4 ms·

> No chance. That's not a coherent response to my point - I have no idea what you're trying to say here. > No one cares if the data they have on you is accura

> No chance. That's not a coherent response to my point - I have no idea what you're trying to say here. > No one cares if the data they have on you is accurate or not, least of all ad companies. This is wildly, factually incorrect. There's literally no reason for anyone to gather data if it's going to be consistently inaccurate. In the case of ad companies, they want correct data because they think it allows them to target ads better - they definitely care about accuracy. > They'll happily push ads at you all day and it doesn't matter to them what they're for. This is irrelevant. The problem of "I'm being shown ads" is completely orthogonal to the problem of "an organization is collecting a bunch of personal data about me". My comment was explicitly about the latter, yours is about the former and so shouldn't be a response to mine. > An employer who refuses to hire you because of a false understanding of your spending habits or political views That's an edge case that's easily worked around - just make your noise-introducer not add hazardous content. > The data collected on you will be used against you no matter how accurate it is. You're assuming that the data collected is actually useful as a weapon, and there's no reason to assume that. Your noise-detector could just add interests in a bunch of different products (avoiding the hazardous ones) - very low risk, and very confusing for an adtech company. > It will always be better for you to avoid handing them data at all. This is true in theory, but unfortunately very difficult in practice. Ad Nauseam's approach is the realistic, pragmatic one that survives contact with reality.

autoexec 4y ago
> In the case of ad companies, they want correct data because they think it allows them to target ads better - they definitely care about accuracy. If they cared, at all, they'd provide a means for people to confirm the accuracy of the assumptions they make about you and correct mistakes. They also wouldn't bother with buying from data brokers who gather data from any number of unreliable sources. It's quantity over quality every time. I'm not even sure ad companies actually think all the data allows them to better target ads or even that targeted ads are preferable. They have to convince their clients of that though. Really all they care about is pushing ads and collecting money. > just make your noise-introducer not add hazardous content. Good luck. There are an endless number of things that might prejudice someone against you. Your lifestyle, your politics, your religion, the people you associate with, your sexual history, your hobbies, your medical conditions, etc. The longer you go filling your dossier with random information the more likely it is that you'll end up hitting one of them. > You're assuming that the data collected is actually useful as a weapon, No one is collecting your data for your benefit. It is always to benefit themselves at your expense. Every scrap of data that is taken from you will be leveraged against you or sold to someone else on the promise that it could be. The reason there is a multi-billion dollar a year industry around buying and selling the most mundane aspects of your life is because it gives others huge advantages over you. It allows them to take more of your money, to punish you, to erode your ability to enact change, and to manipulate you into supporting positions favorable to them. The data they collect allows them to do this no matter how inaccurate their assumptions about you are. You may not 'deserve' to be targeted by an extremist group who got your name and address from a data broker, but they'll still punish you for what they think you are or have done. You might not have as much money as your dossier suggests, but a store is going to raise their prices for you based on that data anyway while charging your neighbor less. You might not actually eat out as often, but your health insurance rates are still going up if the insurance company gets the wrong idea. You might not have actually been looking up rope, hacksaws, tarps, and duct tape on November 12th, but the police will still question you if they see it in your search history and will gladly throw you behind bars if they think you'll be easy to convict for the crime. Ad Nauseam's approach fails to have any meaningful impact on the outcome. You'll still get abused and be taken advantage of, just sometimes it will be for the wrong reasons. You can't always avoid giving any data away, but stuffing your dossier with more and more data (no matter how random or inaccurate) will always be worse for you.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- throw10920 4y ago
  > Every scrap of data that is taken from you will be leveraged against you False, because if I feed false & non-incriminating pieces of data to a surveillance system - which is not an edge case, but the exact idea that we are arguing about in this thread - then it will not be leveraged against me, and in fact it will decrease the amount of leverage that the system has against me. > or sold to someone else on the promise that it could be Right, at which point it will make that system worse, as well. > The reason there is a multi-billion dollar a year industry around buying and selling the most mundane aspects of your life is because it gives others huge advantages over you. It allows them to take more of your money, to punish you, to erode your ability to enact change, and to manipulate you into supporting positions favorable to them. Yes, I know this, and the point of feeding fake data is to prevent people from doing this. There's no point in putting this in, because that isn't the interesting part of the discussion, it's whether fake data actually works. Why do you keep putting completely irrelevant material into your comments? > The data they collect allows them to do this no matter how inaccurate their assumptions about you are. No. No no no. This is false. "Inaccurate data", just by itself, is worthless. It doesn't do anything. It's only inaccurate data along specific dimensions ("incriminating" data) that actually matters, and it's straightforward (if not easy) to "shape" the fake data that you feed to surveillance systems to that which is simultaneously (a) damaging to ad systems and (b) not incriminating at all. And the rest of this paragraph? Pure speculation. You cannot make a connection between these kinds of negative outcomes and Ad Nauseam (and related techniques) because it has never happened. > Ad Nauseam's approach fails to have any meaningful impact on the outcome. You have precisely zero evidence for this, and I have counter-evidence: Google specifically banned Ad Nauseam from the Chrome Store[1], which is very good evidence for the fact that it is effective in ways that adblockers and anti-fingerprinting tools are not. Your entire comment is filled with ridiculous assertions, completely irrelevant tangents, illogical leaps, and pure speculation. None of it lines up with reality. [1] https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/google/google-bans-adnauseam-from-chrome-the-ad-blocker-that-clicks-on-all-ads/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/google/google-bans-adn...

