4 ms·

The solution is very simple, but is not technical: make advertising targeted with personal data illegal.

by nomdep 6y ago

Spivak 6y ago
I don’t think that’s the whole picture though. There would still be a valuable business interest in collecting all of this data even if it wasn’t used to directly advertise products to people. An easy example in the ad tech space would be ad attribution. You don’t have to use any personal identifying information to actually run the specific advertisement to the user for but the PII is then used to correlate whether the ad was effective or contributed to a purchase.
WaitWaitWha 6y ago
How would you implement it that there are real-world ramifications to breaking your law? For example, what if you are a Nigerian prince? On a more serious note, do we have any data on how well the "do not call" list worked out?
- mosselman 6y ago
  What is wrong with fines? I am not sure what you mean with 'Nigerian prince', but since a lot of e-mail scammers claim to be nigerian princes I will assume you meant that. The problem isn't that some tiny website somewhere uses fingerprinting, because they can't follow you around the web. The problem is companies like Google tracking people around the internet. You can fine them if it turns out that they use fingerprinting techniques to track people. Seems pretty straight forward to me.
pydry 6y ago
I don't think that could happen. Government wants in on this data too.
TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
Another solution is to click on every damn ad you are shown. Millions of people doing this to billions of ads will collapse the value and make this kind of advertising a waste of money.
- codetrotter 6y ago
  Theres a browser extension that can do this for you if you feel so inclined. https://adnauseam.io https://adnauseam.io I've never used it myself so I don't know if it still works but I remember reading about it here on HN a few years ago or so. I think however that if it even still works there is a risk that you may start being prompted with a lot more CAPTCHAs. But again, haven't tried it so don't know if that would happen or not.
- doopy1 6y ago
  That won't work. Clicks are not the currency of digital ads, if everyone does this, it's an easy baseline to account for and eliminate the noise. It's a "cute" idea though that's not even a little bit disruptive.
  - TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
    Advertisers pay for clicks, noise or not. See the Facebook scandal for example.
    - doopy1 6y ago
      Advertiser only pay for clicks when it comes to search ads, but there's a whole other world of display advertising. Marketers run campaigns with different strategies, direct response, sales, etc. 99% of ads are bought and sold on views anyway. I'll admit I was hyperbolic when I said this will have 0 impact. It w.ill be annoying, but it won't really make an impact in the grand scheme of things in my opinion. Source: I've worked in ad tech since 2005.
GuB-42 6y ago
A legal solution? Legal solutions are never "very simple". There will be an army of corporate lawyers that are going to try to find loopholes against an army of legislators trying to close them. Plus a few trolls using the new laws to threaten businesses. What starts with a simple idea quickly becomes a monstrosity like GDPR.
- _def 6y ago
  It wouldn't be a quick fix but a first step in the right direction, much like GDPR.
  - btilly 6y ago
    If you think that GDPR is a step in the right direction, I've got a bridge to sell you. Here is how GDPR is likely to pan out in a few years. Some big companies get sued under GDPR. This sets precedents and makes complying with GDPR more expensive. Because it is now harder to comply with GDPR, that becomes a barrier to entry for new companies. The fact that the barrier to entry exists makes the big companies more profitable. And the fact that the regulatory scheme improves their profit margins will incentivize the internet giants to engage in regulatory capture and improve their profit margins even more. The result? The big internet companies wind up like Brer Rabbit. They say, "Don’t throw me into the briar patch."
CWuestefeld 6y ago
Sorry to be snarky, but I can't get any farther than to respond "this will solve everything, because nobody ever does anything illegal".
- harshreality 6y ago
  Nothing will stop someone from rolling their own primitive tracking and hoping to fly under the radar of governments. However, major advertisers and tracking companies are established companies with significant presence in the US and EU. They need servers everywhere to ensure low latency. I don't see how they could work around it if half of their business model is made illegal by Western governments. They'd have to return to doing tracking by ip and cookies (and maybe localstorage, whatever the law exempts) only. I don't see why that shouldn't be enough. I agree in principle that fixing the browsers to remove fingerprinting vectors is the correct approach, and making tracking illegal is not. I just think making it illegal would work, at least mostly, because companies that are good at tracking would have to comply.
h_anna_h 6y ago
Ads are not the only use of tracking.

