10 ms·

So what if Google sends me targeted ads?

46 points by theprivacydad 3y ago

russdill 3y ago
"My supermarket has a savings scheme, in exchange for my personal information. The way it works is that the cashier asks: do you want to join this savings scheme? If the customer says yes, they give you a form to fill in your details. If you say no, they leave you alone, and you miss out on the discount or gifts." Hahahaha, yes, if you don't join their club, they don't collect personal information.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ipython 3y ago
  Or you just provide someone else’s information. Who says you have to share your true name with your supermarket? Unfortunately it’s very difficult to lie to google
  - slongfield 3y ago
    If the company uses phone numbers to lookup accounts, (Local-Area-Code)-8675-309 almost always works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/867-5309/Jenny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/867-5309/Jenny
    - ben_w 3y ago
      This feels a bit like giving your name as "Prawo Jazdy": http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7899171.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7899171....
    - ccvannorman 3y ago
      There was a turning point in 2010 when people stopped recognizing this number at checkout (new generation i guess). I still chuckle when I give the number and they diligently enter it.
  - mrweasel 3y ago
    The staff at the paint store got rather confused and couldn't really figure out what to do with me, or how to take my money, when I refused to join their club, saying that I'd rather pay the 20% extra. We only managed to proceed when my wife filled in the form. Turns out you could just lie and fill out anything on the form.
  - mathstuf 3y ago
    One strategy I heard about is to get a local group of like-minded individuals together, throw all of your loyalty cards in a communal pile then take one back randomly. That mixes the signal up for any kind of targeted tracking while also getting you the discounts. Or you can just say "I forgot my card" and use the store copy that is usually at the register (at least for groceries).
    - theprivacydad 3y ago
      What a great idea :)
  - russdill 3y ago
    Don't worry, depending on the state, they have plenty of other ways to personally identify you. No need.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
JohnMakin 3y ago
The issue isn't just targeted ads though. This data, once in the hands of google, is packaged and resold to whomever google pleases, for whatever purposes those parties see fit - not even to mention inevitable breaches. Not google, but see the whole healthcare data fiasco lately with apps using facebook's analytics API's as an example.
- agnosticmantis 3y ago
  Out of curiosity, what are some examples of Google packaging and reselling data?
  - ccvannorman 3y ago
    this is a serious question? Google collects anything and everything they possibly can, from every user who touches any of their software, platforms or devices. They then sell this data on dozens or hundreds of data broker platforms. Data includes your web browsing history, location history, passive microphone recording history and email history ("anonymized" but still meta data)
    - agnosticmantis 3y ago
      > They then sell this data on dozens or hundreds of data broker platforms. I wasn’t aware of this part specifically, so I’d like to learn more. Has this been covered in the news or something? This seems like a big deal.
      - theprivacydad 3y ago
        I wrote a paragraph about this issue but cut it out for conciseness. I think it is worrying that if data is truly 'the new oil', it's really strange the names of the behind-the-scenes companies are not in the public debate.
    - bryan_w 3y ago
      > They then sell this data on dozens or hundreds of data broker platforms. Oh? Which platforms? How did you come to learn that they were selling data to those platforms? Surely from either the platforms themselves or a respected news article?
Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
Meh, I'm still not convinced. I mean, I suppose I get possibly being creeped out that Google knows you prefer Pepsi over Coke and that you recently purchased an adult toy or whatever, but...meh? So they'll use that data to sell me targeted ads that I'm just going to block anyways. I just don't see how it's actually harmful beyond the government access issue that's just dropped in as a single sentence at the end of one paragraph. > A relatively recent example is PayPal blocking individuals from transacting or fining them for having the wrong politics. Any time someone cries about being cancelled for having the wrong politics, I always think of this famous tweet: https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1050391663552671744?lang=en https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/105039166355267174... Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes? Con: LOL no...no not those views Me: So....deregulation? Con: Haha no not those views either Me: Which views, exactly? Con: Oh, you know the ones
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- sokoloff 3y ago
  > I get possibly being creeped out that Google knows you prefer Pepsi over Coke and that you recently purchased an adult toy or whatever Frankly, if I preferred Pepsi over Coke, I'd rather get ads (which sometimes include discounts/coupons) for Pepsi than for Coke. Similarly, if I bought an adult toy, I'd rather get ads for similar adult toys than ads for <whatever the hell else the option for that slot would be>. I'm definitely pro-privacy, but it's got nothing to do with "so I can't be shown relevant ads".
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- ben_w 3y ago
  My government certainly doesn't care what sex toys I buy; but there are some bronze plaques in the pavement around here, dedicated to victims of the earlier of the two times the government was evil and sent people to their deaths for such things; and I've been to the museum made from the headquarters of the people responsible for the second time it was evil and spied on anyone and everyone.
imiric 3y ago
Something the article doesn't mention is that your data is not only used to target you with ads. It's also used to target you with propaganda or any political or social agenda a person, organization or state is willing to pay for. Adtech is the perfect weapon of information warfare, and it's been successfuly used to influence public opinion, and corrupt democratic processes (e.g. Cambridge Analytica). Both ads and propaganda have the same objective, psychological manipulation, and the difference is that one wants to manipulate you into buying a product, and the other wants to manipulate you into buying into an idea. These are insidious objectives on both a personal, and societal level. One more thing: once adtech has your personal data, it is sold in perpetuity on shady data broker markets, and any company with access to it can exploit it and get rich from it. As with anything on the internet, once it's out there, it exists forever, except you'll have no control over who it's sold to, under what terms, and, of course, you'll never see a cent of profit. All adtech companies should be paying users to use their services. "Free" is not only not free, but it's extremely profitable for the company you give your data to. The fact that most people either don't understand any of this, or don't care, is deeply troubling for the future of our civilization.
