5 ms·

It's a good thing that platform providers are locking down this sort of thing. The problem is a culture of 'it's ok, everyone else does it, the world runs on i

by desc 8y ago

It's a good thing that platform providers are locking down this sort of thing. The problem is a culture of 'it's ok, everyone else does it, the world runs on it, maybe things need to change, but we need to find an alternative equivalent first.' No. It was always wrong. It was never justifiable. Permission was never requested, only assumed. If you are recording my screen without making it abundantly clear up-front that you are doing so and why, and without allowing me to decline without providing any additional identifying information, you are automatically unworthy of my trust, not only now but forever. The people who thought this was acceptable are unfit to make such decisions, now and forever. In short: fuck you and your advertising. Why is this sort of bullshit even allowed to be technologically possible? Because someone profits. Screw their thumbs until it isn't. You want to make money from the people using your software? You get it from them, specifically from them, by providing a worthwhile product. You should be punished for selling them to someone else. Unless you can teach them the value of that which you ask in exchange for your product, you are committing fraud. You don't get to benefit from the information you siphon from people who don't understand the value of it. You know exactly what you've done and always did; no second chance is warranted.

s3r3nity 8y ago
Devil's advocate question: do you (should you) have to agree to be video-taped before entering a store on security cameras? What if you had to do that for every single store? > In short: fuck you and your advertising. Nah, I don't want to pay for every single site I visit. Content is not just given out for free. Are there limits to what counts as too much? Sure, and that's the type of discussion we should be having. > You should be punished for selling them to someone else. That's not how online advertising works. Rather, it's would be the equivalent of someone on your block knowing that your house is a 3-bedroom 1-bath, but know nothing about the people that live inside.
- desc 8y ago
  Mmm, that's a fair set of points. I don't think that content should be produced for free, but I argue that advertising-by-invasion-by-default is only acceptable now because not enough people called it out early enough, because they didn't realise the cost. 'It's always worked this way' is not a valid defence. Building a business on something should not later affect the legality of that thing. In other words, start looking for another way for things to work instead of trying to claim that the status quo is the only way things can work. Yes, I'm aware that this probably will feel like a step or two backward. Leaving a local maximum always feels like that. [edit] I forgot to address the security camera issue. That's an awkward conflation of 'physically walking into a store where you can physically pick up and leave with an item which cost physical resources to produce' with 'asking if the person standing outside can let you look at a menu'.
- brandonmenc 8y ago
  > I don't want to pay for every single site I visit I do - if the content is good, the price reasonable, and the transaction frictionless. And if that's what it takes to get rid of intrusive advertising and user tracking, sign me up.
  - chillacy 8y ago
    You'd also have to pay more than what you're worth at status quo today. By some estimates your data's worth $240, assuming you're an exactly average user: https://medium.com/wibson/how-much-is-your-data-worth-at-least-240-per-year-likely-much-more-984e250c2ffa https://medium.com/wibson/how-much-is-your-data-worth-at-lea... Since not every user will pay or can afford to pay, and presumably heavier users are worth more, you might have to pay thousands, or tens of thousands (in case you bought a house or something based on targeted ads). You can sort of simulate this today: imagine if you were to bid past all other ads shown to you for every ad slot on every site, then you could replace them with an empty picture. That might get expensive.
    - inetknght 8y ago
      > By some estimates your data's worth $240 Thanks for putting a price point on the amount that people^H^H^H^H^H^H^H advertisers will pay to ruin my freedom. I value it much more than they.
    - ViViDboarder 8y ago
      Most ads these days are CPC. As I never click any ads, the “value” is none. I could outbid easily as if never actually pay for a lead.
  - asark 8y ago
    Plus, spy-vertising and creepily recording users' mouse movements is 100% not required for Web advertising to be A Thing that Pays For Lots of Stuff. The notion that if we kill the moats that Google and friends have with their vast troves of user data and various spying methods it'll be anything more than a speedbump to the Web generally is ridiculous. Bad for Google and Facebook and so on, yeah. But so what.
- AlexandrB 8y ago
  Here's what the Canadian government[1] says about the use of surveillance cameras and notice to the public: > Q. Should we post signs that there are cameras in operation? > A. Yes. Most privacy laws require the organization conducting video surveillance to post a clear and understandable notice about the use of cameras on its premises to individuals whose images might be captured by them, before these individuals enter the premises. This gives people the option of not entering the premises if they object to the surveillance. Signs should include a contact in case individuals have questions or if they want access to images related to them. This is a stronger requirement than the "we may use your personal information to improve our services" language in the EULAs for almost any of these apps. So, ironically, I think you just helped prove the point you were replying to. Hoovering up ALL the usage information without specific notice or consent is not ok. [1] https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/surveillance-and-monitoring/gl_vs_080306/ https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/surveillance-and-mo...
- maceurt 8y ago
  Stores don't actively use or sell my habits in security camera footage to advertisers however. If stores started selling footage of me in security cameras to companies I would want new legislation to require permission before filming. Furthermore, a store is a public place, and I don't expect privacy in the same way that I expect privacy in my own home while on my phone.
methodover 8y ago
You seem to not understand what this issue is about. It’s tech crunch’s fault. They did a terrible job of reporting on this issue.