The solution is very simple, but is not technical: make advertising targeted with personal data illegal.

by nomdep 6y ago

The solution is very simple, but is not technical: make advertising targeted with personal data illegal.

I don’t think that’s the whole picture though. There would still be a valuable business interest in collecting all of this data even if it wasn’t used to directly advertise products to people. An easy example in the ad tech space would be ad attribution. You don’t have to use any personal identifying information to actually run the specific advertisement to the user for but the PII is then used to correlate whether the ad was effective or contributed to a purchase.

WaitWaitWha 6y ago

How would you implement it that there are real-world ramifications to breaking your law? For example, what if you are a Nigerian prince? On a more serious note, do we have any data on how well the "do not call" list worked out?

mosselman 6y ago
What is wrong with fines? I am not sure what you mean with 'Nigerian prince', but since a lot of e-mail scammers claim to be nigerian princes I will assume you meant that. The problem isn't that some tiny website somewhere uses fingerprinting, because they can't follow you around the web. The problem is companies like Google tracking people around the internet. You can fine them if it turns out that they use fingerprinting techniques to track people. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

pydry 6y ago

I don't think that could happen. Government wants in on this data too.

TedDoesntTalk 6y ago

Another solution is to click on every damn ad you are shown. Millions of people doing this to billions of ads will collapse the value and make this kind of advertising a waste of money.

codetrotter 6y ago
Theres a browser extension that can do this for you if you feel so inclined. https://adnauseam.io https://adnauseam.io I've never used it myself so I don't know if it still works but I remember reading about it here on HN a few years ago or so. I think however that if it even still works there is a risk that you may start being prompted with a lot more CAPTCHAs. But again, haven't tried it so don't know if that would happen or not.
doopy1 6y ago
That won't work. Clicks are not the currency of digital ads, if everyone does this, it's an easy baseline to account for and eliminate the noise. It's a "cute" idea though that's not even a little bit disruptive.
- TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
  Advertisers pay for clicks, noise or not. See the Facebook scandal for example.
  - doopy1 6y ago
    Advertiser only pay for clicks when it comes to search ads, but there's a whole other world of display advertising. Marketers run campaigns with different strategies, direct response, sales, etc. 99% of ads are bought and sold on views anyway. I'll admit I was hyperbolic when I said this will have 0 impact. It w.ill be annoying, but it won't really make an impact in the grand scheme of things in my opinion. Source: I've worked in ad tech since 2005.

GuB-42 6y ago

A legal solution? Legal solutions are never "very simple". There will be an army of corporate lawyers that are going to try to find loopholes against an army of legislators trying to close them. Plus a few trolls using the new laws to threaten businesses. What starts with a simple idea quickly becomes a monstrosity like GDPR.

_def 6y ago
It wouldn't be a quick fix but a first step in the right direction, much like GDPR.
- btilly 6y ago
  If you think that GDPR is a step in the right direction, I've got a bridge to sell you. Here is how GDPR is likely to pan out in a few years. Some big companies get sued under GDPR. This sets precedents and makes complying with GDPR more expensive. Because it is now harder to comply with GDPR, that becomes a barrier to entry for new companies. The fact that the barrier to entry exists makes the big companies more profitable. And the fact that the regulatory scheme improves their profit margins will incentivize the internet giants to engage in regulatory capture and improve their profit margins even more. The result? The big internet companies wind up like Brer Rabbit. They say, "Don’t throw me into the briar patch."

CWuestefeld 6y ago

Sorry to be snarky, but I can't get any farther than to respond "this will solve everything, because nobody ever does anything illegal".

harshreality 6y ago
Nothing will stop someone from rolling their own primitive tracking and hoping to fly under the radar of governments. However, major advertisers and tracking companies are established companies with significant presence in the US and EU. They need servers everywhere to ensure low latency. I don't see how they could work around it if half of their business model is made illegal by Western governments. They'd have to return to doing tracking by ip and cookies (and maybe localstorage, whatever the law exempts) only. I don't see why that shouldn't be enough. I agree in principle that fixing the browsers to remove fingerprinting vectors is the correct approach, and making tracking illegal is not. I just think making it illegal would work, at least mostly, because companies that are good at tracking would have to comply.

h_anna_h 6y ago

Ads are not the only use of tracking.