- ecf 3y ago
  The main problem, imho, is that if one can describe the situation and make someone care even a _little_, it’s not enough. There are so many more important things to be worried about throughout one’s lifetime that data privacy doesn’t even register. Being concerned about how one’s data is being sold is a very “first world problem”, and even in “first worlds” it’s not a very big one for the great majority of the population.
  - imiric 3y ago
    > Being concerned about how one’s data is being sold is a very “first world problem”, and even in “first worlds” it’s not a very big one for the great majority of the population. It's really not. Propaganda is very effective in non-FW countries, perhaps even more so because of lower levels of education. Cambridge Analytica had successful campaigns all over Africa and the Middle East, which had a definite effect on the outcome of elections. It can be argued that the 2016 US election result was partially influenced by this, although the tricky thing with information warfare and propaganda is that the effect is very difficult to trace back to a specific cause. It leaves the victim in a state of confusion, with no single and clear source that caused it. Since this affects society at large, it definitely _should_ be a general concern, and not a FW-only problem.
SenAnder 3y ago
While the post doesn't address it, ask yourself: What if you do have something to hide? What if your government was like China's or Russia's? If you let privacy vanish now, you'll be helpless when you need it. Data is power: How pre-teens using metadata found a whistleblower in two hours - https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/how-team-of-pre-teens-found-whisteblower-using-metadata/8113668 https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/how-team-of-pre... Trust your instincts, you have them for a reason. If it was private investigators and spies following you around to gather what Google/credit cards/mobile networks know about you, you would immediately recognize it as malicious and dangerous. That it has now been automated doesn't change that.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
Deukhoofd 3y ago
I think a great example of why data privacy matters was the recent concern many American women had about whether data collected by their period tracking app could be used to persecute them for abortions. While you might believe that the data being collected about you is harmless, a government hostile to you could use that data against you with great effect.
- corv 3y ago
  An even more worrying account of data hoarding was when homosexuals were registered and later sent to concentration camps... (Yes, I've just invoked Godwin's law) In my opinion data should be regarded as a liability by default. We can't rely on a given corporation being benign, or not cooperating with a given regime forever.
  - beardog 3y ago
    Grindr is being abused by egyptian police to persecute gay and bisexual people: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/03/24/grindr-egypt-police-fake-accounts/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/03/24/grindr-egypt...
    - kridsdale3 3y ago
      Grindr was bought by a Chinese company. Gee, I wonder why a (I presume CCP backed) company would want a list of all the closeted gay US Senators?
  - kridsdale3 3y ago
    This is precisely why Germany (and thus the EU) is the global leader in personal data protection and on-device ML requirements. When I was at Apple getting iCloud off the ground, we had to carve out exemptions for all client-server syncing to allow phone-mac sync specifically for Germany. Because they know what happens when the government can subpoena your data.
  - fmajid 3y ago
    No Godwin necessary. There are plenty of countries like Saudi Arabia or Uganda where in 2023 your sexual orientation can be a capital offense.
jccalhoun 3y ago
If they are collecting so much data why do the ads still suck? I bought a pixel 7a and I still get ads for it all the time. You would think that google would know that I already bought a google phone from them.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  Most likely, they have some data telling them this is a good strategy. Otherwise they'd stop.
  - DharmaPolice 3y ago
    This is giving Google too much credit.
- philote 3y ago
  Exactly this. I tend to ignore ads that show up, because they're generally not useful for me. I've also noticed this most in Google News. If I search for one topic one time on Google (usually just to find some random bit of info), Google thinks I'm very interested in that topic and starts showing me news articles related to it. Or if I search for a song in Youtube Music, I get articles about that song or band. It's ridiculous. I've started using DDG for search now, and may move to Spotify. I need to find a good news aggregator, too.
alphabetting 3y ago
Obviously in a very small minority here but I decided almost 10 years ago to give them as much data as possible because they were leading in AI and I want AI to have access to as much data on me as possible to make life easier when it gets smart enough. Hasn't panned out yet but I don't really regret it.
- theprivacydad 3y ago
  haha :)
- pbhjpbhj 3y ago
  This is an interesting take: >AI to have access to as much data on me as possible to make life easier when it gets smart enough // And it would seem reasonable if Google's aim were to provide you good AI services rather than to extract as much money from you as possible (and no longer with the benefit of not being evil). Doesn't OpenAI seizing a large chunk of the personal-services LLM market show that you should have just put all your data on the web to be included in Common Crawl? Or at least that Google (well FAANGs) unprecedented access to user data didn't result in them accelerating their AI dominance. I know Google have done a lot, BERT, TensorFlow and such, but that seems to have been orthogonal to having access to user PII.
  - cglong 3y ago
    OpenAI may be ahead in general LLMs, but I get a lot of additional value from Google Maps, Google Photos, and my Discover feed as a result of the data they've collected about me over the years.
FreshStart 3y ago
The ads are irrelevant. A distraction. The problem is the collected data is sold on and correlated and becomes a interface+sensors to "hack" people, simulate and manage political measures and stabilize for the individual bad situations. As long as there are two people left on the planet with phones, social engineering can get them to fight and distrust one another. And you can see the effects. In the approaches to you with emotional content instead of information. They got us good..
- tjkrusinski 3y ago
  This rhetoric is extreme. Do you feel the same?
tra3 3y ago
