5 ms·

There's already many services that exist for accessing databases of personal data, it's just a matter of combining them into some sort of mesh to really tip the

There's already many services that exist for accessing databases of personal data, it's just a matter of combining them into some sort of mesh to really tip the scales to the extreme. With facial recognition being able to query a face against a number of databases, and payment information able to be queried as well, it just takes a matter of some SaaS subscriptions to be able to know someone's: name, address, email/phone/social media, wealth, education, employment history, what they look like, where they go, who they associate with, when they go places, what they buy/own, etc, etc. It's like having a stalker behind your back all the time letting subscribers know someone's life history in exchange for trying to extract as much money and value out of person as possible until they are completely used up. We might as well just back to feudal society and slavery because the game may be different but the motivations are the same.

petra 7y ago
Maybe it's time to run an e-commerce marketplace with no tracking, no "personalization" of anything, no ads, no marketing emails, non of that bullshit. With a focus on quality, peace of mind, and best value for money products, focus on minimizing SEO plays and fake reviews. The infrastructure exist and is rentable from many(although a bit pricy). Maybe all of those, together, would offer enough value to enough people to make prices reasonable.
- hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
  Good luck. We may constantly decry the erosion of privacy on HN, but I guarantee you that the populace at large (like 95%+), even if they may sometimes complain about a lack of privacy, also generally really like the stuff that personalization provides. People (again, the vast populace at large) make their purchasing decisions based on things like price and perceived quality; privacy considerations are a distant follow up. Why do you think the ad-supported web is the dominant model in the first place? Because to most users it feels like "free", because the stuff they're giving up (like privacy and the cost of advertising baked into things they buy) isn't readily apparent. Privacy is a concern that really doesn't matter much, until it does. For other concerns like this it seems like regulation is the only thing that works. For example, insurance companies are highly regulated because the default risk of an insurer is something so amorphous for the average consumer to determine that it's basically impossible for them to judge on their own. So that's when government steps in and says there are basic standards an insurance company must adhere to to operate at an acceptable level of risk. I feel like that's the same for privacy. The average user isn't really able to comprehend, or value, the gradual long term effects of privacy erosion, so that's where the government steps in to demand all players must have basic standards.
  - bobthepanda 7y ago
    > Because to most users it feels like "free", because the stuff they're giving up (like privacy and the cost of advertising baked into things they buy) isn't readily apparent. This is currently because the internet treats data collection as an "opt-out" feature, if you're even allowed to do that. Changing the law so that it is "opt in", and via a mechanism that is clear to a layman, might significantly change that for people. Wasn't that the point of GDPR, anyways?
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      And it does not seem to have succeeded, If the mass proliferation of cookie tracking warnings is any indication.
      - paulryanrogers 7y ago
        Counterpoint, robo-call/text laws do influence some companies. I worked with one who required double opt-in for text to avoid getting blacklisted.
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        People actually hate robocalls and unsolicited texts, because they are an inconvenience. Cookie tracking is transparent and doesn't bother most of the populace; In fact, what bothers them is being annoyed by nagging cookie tracking notifications.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  As a merchant in general, an e-commerce site is also responsible for mitigating fraud. Too much online anonymity can compromise their ability to comply with the law and to protect themselves from money-losing scams.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Craigslist? We take precautions to prevent unauthorized access to or misuse of data about you. We do not run ads, other than the classifieds posted by our users. We do not share your data with third parties for marketing purposes. We do not engage in cross-marketing or link-referral programs. We do not employ tracking devices for marketing purposes. We do not send you unsolicited communications for marketing purposes. We do not engage in affiliate marketing (and prohibit it on CL). We do provide email proxy & relay services to reduce unwanted email. Please review privacy policies of any third party sites linked to from CL. https://www.craigslist.org/about/privacy.policy https://www.craigslist.org/about/privacy.policy
  - fsckboy 7y ago
    We do not run ads, other than ... all the, um... ads that we run.
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      Point being that CL don't run targeted ads, based on ad-tech and comprehensive surveilling of user data and characteristics. They offer ads users either browse or search by keywords.
nocturnial 7y ago
Would those databases also have the option to trace the data back to the origins of that data? It wouldn't solve the privacy issue but I think if companies are compelled to hold a record from whom they purchased/obtained data, it would help. It would help to determine if the originator had informed consent to share it and also if that included every company in the chain. Currently if a company 'loses' their data then people who never even interacted with this company gets their data exposed without them knowing. If you're dealing with personal data, why not keep a record how, where and when you obtained it from?