by desc 8y ago

s3r3nity 8y ago

Devil's advocate question: do you (should you) have to agree to be video-taped before entering a store on security cameras? What if you had to do that for every single store? > In short: fuck you and your advertising. Nah, I don't want to pay for every single site I visit. Content is not just given out for free. Are there limits to what counts as too much? Sure, and that's the type of discussion we should be having. > You should be punished for selling them to someone else. That's not how online advertising works. Rather, it's would be the equivalent of someone on your block knowing that your house is a 3-bedroom 1-bath, but know nothing about the people that live inside.

desc 8y ago
Mmm, that's a fair set of points. I don't think that content should be produced for free, but I argue that advertising-by-invasion-by-default is only acceptable now because not enough people called it out early enough, because they didn't realise the cost. 'It's always worked this way' is not a valid defence. Building a business on something should not later affect the legality of that thing. In other words, start looking for another way for things to work instead of trying to claim that the status quo is the only way things can work. Yes, I'm aware that this probably will feel like a step or two backward. Leaving a local maximum always feels like that. [edit] I forgot to address the security camera issue. That's an awkward conflation of 'physically walking into a store where you can physically pick up and leave with an item which cost physical resources to produce' with 'asking if the person standing outside can let you look at a menu'.
brandonmenc 8y ago
> I don't want to pay for every single site I visit I do - if the content is good, the price reasonable, and the transaction frictionless. And if that's what it takes to get rid of intrusive advertising and user tracking, sign me up.
- chillacy 8y ago
  You'd also have to pay more than what you're worth at status quo today. By some estimates your data's worth $240, assuming you're an exactly average user: https://medium.com/wibson/how-much-is-your-data-worth-at-least-240-per-year-likely-much-more-984e250c2ffa https://medium.com/wibson/how-much-is-your-data-worth-at-lea... Since not every user will pay or can afford to pay, and presumably heavier users are worth more, you might have to pay thousands, or tens of thousands (in case you bought a house or something based on targeted ads). You can sort of simulate this today: imagine if you were to bid past all other ads shown to you for every ad slot on every site, then you could replace them with an empty picture. That might get expensive.
  - inetknght 8y ago
    > By some estimates your data's worth $240 Thanks for putting a price point on the amount that people^H^H^H^H^H^H^H advertisers will pay to ruin my freedom. I value it much more than they.
  - ViViDboarder 8y ago
    Most ads these days are CPC. As I never click any ads, the “value” is none. I could outbid easily as if never actually pay for a lead.
- asark 8y ago
  Plus, spy-vertising and creepily recording users' mouse movements is 100% not required for Web advertising to be A Thing that Pays For Lots of Stuff. The notion that if we kill the moats that Google and friends have with their vast troves of user data and various spying methods it'll be anything more than a speedbump to the Web generally is ridiculous. Bad for Google and Facebook and so on, yeah. But so what.
AlexandrB 8y ago
Here's what the Canadian government[1] says about the use of surveillance cameras and notice to the public: > Q. Should we post signs that there are cameras in operation? > A. Yes. Most privacy laws require the organization conducting video surveillance to post a clear and understandable notice about the use of cameras on its premises to individuals whose images might be captured by them, before these individuals enter the premises. This gives people the option of not entering the premises if they object to the surveillance. Signs should include a contact in case individuals have questions or if they want access to images related to them. This is a stronger requirement than the "we may use your personal information to improve our services" language in the EULAs for almost any of these apps. So, ironically, I think you just helped prove the point you were replying to. Hoovering up ALL the usage information without specific notice or consent is not ok. [1] https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/surveillance-and-monitoring/gl_vs_080306/ https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/surveillance-and-mo...
maceurt 8y ago
Stores don't actively use or sell my habits in security camera footage to advertisers however. If stores started selling footage of me in security cameras to companies I would want new legislation to require permission before filming. Furthermore, a store is a public place, and I don't expect privacy in the same way that I expect privacy in my own home while on my phone.

methodover 8y ago

You seem to not understand what this issue is about. It’s tech crunch’s fault. They did a terrible job of reporting on this issue.