autoexec 4y ago

> In the case of ad companies, they want correct data because they think it allows them to target ads better - they definitely care about accuracy. If they cared, at all, they'd provide a means for people to confirm the accuracy of the assumptions they make about you and correct mistakes. They also wouldn't bother with buying from data brokers who gather data from any number of unreliable sources. It's quantity over quality every time. I'm not even sure ad companies actually think all the data allows them to better target ads or even that targeted ads are preferable. They have to convince their clients of that though. Really all they care about is pushing ads and collecting money. > just make your noise-introducer not add hazardous content. Good luck. There are an endless number of things that might prejudice someone against you. Your lifestyle, your politics, your religion, the people you associate with, your sexual history, your hobbies, your medical conditions, etc. The longer you go filling your dossier with random information the more likely it is that you'll end up hitting one of them. > You're assuming that the data collected is actually useful as a weapon, No one is collecting your data for your benefit. It is always to benefit themselves at your expense. Every scrap of data that is taken from you will be leveraged against you or sold to someone else on the promise that it could be. The reason there is a multi-billion dollar a year industry around buying and selling the most mundane aspects of your life is because it gives others huge advantages over you. It allows them to take more of your money, to punish you, to erode your ability to enact change, and to manipulate you into supporting positions favorable to them. The data they collect allows them to do this no matter how inaccurate their assumptions about you are. You may not 'deserve' to be targeted by an extremist group who got your name and address from a data broker, but they'll still punish you for what they think you are or have done. You might not have as much money as your dossier suggests, but a store is going to raise their prices for you based on that data anyway while charging your neighbor less. You might not actually eat out as often, but your health insurance rates are still going up if the insurance company gets the wrong idea. You might not have actually been looking up rope, hacksaws, tarps, and duct tape on November 12th, but the police will still question you if they see it in your search history and will gladly throw you behind bars if they think you'll be easy to convict for the crime. Ad Nauseam's approach fails to have any meaningful impact on the outcome. You'll still get abused and be taken advantage of, just sometimes it will be for the wrong reasons. You can't always avoid giving any data away, but stuffing your dossier with more and more data (no matter how random or inaccurate) will always be worse for you.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
throw10920 4y ago
> Every scrap of data that is taken from you will be leveraged against you False, because if I feed false & non-incriminating pieces of data to a surveillance system - which is not an edge case, but the exact idea that we are arguing about in this thread - then it will not be leveraged against me, and in fact it will decrease the amount of leverage that the system has against me. > or sold to someone else on the promise that it could be Right, at which point it will make that system worse, as well. > The reason there is a multi-billion dollar a year industry around buying and selling the most mundane aspects of your life is because it gives others huge advantages over you. It allows them to take more of your money, to punish you, to erode your ability to enact change, and to manipulate you into supporting positions favorable to them. Yes, I know this, and the point of feeding fake data is to prevent people from doing this. There's no point in putting this in, because that isn't the interesting part of the discussion, it's whether fake data actually works. Why do you keep putting completely irrelevant material into your comments? > The data they collect allows them to do this no matter how inaccurate their assumptions about you are. No. No no no. This is false. "Inaccurate data", just by itself, is worthless. It doesn't do anything. It's only inaccurate data along specific dimensions ("incriminating" data) that actually matters, and it's straightforward (if not easy) to "shape" the fake data that you feed to surveillance systems to that which is simultaneously (a) damaging to ad systems and (b) not incriminating at all. And the rest of this paragraph? Pure speculation. You cannot make a connection between these kinds of negative outcomes and Ad Nauseam (and related techniques) because it has never happened. > Ad Nauseam's approach fails to have any meaningful impact on the outcome. You have precisely zero evidence for this, and I have counter-evidence: Google specifically banned Ad Nauseam from the Chrome Store[1], which is very good evidence for the fact that it is effective in ways that adblockers and anti-fingerprinting tools are not. Your entire comment is filled with ridiculous assertions, completely irrelevant tangents, illogical leaps, and pure speculation. None of it lines up with reality. [1] https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/google/google-bans-adnauseam-from-chrome-the-ad-blocker-that-clicks-on-all-ads/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/google/google-bans-adn...