petra 7y ago

Maybe it's time to run an e-commerce marketplace with no tracking, no "personalization" of anything, no ads, no marketing emails, non of that bullshit. With a focus on quality, peace of mind, and best value for money products, focus on minimizing SEO plays and fake reviews. The infrastructure exist and is rentable from many(although a bit pricy). Maybe all of those, together, would offer enough value to enough people to make prices reasonable.

hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
Good luck. We may constantly decry the erosion of privacy on HN, but I guarantee you that the populace at large (like 95%+), even if they may sometimes complain about a lack of privacy, also generally really like the stuff that personalization provides. People (again, the vast populace at large) make their purchasing decisions based on things like price and perceived quality; privacy considerations are a distant follow up. Why do you think the ad-supported web is the dominant model in the first place? Because to most users it feels like "free", because the stuff they're giving up (like privacy and the cost of advertising baked into things they buy) isn't readily apparent. Privacy is a concern that really doesn't matter much, until it does. For other concerns like this it seems like regulation is the only thing that works. For example, insurance companies are highly regulated because the default risk of an insurer is something so amorphous for the average consumer to determine that it's basically impossible for them to judge on their own. So that's when government steps in and says there are basic standards an insurance company must adhere to to operate at an acceptable level of risk. I feel like that's the same for privacy. The average user isn't really able to comprehend, or value, the gradual long term effects of privacy erosion, so that's where the government steps in to demand all players must have basic standards.
- bobthepanda 7y ago
  > Because to most users it feels like "free", because the stuff they're giving up (like privacy and the cost of advertising baked into things they buy) isn't readily apparent. This is currently because the internet treats data collection as an "opt-out" feature, if you're even allowed to do that. Changing the law so that it is "opt in", and via a mechanism that is clear to a layman, might significantly change that for people. Wasn't that the point of GDPR, anyways?
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    And it does not seem to have succeeded, If the mass proliferation of cookie tracking warnings is any indication.
    - paulryanrogers 7y ago
      Counterpoint, robo-call/text laws do influence some companies. I worked with one who required double opt-in for text to avoid getting blacklisted.
      - shadowgovt 7y ago
        People actually hate robocalls and unsolicited texts, because they are an inconvenience. Cookie tracking is transparent and doesn't bother most of the populace; In fact, what bothers them is being annoyed by nagging cookie tracking notifications.
shadowgovt 7y ago
As a merchant in general, an e-commerce site is also responsible for mitigating fraud. Too much online anonymity can compromise their ability to comply with the law and to protect themselves from money-losing scams.
dredmorbius 7y ago
Craigslist? We take precautions to prevent unauthorized access to or misuse of data about you. We do not run ads, other than the classifieds posted by our users. We do not share your data with third parties for marketing purposes. We do not engage in cross-marketing or link-referral programs. We do not employ tracking devices for marketing purposes. We do not send you unsolicited communications for marketing purposes. We do not engage in affiliate marketing (and prohibit it on CL). We do provide email proxy & relay services to reduce unwanted email. Please review privacy policies of any third party sites linked to from CL. https://www.craigslist.org/about/privacy.policy https://www.craigslist.org/about/privacy.policy
- fsckboy 7y ago
  We do not run ads, other than ... all the, um... ads that we run.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    Point being that CL don't run targeted ads, based on ad-tech and comprehensive surveilling of user data and characteristics. They offer ads users either browse or search by keywords.

nocturnial 7y ago

Would those databases also have the option to trace the data back to the origins of that data? It wouldn't solve the privacy issue but I think if companies are compelled to hold a record from whom they purchased/obtained data, it would help. It would help to determine if the originator had informed consent to share it and also if that included every company in the chain. Currently if a company 'loses' their data then people who never even interacted with this company gets their data exposed without them knowing. If you're dealing with personal data, why not keep a record how, where and when you obtained it from?