7 ms·

>The challenge for personalized ads market will be significant if the first two weeks end up reflecting a long-term trend. Adtech is basically highly-paid peop

>The challenge for personalized ads market will be significant if the first two weeks end up reflecting a long-term trend. Adtech is basically highly-paid people sniffing your underwear trying to figure out what you had for breakfast. And they get all indignant when you say "hey cut it out, that's kind of weird."

Dma54rhs 5y ago
There's no harm in filming your daughter changing clothes at these booths we installed all over the beaches. We are keen at protecting her data and making sure her face stays blurred. If we'd stop the costs of going to beach would go up tremendously, so that's out the question.
- the_snooze 5y ago
  You're probably joking, but the TSA has made that exact argument for their full-body scanners. >"The (body image scanning) technology is sent to the airports without the ability to save, transmit or print the images," said Greg Soule, TSA spokesman, in an interview with CBSNews.com. "At airports, the images are examined by a security officer in a remote location, and, once the image is cleared, they're deleted." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/naked-body-scan-images-never-saved-tsa-says/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/naked-body-scan-images-never-sa...
  - Terretta 5y ago
    Of course, the images may not be deleted. Unless someone notices, such as with these 35,000 from Orlando: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2010/11/100_images_from_the_controvers.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2010/11/100_images_from_the_... And an alleged insider discussion of how those "remote" viewers respect passenger privacy: "Personally, in the I.O. room, I witnessed light sexual play among officers, a lot of e-cigarette vaping, and a whole lot of officers laughing and clowning in regard to some of your nude images, dear passengers." https://takingsenseaway.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/letter-from-a-passenger-what-really-happens-in-the-tsa-private-room/ https://takingsenseaway.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/letter-from...
  - ForHackernews 5y ago
    I mean, at least the putative negative consequences they're trying to avoid are exploded jetliners and hundreds of deaths, not "advertising would be somewhat less effective and profitable" (similar to all advertising before about 2002).
    - blueline 5y ago
      it's very charitable for you to accept at face value that that's what the TSA security theater is for
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - mhb 5y ago
        He doesn't. That's why it said putative.
  - mumblemumble 5y ago
    > The (body image scanning) technology is ... without the ability to ... transmit ... the images," > the images are examined by a security officer in a remote location oh dear. More seriously, at least TSA can at least make a proportionality type of argument, along the lines of, this invasion of privacy is justified on the grounds that it might save lives. Adtech is just going to use it to try and figure out how to convince me to buy a motorized turnip twaddler.
    - skinnymuch 5y ago
      I don’t see why the TSA having awful reasons they can get away with is any better or any better hedge than any other player invading privacy unnecessarily.
      - meowface 5y ago
        Even if it may be awful on an absolute scale, on a relative scale, I find egregious privacy violations more justifiable if the claimed intention is mitigating supposed risk of bodily harm or death rather than showing me advertisements. I have the right to simultaneously hate and be disgusted by the TSA yet hate and be disgusted by advertisers and ad tech even more.
        skinnymuch 5y ago
        Interesting. I feel the opposite. Theater and bad faith lying or trickery are far worse to me. The intent from the get go isn’t even trying to do the right thing while also trying to show themselves as the “good”.
    - curryst 5y ago
