4 ms·

The site says you shouldn't host your private data on certain free services because they show you ads, so they recommend instead using free services that don't

The site says you shouldn't host your private data on certain free services because they show you ads, so they recommend instead using free services that don't show you ads? Come on HN, you know how this works. If a service doesn't show you ads, and doesn't charge a monthly fee, how do you think they make money? Either they're not, so they'll go out of business when their VC funding runs out, or they're selling whatever they can glean about your habits to third parties. --- Additionally, the article conflates two very different concerns under the banner of "privacy". If you object to advertising, then many free services also have some sort of paid tier. Send then $5 a month and they stop showing you ads. Problem solved. If you're concerned about third parties having access to your data, then your only practical options are to either host everything on a computer you own, or encrypt your data before it leaves your desk. Both options are significantly more complex than using free hosting, but can provide stronger guarantees about the safety of your data. The advantage to encryption is that you can decide on a file-by-file basis whether it's important enough to protect. Maybe you're OK with Dropbox/Google/Box.net/etc being able to see pictures of your cat, but don't want them to see your tax documents or medical records. Of course, the main problem with taking security seriously is that you are placing yourself into a very small, difficult-to-please market segment. Most companies will find it easier to simply ignore you, so they can make their products work better for people who don't particularly think about data security.

alexkus 14y ago
> The site says you shouldn't host your private data on certain free services because they show you ads, so they recommend instead using free services that don't show you ads? > Come on HN, you know how this works. If a service doesn't show you ads, and doesn't charge a monthly fee, how do you think they make money? Either they're not, so they'll go out of business when their VC funding runs out, or they're selling whatever they can glean about your habits to third parties. I've said this before but I'd love to see some people doing not-for-profit versions of major services. Some advertising, but just enough to pay salaries and costs but not return 10x to investors (which you wouldn't get in the first place). No founders cashing out with $1bn+ payoffs after IPO, no IPO, no funding rounds, just a bunch of employees that would be treated fairly and collecting a safe regular salary/benefits with no expectation of a huge payoff. If only I had made my millions in order to fund such an endeavour...
- ApolloRising 14y ago
  That is pretty much Craigslist
- rhizome 14y ago
  An interesting b-school paper would measure the financial effect of well-known unprofitable companies registering 501(c)3.
dmlorenzetti 14y ago
The site says you shouldn't host your private data on certain free services because they show you ads, so they recommend instead using free services that don't show you ads? This is an unfair characterization of the reasoning in the article. The main point isn't whether or not a service shows you ads. For example, the suggested e-mail provider, Lavabit, shows ads to certain classes of users. Rather, the point is whether the service sells your information to advertisers, or mines your information-- including the contents of any messages you send via the service. Often this data mining is done in order to target advertisements at you, but the targeted ads, per se, are not the point. For example, the main objection to Google Search isn't that they use the information to target advertisements (it even admits that doing so may allow Google to serve you more useful ads). Instead, the stated rationale for using DDG is "if you're worried about the amount of data collected on your browsing habits..." Others on this discussion have pointed out that a lot of people are willing to make that exchange (trade off a little privacy in exchange for a good service). That's fair. But the article is clearly written for those who want to limit the inspection and selling of their personal information, not those who want to avoid advertising. Oddly, the second part of your post shows that you understand the distinction. But I think any conflation of the two (advertising and privacy) is in your reading of the article, not in the article itself.
- jmillikin 14y ago
  Why do you feel that targeted ads are more privacy-invasive than untargeted ads? They're both "selling you to advertisers", the only difference is that one option will show you ads for things you want and the other for things you don't. Either way, the site will record that the ad was viewed, and whether you clicked it.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
    - jmillikin 14y ago
      > A targeted ad network needs to log/know more about you, > in order to actually target the ad. An untargeted ad network needs to know generally the same things, to mitigate fraud and inform advertisers about the size/demographics of viewers. People seem to believe an ad network that selects ads randomly is more trustworthy or less privacy-damaging than one that selects ads based on the current page or current viewer, which is a belief I consider unreasonable.
pdonis 14y ago
Some of the services referred to in the article are not free; they make money the old-fashioned way, by charging users for services provided (at least for some level of service).

alexkus 14y ago

> The site says you shouldn't host your private data on certain free services because they show you ads, so they recommend instead using free services that don't show you ads? > Come on HN, you know how this works. If a service doesn't show you ads, and doesn't charge a monthly fee, how do you think they make money? Either they're not, so they'll go out of business when their VC funding runs out, or they're selling whatever they can glean about your habits to third parties. I've said this before but I'd love to see some people doing not-for-profit versions of major services. Some advertising, but just enough to pay salaries and costs but not return 10x to investors (which you wouldn't get in the first place). No founders cashing out with $1bn+ payoffs after IPO, no IPO, no funding rounds, just a bunch of employees that would be treated fairly and collecting a safe regular salary/benefits with no expectation of a huge payoff. If only I had made my millions in order to fund such an endeavour...

ApolloRising 14y ago
That is pretty much Craigslist
rhizome 14y ago
An interesting b-school paper would measure the financial effect of well-known unprofitable companies registering 501(c)3.

dmlorenzetti 14y ago

The site says you shouldn't host your private data on certain free services because they show you ads, so they recommend instead using free services that don't show you ads? This is an unfair characterization of the reasoning in the article. The main point isn't whether or not a service shows you ads. For example, the suggested e-mail provider, Lavabit, shows ads to certain classes of users. Rather, the point is whether the service sells your information to advertisers, or mines your information-- including the contents of any messages you send via the service. Often this data mining is done in order to target advertisements at you, but the targeted ads, per se, are not the point. For example, the main objection to Google Search isn't that they use the information to target advertisements (it even admits that doing so may allow Google to serve you more useful ads). Instead, the stated rationale for using DDG is "if you're worried about the amount of data collected on your browsing habits..." Others on this discussion have pointed out that a lot of people are willing to make that exchange (trade off a little privacy in exchange for a good service). That's fair. But the article is clearly written for those who want to limit the inspection and selling of their personal information, not those who want to avoid advertising. Oddly, the second part of your post shows that you understand the distinction. But I think any conflation of the two (advertising and privacy) is in your reading of the article, not in the article itself.

jmillikin 14y ago
Why do you feel that targeted ads are more privacy-invasive than untargeted ads? They're both "selling you to advertisers", the only difference is that one option will show you ads for things you want and the other for things you don't. Either way, the site will record that the ad was viewed, and whether you clicked it.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
  - jmillikin 14y ago
    > A targeted ad network needs to log/know more about you, > in order to actually target the ad. An untargeted ad network needs to know generally the same things, to mitigate fraud and inform advertisers about the size/demographics of viewers. People seem to believe an ad network that selects ads randomly is more trustworthy or less privacy-damaging than one that selects ads based on the current page or current viewer, which is a belief I consider unreasonable.

pdonis 14y ago

Some of the services referred to in the article are not free; they make money the old-fashioned way, by charging users for services provided (at least for some level of service).