> So what if Google sends me targetted ads? This is just the tip of the iceberg. What you don't see is what is going to get ya. It's not about nefarious actors lurking in the shadows, it's someone like you and me that is incentivized to make more money by taking the advantage of the data they have on you. What if you have nothing to hide? Then you should read this [0] paper that has a more rigorous treatment of privacy: > privacy is not reducible to a singular essence; it is a plurality of different things that do not share one element in common but that nevertheless bear a resemblance to each other > The taxonomy has four general categories of privacy problems with sixteen different subcategories. The first general category is information collection, which involves the ways that data is gathered about people. The subcategories, surveillance and interrogation, represent the two primary problematic ways of gathering information. A privacy problem occurs when an activity by a person, business, or government entity creates harm by disrupting valuable activities of others. These harms need not be physical or emotional; they can occur by chilling socially beneficial behavior (for example, free speech and association) or by leading to power imbalances that adversely affect social structure (for example, excessive executive power). Solove primary focuses on US gov't privacy invasion but this applies just as well to Google et al. [0]: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3976770 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3976770
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
giantrobot 3y ago
The data needed to target ads to you can be used for a variety of purposes besides just advertisement. You have no control over what third party "partners" do with that data and no control over its dissemination. You have no control over how those third parties can combine data from multiple brokers and de-anonymize the data [0]. [0] https://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-find-paul-revere/ https://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metad...
akho 3y ago
To me, the issue is not data collection, but quality of ad-driven services. To be able to show ads, they make rhe product worse: ads in youtube are known to make videos longer, so the authors get a mid-video ad; search is mostly dead, because the incentive is shifted towards relevant ads, not relevant results; ...
skybrian 3y ago
I like that they directly tried to answer this question, but I still think the "so what" case is stronger, for me anyway. I don't use an ad blocker and there are certain sites that are annoying, but I think the biggest influence on me is that I avoid those websites. I don't notice the actual ads very often (other than as an annoyance) and I don't buy very much. What I buy seems more influenced by other things like Wirecutter reviews. Should I stop reading Wirecutter because they influence what I buy? We buy quite a bit through Amazon. Their problems with dodgy vendors and counterfeits are well known, but we're skeptical. My wife returns things for minor flaws fairly often. It's possible we're subtly harmed by something we bought, but I see ads playing a very minor role in this, compared to product listings. Another example of influence is restaurant reviews. My wife and I both look up nearby restaurants in Google Maps and this is nearly all the information we use to decide which restaurant to go to. (Sometimes she uses Yelp.) How are we harmed by this? Maybe there's some restaurant we missed, but I think we eat pretty well anyway. I don't think we are harmed by using Google for that. Most privacy arguments seem to be theoretical and/or ideological, not practical. I'm sure you can think of some, and I can easily anticipate them. It's a common trope. But if it's not a practical argument, it's not going to be very convincing to me.
- hsosvdodv 3y ago
  in the long term you end up paying more because of all the returns. all for the privilege of being abused by countless fake and incorrect listings trying to fool you when trying to but something (with a 25% change the you will wait, spend time to return, and still not have the item) yet you claim that you move away from sites that merely annoy you with ads. I'm highly skeptical.
  - skybrian 3y ago
    If that's the cost, I think we're comfortable paying it, rather than not being able to return things. It's not that I don't see ads, but I do tend to prefer websites like Hacker News more than ad-driven websites. I do see ads on linked news sites.
- javajosh 3y ago
jasonlotito 3y ago
> I strongly believe the default should be opting out of data collection, and that users can then opt in by choice, perhaps in exchange for more storage, or for a faster help desk service. Or using the service in the first place? The big promise of answering "So what?" and it amounts to: it's fine if you are fine with it. > As you can see, I'm not averse to using Google or other Big Tech companies' products, but I try to avoid putting my entire data life in just a handful of baskets. So, it's not about using Google. It's about just using Google.
- theprivacydad 3y ago
  Yes to that last point. And also that there is quite a strong current in the direction of using many or all of Google's products.
timmg 3y ago
I'll probably get hate for this, but: I've never used an ad blocker. I (generally) always "accept all cookies" from that European thing. I do use "incognito mode" sometimes -- but not often. I've never gotten any malware or other things like that. I've never had someone show up at my door in a black coat. I personally think that most of the concerns people have about targeted ads is much ado about nothing. I'll also say: my phone company knows everyone I've called. My credit card company knows everywhere I've traveled or eaten. And I'm pretty sure those guys *sell* my info. But people generally don't seem concerned about that(?)
- tjkrusinski 3y ago
  You are not alone.
- hsosvdodv 3y ago
  ironically, phone and CC have tons of laws that prevent them from selling your data. well, outside the usa and uk. that's why you have all those reward cards, programs and such.
- variants 3y ago
  yeah I think thats the worry, all this information is being gathered and sold to whoever will buy it and combine it and reuse it for whatever they want. say an insurance company wants to see who they can raise the prices on without losing customers, then they can look at the data and work out peoples personalities and single out some that fit a profile of someone who wont go looking for a new insurance company just because their insurance premiums went up. Same thing for health care, if a company wants to see how people live so they can anticipate if their children will be healthy or at higher risk depending on how their parents lived then they can know who not to cover or who will be charged more to cover in the future. it can become the new credit score but one you cant change. whatever happens I just assume it wont be for my own good but for the profit of others so I try and be mindful of privacy when I can
- philote 3y ago
  Do you also avoid getting life insurance because you've never died before? For me, like the author of the article, it's not the targeted ads that are concerning, but the amount of data one company can have and aggregate in once place. Even if that data isn't being used in a nefarious way now doesn't mean that it never will be. Also, I AM concerned about banks and telephone companies selling my data, but that wasn't the topic of this article.
RajT88 3y ago
> My supermarket has a savings scheme, in exchange for my personal information. The way it works is that the cashier asks: do you want to join this savings scheme? They know all your personal info from the credit card you're using anyways. The phone number you provide at the supermarket is a formality. The proof is in the pudding: When I buy stuff at home depot, there was one time I provided my email address for a receipt. Now every time it asks if I want my receipt emailed. "Aha!" you say "You provided them your email address". They already would know, because they track you through the store with cameras. https://news.adobe.com/news/news-details/2022/Adobe-Drives-Personalization-and-Omnichannel-Services-for-The-Home-Depot-with-Real-Time-Customer-Data/default.aspx https://news.adobe.com/news/news-details/2022/Adobe-Drives-P... (As an aside, that quote in the article about "72% of consumers say that poor personalization decreases their trust in brands. " is 100% made up bullshit, lol)
