5 ms·

One thing I never really understood is the incongruity between online tracking and real-world tracking, the latter of which we would call stalking. If you foll

by 4oh9do 4y ago

One thing I never really understood is the incongruity between online tracking and real-world tracking, the latter of which we would call stalking. If you followed around the owner or employee of a tracking...err "advertising analytics"...company, and recorded everywhere they went, and everyone they met and interacted with, including writing down all of the purchases they made when they go to a store, and then you sold the notebook you kept of all this, would you be in any legal trouble? What if you followed around their spouses and children too? Would the employees of the advertising company be creeped out by this? And yet they do it virtually to millions of others.

femto 4y ago
There's no incongruity, as it is happening in the real-world. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jun/15/bunnings-kmart-and-the-good-guys-using-facial-recognition-technology-to-crack-down-on-theft-choice-says https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jun/15/bunnings-...
- 4oh9do 4y ago
  I guess the incongruity is then more along the lines of corporations being allowed to engage in stalking, but not persons, despite the fact that corporations are legally persons.
  - HPsquared 4y ago
    Track one person and it's creepy. A million people and it's a successful business venture.
rgbrenner 4y ago
No, you wouldnt be in legal trouble. I have news for you: When you're grocery shopping, there are cameras watching you: how long you spend looking at an item (which tells them if it's a regular purchase, or something you're considering), the path you take through the store, etc. They use this info to increase the amount of your purchase. The layout of a store is not random. And then when you get to the register, they know you. Not just from your loyalty number, but from your credit card (even if you're not a member). They use this to create a history of your purchases and create a demographic profile of you. They use this profile to determine what to stock in the store, what to put on sale, etc. For example, sometimes they'll stock an item with poor sales, because the customers that buy it make larger purchases (keeping these customers loyal to the store). They'll also use this info to advertise to you, send you flyers and coupons in the mail, for example. They'll combine this with your credit card purchase history to create a more detailed profile... because Visa (et al) sell your purchase history to analytics firms that sell this data to companies like your grocery store. Similarly, analytics firms already know who you're related to, and can match up purchases from other members of your household. My point is: You dont think about even the stuff above, because it's hidden from your view and you arent familiar with what they're doing. Just like many people dont think about what Facebook is doing with their data. You phrase your questions like a hypothetical, but it already exists.
- 4oh9do 4y ago
  Those things aren't particularly news to me. My question is more along the lines of, it seems to me that it's OK (in the sense of being tolerated by the public and legal) when corporations engage in this kind of behavior, but would it be OK if individuals engaged in this kind of behavior against employees of these corporations?
  - nerdponx 4y ago
    Imagine if you got free groceries, as long as you allowed someone to constantly monitor you. I bet a bunch of people would still do it.
- mhaberl 4y ago
  > I have news for you: When you're grocery shopping, there are cameras watching you Well, it is not the same - cameras are maybe watching "a person" inside that store, not John Doe inside the store, the car, the toilet and the bedroom..
- johnny53169 4y ago
  > They'll also use this info to advertise to you, send you flyers and coupons in the mail, for example. It would be good to say which country you are talking about, in Europe this has never happened to me outside of online stores or with loyalty cards (which is why they give those cards in the first place).
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - lrvick 4y ago
    They are certainly talking about the US. I know this nightmare all too well.
- chopin 4y ago
  I am not sure whether this is the case in Europe. This can get you in GDPR trouble pretty quickly.
charcircuit 4y ago
>real-world tracking, the latter of which we would call stalking. No we wouldn't. Let's take a very similar business which existed before the internet, credit reporting agencies. Do credit reporting agents constantly follow you around and watch you in order to build a profile about you? No, that isn't how it works and no the vast majority of people are not creeped out by the existence of credit reporting agencies. Consumers benefit from the profile credit reporting agencies make on them because it allows them to get better deals when they need to take out a loan. Consumers also benefit from the profile ad companies make on them because they are able to see more relevant ads which means that they can find new products, services, communities, etc that they may be interested in rather than seeing stuff they don't engage with.
- lrvick 4y ago
  Just because you are fine with being stalked and sold by private corporations does not mean everyone else is and should be more or less forced to endure it.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    No one is following you around. It's more like you keep sending letters to advertising companies. You are going to them, they aren't coming to you. If you go to Hacker News there is no way for them to follow you here. You aren't being sold to private cooperations. Facts about the universe which relate to you are being collected. If you learn George Washington was born in 1732 on Wikipedia do you think Wikipedia sold you George Washington? These are just facts that exist in the corpus of knowledge about the world and the people who live on it.
    - lrvick 4y ago
      Is it okay that one can pay data giants to put false social media posts in front of millions of select people that have been heavily profiled to be statistically more likely to believe such postings and change their voting behavior as a result? Is it okay that the DMV makes millions yearly bulk selling demographics, home addresses, and emails to political candidates and adtech companies? Is it okay that the payment processing service used by your pharmacy and grocery store sells purchasing data to insurance companies? Surely they will never use this data to raise your rates, right? Is okay for third parties like cell phone providers and credit card companies to collect information about who goes to the abortion clinic and sell that information to people that might wish to see them face murder charges in a death penalty state? Will they do similar if gay marriage is targeted again? Is it okay that Apple gave the CCP access to their Chinese servers allowing them to more easily track down and imprison/kill Uyghur muslims? What about for journalists covering war crimes? Should they just accept that they will be tracked everywhere and killed for doing their job? It takes someone incredibly privileged to be dismissive of the serious risks mass data collection represents to the vulnerable. Just remember the location, browsing, and purchasing data you give up casually today can be used to target you later when political landscapes change. Those of us who are privileged have an absolute obligation to pursue and normalize data privacy for those whose lives depend on it.

by 4oh9do 4y ago

femto 4y ago

There's no incongruity, as it is happening in the real-world. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jun/15/bunnings-kmart-and-the-good-guys-using-facial-recognition-technology-to-crack-down-on-theft-choice-says https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jun/15/bunnings-...

