3 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? 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.
- dmlorenzetti 14y ago
  First of all, my point wasn't about what I feel. It was about the intent of the article (or, if you prefer, my reading of the article's intent). That said, in my reading of the article, the point isn't that targeted ads invade privacy more than untargeted ones. Rather, it's the act of mining your personal information that is the invasion of privacy. The fact that your information is read in order to target ads is almost beside the point. Here's a concrete example from my own life (and now I do bring in my own feelings). Shortly after my wife found out she was pregnant, we started getting flyers in the mail for baby-related products. As nearly as I could figure at the time, the information could only have come from two sources: (1) my credit card (invading my privacy by telling companies I was starting to buy baby-related products); or (2) Facebook (invading my wife's privacy by selling information she posted for her family and friends to read). After reading this article, I see that a possible third source was Gmail (invading my privacy by scraping the content of messages I wrote to my friends and family). Now I understand people who say "That's OK, you got a free credit card in exchange for them selling your buying habits to companies." And I understand people who say "That's OK, your wife got a free Facebook account in exchange for them selling her posts to companies." And I understand people who say "That's OK, you get a free e-mail product in exchange for them reading the content of your private messages." What I don't understand is any notion that it's not an invasion of privacy, because I might want to learn about baby-related products. To put it in even more concrete terms, here are three forms of advertising for baby-related products: (1) I see a billboard advertising infant formula. (2) I buy an issue of "New Parent" magazine and see an ad for infant formula inside. (3) I write an e-mail to my brother saying "Guess what, we're having a baby!" and five days later a sample pack of infant formula shows up on my doorstep. Each of these advertisements is progressively more targeted. The first and second do not invade my privacy, while the third does. And the thing that bothers me is not that the advertising is targeted. It's that the advertiser is even aware that I'm a potential target.
  - jmillikin 14y ago
    You're assuming that Facebook or Google sold your private data to third parties. While this is theoretically possible, it is unlikely, for both practical and ethical reasons. I notice you say you bought baby-related products with your credit card. This provides a more likely explanation: statistical analysis of consumer buying habits by retailers (doesn't even have to be the card company) can reveal many sorts of information. The particular example of pregnancy has been well-covered, see http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.h... and http://consumerist.com/2012/02/17/target-figures-out-teen-girl-is-pregnant-before-her-father-does-sends-helpful-coupons/ http://consumerist.com/2012/02/17/target-figures-out-teen-gi... . As for your examples: I'd say that while #1 and #2 are targeted advertisements, #3 is not an advertisement, it's straight-up espionage.

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.
dmlorenzetti 14y ago
First of all, my point wasn't about what I feel. It was about the intent of the article (or, if you prefer, my reading of the article's intent). That said, in my reading of the article, the point isn't that targeted ads invade privacy more than untargeted ones. Rather, it's the act of mining your personal information that is the invasion of privacy. The fact that your information is read in order to target ads is almost beside the point. Here's a concrete example from my own life (and now I do bring in my own feelings). Shortly after my wife found out she was pregnant, we started getting flyers in the mail for baby-related products. As nearly as I could figure at the time, the information could only have come from two sources: (1) my credit card (invading my privacy by telling companies I was starting to buy baby-related products); or (2) Facebook (invading my wife's privacy by selling information she posted for her family and friends to read). After reading this article, I see that a possible third source was Gmail (invading my privacy by scraping the content of messages I wrote to my friends and family). Now I understand people who say "That's OK, you got a free credit card in exchange for them selling your buying habits to companies." And I understand people who say "That's OK, your wife got a free Facebook account in exchange for them selling her posts to companies." And I understand people who say "That's OK, you get a free e-mail product in exchange for them reading the content of your private messages." What I don't understand is any notion that it's not an invasion of privacy, because I might want to learn about baby-related products. To put it in even more concrete terms, here are three forms of advertising for baby-related products: (1) I see a billboard advertising infant formula. (2) I buy an issue of "New Parent" magazine and see an ad for infant formula inside. (3) I write an e-mail to my brother saying "Guess what, we're having a baby!" and five days later a sample pack of infant formula shows up on my doorstep. Each of these advertisements is progressively more targeted. The first and second do not invade my privacy, while the third does. And the thing that bothers me is not that the advertising is targeted. It's that the advertiser is even aware that I'm a potential target.
- jmillikin 14y ago
  You're assuming that Facebook or Google sold your private data to third parties. While this is theoretically possible, it is unlikely, for both practical and ethical reasons. I notice you say you bought baby-related products with your credit card. This provides a more likely explanation: statistical analysis of consumer buying habits by retailers (doesn't even have to be the card company) can reveal many sorts of information. The particular example of pregnancy has been well-covered, see http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.h... and http://consumerist.com/2012/02/17/target-figures-out-teen-girl-is-pregnant-before-her-father-does-sends-helpful-coupons/ http://consumerist.com/2012/02/17/target-figures-out-teen-gi... . As for your examples: I'd say that while #1 and #2 are targeted advertisements, #3 is not an advertisement, it's straight-up espionage.