- theprivacydad 3y ago
  What's in it for the supermarket then?
  - RajT88 3y ago
    This is their legacy way of collecting that data. The future is doing away with the discount program. The grocery stores near me briefly did away with those (before starting up again). I assume because the Adobe-type systems are still too expensive compared to the legacy methods. Make no mistake - the future is taking your data without an exchange in value.
    - theprivacydad 3y ago
      You could be right, but for now, those supermarket discount schemes are still going strong.
bad_alloc 3y ago
Privacy at its core is a preventative measure against being controlled. The state, a corporation or other individuals have an easier time exerting influence over you if they know more about you. Obtaining information is a largely automated task today. And sure, your country might be fine now, but over the course of history a lot of people suddenly woke up to their government turning totalitarian. Same goes for your insurance, your school, your workplace: All can suddenly work against you and it is preferable to avoid giving them too much information to use against you.
- theprivacydad 3y ago
  That's exactly it: it is preferable to avoid giving out info if you can.
tracker1 3y ago
For me, the single most disturbing is when I see ads based on casual conversations my phone happened to pick up. Such as mentioning a piece of software I used to use a decade ago, and seeing ads for that software daily for a week after. Another, is the first time I saw a calendar reminder to "leave for the airport" not that I set such a reminder, but gmail had received the receipt for my airline tickets. The most disturbing is seeing a product on Amazon, where "your friend purchased this", fortunately it was a switch, but can only imagine something more personal being the case. At this point, I have ublock origin, privacy guard and run a pi-hole at home. I use wireguard through home on my phone so that it forces the vpn's dns through pi-hole. On top of using Brave on my mobile device. I'm tired of it. More tiresome is the number of sites that are actually broken, especially purchases without the tracking events. More companies should ensure that their payment flows work without the tracking in place. When I have worked on consumer facing applications, I always tried to make sure the fallback display without ads and the workflows were friendly. No gaping holes where an ad would be and no waiting on tracking events for checkout flows.
- kridsdale3 3y ago
  I worked at Meta for many years. We extensively researched this phenomenon ("I was talking about XYZ, then 30 minutes later, I saw an ad for it! The mics must be on!") The conclusion we drew was much more nefarious than "the machines are listening". It's that you, personally, are a very basic machine of patterns and habit. You took as input some signal that you were not concious of which STIMULATED you to talk about XYZ. That same signal was in your environment. It stimulated others who match your demographic profile. They made explicit search engine queries for it. Since you are almost exactly the same person as the people in your environment, you are a high-value user account to target that same ad to since the likelihood that it would be in your unconscious mind and thus trigger a buy-signal when you see the ad is higher. TLDR, you are not special. You are a meat computer consuming the same environmental input data as everyone you know. You are almost the same in your behavior and desires as your peers. If this wasn't true, ad targeting would not be worth a bazillion dollars.
  - theprivacydad 3y ago
acumenical 3y ago
I find it tiresome that blogposts about privacy always end up devolving into a discussion about how data can be used against individuals. There is a flip side to that coin, which is the individual's free will. Every one of us here chooses our actions, every day. If we don't like what Google knows about us, maybe it is time to ask ourselves hard questions, and to learn to truly accept ourselves as well as improving where we fall short. This includes phenomena such as polarizing news causing social strife. If we simply took the time to understand how things are connected as well as how things are not, we would not so easily fall victim to propaganda. We can't just use the excuse that since Google knows our search history that we have no control over whether we are polarized. We also can't assume that once we de-Google our lives that we are any more properly prepared against polarizing propaganda. Lessons of mindfulness toward our neighbors' struggles don't come for free. On top of that, the author of the linked blogpost is fooling himself. Other than halfway proving a point, he hasn't solved much. By continuing to use Google Maps he essentially makes a great deal of his online activity discoverable, undoing much of his work to "de-Google" his life. Furthermore, Google has settings to blunt ad targeting, which seem quite effective, and you'll end up learning about CNC machines and dental drills in between your YouTube binges. If there was someone I'd accuse of dark patterns with ad targeting, that someone would be Meta.
- theprivacydad 3y ago
  I'm mainly worried about a permanent record of a profile of a range of my online activities. A realistic first step is to break that up a little. With the Google Maps mention I was suggesting it's ok not to go hard core privacy, because that really takes a lot of time an energy. I use google Maps maybe 4 times a month on my PC, in a browser dedicated to it with a Google account just for that activity. I use a VPN. On the road, I use Organic Maps on CalyxOS.
  - acumenical 3y ago
    I was very unclear, sorry about that. The bulk of my comment addresses the content of the comment section here, not your article. Comments about how data collection can be used to manipulate behavior are woefully fatalistic. I want to challenge that mindset whenever I come across it. As for Google Maps, I was under the impression that you used the app; I mostly use my phone for maps so I just assumed, and I may have misread your article.
vcg3rd 3y ago
I still use plaintext email without images so every so often I get one of those emails (required by regulation, I think) telling me they are going to stop unless I click a link. If I want to keep getting it, I reply and tell them if my reply isn't enough to drop me because I don't click links (if something interests me more than what is in the email I go to the site and find it) or load their tracking pixels. This is how it relates: I tell them no one knows if I receive [1], open, or read postal mail so why should they know I receive, open, or read email unless I want them to? They can't target ads to you without reading content you consume and tracking you. So, let's rephrase: So what if the FBI reads my mail? So what if the IRS bugs my house? So what if Costco follows my car around to see where I shop? So what if Home Depot flys a drone over my house to see if I use a rusty hammer so they can sell me a new one? In what sense should my digital life be any different because it's possible and easy? Fork them is reason enough for me. [1] certified etc excepted.

