4 ms·

The particular reason this opt-out is odious is that opting out requires you to stop participating in a service the mall has nothing to do with. If an opt-out

by blahedo 15y ago

The particular reason this opt-out is odious is that opting out requires you to stop participating in a service the mall has nothing to do with. If an opt-out is, "to opt out, press this button before entering the mall", or, "to opt out, stay at least ten feet away from our mall maps", or, "to opt out, do not enter the food court", then they could sorta kinda make a case for legitimacy. (Those would be somewhat bizarre, admittedly, but at least they're directly related to the mall in some way.) The "but I need my cell phone" objections are missing the point here: the opt-out is policy is bad not because it's making you forgo a convenience or even a necessary item, but because it's hijacking your commercial relationship with someone else entirely. Kind of like the technological underpinnings of the tracking, which are mitm-ing on the signal itself. I wonder what the cell companies have had to say about this?

boredguy8 15y ago
The high school production of King Lear has nothing to do with your cell phone, either. But you should still turn the damn thing off. Having to forgo one relationship to participate in another is neither surprising nor odious. You don't have to shop at this mall.
- pavel_lishin 15y ago
  > The high school production of King Lear has nothing to do with your cell phone, either. But you should still turn the damn thing off. Nope. You should simply set the ringer to silent.
- Bleys 15y ago
  Your analogy fails because the relationship is different. In your example, you're turning off your phone because it's a case of turning off something which makes noise and light at an event where you're not supposed to do distracting things. It's something you do for the benefit of those around you. So there's a reasonable reason to affect your behavior in this case. Also, in social situations like this it is made very obvious that you're expected to not do anything distracting, whatever that is. A bit of small text on a mall map that might not obviously say "we're tracking where you go via your phone signal while you're here" to a layman is not an equivalent cue by any measure. In the case of needing to turn off your phone to not be tracked by a third party, you're being forced to change your behavior by a service provider who has no good reason (for you or those immediately affected by you) to force this behavioral change.

by blahedo 15y ago

boredguy8 15y ago

The high school production of King Lear has nothing to do with your cell phone, either. But you should still turn the damn thing off. Having to forgo one relationship to participate in another is neither surprising nor odious. You don't have to shop at this mall.

pavel_lishin 15y ago
> The high school production of King Lear has nothing to do with your cell phone, either. But you should still turn the damn thing off. Nope. You should simply set the ringer to silent.
Bleys 15y ago
Your analogy fails because the relationship is different. In your example, you're turning off your phone because it's a case of turning off something which makes noise and light at an event where you're not supposed to do distracting things. It's something you do for the benefit of those around you. So there's a reasonable reason to affect your behavior in this case. Also, in social situations like this it is made very obvious that you're expected to not do anything distracting, whatever that is. A bit of small text on a mall map that might not obviously say "we're tracking where you go via your phone signal while you're here" to a layman is not an equivalent cue by any measure. In the case of needing to turn off your phone to not be tracked by a third party, you're being forced to change your behavior by a service provider who has no good reason (for you or those immediately affected by you) to force this behavioral change.