      Of the data that I've seen, adtech has about as much legitimacy in claiming they "might" save lives as the TSA does.[1] The last year the TSA released the stats on their Red Team tests, they failed to detect 95% of threats. Some of the threats that made it through were fully assembled handguns, fully assembled bombs, and partially disassembled versions of both. As many have pointed out, the TSA is largely security theater. It makes people feel better that we're doing something, and apparently the greater the intrusion on privacy, the more secure people feel. https://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-tsa-screeners-20150602-story.html https://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-tsa-screeners...
  - toss1 5y ago
    >> >"The (body image scanning) technology is sent to the airports without the ability to save, transmit or print the images,...and, once the image is cleared, they're deleted." Perhaps from the machine, but what prevents a TSA viewer in the remote location from snapping an image of the screen with their smartphone, or wearing an always-on logging camera to the workstation?
    - the_snooze 5y ago
      The TSA's proud culture of professionalism and integrity, of course.
      - toss1 5y ago
        ... well, there ya go! Why didn't I think of that?
- jtdev 5y ago
  Plus, we’re able to help these ladies by recommending beachwear that is aligned with their sensibilities… it’s really a win-win for all parties.
pja 5y ago
Recently, a website I had only visited once somehow cross-referenced the cookies available through my browser to work out my email address & directly emailed me to invite me to sign up for their services. This has to be a GDPR violation, I certainly didn’t give consent for them to email me, but people are still doing this kind of thing apparently.
- segmondy 5y ago
  For years I had a professional email and a non-pro email address that I kept separated. Personal email for job applications/linkedin/bills etc, non-pro for regular surfing. It's worked great until last year. I think it's Google cuz I login from the same browser/device, but they eventually linked it and I'm now being contacted by recruiters via my non-pro email which pretty much unmasks me and my social media accounts. To really have any kind of anonymity today, you pretty much have to hide as if a nation-state actor is after you.
  - Saint_Genet 5y ago
    I don't ever log in to my personal accounts on my work computer/phone or vice versa. Another perk of having a work only phone is that I can leave it at work or turn it off when not working.
  - moksly 5y ago
    I abandoned having a free (as in beer) mail account around the time google started doing their own advertising in gmail. At first I went for the ideology approach of fastmail, then tutanota/proton mail and finally runbox (or whatever the Norwegian service is called, which was my favorite by the way), but I just couldn’t live with going from gmail to any of those, and so I ended up with gsuite. When google decided to make having a gsuite for private usage harder, I switched to Office365 where I still have the smallest “only in browser” package. I have to say that whole outlook isn’t as good as gmail, all the things evolving spam is super easy to handle with policies. I still have my old gmail address forwarding things that google would sort into “this is the relevant mails” part of its new inbox system, and 90% of it goes directly into my “unwanted stuff” or clutter or whatever it’s called in outlook. As a benefit it also gave me a TB of storage and in browser office, and while I don’t use the office stuff much, I do use one drive to backup my photos because iCloud storage frankly is almost as expensive as the entire office365 account.
paulcole 5y ago
Rivaled only by the indignity of those proudly and unironically proclaiming, “I own the result of my HTTP request and consider blocking ads and still taking advantage of not paying for content my god-given right.”
- shameful_idiot 5y ago
  This ain’t it chief
- oblio 5y ago
  Honest question: are you, or have you ever been (or are you planning to be), someone with a direct financial stake in the ad industry? Employee, shareholder, board member, whatever. The answer to that question will greatly influence what we think of your witticism in the previous comment :-)
  - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
    I'm all over this thread, and the answer to your question is yes. I spent a number of years at an ad-driven FAANG (which narrows it down to three). And I still think that firstly, this decision by Apple is gonna drive a lot of small niche products to the wall, and secondly, is a part of Apple's longer term plans to make a significant amount of money from advertising over the next five years.
  - paulcole 5y ago
    Yes, my livelihood depends on customers discovering products and services and then paying money for those things.
    - oblio 5y ago
      You're good, you should work in advertising.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  Yeah, I'm one of those and I'm not ashamed. I do own the HTTP response. It's on my computer and in my control. Sites that require payment before responding could do something like return 402 Payment Required or simply refuse to send me anything. If they send me ads I'll delete them. I can rip out and trash the ads I find in magazines, there's no reason websites should work differently.
f6v 5y ago
I think the users have brought it on themselves. Almost everyone wants free content, more, more of it! Just say: “You know what? I’m not gonna watch these cat videos on YouTube cause there’s an outrageous number of ads!” Or (and I’m going to sound crazy) we could skip scrolling Instagram and just read a book or take a walk when we need to unwind. Google search is harder to escape, of course.
- jdofaz 5y ago
  TV and radio were successful with ads for a long time without needing to build a profile on every person in the audience
  - wccrawford 5y ago
    I think this is key. Ads can be targeted without knowing anything about the user other than that they're viewing the content on that page. Sure, not as finely-tuned, but that's not the user's problem.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  I find it hard to blame the users when (according to this article) as soon as they’re given a modicum of control, they clearly reveal their preference for not being tracked.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  Nobody can be blamed for wanting free content, who doesn't? The fact most sites are free of charge does not mean the advertising industry should be allowed to surveil everyone and monetize their private information. If sites can't aford to offer content for free, they should charge money for it.
- toss1 5y ago
  I'd say it is more the blame on the industry's failure to deliver a usable micropayments system. I'd be happy to pay a few pennies or dimes for every article I open to skim or read. But I cannot and will not pay the 2-3 figure subscriptions demanded by every publisher. There is a range of choice, all too high to commit to one, so the only one that gets my money is the Guardian, with a donate-what-you can model. The rest I put up with generally avoiding them, and reading only a few per month before the paywall goes up. If micropayments don't work, I'd also happily pay a single subscription in the $hundreds/year for access to around a dozen of the publications, but no one offers that to my knowledge (if anyone knows of such a service, please post!) But to blame the users when they clearly state their preferences at the first opportunity, and the industry has failed for decades to provide such an opportunity.. nope.
NicoJuicy 5y ago
Ads are paying for something with tracking. Expect prices of apps to go up.
- teachingassist 5y ago
  Alternative take: Ads give unethical actors a systemic advantage, where they are willing to slap ads on to their products that can't justify charging otherwise. Expect more competition and higher standards as this artificial funding model is removed.
  - NicoJuicy 5y ago
    What? The systemic advantage is simple, it's having a good product, eg. Search for Google or a complete portal ( Amazon, Facebook). What got easier?
- pydry 5y ago
  It sure would be awful if Facebook became a paid app :)
  - NicoJuicy 5y ago
    Paid features and by default the freemium mode. You'll see who's a freeloader ;)
- elite_hackers5 5y ago
  You mean like Facebook? What a tragedy.