46 points by theprivacydad 3y ago

"My supermarket has a savings scheme, in exchange for my personal information. The way it works is that the cashier asks: do you want to join this savings scheme? If the customer says yes, they give you a form to fill in your details. If you say no, they leave you alone, and you miss out on the discount or gifts." Hahahaha, yes, if you don't join their club, they don't collect personal information.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ipython 3y ago
Or you just provide someone else’s information. Who says you have to share your true name with your supermarket? Unfortunately it’s very difficult to lie to google
- slongfield 3y ago
  If the company uses phone numbers to lookup accounts, (Local-Area-Code)-8675-309 almost always works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/867-5309/Jenny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/867-5309/Jenny
  - ben_w 3y ago
    This feels a bit like giving your name as "Prawo Jazdy": http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7899171.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7899171....
  - ccvannorman 3y ago
    There was a turning point in 2010 when people stopped recognizing this number at checkout (new generation i guess). I still chuckle when I give the number and they diligently enter it.
- mrweasel 3y ago
  The staff at the paint store got rather confused and couldn't really figure out what to do with me, or how to take my money, when I refused to join their club, saying that I'd rather pay the 20% extra. We only managed to proceed when my wife filled in the form. Turns out you could just lie and fill out anything on the form.
- mathstuf 3y ago
  One strategy I heard about is to get a local group of like-minded individuals together, throw all of your loyalty cards in a communal pile then take one back randomly. That mixes the signal up for any kind of targeted tracking while also getting you the discounts. Or you can just say "I forgot my card" and use the store copy that is usually at the register (at least for groceries).
  - theprivacydad 3y ago
    What a great idea :)
- russdill 3y ago
  Don't worry, depending on the state, they have plenty of other ways to personally identify you. No need.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

JohnMakin 3y ago

The issue isn't just targeted ads though. This data, once in the hands of google, is packaged and resold to whomever google pleases, for whatever purposes those parties see fit - not even to mention inevitable breaches. Not google, but see the whole healthcare data fiasco lately with apps using facebook's analytics API's as an example.

agnosticmantis 3y ago
Out of curiosity, what are some examples of Google packaging and reselling data?
- ccvannorman 3y ago
  this is a serious question? Google collects anything and everything they possibly can, from every user who touches any of their software, platforms or devices. They then sell this data on dozens or hundreds of data broker platforms. Data includes your web browsing history, location history, passive microphone recording history and email history ("anonymized" but still meta data)
  - agnosticmantis 3y ago
    > They then sell this data on dozens or hundreds of data broker platforms. I wasn’t aware of this part specifically, so I’d like to learn more. Has this been covered in the news or something? This seems like a big deal.
    - theprivacydad 3y ago
      I wrote a paragraph about this issue but cut it out for conciseness. I think it is worrying that if data is truly 'the new oil', it's really strange the names of the behind-the-scenes companies are not in the public debate.
  - bryan_w 3y ago
    > They then sell this data on dozens or hundreds of data broker platforms. Oh? Which platforms? How did you come to learn that they were selling data to those platforms? Surely from either the platforms themselves or a respected news article?

Sohcahtoa82 3y ago

Meh, I'm still not convinced. I mean, I suppose I get possibly being creeped out that Google knows you prefer Pepsi over Coke and that you recently purchased an adult toy or whatever, but...meh? So they'll use that data to sell me targeted ads that I'm just going to block anyways. I just don't see how it's actually harmful beyond the government access issue that's just dropped in as a single sentence at the end of one paragraph. > A relatively recent example is PayPal blocking individuals from transacting or fining them for having the wrong politics. Any time someone cries about being cancelled for having the wrong politics, I always think of this famous tweet: https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1050391663552671744?lang=en https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/105039166355267174... Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes? Con: LOL no...no not those views Me: So....deregulation? Con: Haha no not those views either Me: Which views, exactly? Con: Oh, you know the ones

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
sokoloff 3y ago
> I get possibly being creeped out that Google knows you prefer Pepsi over Coke and that you recently purchased an adult toy or whatever Frankly, if I preferred Pepsi over Coke, I'd rather get ads (which sometimes include discounts/coupons) for Pepsi than for Coke. Similarly, if I bought an adult toy, I'd rather get ads for similar adult toys than ads for <whatever the hell else the option for that slot would be>. I'm definitely pro-privacy, but it's got nothing to do with "so I can't be shown relevant ads".
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
ben_w 3y ago
My government certainly doesn't care what sex toys I buy; but there are some bronze plaques in the pavement around here, dedicated to victims of the earlier of the two times the government was evil and sent people to their deaths for such things; and I've been to the museum made from the headquarters of the people responsible for the second time it was evil and spied on anyone and everyone.

imiric 3y ago

Something the article doesn't mention is that your data is not only used to target you with ads. It's also used to target you with propaganda or any political or social agenda a person, organization or state is willing to pay for. Adtech is the perfect weapon of information warfare, and it's been successfuly used to influence public opinion, and corrupt democratic processes (e.g. Cambridge Analytica). Both ads and propaganda have the same objective, psychological manipulation, and the difference is that one wants to manipulate you into buying a product, and the other wants to manipulate you into buying into an idea. These are insidious objectives on both a personal, and societal level. One more thing: once adtech has your personal data, it is sold in perpetuity on shady data broker markets, and any company with access to it can exploit it and get rich from it. As with anything on the internet, once it's out there, it exists forever, except you'll have no control over who it's sold to, under what terms, and, of course, you'll never see a cent of profit. All adtech companies should be paying users to use their services. "Free" is not only not free, but it's extremely profitable for the company you give your data to. The fact that most people either don't understand any of this, or don't care, is deeply troubling for the future of our civilization.

