ethical? It sure seems like it, but that doesn't solve the issue. The free services they and many tech companies provide for free are just payment for your data. The majority of people don't realise this implicit connection and many others do realise it but are happy with the transaction. But it's important to note that they undermine the ability to provide these services more ethically by setting a social norm of incredible services that are "free". Edit: I will add that the cost and benefit to society of this kind of service provision is complex and nuanced, Google has obviously provided incredible value and society has decided that advertising is a fair price to pay, else they wouldn't be around still. But the true effects of immense tracking and advertising are still yet to play out completely.
  - rrdelaney 8y ago
    Google is not in the business of selling your data. Google does not sell your data. It’s pretty clear in their privacy policy: https://privacy.google.com/how-ads-work.html https://privacy.google.com/how-ads-work.html Disclaimer: I work at Google.
    - Gaelan 8y ago
      You're right–people often conflate "selling" with "using internally to sell ads." There's a difference, and it's meaningful, but the point is that Google's business model is based on gathering and exploiting as much data about you as possible
      - ma2rten 8y ago
        That's not true either, but that's a common misconception. Google makes the bulk of it's ad revenue from search ads. Two people issuing the same search query will see the same ads (for the most part). Hence, Google could still make money without user targeting - unlike Facebook.
        laumars 8y ago
        Two people making the same search query wouldn't even produce the same search results, let alone adverts.
        ma2rten 8y ago
        I'm surprised that this comment was downvoted so much. I actually work at Google. I don't know if anyone is still going to read this, but I thought I would comment just in case. I said "for the most part". There are multiple reasons why different users can see different ads: Ads might be geo targeted ("Only show this to users in New York."). There is some stochasticity in the serving process. Ads can run out of budget. Different data centers might have cached different things in cache. Different advertisers that are eligible to show for a certain query can bid different amounts depending on the user, for example though RLSA [1]. But anyway ads personalization is not essential to Google's business model (except display ads and maybe youtube ads). [1] https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/2701222?hl=en https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/2701222?hl=en
pm90 8y ago
Yes non-tech companies have done this forever, but it was only when online tracking started that the amount of data you could collect on people exploded. And Google, Facebook etc. figured out how to monetize it much more effectively, generating the lions share of its revenues through such ads. So IMO tech companies are well deserving of the criticism they’re facing. Also, tech acts as a (mostly) reliable steward of this data because they can monetize it so well. If 90% of the revenues of Target came from advertising, we would probably not have had the massive leak of cc data. For most traditional businesses, this data is an additional source of revenue, not the primary one.
derekp7 8y ago
The reason tech companies get the spotlight is because there are times when the tracking is so much in your face. For example, if I look up specs on a pair of Bose headphones, I get plastered with ads for Bose for the next couple months (unless I flush my cookies, and/or browse anonymously or use an ad blocker). Yes, I know what is going on behind the scenes, but it still feels like stalking.
- tinus_hn 8y ago
  Such a useful idea as well, ads for the product you just bought and only need one of..
witten 8y ago
If you want to still use a "credit card" online without being tracked by the MasterCards or Visas of the world (or even individual merchants), then check out https://privacy.com/ https://privacy.com/ .. It lets you generate a new credit card number for every transaction if you want. I'm not affiliated with them.. Just a satisfied user. (Although happy to hand out referral links.)
- tonylemesmer 8y ago
  Anyone know if there's a similar service to Privacy in the UK?
  - ionised 8y ago
    I was wondering the same.
- icebraining 8y ago
  How does that hide the data from Mastercard and Visa? Surely they must know who is behind every card number, otherwise who would they charge?
  - boling11 8y ago
    Disclosure: I work for privacy.com You can use pseudonymous billing info for the transaction. We then debit your underlying account afterwards.
    - bencollier49 8y ago
      Wouldn't that cause weird issues with rebates for faulty products?
      - witten 8y ago
        If I understand the way the process works, no. The credit card is attached (via privacy.com) to a checking account via ACH. So if you get a refund (or perform a chargeback) on one of your credit cards, then the resulting funds are just deposited into your checking account.
TangoTrotFox 8y ago
The issue is individual tracking vs aggregate tracking. Tech companies now a days are starting to target individuals based on their individual patterns. This is quite a bit different than aggregate tracking based on group trends. For instance if you see a link to a Credence Clear Water video after watching a video of Under the Watchtower, it makes a lot of sense. On the other hand if you see a link to a lecture from Leonard Susskind -- then that's going to be exclusively the result of personalized tracking and it feels invasive. And the example I'm giving there is the most completely innocuous possibility there is. This gets much worse when, for instance, politicians will (and to some degree already are) creat[ing] multiple mutually incompatible versions of themselves to sell to different demographics and ultimately even individuals. That's not cool, and you can come up with far worse scenarios that this sort of individualized tracking.
wiz21c 8y ago
>>> but for some reason it has not been covered as excruciatingly as it has for tech companies. The bank were not spending millions on the web talking how about they profile you to "improve your experience". They were mostly silent about that. That's why Google/FB/you name it is super for me : it says aloud what happens behind closed doors since ages.

mrep 8y ago

It is somewhat ironic that Google is probably more privacy focused and has better security than any other company in the fortune 500 and yet they seem to get some of the most negative criticism here.