Dma54rhs 5y ago

There's no harm in filming your daughter changing clothes at these booths we installed all over the beaches. We are keen at protecting her data and making sure her face stays blurred. If we'd stop the costs of going to beach would go up tremendously, so that's out the question.

the_snooze 5y ago
You're probably joking, but the TSA has made that exact argument for their full-body scanners. >"The (body image scanning) technology is sent to the airports without the ability to save, transmit or print the images," said Greg Soule, TSA spokesman, in an interview with CBSNews.com. "At airports, the images are examined by a security officer in a remote location, and, once the image is cleared, they're deleted." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/naked-body-scan-images-never-saved-tsa-says/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/naked-body-scan-images-never-sa...
- Terretta 5y ago
  Of course, the images may not be deleted. Unless someone notices, such as with these 35,000 from Orlando: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2010/11/100_images_from_the_controvers.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2010/11/100_images_from_the_... And an alleged insider discussion of how those "remote" viewers respect passenger privacy: "Personally, in the I.O. room, I witnessed light sexual play among officers, a lot of e-cigarette vaping, and a whole lot of officers laughing and clowning in regard to some of your nude images, dear passengers." https://takingsenseaway.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/letter-from-a-passenger-what-really-happens-in-the-tsa-private-room/ https://takingsenseaway.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/letter-from...
- ForHackernews 5y ago
  I mean, at least the putative negative consequences they're trying to avoid are exploded jetliners and hundreds of deaths, not "advertising would be somewhat less effective and profitable" (similar to all advertising before about 2002).
  - blueline 5y ago
    it's very charitable for you to accept at face value that that's what the TSA security theater is for
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - mhb 5y ago
      He doesn't. That's why it said putative.
- mumblemumble 5y ago
  > The (body image scanning) technology is ... without the ability to ... transmit ... the images," > the images are examined by a security officer in a remote location oh dear. More seriously, at least TSA can at least make a proportionality type of argument, along the lines of, this invasion of privacy is justified on the grounds that it might save lives. Adtech is just going to use it to try and figure out how to convince me to buy a motorized turnip twaddler.
  - skinnymuch 5y ago
    I don’t see why the TSA having awful reasons they can get away with is any better or any better hedge than any other player invading privacy unnecessarily.
    - meowface 5y ago
      Even if it may be awful on an absolute scale, on a relative scale, I find egregious privacy violations more justifiable if the claimed intention is mitigating supposed risk of bodily harm or death rather than showing me advertisements. I have the right to simultaneously hate and be disgusted by the TSA yet hate and be disgusted by advertisers and ad tech even more.
      - skinnymuch 5y ago
        Interesting. I feel the opposite. Theater and bad faith lying or trickery are far worse to me. The intent from the get go isn’t even trying to do the right thing while also trying to show themselves as the “good”.
  - curryst 5y ago
    Of the data that I've seen, adtech has about as much legitimacy in claiming they "might" save lives as the TSA does.[1] The last year the TSA released the stats on their Red Team tests, they failed to detect 95% of threats. Some of the threats that made it through were fully assembled handguns, fully assembled bombs, and partially disassembled versions of both. As many have pointed out, the TSA is largely security theater. It makes people feel better that we're doing something, and apparently the greater the intrusion on privacy, the more secure people feel. https://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-tsa-screeners-20150602-story.html https://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-tsa-screeners...
- toss1 5y ago
  >> >"The (body image scanning) technology is sent to the airports without the ability to save, transmit or print the images,...and, once the image is cleared, they're deleted." Perhaps from the machine, but what prevents a TSA viewer in the remote location from snapping an image of the screen with their smartphone, or wearing an always-on logging camera to the workstation?
  - the_snooze 5y ago
    The TSA's proud culture of professionalism and integrity, of course.
    - toss1 5y ago
      ... well, there ya go! Why didn't I think of that?
jtdev 5y ago
Plus, we’re able to help these ladies by recommending beachwear that is aligned with their sensibilities… it’s really a win-win for all parties.

pja 5y ago

Recently, a website I had only visited once somehow cross-referenced the cookies available through my browser to work out my email address & directly emailed me to invite me to sign up for their services. This has to be a GDPR violation, I certainly didn’t give consent for them to email me, but people are still doing this kind of thing apparently.

segmondy 5y ago
For years I had a professional email and a non-pro email address that I kept separated. Personal email for job applications/linkedin/bills etc, non-pro for regular surfing. It's worked great until last year. I think it's Google cuz I login from the same browser/device, but they eventually linked it and I'm now being contacted by recruiters via my non-pro email which pretty much unmasks me and my social media accounts. To really have any kind of anonymity today, you pretty much have to hide as if a nation-state actor is after you.
- Saint_Genet 5y ago
  I don't ever log in to my personal accounts on my work computer/phone or vice versa. Another perk of having a work only phone is that I can leave it at work or turn it off when not working.
- moksly 5y ago
  I abandoned having a free (as in beer) mail account around the time google started doing their own advertising in gmail. At first I went for the ideology approach of fastmail, then tutanota/proton mail and finally runbox (or whatever the Norwegian service is called, which was my favorite by the way), but I just couldn’t live with going from gmail to any of those, and so I ended up with gsuite. When google decided to make having a gsuite for private usage harder, I switched to Office365 where I still have the smallest “only in browser” package. I have to say that whole outlook isn’t as good as gmail, all the things evolving spam is super easy to handle with policies. I still have my old gmail address forwarding things that google would sort into “this is the relevant mails” part of its new inbox system, and 90% of it goes directly into my “unwanted stuff” or clutter or whatever it’s called in outlook. As a benefit it also gave me a TB of storage and in browser office, and while I don’t use the office stuff much, I do use one drive to backup my photos because iCloud storage frankly is almost as expensive as the entire office365 account.

