4 ms·

> Your privacy is important to us. This privacy statement explains the personal data Microsoft processes, how Microsoft processes it, and for what purposes. Wh

> Your privacy is important to us. This privacy statement explains the personal data Microsoft processes, how Microsoft processes it, and for what purposes. When you're selling it, I'm sure it is important to you.

1oooqooq 2y ago
Exactly. The only privacy respecting feature I have ever worked on in the Ad space was because vendors (the ad industry clients) were abusing the platform and pushing expensive rich-media formats when only paying for "banners". So we prevented the banners from escaping the iframes they were served in and added measured APIs to allow richmedia ones to annoy the user outside the iframe. it also had the benefit of cutting down spam since most spammers were scraping the webmail contacts by placing ads. lol. the early 2000s were wild.
resource_waste 2y ago
I remember the contradictory thoughts when I first filled in my work iPhone with my personal data. Apple had some sort of mind control that had me excited to give them my personal information. At the same time, I was horrified that I was giving so much information to Apple. With Apple, it felt fine, their branding made you feel special. With Microsoft, you feel extorted. I'm sure people will nitpick differences, but after PRISM, its just branding. Apple commercials make you feel better about Apple, even when they do M$ level of bad things. M$ is just so terrible at pretending to be pro-consumer, they are oblivious.
Barrin92 2y ago
It's like when, as a European user, you go to a website that's called something like Idaho Gazette because you follow a HN link and after seven years they still block you but tell you how important you are to them. I think if that was the case they could've just chosen to not collect any personal data from the five Euro users that show up once a year which would have taken less effort than putting that banner up
- nerdponx 2y ago
  It would have taken more effort, because the data collection is not something they have the ability to selectively disable, it's so backed into their platform and business model.
- tzs 2y ago
  > I think if that was the case they could've just chosen to not collect any personal data from the five Euro users that show up once a year which would have taken less effort than putting that banner up. Putting the banner up is less effort than reconfiguring your web server to not include IP addresses in the logs, and reworking your tools that currently use IP address such as various abuse detectors to use something else. Note that it is not as simple as hashing the IP address because the IP4 address space is small enough that hashing is easily reversed by brute force. You can probably justify logging IP addresses, at least if you don't keep the logs too long, under GDPR without having to ask the visitor for permission. GDPR provides several justifications for storing personal data besides consent. But it is still personal data, so if GDPR applies then there are compliance costs. For sites that are not in the Union and have no intention of serving people in the Union a block makes sense as a way to avoid that hassle. That's because for entities that are not in the Union determining whether or not GDPR applies when they are visited by people in the Union depends greatly on intent. Article 3, "Territorial scope", says it applies if they are offering goods or services to data subjects in the Union or they are monitoring the behavior of data subjects that takes place within the Union. The corresponding recitals says that offering goods or services means that the site envisages such offerings. Blocking visitors from the EU would be pretty good evidence that the site does not so envisage.
croes 2y ago
That's why it says your privacy is important instead of we respect your privacy.

1oooqooq 2y ago

Exactly. The only privacy respecting feature I have ever worked on in the Ad space was because vendors (the ad industry clients) were abusing the platform and pushing expensive rich-media formats when only paying for "banners". So we prevented the banners from escaping the iframes they were served in and added measured APIs to allow richmedia ones to annoy the user outside the iframe. it also had the benefit of cutting down spam since most spammers were scraping the webmail contacts by placing ads. lol. the early 2000s were wild.

resource_waste 2y ago

I remember the contradictory thoughts when I first filled in my work iPhone with my personal data. Apple had some sort of mind control that had me excited to give them my personal information. At the same time, I was horrified that I was giving so much information to Apple. With Apple, it felt fine, their branding made you feel special. With Microsoft, you feel extorted. I'm sure people will nitpick differences, but after PRISM, its just branding. Apple commercials make you feel better about Apple, even when they do M$ level of bad things. M$ is just so terrible at pretending to be pro-consumer, they are oblivious.

Barrin92 2y ago

It's like when, as a European user, you go to a website that's called something like Idaho Gazette because you follow a HN link and after seven years they still block you but tell you how important you are to them. I think if that was the case they could've just chosen to not collect any personal data from the five Euro users that show up once a year which would have taken less effort than putting that banner up

nerdponx 2y ago
It would have taken more effort, because the data collection is not something they have the ability to selectively disable, it's so backed into their platform and business model.
tzs 2y ago
> I think if that was the case they could've just chosen to not collect any personal data from the five Euro users that show up once a year which would have taken less effort than putting that banner up. Putting the banner up is less effort than reconfiguring your web server to not include IP addresses in the logs, and reworking your tools that currently use IP address such as various abuse detectors to use something else. Note that it is not as simple as hashing the IP address because the IP4 address space is small enough that hashing is easily reversed by brute force. You can probably justify logging IP addresses, at least if you don't keep the logs too long, under GDPR without having to ask the visitor for permission. GDPR provides several justifications for storing personal data besides consent. But it is still personal data, so if GDPR applies then there are compliance costs. For sites that are not in the Union and have no intention of serving people in the Union a block makes sense as a way to avoid that hassle. That's because for entities that are not in the Union determining whether or not GDPR applies when they are visited by people in the Union depends greatly on intent. Article 3, "Territorial scope", says it applies if they are offering goods or services to data subjects in the Union or they are monitoring the behavior of data subjects that takes place within the Union. The corresponding recitals says that offering goods or services means that the site envisages such offerings. Blocking visitors from the EU would be pretty good evidence that the site does not so envisage.

croes 2y ago

That's why it says your privacy is important instead of we respect your privacy.