3 ms·

It's a tracking pixel. They fool you into sending it.

afavour 6mo ago
A technicality without a meaningful difference. Users didn't consent to sending it, nor were they aware of it.
janalsncm 6mo ago
The relevant facts are that the website owner voluntarily put the tracking code on their own website, and the tracking code worked as designed.
- worik 6mo ago
  > The relevant facts are that the website owner voluntarily put the tracking code... The civil discussion should now be about the punishment for that. Regulation is required for handling people's data
  - dylan604 6mo ago
    Sounds like that will work similar to incarcerating drug users instead of the drug makers and distribution network?
    - joquarky 6mo ago
      The former can't afford lawyers.
    - janalsncm 6mo ago
      In your analogy I would argue the website owners are analogous to the distribution network and Meta/Tiktok are analogous to the manufacturers. But I also don’t think it’s perfect because usually drug users know they are buying drugs whereas with tracking pixels it’s being done secretly.
      - dylan604 6mo ago
        Sure, but that's getting too far into it. Not that you're wrong though. The point was, the people that make the thing never/rarely get punished, but it is the individuals that get the hammer. If websites get fined for running the evilCorp SDKs, then the problem would be more effectively solved by going after evilCorp for providing the SDK. If there was no SDK nor reward for using it, the websites being fined would not have needed to be fined. Trying to scare people into not doing something is much less effective
staz 6mo ago
If someone attach a bomb to you car that detonate when you start the motor; they didn't fool you into killing yourself.
adamnemecek 6mo ago
That's like saying that Ted Kaczynski was innocent, because he didn't force anyone to open the packages.
- kevin_thibedeau 6mo ago
  The government wants these packages sent out to support its domestic surveillance initiative. It helps when 99% are unaware they exist.

A technicality without a meaningful difference. Users didn't consent to sending it, nor were they aware of it.

The relevant facts are that the website owner voluntarily put the tracking code on their own website, and the tracking code worked as designed.

worik 6mo ago
> The relevant facts are that the website owner voluntarily put the tracking code... The civil discussion should now be about the punishment for that. Regulation is required for handling people's data
- dylan604 6mo ago
  Sounds like that will work similar to incarcerating drug users instead of the drug makers and distribution network?
  - joquarky 6mo ago
    The former can't afford lawyers.
  - janalsncm 6mo ago
    In your analogy I would argue the website owners are analogous to the distribution network and Meta/Tiktok are analogous to the manufacturers. But I also don’t think it’s perfect because usually drug users know they are buying drugs whereas with tracking pixels it’s being done secretly.
    - dylan604 6mo ago
      Sure, but that's getting too far into it. Not that you're wrong though. The point was, the people that make the thing never/rarely get punished, but it is the individuals that get the hammer. If websites get fined for running the evilCorp SDKs, then the problem would be more effectively solved by going after evilCorp for providing the SDK. If there was no SDK nor reward for using it, the websites being fined would not have needed to be fined. Trying to scare people into not doing something is much less effective

staz 6mo ago

If someone attach a bomb to you car that detonate when you start the motor; they didn't fool you into killing yourself.

adamnemecek 6mo ago

That's like saying that Ted Kaczynski was innocent, because he didn't force anyone to open the packages.

kevin_thibedeau 6mo ago
The government wants these packages sent out to support its domestic surveillance initiative. It helps when 99% are unaware they exist.