paulcole 5y ago

Rivaled only by the indignity of those proudly and unironically proclaiming, “I own the result of my HTTP request and consider blocking ads and still taking advantage of not paying for content my god-given right.”

shameful_idiot 5y ago
This ain’t it chief
oblio 5y ago
Honest question: are you, or have you ever been (or are you planning to be), someone with a direct financial stake in the ad industry? Employee, shareholder, board member, whatever. The answer to that question will greatly influence what we think of your witticism in the previous comment :-)
- disgruntledphd2 5y ago
  I'm all over this thread, and the answer to your question is yes. I spent a number of years at an ad-driven FAANG (which narrows it down to three). And I still think that firstly, this decision by Apple is gonna drive a lot of small niche products to the wall, and secondly, is a part of Apple's longer term plans to make a significant amount of money from advertising over the next five years.
- paulcole 5y ago
  Yes, my livelihood depends on customers discovering products and services and then paying money for those things.
  - oblio 5y ago
    You're good, you should work in advertising.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
Yeah, I'm one of those and I'm not ashamed. I do own the HTTP response. It's on my computer and in my control. Sites that require payment before responding could do something like return 402 Payment Required or simply refuse to send me anything. If they send me ads I'll delete them. I can rip out and trash the ads I find in magazines, there's no reason websites should work differently.

f6v 5y ago

I think the users have brought it on themselves. Almost everyone wants free content, more, more of it! Just say: “You know what? I’m not gonna watch these cat videos on YouTube cause there’s an outrageous number of ads!” Or (and I’m going to sound crazy) we could skip scrolling Instagram and just read a book or take a walk when we need to unwind. Google search is harder to escape, of course.

jdofaz 5y ago
TV and radio were successful with ads for a long time without needing to build a profile on every person in the audience
- wccrawford 5y ago
  I think this is key. Ads can be targeted without knowing anything about the user other than that they're viewing the content on that page. Sure, not as finely-tuned, but that's not the user's problem.
tshaddox 5y ago
I find it hard to blame the users when (according to this article) as soon as they’re given a modicum of control, they clearly reveal their preference for not being tracked.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
Nobody can be blamed for wanting free content, who doesn't? The fact most sites are free of charge does not mean the advertising industry should be allowed to surveil everyone and monetize their private information. If sites can't aford to offer content for free, they should charge money for it.
toss1 5y ago
I'd say it is more the blame on the industry's failure to deliver a usable micropayments system. I'd be happy to pay a few pennies or dimes for every article I open to skim or read. But I cannot and will not pay the 2-3 figure subscriptions demanded by every publisher. There is a range of choice, all too high to commit to one, so the only one that gets my money is the Guardian, with a donate-what-you can model. The rest I put up with generally avoiding them, and reading only a few per month before the paywall goes up. If micropayments don't work, I'd also happily pay a single subscription in the $hundreds/year for access to around a dozen of the publications, but no one offers that to my knowledge (if anyone knows of such a service, please post!) But to blame the users when they clearly state their preferences at the first opportunity, and the industry has failed for decades to provide such an opportunity.. nope.

NicoJuicy 5y ago

Ads are paying for something with tracking. Expect prices of apps to go up.

teachingassist 5y ago
Alternative take: Ads give unethical actors a systemic advantage, where they are willing to slap ads on to their products that can't justify charging otherwise. Expect more competition and higher standards as this artificial funding model is removed.
- NicoJuicy 5y ago
  What? The systemic advantage is simple, it's having a good product, eg. Search for Google or a complete portal ( Amazon, Facebook). What got easier?
pydry 5y ago
It sure would be awful if Facebook became a paid app :)
- NicoJuicy 5y ago
  Paid features and by default the freemium mode. You'll see who's a freeloader ;)
elite_hackers5 5y ago
You mean like Facebook? What a tragedy.