ecf 3y ago
The main problem, imho, is that if one can describe the situation and make someone care even a _little_, it’s not enough. There are so many more important things to be worried about throughout one’s lifetime that data privacy doesn’t even register. Being concerned about how one’s data is being sold is a very “first world problem”, and even in “first worlds” it’s not a very big one for the great majority of the population.
- imiric 3y ago
  > Being concerned about how one’s data is being sold is a very “first world problem”, and even in “first worlds” it’s not a very big one for the great majority of the population. It's really not. Propaganda is very effective in non-FW countries, perhaps even more so because of lower levels of education. Cambridge Analytica had successful campaigns all over Africa and the Middle East, which had a definite effect on the outcome of elections. It can be argued that the 2016 US election result was partially influenced by this, although the tricky thing with information warfare and propaganda is that the effect is very difficult to trace back to a specific cause. It leaves the victim in a state of confusion, with no single and clear source that caused it. Since this affects society at large, it definitely _should_ be a general concern, and not a FW-only problem.

SenAnder 3y ago

While the post doesn't address it, ask yourself: What if you do have something to hide? What if your government was like China's or Russia's? If you let privacy vanish now, you'll be helpless when you need it. Data is power: How pre-teens using metadata found a whistleblower in two hours - https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/how-team-of-pre-teens-found-whisteblower-using-metadata/8113668 https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/how-team-of-pre... Trust your instincts, you have them for a reason. If it was private investigators and spies following you around to gather what Google/credit cards/mobile networks know about you, you would immediately recognize it as malicious and dangerous. That it has now been automated doesn't change that.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Deukhoofd 3y ago

I think a great example of why data privacy matters was the recent concern many American women had about whether data collected by their period tracking app could be used to persecute them for abortions. While you might believe that the data being collected about you is harmless, a government hostile to you could use that data against you with great effect.

corv 3y ago
An even more worrying account of data hoarding was when homosexuals were registered and later sent to concentration camps... (Yes, I've just invoked Godwin's law) In my opinion data should be regarded as a liability by default. We can't rely on a given corporation being benign, or not cooperating with a given regime forever.
- beardog 3y ago
  Grindr is being abused by egyptian police to persecute gay and bisexual people: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/03/24/grindr-egypt-police-fake-accounts/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/03/24/grindr-egypt...
  - kridsdale3 3y ago
    Grindr was bought by a Chinese company. Gee, I wonder why a (I presume CCP backed) company would want a list of all the closeted gay US Senators?
- kridsdale3 3y ago
  This is precisely why Germany (and thus the EU) is the global leader in personal data protection and on-device ML requirements. When I was at Apple getting iCloud off the ground, we had to carve out exemptions for all client-server syncing to allow phone-mac sync specifically for Germany. Because they know what happens when the government can subpoena your data.
- fmajid 3y ago
  No Godwin necessary. There are plenty of countries like Saudi Arabia or Uganda where in 2023 your sexual orientation can be a capital offense.

jccalhoun 3y ago

If they are collecting so much data why do the ads still suck? I bought a pixel 7a and I still get ads for it all the time. You would think that google would know that I already bought a google phone from them.

AlbertCory 3y ago
Most likely, they have some data telling them this is a good strategy. Otherwise they'd stop.
- DharmaPolice 3y ago
  This is giving Google too much credit.
philote 3y ago
Exactly this. I tend to ignore ads that show up, because they're generally not useful for me. I've also noticed this most in Google News. If I search for one topic one time on Google (usually just to find some random bit of info), Google thinks I'm very interested in that topic and starts showing me news articles related to it. Or if I search for a song in Youtube Music, I get articles about that song or band. It's ridiculous. I've started using DDG for search now, and may move to Spotify. I need to find a good news aggregator, too.

alphabetting 3y ago

Obviously in a very small minority here but I decided almost 10 years ago to give them as much data as possible because they were leading in AI and I want AI to have access to as much data on me as possible to make life easier when it gets smart enough. Hasn't panned out yet but I don't really regret it.

theprivacydad 3y ago
haha :)
pbhjpbhj 3y ago
This is an interesting take: >AI to have access to as much data on me as possible to make life easier when it gets smart enough // And it would seem reasonable if Google's aim were to provide you good AI services rather than to extract as much money from you as possible (and no longer with the benefit of not being evil). Doesn't OpenAI seizing a large chunk of the personal-services LLM market show that you should have just put all your data on the web to be included in Common Crawl? Or at least that Google (well FAANGs) unprecedented access to user data didn't result in them accelerating their AI dominance. I know Google have done a lot, BERT, TensorFlow and such, but that seems to have been orthogonal to having access to user PII.
- cglong 3y ago
  OpenAI may be ahead in general LLMs, but I get a lot of additional value from Google Maps, Google Photos, and my Discover feed as a result of the data they've collected about me over the years.

FreshStart 3y ago

The ads are irrelevant. A distraction. The problem is the collected data is sold on and correlated and becomes a interface+sensors to "hack" people, simulate and manage political measures and stabilize for the individual bad situations. As long as there are two people left on the planet with phones, social engineering can get them to fight and distrust one another. And you can see the effects. In the approaches to you with emotional content instead of information. They got us good..

tjkrusinski 3y ago
This rhetoric is extreme. Do you feel the same?

tra3 3y ago

> So what if Google sends me targetted ads? This is just the tip of the iceberg. What you don't see is what is going to get ya. It's not about nefarious actors lurking in the shadows, it's someone like you and me that is incentivized to make more money by taking the advantage of the data they have on you. What if you have nothing to hide? Then you should read this [0] paper that has a more rigorous treatment of privacy: > privacy is not reducible to a singular essence; it is a plurality of different things that do not share one element in common but that nevertheless bear a resemblance to each other > The taxonomy has four general categories of privacy problems with sixteen different subcategories. The first general category is information collection, which involves the ways that data is gathered about people. The subcategories, surveillance and interrogation, represent the two primary problematic ways of gathering information. A privacy problem occurs when an activity by a person, business, or government entity creates harm by disrupting valuable activities of others. These harms need not be physical or emotional; they can occur by chilling socially beneficial behavior (for example, free speech and association) or by leading to power imbalances that adversely affect social structure (for example, excessive executive power). Solove primary focuses on US gov't privacy invasion but this applies just as well to Google et al. [0]: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3976770 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3976770

