4 ms·

"which can often uniquely identify you." "and potentially show up in unwanted places, like insurance, credit & background checks." yeah, i'm pretty sure that'

by ignu 16y ago

"which can often uniquely identify you." "and potentially show up in unwanted places, like insurance, credit & background checks." yeah, i'm pretty sure that's not a thing that can happen. also, if you like the internet being free then you shouldn't mind seeing ads for your demographic that get a better roi and make more money for publishers of the content you don't pay for.

codeup 16y ago
If you pay with your data instead of money, how does that make a service "free"? It would only be free if your data was worthless. But then they would not collect it in the first place.
- Groxx 16y ago
  Be careful how you define value / cost / worth. It costs me nothing if they duplicate information I give them. It costs me something if it's used to abusively manipulate me. It pays me something if it's used to manipulate me (ie, what I see) in ways I approve of.
  - codeup 16y ago
    Does the duplication of private information reduce it's value? I think it does. If there is a transfer of value from you to a company then you can call transfer that a sort of payment. The company may sell you something in return, but I wouldn't confuse selling with paying.
    - Groxx 16y ago
      >The company may sell you something in return, but I wouldn't confuse selling with paying. Absolutely, those are entirely different. But you do seem to be defining "providing a service" as not-paying. If you go down that route, why do houses cost money? You are paying the builders for their service, but if that's not-paying, then you're just giving away huge sums of money for zero value in return. Tangibility isn't a defining line, or utility companies would be out (they don't provide water, they bring it to you. An intangible service.). The service in these cases being fewer "enlarge your breasts/penis" ads for the wrong sex, or anything you may find offensive, replaced by ads which (ideally) would help you discover things you want which you may not have found otherwise. You're paying the ad services to be your personal product investigators, and they return value by providing relevancy. edited to add more. I'm done now!
TomOfTTB 16y ago
I don't see why this COULDN'T happen. There are already list brokers out there who buy information from retail outlets (all those "member" programs that collect what you buy). They then combine them into master lists to sell In that same way if you search for Herpes and then are directed to a web site they'll have your IP and maybe a cookie. If you then go to another site and log in with your Facebook ID they'll have your IP, Name and Facebook ID. So all it would take is an industrious list broker to start combining that info like they already do with offline info (and in fact probably combine that with the offline info to get even more comprehensive lists)
epi0Bauqu 16y ago
It's already happening to various degrees, and that is just what we know about. See the three WSJ articles I linked to at the bottom of the post, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704648604575620750998072986.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870464860457562... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703977004575393173432219064.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870397700457539... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304410504575560243259416072.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230441050457556... Their whole privacy series (http://online.wsj.com/public/page/what-they-know-digital-privacy.html http://online.wsj.com/public/page/what-they-know-digital-pri...) taken together is what inspired this page. I urge anyone interested in what is really happening to read all the articles (13 so far).
gradschool 16y ago
I like the internet being free, but it was also free in the early days before advertising and tracking of users were prevalent. The "content" was mainly of an academic nature, which also wasn't such a bad thing. I don't mind publishers making money on the net, and I hope they don't mind me blocking their ads, but if push comes to shove, why should we care if they go out of business when the worst case scenario would probably consist of the net going back to the way it was before?

by ignu 16y ago

codeup 16y ago

If you pay with your data instead of money, how does that make a service "free"? It would only be free if your data was worthless. But then they would not collect it in the first place.

Groxx 16y ago
Be careful how you define value / cost / worth. It costs me nothing if they duplicate information I give them. It costs me something if it's used to abusively manipulate me. It pays me something if it's used to manipulate me (ie, what I see) in ways I approve of.
- codeup 16y ago
  Does the duplication of private information reduce it's value? I think it does. If there is a transfer of value from you to a company then you can call transfer that a sort of payment. The company may sell you something in return, but I wouldn't confuse selling with paying.
  - Groxx 16y ago
    >The company may sell you something in return, but I wouldn't confuse selling with paying. Absolutely, those are entirely different. But you do seem to be defining "providing a service" as not-paying. If you go down that route, why do houses cost money? You are paying the builders for their service, but if that's not-paying, then you're just giving away huge sums of money for zero value in return. Tangibility isn't a defining line, or utility companies would be out (they don't provide water, they bring it to you. An intangible service.). The service in these cases being fewer "enlarge your breasts/penis" ads for the wrong sex, or anything you may find offensive, replaced by ads which (ideally) would help you discover things you want which you may not have found otherwise. You're paying the ad services to be your personal product investigators, and they return value by providing relevancy. edited to add more. I'm done now!

TomOfTTB 16y ago

I don't see why this COULDN'T happen. There are already list brokers out there who buy information from retail outlets (all those "member" programs that collect what you buy). They then combine them into master lists to sell In that same way if you search for Herpes and then are directed to a web site they'll have your IP and maybe a cookie. If you then go to another site and log in with your Facebook ID they'll have your IP, Name and Facebook ID. So all it would take is an industrious list broker to start combining that info like they already do with offline info (and in fact probably combine that with the offline info to get even more comprehensive lists)

epi0Bauqu 16y ago

It's already happening to various degrees, and that is just what we know about. See the three WSJ articles I linked to at the bottom of the post, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704648604575620750998072986.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870464860457562... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703977004575393173432219064.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870397700457539... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304410504575560243259416072.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230441050457556... Their whole privacy series (http://online.wsj.com/public/page/what-they-know-digital-privacy.html http://online.wsj.com/public/page/what-they-know-digital-pri...) taken together is what inspired this page. I urge anyone interested in what is really happening to read all the articles (13 so far).

gradschool 16y ago

I like the internet being free, but it was also free in the early days before advertising and tracking of users were prevalent. The "content" was mainly of an academic nature, which also wasn't such a bad thing. I don't mind publishers making money on the net, and I hope they don't mind me blocking their ads, but if push comes to shove, why should we care if they go out of business when the worst case scenario would probably consist of the net going back to the way it was before?