3 ms·

Serious question: While you can target a SINGLE person, the targeting doesn't tell you who that person is. So, I can target my wife - but I already knew who sh

Serious question: While you can target a SINGLE person, the targeting doesn't tell you who that person is. So, I can target my wife - but I already knew who she was. Also, I can target someone using 18 parameters, but I don't actually know who that person is unless they click on my add and tell me "this is who I am". So: does this violate privacy laws?

twright 5y ago
Maybe. I'm not a lawyer, but it's unlikely that you make your friends sign NDA's to prevent them from selling metadata about you so firms can nanotarget ads at you. I hope most would consider it to be unethical. The concern that immediately comes to mind is that this nanotargeting ability could be abused by (just to name a few) spiteful ex-partners, stalkers, internet trolls, and generally vengeful unpleasant people.
elorant 5y ago
What if you're a stalker though? You can target a person by his/her e-mail address or phone. Facebook used to allow you to target as little as 20 persons. I don't know if this still holds true. So you enter 19 fake e-mails and the one you're interested in targeting. So eventually only a specific person will see your ad.
amelius 5y ago
Assume you target an ad for an adultery service to your wife. Assume she clicks the ad. Then the service (a mock-up you built) will ask her for her name and other information. Assume she gives the service this information. Now you know that your wife is interested in adultery. Interestingly, there is a different way to go about it. Assume you create an ad for diamonds, and target it to people who are into adultery. Your wife, who likes diamonds, sees the ad, clicks it, and fills in her information on the diamonds website (a mock-up you built). Now again, you know that your wife is interested in adultery. But she is unaware that she even revealed this information in her transaction with the "diamond" website. She wrongfully assumed that all the private information she shared with FB stayed on FB's servers only. Note that this leak also exists in Google.
proc0 5y ago
Have we not learned to assume the worse from these institutions/corporations yet? Again and again it's proven they will go as far as they're able to. Unless there is proof they DON'T do this, like some law that is clearly enforced, or some piece of code that mathematically prevents it from doing so... I think it is more than safe to assume they can and they have violated privacy concerns.

twright 5y ago

Maybe. I'm not a lawyer, but it's unlikely that you make your friends sign NDA's to prevent them from selling metadata about you so firms can nanotarget ads at you. I hope most would consider it to be unethical. The concern that immediately comes to mind is that this nanotargeting ability could be abused by (just to name a few) spiteful ex-partners, stalkers, internet trolls, and generally vengeful unpleasant people.

elorant 5y ago

What if you're a stalker though? You can target a person by his/her e-mail address or phone. Facebook used to allow you to target as little as 20 persons. I don't know if this still holds true. So you enter 19 fake e-mails and the one you're interested in targeting. So eventually only a specific person will see your ad.

amelius 5y ago

Assume you target an ad for an adultery service to your wife. Assume she clicks the ad. Then the service (a mock-up you built) will ask her for her name and other information. Assume she gives the service this information. Now you know that your wife is interested in adultery. Interestingly, there is a different way to go about it. Assume you create an ad for diamonds, and target it to people who are into adultery. Your wife, who likes diamonds, sees the ad, clicks it, and fills in her information on the diamonds website (a mock-up you built). Now again, you know that your wife is interested in adultery. But she is unaware that she even revealed this information in her transaction with the "diamond" website. She wrongfully assumed that all the private information she shared with FB stayed on FB's servers only. Note that this leak also exists in Google.

proc0 5y ago

Have we not learned to assume the worse from these institutions/corporations yet? Again and again it's proven they will go as far as they're able to. Unless there is proof they DON'T do this, like some law that is clearly enforced, or some piece of code that mathematically prevents it from doing so... I think it is more than safe to assume they can and they have violated privacy concerns.