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

giantrobot 3y ago

The data needed to target ads to you can be used for a variety of purposes besides just advertisement. You have no control over what third party "partners" do with that data and no control over its dissemination. You have no control over how those third parties can combine data from multiple brokers and de-anonymize the data [0]. [0] https://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-find-paul-revere/ https://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metad...

akho 3y ago

To me, the issue is not data collection, but quality of ad-driven services. To be able to show ads, they make rhe product worse: ads in youtube are known to make videos longer, so the authors get a mid-video ad; search is mostly dead, because the incentive is shifted towards relevant ads, not relevant results; ...

skybrian 3y ago

I like that they directly tried to answer this question, but I still think the "so what" case is stronger, for me anyway. I don't use an ad blocker and there are certain sites that are annoying, but I think the biggest influence on me is that I avoid those websites. I don't notice the actual ads very often (other than as an annoyance) and I don't buy very much. What I buy seems more influenced by other things like Wirecutter reviews. Should I stop reading Wirecutter because they influence what I buy? We buy quite a bit through Amazon. Their problems with dodgy vendors and counterfeits are well known, but we're skeptical. My wife returns things for minor flaws fairly often. It's possible we're subtly harmed by something we bought, but I see ads playing a very minor role in this, compared to product listings. Another example of influence is restaurant reviews. My wife and I both look up nearby restaurants in Google Maps and this is nearly all the information we use to decide which restaurant to go to. (Sometimes she uses Yelp.) How are we harmed by this? Maybe there's some restaurant we missed, but I think we eat pretty well anyway. I don't think we are harmed by using Google for that. Most privacy arguments seem to be theoretical and/or ideological, not practical. I'm sure you can think of some, and I can easily anticipate them. It's a common trope. But if it's not a practical argument, it's not going to be very convincing to me.

hsosvdodv 3y ago
in the long term you end up paying more because of all the returns. all for the privilege of being abused by countless fake and incorrect listings trying to fool you when trying to but something (with a 25% change the you will wait, spend time to return, and still not have the item) yet you claim that you move away from sites that merely annoy you with ads. I'm highly skeptical.
- skybrian 3y ago
  If that's the cost, I think we're comfortable paying it, rather than not being able to return things. It's not that I don't see ads, but I do tend to prefer websites like Hacker News more than ad-driven websites. I do see ads on linked news sites.
javajosh 3y ago

jasonlotito 3y ago

> I strongly believe the default should be opting out of data collection, and that users can then opt in by choice, perhaps in exchange for more storage, or for a faster help desk service. Or using the service in the first place? The big promise of answering "So what?" and it amounts to: it's fine if you are fine with it. > As you can see, I'm not averse to using Google or other Big Tech companies' products, but I try to avoid putting my entire data life in just a handful of baskets. So, it's not about using Google. It's about just using Google.

theprivacydad 3y ago
Yes to that last point. And also that there is quite a strong current in the direction of using many or all of Google's products.

timmg 3y ago

I'll probably get hate for this, but: I've never used an ad blocker. I (generally) always "accept all cookies" from that European thing. I do use "incognito mode" sometimes -- but not often. I've never gotten any malware or other things like that. I've never had someone show up at my door in a black coat. I personally think that most of the concerns people have about targeted ads is much ado about nothing. I'll also say: my phone company knows everyone I've called. My credit card company knows everywhere I've traveled or eaten. And I'm pretty sure those guys *sell* my info. But people generally don't seem concerned about that(?)

tjkrusinski 3y ago
You are not alone.
hsosvdodv 3y ago
ironically, phone and CC have tons of laws that prevent them from selling your data. well, outside the usa and uk. that's why you have all those reward cards, programs and such.
variants 3y ago
yeah I think thats the worry, all this information is being gathered and sold to whoever will buy it and combine it and reuse it for whatever they want. say an insurance company wants to see who they can raise the prices on without losing customers, then they can look at the data and work out peoples personalities and single out some that fit a profile of someone who wont go looking for a new insurance company just because their insurance premiums went up. Same thing for health care, if a company wants to see how people live so they can anticipate if their children will be healthy or at higher risk depending on how their parents lived then they can know who not to cover or who will be charged more to cover in the future. it can become the new credit score but one you cant change. whatever happens I just assume it wont be for my own good but for the profit of others so I try and be mindful of privacy when I can
philote 3y ago
Do you also avoid getting life insurance because you've never died before? For me, like the author of the article, it's not the targeted ads that are concerning, but the amount of data one company can have and aggregate in once place. Even if that data isn't being used in a nefarious way now doesn't mean that it never will be. Also, I AM concerned about banks and telephone companies selling my data, but that wasn't the topic of this article.

