3 ms·

> Anonym also has technology that allows ad platforms and advertisers to securely share encrypted impression and conversion data within a trusted execution envi

> Anonym also has technology that allows ad platforms and advertisers to securely share encrypted impression and conversion data within a trusted execution environment for attribution, causal lift measurement and lookalike modeling. Wow, "secure", "encrypted", and "trusted" all in one sentence. They're trying to make it sound as reassuring as possible, but they're still doing tracking.

mmooss 2y ago
They're not, in fact. That's the whole point of their business. Where does it say they are tracking anyone - which means recording personal information?
- wtallis 2y ago
  "impression and conversion data", "attribution, causal lift measurement and lookalike modeling". These are all terms of art in the field of tracking user behavior: collecting information, and using it to infer what you can't collect directly.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    That data only exists in encrypted form and in a trusted execution environment, based on the evidence. I mean, everything you do on the computer is also in RAM - is that tracking too? There is no evidence of risk. A general freakout is not evidence of anything besides maybe some bad acid.
    - wtallis 2y ago
      > That data only exists in encrypted form and in a trusted execution environment, based on the evidence. First of all, please don't try to pretend that claims that the data remains encrypted and secure and only in trusted environments are claims that should carry any weight. The data cannot only exist in encrypted form. The entire goal of these systems is to mangle and aggregate the data "enough", then share that result as plaintext with the highest bidder. > I mean, everything you do on the computer is also in RAM - is that tracking too? No, not everything I do on my computer is tracking. Most software doesn't keep a long-term record of detailed interaction data. I don't expect my window manager to log how much time each app spends in the foreground. But even for the stuff that is logged, you should be able to understand that the real concern comes from when that information is exfiltrated from my computer, processed by a third-party, and sold.
    - saghm 2y ago
      How exactly would you suggest one looks for "evidence of risk" in this scenario? We already don't have any clear visibility into what companies do with our days (which is kind of the whole reason everyone is upset about the changes to the privacy policy that everyone is discussing here in the first place), so if a new company comes in and also starts doing _something_ with data that we also have no visibility into, we should just assume that they aren't doing anything sketchy because they didn't happen to say anything incriminating? What would you expect a company that _is_ doing something sketchy to say in this scenario? You don't think that's a company might just lie about something that they know no one can disprove? Your "no evidence of risk" is my "no evidence of a lack of risk", and at the end of the day, I don't see any reason to blindly trust any company on their claims of being benevolent, let anyone one operating in such a historically sketchy one like adtech.
    - h4ny 2y ago
      > I mean, everything you do on the computer is also in RAM - is that tracking too? Uh... what do you mean? It's not like every programs has free access to the RAM and can just whatever that's in it, there are boundaries. Just because something exists in RAM doesn't mean it can be read, collected and analysed by someone else. Also, data existing in "encrypted form" and being executed in a "trusted execution environment" mean nothing either. People whose goal is to collect the data can still decrypt it and read it, and a "trusted execution environment" basically means nothing if they whatever they get by analysing that data in that "trusted execution environment" is going to be disseminated to third parties who may or may not have the capability to use that data to identify you. It's not nice to accuse people of freaking out over "maybe some bad acid". Even if it's "freaking out", in this case it's actually safer to "freak out" and avoid it than taking your ill-reasoned advice.

mmooss 2y ago

They're not, in fact. That's the whole point of their business. Where does it say they are tracking anyone - which means recording personal information?

wtallis 2y ago
"impression and conversion data", "attribution, causal lift measurement and lookalike modeling". These are all terms of art in the field of tracking user behavior: collecting information, and using it to infer what you can't collect directly.
- mmooss 2y ago
  That data only exists in encrypted form and in a trusted execution environment, based on the evidence. I mean, everything you do on the computer is also in RAM - is that tracking too? There is no evidence of risk. A general freakout is not evidence of anything besides maybe some bad acid.
  - wtallis 2y ago
    > That data only exists in encrypted form and in a trusted execution environment, based on the evidence. First of all, please don't try to pretend that claims that the data remains encrypted and secure and only in trusted environments are claims that should carry any weight. The data cannot only exist in encrypted form. The entire goal of these systems is to mangle and aggregate the data "enough", then share that result as plaintext with the highest bidder. > I mean, everything you do on the computer is also in RAM - is that tracking too? No, not everything I do on my computer is tracking. Most software doesn't keep a long-term record of detailed interaction data. I don't expect my window manager to log how much time each app spends in the foreground. But even for the stuff that is logged, you should be able to understand that the real concern comes from when that information is exfiltrated from my computer, processed by a third-party, and sold.
  - saghm 2y ago
    How exactly would you suggest one looks for "evidence of risk" in this scenario? We already don't have any clear visibility into what companies do with our days (which is kind of the whole reason everyone is upset about the changes to the privacy policy that everyone is discussing here in the first place), so if a new company comes in and also starts doing _something_ with data that we also have no visibility into, we should just assume that they aren't doing anything sketchy because they didn't happen to say anything incriminating? What would you expect a company that _is_ doing something sketchy to say in this scenario? You don't think that's a company might just lie about something that they know no one can disprove? Your "no evidence of risk" is my "no evidence of a lack of risk", and at the end of the day, I don't see any reason to blindly trust any company on their claims of being benevolent, let anyone one operating in such a historically sketchy one like adtech.
  - h4ny 2y ago
    > I mean, everything you do on the computer is also in RAM - is that tracking too? Uh... what do you mean? It's not like every programs has free access to the RAM and can just whatever that's in it, there are boundaries. Just because something exists in RAM doesn't mean it can be read, collected and analysed by someone else. Also, data existing in "encrypted form" and being executed in a "trusted execution environment" mean nothing either. People whose goal is to collect the data can still decrypt it and read it, and a "trusted execution environment" basically means nothing if they whatever they get by analysing that data in that "trusted execution environment" is going to be disseminated to third parties who may or may not have the capability to use that data to identify you. It's not nice to accuse people of freaking out over "maybe some bad acid". Even if it's "freaking out", in this case it's actually safer to "freak out" and avoid it than taking your ill-reasoned advice.