i1856511 8y ago
Yes it is. Personally, I dislike tracking and don't mind disparaging Google for it - but I think in this case reporting like this manages to miss the heart of the problem and mischaracterize the situation.
ehnto 8y ago
You can be extremely ethical about your factory farm but it's still a factory farm. Google is in the business of utilising your data in the interest of advertising. No matter how you sugar coat it, the core of the business is tracking people and exploiting that data. Are they doing their best to be careful and ethical? It sure seems like it, but that doesn't solve the issue. The free services they and many tech companies provide for free are just payment for your data. The majority of people don't realise this implicit connection and many others do realise it but are happy with the transaction. But it's important to note that they undermine the ability to provide these services more ethically by setting a social norm of incredible services that are "free". Edit: I will add that the cost and benefit to society of this kind of service provision is complex and nuanced, Google has obviously provided incredible value and society has decided that advertising is a fair price to pay, else they wouldn't be around still. But the true effects of immense tracking and advertising are still yet to play out completely.
- rrdelaney 8y ago
  Google is not in the business of selling your data. Google does not sell your data. It’s pretty clear in their privacy policy: https://privacy.google.com/how-ads-work.html https://privacy.google.com/how-ads-work.html Disclaimer: I work at Google.
  - Gaelan 8y ago
    You're right–people often conflate "selling" with "using internally to sell ads." There's a difference, and it's meaningful, but the point is that Google's business model is based on gathering and exploiting as much data about you as possible
    - ma2rten 8y ago
      That's not true either, but that's a common misconception. Google makes the bulk of it's ad revenue from search ads. Two people issuing the same search query will see the same ads (for the most part). Hence, Google could still make money without user targeting - unlike Facebook.
      - laumars 8y ago
        Two people making the same search query wouldn't even produce the same search results, let alone adverts.
        ma2rten 8y ago
        I'm surprised that this comment was downvoted so much. I actually work at Google. I don't know if anyone is still going to read this, but I thought I would comment just in case. I said "for the most part". There are multiple reasons why different users can see different ads: Ads might be geo targeted ("Only show this to users in New York."). There is some stochasticity in the serving process. Ads can run out of budget. Different data centers might have cached different things in cache. Different advertisers that are eligible to show for a certain query can bid different amounts depending on the user, for example though RLSA [1]. But anyway ads personalization is not essential to Google's business model (except display ads and maybe youtube ads). [1] https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/2701222?hl=en https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/2701222?hl=en

pm90 8y ago

Yes non-tech companies have done this forever, but it was only when online tracking started that the amount of data you could collect on people exploded. And Google, Facebook etc. figured out how to monetize it much more effectively, generating the lions share of its revenues through such ads. So IMO tech companies are well deserving of the criticism they’re facing. Also, tech acts as a (mostly) reliable steward of this data because they can monetize it so well. If 90% of the revenues of Target came from advertising, we would probably not have had the massive leak of cc data. For most traditional businesses, this data is an additional source of revenue, not the primary one.

derekp7 8y ago

The reason tech companies get the spotlight is because there are times when the tracking is so much in your face. For example, if I look up specs on a pair of Bose headphones, I get plastered with ads for Bose for the next couple months (unless I flush my cookies, and/or browse anonymously or use an ad blocker). Yes, I know what is going on behind the scenes, but it still feels like stalking.

tinus_hn 8y ago
Such a useful idea as well, ads for the product you just bought and only need one of..

witten 8y ago

If you want to still use a "credit card" online without being tracked by the MasterCards or Visas of the world (or even individual merchants), then check out https://privacy.com/ https://privacy.com/ .. It lets you generate a new credit card number for every transaction if you want. I'm not affiliated with them.. Just a satisfied user. (Although happy to hand out referral links.)

tonylemesmer 8y ago
Anyone know if there's a similar service to Privacy in the UK?
- ionised 8y ago
  I was wondering the same.
icebraining 8y ago
How does that hide the data from Mastercard and Visa? Surely they must know who is behind every card number, otherwise who would they charge?
- boling11 8y ago
  Disclosure: I work for privacy.com You can use pseudonymous billing info for the transaction. We then debit your underlying account afterwards.
  - bencollier49 8y ago
    Wouldn't that cause weird issues with rebates for faulty products?
    - witten 8y ago
      If I understand the way the process works, no. The credit card is attached (via privacy.com) to a checking account via ACH. So if you get a refund (or perform a chargeback) on one of your credit cards, then the resulting funds are just deposited into your checking account.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago

The issue is individual tracking vs aggregate tracking. Tech companies now a days are starting to target individuals based on their individual patterns. This is quite a bit different than aggregate tracking based on group trends. For instance if you see a link to a Credence Clear Water video after watching a video of Under the Watchtower, it makes a lot of sense. On the other hand if you see a link to a lecture from Leonard Susskind -- then that's going to be exclusively the result of personalized tracking and it feels invasive. And the example I'm giving there is the most completely innocuous possibility there is. This gets much worse when, for instance, politicians will (and to some degree already are) creat[ing] multiple mutually incompatible versions of themselves to sell to different demographics and ultimately even individuals. That's not cool, and you can come up with far worse scenarios that this sort of individualized tracking.

wiz21c 8y ago

>>> but for some reason it has not been covered as excruciatingly as it has for tech companies. The bank were not spending millions on the web talking how about they profile you to "improve your experience". They were mostly silent about that. That's why Google/FB/you name it is super for me : it says aloud what happens behind closed doors since ages.