3 ms·

not let people discover that they're being tracked. != not actively disclosing. One is actively hiding. The other is not actively revealing. The fact that you

not let people discover that they're being tracked. != not actively disclosing. One is actively hiding. The other is not actively revealing. The fact that you are pretending they are the same makes me feel you aren't arguing in good faith. You are intelligent enough to understand this without me having to highlight it, twice.

danShumway 6y ago
You are similarly intelligent enough to understand that the actual person reading your email doesn't care about the distinction you're making. If you go to someone and say, "don't worry, I didn't deceive you, I just profited off of your already existing ignorance", they're not going to be happy with that answer. Either you have their informed consent, or you don't. To repeat, why does it make your customers uncomfortable to discover that they're being tracked?
- NicolasGorden 6y ago
  Again you are being disingenuous. Which reeks of bad faith. I'm not being disingenuous at all. Users are uncomfortable being actively reminded of it in a creepy manner. The disclosure is there and Snowden made sure no one can declare themselves uninformed. People are comfortable enough with the tracking that legislation doesn't curtail it. I'm not a big player, I don't make the rules, I play within them. Don't like the rules? Work on getting them changed. Don't like my funnels? Don't sign up.
  - danShumway 6y ago
    > The disclosure is there and Snowden made sure no one can declare themselves uninformed. I don't think I need to offer additional commentary on that claim, I think it kind of speaks for itself. > I'm not a big player, I don't make the rules, I play within them. Don't like the rules? Work on getting them changed. Don't like my funnels? Don't sign up. But at least on this one point, both of us seem to be completely agreed. The advertising industry is incapable of self-regulation, and there's no point in companies like Apple, Mozilla, DuckDuckGo, or Fastmail having a 'dialog' over blocking 3rd-party cookies, auto-denying permission prompts, blocking device IDs, and caching assets serverside in emails. They just need to push their privacy changes and stop pretending that the advertising industry is interested in holding itself to a responsible standard. There is no realistic scenario where tracking mechanisms are left open and marketers commit to only using them responsibly. This was Apple's mistake a few weeks ago with device IDs, where they backpedaled just because Facebook was angry. Platforms can't negotiate with advertisers, they just have to change the rules and let them complain. Ultimately, the conversation we've had here hasn't boiled down to some kind of philosophical disagreement about the nature of privacy or how different concerns should be balanced, your position is just that you're going to do anything you're legally allowed to do, and if anyone feels violated by that, it's their fault for not stopping you. That's not a philosophy that's worth negotiating or debating with.
    - NicolasGorden 6y ago
      You have posted in a way that insinuates I actively try to hide tracking and disinform the public. That is not true. You have insinuated lies about me in an effort to win some silly internet argument. Why would I care what you think when you aren't acting honorably? Also I never talked philosophy. I talked real world, what happens. That's why I said. Don't like my newsletter? Don't sign up. Don't like the legislation, vote to change it. I can't go to war with knives if everyone has guns. If no one has guns, I'll go to war with knives. That's the way the real world works. What you think is irrelevant. I completely support your engagement in the real world. Which has always been the case if you actually read what I said and cared about who I am. I'm a dues paying member of EFF and EPIC. But that's the real world, instead of the caricature you have in your head with people who were 'violated' by a tracking pixel. Ultimately I'm probably just talking to a troll, few people have such low levels of self-awareness that they will lecture others on morality while insinuating lies about them.

danShumway 6y ago

You are similarly intelligent enough to understand that the actual person reading your email doesn't care about the distinction you're making. If you go to someone and say, "don't worry, I didn't deceive you, I just profited off of your already existing ignorance", they're not going to be happy with that answer. Either you have their informed consent, or you don't. To repeat, why does it make your customers uncomfortable to discover that they're being tracked?

NicolasGorden 6y ago
Again you are being disingenuous. Which reeks of bad faith. I'm not being disingenuous at all. Users are uncomfortable being actively reminded of it in a creepy manner. The disclosure is there and Snowden made sure no one can declare themselves uninformed. People are comfortable enough with the tracking that legislation doesn't curtail it. I'm not a big player, I don't make the rules, I play within them. Don't like the rules? Work on getting them changed. Don't like my funnels? Don't sign up.
- danShumway 6y ago
  > The disclosure is there and Snowden made sure no one can declare themselves uninformed. I don't think I need to offer additional commentary on that claim, I think it kind of speaks for itself. > I'm not a big player, I don't make the rules, I play within them. Don't like the rules? Work on getting them changed. Don't like my funnels? Don't sign up. But at least on this one point, both of us seem to be completely agreed. The advertising industry is incapable of self-regulation, and there's no point in companies like Apple, Mozilla, DuckDuckGo, or Fastmail having a 'dialog' over blocking 3rd-party cookies, auto-denying permission prompts, blocking device IDs, and caching assets serverside in emails. They just need to push their privacy changes and stop pretending that the advertising industry is interested in holding itself to a responsible standard. There is no realistic scenario where tracking mechanisms are left open and marketers commit to only using them responsibly. This was Apple's mistake a few weeks ago with device IDs, where they backpedaled just because Facebook was angry. Platforms can't negotiate with advertisers, they just have to change the rules and let them complain. Ultimately, the conversation we've had here hasn't boiled down to some kind of philosophical disagreement about the nature of privacy or how different concerns should be balanced, your position is just that you're going to do anything you're legally allowed to do, and if anyone feels violated by that, it's their fault for not stopping you. That's not a philosophy that's worth negotiating or debating with.
  - NicolasGorden 6y ago
    You have posted in a way that insinuates I actively try to hide tracking and disinform the public. That is not true. You have insinuated lies about me in an effort to win some silly internet argument. Why would I care what you think when you aren't acting honorably? Also I never talked philosophy. I talked real world, what happens. That's why I said. Don't like my newsletter? Don't sign up. Don't like the legislation, vote to change it. I can't go to war with knives if everyone has guns. If no one has guns, I'll go to war with knives. That's the way the real world works. What you think is irrelevant. I completely support your engagement in the real world. Which has always been the case if you actually read what I said and cared about who I am. I'm a dues paying member of EFF and EPIC. But that's the real world, instead of the caricature you have in your head with people who were 'violated' by a tracking pixel. Ultimately I'm probably just talking to a troll, few people have such low levels of self-awareness that they will lecture others on morality while insinuating lies about them.