RajT88 3y ago

> My supermarket has a savings scheme, in exchange for my personal information. The way it works is that the cashier asks: do you want to join this savings scheme? They know all your personal info from the credit card you're using anyways. The phone number you provide at the supermarket is a formality. The proof is in the pudding: When I buy stuff at home depot, there was one time I provided my email address for a receipt. Now every time it asks if I want my receipt emailed. "Aha!" you say "You provided them your email address". They already would know, because they track you through the store with cameras. https://news.adobe.com/news/news-details/2022/Adobe-Drives-Personalization-and-Omnichannel-Services-for-The-Home-Depot-with-Real-Time-Customer-Data/default.aspx https://news.adobe.com/news/news-details/2022/Adobe-Drives-P... (As an aside, that quote in the article about "72% of consumers say that poor personalization decreases their trust in brands. " is 100% made up bullshit, lol)

theprivacydad 3y ago
What's in it for the supermarket then?
- RajT88 3y ago
  This is their legacy way of collecting that data. The future is doing away with the discount program. The grocery stores near me briefly did away with those (before starting up again). I assume because the Adobe-type systems are still too expensive compared to the legacy methods. Make no mistake - the future is taking your data without an exchange in value.
  - theprivacydad 3y ago
    You could be right, but for now, those supermarket discount schemes are still going strong.

bad_alloc 3y ago

Privacy at its core is a preventative measure against being controlled. The state, a corporation or other individuals have an easier time exerting influence over you if they know more about you. Obtaining information is a largely automated task today. And sure, your country might be fine now, but over the course of history a lot of people suddenly woke up to their government turning totalitarian. Same goes for your insurance, your school, your workplace: All can suddenly work against you and it is preferable to avoid giving them too much information to use against you.

theprivacydad 3y ago
That's exactly it: it is preferable to avoid giving out info if you can.

tracker1 3y ago

For me, the single most disturbing is when I see ads based on casual conversations my phone happened to pick up. Such as mentioning a piece of software I used to use a decade ago, and seeing ads for that software daily for a week after. Another, is the first time I saw a calendar reminder to "leave for the airport" not that I set such a reminder, but gmail had received the receipt for my airline tickets. The most disturbing is seeing a product on Amazon, where "your friend purchased this", fortunately it was a switch, but can only imagine something more personal being the case. At this point, I have ublock origin, privacy guard and run a pi-hole at home. I use wireguard through home on my phone so that it forces the vpn's dns through pi-hole. On top of using Brave on my mobile device. I'm tired of it. More tiresome is the number of sites that are actually broken, especially purchases without the tracking events. More companies should ensure that their payment flows work without the tracking in place. When I have worked on consumer facing applications, I always tried to make sure the fallback display without ads and the workflows were friendly. No gaping holes where an ad would be and no waiting on tracking events for checkout flows.

kridsdale3 3y ago
I worked at Meta for many years. We extensively researched this phenomenon ("I was talking about XYZ, then 30 minutes later, I saw an ad for it! The mics must be on!") The conclusion we drew was much more nefarious than "the machines are listening". It's that you, personally, are a very basic machine of patterns and habit. You took as input some signal that you were not concious of which STIMULATED you to talk about XYZ. That same signal was in your environment. It stimulated others who match your demographic profile. They made explicit search engine queries for it. Since you are almost exactly the same person as the people in your environment, you are a high-value user account to target that same ad to since the likelihood that it would be in your unconscious mind and thus trigger a buy-signal when you see the ad is higher. TLDR, you are not special. You are a meat computer consuming the same environmental input data as everyone you know. You are almost the same in your behavior and desires as your peers. If this wasn't true, ad targeting would not be worth a bazillion dollars.
- theprivacydad 3y ago

acumenical 3y ago

I find it tiresome that blogposts about privacy always end up devolving into a discussion about how data can be used against individuals. There is a flip side to that coin, which is the individual's free will. Every one of us here chooses our actions, every day. If we don't like what Google knows about us, maybe it is time to ask ourselves hard questions, and to learn to truly accept ourselves as well as improving where we fall short. This includes phenomena such as polarizing news causing social strife. If we simply took the time to understand how things are connected as well as how things are not, we would not so easily fall victim to propaganda. We can't just use the excuse that since Google knows our search history that we have no control over whether we are polarized. We also can't assume that once we de-Google our lives that we are any more properly prepared against polarizing propaganda. Lessons of mindfulness toward our neighbors' struggles don't come for free. On top of that, the author of the linked blogpost is fooling himself. Other than halfway proving a point, he hasn't solved much. By continuing to use Google Maps he essentially makes a great deal of his online activity discoverable, undoing much of his work to "de-Google" his life. Furthermore, Google has settings to blunt ad targeting, which seem quite effective, and you'll end up learning about CNC machines and dental drills in between your YouTube binges. If there was someone I'd accuse of dark patterns with ad targeting, that someone would be Meta.

theprivacydad 3y ago
I'm mainly worried about a permanent record of a profile of a range of my online activities. A realistic first step is to break that up a little. With the Google Maps mention I was suggesting it's ok not to go hard core privacy, because that really takes a lot of time an energy. I use google Maps maybe 4 times a month on my PC, in a browser dedicated to it with a Google account just for that activity. I use a VPN. On the road, I use Organic Maps on CalyxOS.
- acumenical 3y ago
  I was very unclear, sorry about that. The bulk of my comment addresses the content of the comment section here, not your article. Comments about how data collection can be used to manipulate behavior are woefully fatalistic. I want to challenge that mindset whenever I come across it. As for Google Maps, I was under the impression that you used the app; I mostly use my phone for maps so I just assumed, and I may have misread your article.

vcg3rd 3y ago

I still use plaintext email without images so every so often I get one of those emails (required by regulation, I think) telling me they are going to stop unless I click a link. If I want to keep getting it, I reply and tell them if my reply isn't enough to drop me because I don't click links (if something interests me more than what is in the email I go to the site and find it) or load their tracking pixels. This is how it relates: I tell them no one knows if I receive [1], open, or read postal mail so why should they know I receive, open, or read email unless I want them to? They can't target ads to you without reading content you consume and tracking you. So, let's rephrase: So what if the FBI reads my mail? So what if the IRS bugs my house? So what if Costco follows my car around to see where I shop? So what if Home Depot flys a drone over my house to see if I use a rusty hammer so they can sell me a new one? In what sense should my digital life be any different because it's possible and easy? Fork them is reason enough for me. [1] certified etc excepted.