4oh9do 4y ago
I guess the incongruity is then more along the lines of corporations being allowed to engage in stalking, but not persons, despite the fact that corporations are legally persons.
- HPsquared 4y ago
  Track one person and it's creepy. A million people and it's a successful business venture.

rgbrenner 4y ago

No, you wouldnt be in legal trouble. I have news for you: When you're grocery shopping, there are cameras watching you: how long you spend looking at an item (which tells them if it's a regular purchase, or something you're considering), the path you take through the store, etc. They use this info to increase the amount of your purchase. The layout of a store is not random. And then when you get to the register, they know you. Not just from your loyalty number, but from your credit card (even if you're not a member). They use this to create a history of your purchases and create a demographic profile of you. They use this profile to determine what to stock in the store, what to put on sale, etc. For example, sometimes they'll stock an item with poor sales, because the customers that buy it make larger purchases (keeping these customers loyal to the store). They'll also use this info to advertise to you, send you flyers and coupons in the mail, for example. They'll combine this with your credit card purchase history to create a more detailed profile... because Visa (et al) sell your purchase history to analytics firms that sell this data to companies like your grocery store. Similarly, analytics firms already know who you're related to, and can match up purchases from other members of your household. My point is: You dont think about even the stuff above, because it's hidden from your view and you arent familiar with what they're doing. Just like many people dont think about what Facebook is doing with their data. You phrase your questions like a hypothetical, but it already exists.

4oh9do 4y ago
Those things aren't particularly news to me. My question is more along the lines of, it seems to me that it's OK (in the sense of being tolerated by the public and legal) when corporations engage in this kind of behavior, but would it be OK if individuals engaged in this kind of behavior against employees of these corporations?
- nerdponx 4y ago
  Imagine if you got free groceries, as long as you allowed someone to constantly monitor you. I bet a bunch of people would still do it.
mhaberl 4y ago
> I have news for you: When you're grocery shopping, there are cameras watching you Well, it is not the same - cameras are maybe watching "a person" inside that store, not John Doe inside the store, the car, the toilet and the bedroom..
johnny53169 4y ago
> They'll also use this info to advertise to you, send you flyers and coupons in the mail, for example. It would be good to say which country you are talking about, in Europe this has never happened to me outside of online stores or with loyalty cards (which is why they give those cards in the first place).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- lrvick 4y ago
  They are certainly talking about the US. I know this nightmare all too well.
chopin 4y ago
I am not sure whether this is the case in Europe. This can get you in GDPR trouble pretty quickly.

charcircuit 4y ago

>real-world tracking, the latter of which we would call stalking. No we wouldn't. Let's take a very similar business which existed before the internet, credit reporting agencies. Do credit reporting agents constantly follow you around and watch you in order to build a profile about you? No, that isn't how it works and no the vast majority of people are not creeped out by the existence of credit reporting agencies. Consumers benefit from the profile credit reporting agencies make on them because it allows them to get better deals when they need to take out a loan. Consumers also benefit from the profile ad companies make on them because they are able to see more relevant ads which means that they can find new products, services, communities, etc that they may be interested in rather than seeing stuff they don't engage with.

lrvick 4y ago
Just because you are fine with being stalked and sold by private corporations does not mean everyone else is and should be more or less forced to endure it.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  No one is following you around. It's more like you keep sending letters to advertising companies. You are going to them, they aren't coming to you. If you go to Hacker News there is no way for them to follow you here. You aren't being sold to private cooperations. Facts about the universe which relate to you are being collected. If you learn George Washington was born in 1732 on Wikipedia do you think Wikipedia sold you George Washington? These are just facts that exist in the corpus of knowledge about the world and the people who live on it.
  - lrvick 4y ago
    Is it okay that one can pay data giants to put false social media posts in front of millions of select people that have been heavily profiled to be statistically more likely to believe such postings and change their voting behavior as a result? Is it okay that the DMV makes millions yearly bulk selling demographics, home addresses, and emails to political candidates and adtech companies? Is it okay that the payment processing service used by your pharmacy and grocery store sells purchasing data to insurance companies? Surely they will never use this data to raise your rates, right? Is okay for third parties like cell phone providers and credit card companies to collect information about who goes to the abortion clinic and sell that information to people that might wish to see them face murder charges in a death penalty state? Will they do similar if gay marriage is targeted again? Is it okay that Apple gave the CCP access to their Chinese servers allowing them to more easily track down and imprison/kill Uyghur muslims? What about for journalists covering war crimes? Should they just accept that they will be tracked everywhere and killed for doing their job? It takes someone incredibly privileged to be dismissive of the serious risks mass data collection represents to the vulnerable. Just remember the location, browsing, and purchasing data you give up casually today can be used to target you later when political landscapes change. Those of us who are privileged have an absolute obligation to pursue and normalize data privacy for those whose lives depend on it.