4 ms·

Because (all other concerns and objections aside) the intent doesn't matter. Apologies for the crude analogy, but if I install a camera in your bathroom and sa

Because (all other concerns and objections aside) the intent doesn't matter. Apologies for the crude analogy, but if I install a camera in your bathroom and say, "okay, technically I could watch you poop, but the only reason I'm actually doing this is to figure out when you're out of toilet paper", that explanation won't leave you satisfied. Similarly, if someone is tracking me across the web and trying to link my identity across multiple sites/devices, I don't really care whether or not they're worried about attribution. The concerns about attribution are secondary to the fact that they're still watching everything I do online.

fingerlocks 6y ago
Filming me defecating in the privacy of my home is not comparable to a quasi-anonymous unique value traveling from my computer to another. Also, please remember that this conversation is very specifically about Facebook's access to the Apple IDFA, not about general web tracking or other data vacuuming issues. The fact that these two separate issues get conflated is part of the problem.
- danShumway 6y ago
  > about Facebook's access to the Apple IDFA Which is used to uniquely identify me across apps, a totally equivalent level of tracking as identifying me across websites. It is the same result, just on a different platform. And all of this data gets combined and utilized with the "other data vacuuming issues" you're talking about. You can't treat those like isolated issues, the unique identifiers across websites/apps enable the data vacuuming. You're arguing that these identifiers aren't primarily being used to build profiles, that they're mostly innocuous, and then you're saying that the fact that profiles are being built and data vacuuming is happening is a separate issue that's not relevant to the current conversation? No, the data vacuuming wouldn't be possible to nearly the same degree without persistent identifiers. That makes it relevant. > is not comparable to a quasi-anonymous unique value traveling from my computer to another. You're arguing about a matter of degree. The point I'm making is that violating my privacy doesn't become automatically OK just because the advertising industry promises me they won't look at the extra data they're getting. And I think the reasoning behind why it's not OK is the same in both scenarios -- because in both scenarios, it's not reasonable to trust the person gathering that data to keep it secure or to never misuse it. People bring up "quasi-anonymous" as if it's some kind of perfect defense that puts these identifiers into a separate category of information, but it's not. If it was actually anonymous, you wouldn't need to put the "quasi" in front of it. But if it makes you feel better, I'll put a camera in your bathroom and then disassociate the video stream from your home address or name, and then I'll blur your face with an AI. Then the video stream will be quasi-anonymous too. I promise I won't ever try to link it to a real identity, you can trust me. The point is, it is a violation of my privacy to track every website I visit and every app I use. The reason why a company is doing that doesn't matter.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  > Filming me defecating in the privacy of my home is not comparable to a quasi-anonymous unique value traveling from my computer to another. It's not a "Quasi-anonymous" token the moment it's tied to your Facebook account... which is exactly 100% the point here. Facebook wants to be able to tie your off Facebook activity to your Facebook account. Also, there are some incredibly private things which happen on people's phones. If I went to the courthouse or a DUI lawyer in town, I don't want Facebook to know this. If I have to install an app due to parole restrictions, this shouldn't be a thing Facebook finds out about. There are piles of other private activities which people keep in the apps they use.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
You're too generous. I disagree with the parent that the intent is innocuous. The intent is almost always to convince people to purchase something where they otherwise wouldn't purchase it - by a mix of catching them in a vulnerable moment, and brainwashing them with repeated exposure over time. It's malicious.
- danShumway 6y ago
  My goal in this conversation isn't to argue one way or the other about the ethics of our current advertising industry in general, it's to make the point that regardless of whether or not someone considers the advertising industry to be moral and/or its data usage innocuous, the tracking is still a problem.

fingerlocks 6y ago

Filming me defecating in the privacy of my home is not comparable to a quasi-anonymous unique value traveling from my computer to another. Also, please remember that this conversation is very specifically about Facebook's access to the Apple IDFA, not about general web tracking or other data vacuuming issues. The fact that these two separate issues get conflated is part of the problem.

danShumway 6y ago
> about Facebook's access to the Apple IDFA Which is used to uniquely identify me across apps, a totally equivalent level of tracking as identifying me across websites. It is the same result, just on a different platform. And all of this data gets combined and utilized with the "other data vacuuming issues" you're talking about. You can't treat those like isolated issues, the unique identifiers across websites/apps enable the data vacuuming. You're arguing that these identifiers aren't primarily being used to build profiles, that they're mostly innocuous, and then you're saying that the fact that profiles are being built and data vacuuming is happening is a separate issue that's not relevant to the current conversation? No, the data vacuuming wouldn't be possible to nearly the same degree without persistent identifiers. That makes it relevant. > is not comparable to a quasi-anonymous unique value traveling from my computer to another. You're arguing about a matter of degree. The point I'm making is that violating my privacy doesn't become automatically OK just because the advertising industry promises me they won't look at the extra data they're getting. And I think the reasoning behind why it's not OK is the same in both scenarios -- because in both scenarios, it's not reasonable to trust the person gathering that data to keep it secure or to never misuse it. People bring up "quasi-anonymous" as if it's some kind of perfect defense that puts these identifiers into a separate category of information, but it's not. If it was actually anonymous, you wouldn't need to put the "quasi" in front of it. But if it makes you feel better, I'll put a camera in your bathroom and then disassociate the video stream from your home address or name, and then I'll blur your face with an AI. Then the video stream will be quasi-anonymous too. I promise I won't ever try to link it to a real identity, you can trust me. The point is, it is a violation of my privacy to track every website I visit and every app I use. The reason why a company is doing that doesn't matter.
ogre_codes 6y ago
> Filming me defecating in the privacy of my home is not comparable to a quasi-anonymous unique value traveling from my computer to another. It's not a "Quasi-anonymous" token the moment it's tied to your Facebook account... which is exactly 100% the point here. Facebook wants to be able to tie your off Facebook activity to your Facebook account. Also, there are some incredibly private things which happen on people's phones. If I went to the courthouse or a DUI lawyer in town, I don't want Facebook to know this. If I have to install an app due to parole restrictions, this shouldn't be a thing Facebook finds out about. There are piles of other private activities which people keep in the apps they use.

TeMPOraL 6y ago

You're too generous. I disagree with the parent that the intent is innocuous. The intent is almost always to convince people to purchase something where they otherwise wouldn't purchase it - by a mix of catching them in a vulnerable moment, and brainwashing them with repeated exposure over time. It's malicious.

danShumway 6y ago
My goal in this conversation isn't to argue one way or the other about the ethics of our current advertising industry in general, it's to make the point that regardless of whether or not someone considers the advertising industry to be moral and/or its data usage innocuous, the tracking is still a problem.