5 ms·

I don't really mind the personal data collection, except when the results are too obvious and exactly opposite of what I need. For example, after reading some

by derekp7 13y ago

I don't really mind the personal data collection, except when the results are too obvious and exactly opposite of what I need. For example, after reading some articles on Social Security disability (and how some areas have as much as 25% of there population drawing it), I got curious and started doing some basic fact checking. Now, for the next several days, every web page I visit has a Binder & Binder ad on it. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I have a hobby collecting and studying old slide rules -- including E6B "flight computer" circular slide rules. This included searching for, and reading up on the Breitling Navitimer watch, and similar watches. Well, now I get ads for various luxury watch brands (not interested in buying a luxury watch), along with Binder & Binder ads (not even close to disabled). I'm still not quite sure why this annoys me so much. I think it is the idea that someone is making a judgement on me / what I want, based on certain actions that had a completely different purpose. Probably similar to how urban photographers feel practicing their hobby, and getting harassed as potential terrorists or something. Yes, this is a minor thing to nit pick, and it isn't a major deal, just a bit unsettling at times.

tomkarlo 13y ago
Folks in real life make judgements about you, and what you want, all the time in most cases it's entirely acceptable. Maybe it's disconcerting because online matches are often based on more tenuous information and less context. It can be ham-handed. As someone who has been harassed for urban photography, by law enforcement, I think that's a very different situation. Having someone in a position of authority mis-interpret innocent actions is a much more threatening thing than someone doing it for commercial reasons. A vendor can bug you but they're not going to detain you based on their guess that you might be interested in what they're selling. I raise this primarily because it seems like conflating an innocent mistake with overzealous / threatening law enforcement devalues the latter problem.
- derekp7 13y ago
  Yes, it is on a different level -- that was just the first example that popped in mind (and I hesitated posting it, worrying that I could offend someone else). But you have the same problem with any analogy; there are always differences between the two items being compared. I think the problem for me is that I see it as a software bug, and since it is a bug that comes to light based on personal actions / data, it gets under my skin. Kind of like how Clippy got annoying back in the day. Or when Tivo makes inappropriate recommendations because you happened to watch a particular show (such as "My Tivo thinks I'm an 80-year-old retired grandmother").
  - tomkarlo 13y ago
    Part of the issue, I suspect, is that we aren't as forgiving of computers (and in particular, ad servers) as we are of people, due to different expectations. If you went to a video rental store (back when those existed) and the guy recommended 3 videos to you and 1 was a clunker, you wouldn't be annoyed. But when your Tivo does the same you may not be as patient, even though it's making rational decisions based on your past behavior.
    - PavlovsCat 13y ago
      If you went to a video rental store (back when those existed) and the guy recommended 3 videos to you and 1 was a clunker, you wouldn't be annoyed. Can you speak for yourself? You're kinda proving the point here. Know yourself, but don't pretend to know or speak for others... that goes for everybody, orders of magnitude more so for corporations.
      - tomkarlo 13y ago
        Using "you" in that context doesn't mean I'm "speaking for you". It's a didactic device used to convey a hypothetical situation.
gaius 13y ago
One day you'll make a claim on your health insurance, and having bought your search history, your provider will say "pre-existing condition, denied".
- derekp7 13y ago
  I really don't see that happening, unless it was done under the table. And even then, it would most likely be with lower-tier companies that believe they could fly under the radar and get away with it. Of course I'm a bit burned out on what-ifs and conspiracy theories in general.
- moultano 13y ago
  Google doesn't do that. http://www.google.com/policies/technologies/ http://www.google.com/policies/technologies/ "We don’t sell users’ personal information."

by derekp7 13y ago

tomkarlo 13y ago

Folks in real life make judgements about you, and what you want, all the time in most cases it's entirely acceptable. Maybe it's disconcerting because online matches are often based on more tenuous information and less context. It can be ham-handed. As someone who has been harassed for urban photography, by law enforcement, I think that's a very different situation. Having someone in a position of authority mis-interpret innocent actions is a much more threatening thing than someone doing it for commercial reasons. A vendor can bug you but they're not going to detain you based on their guess that you might be interested in what they're selling. I raise this primarily because it seems like conflating an innocent mistake with overzealous / threatening law enforcement devalues the latter problem.

derekp7 13y ago
Yes, it is on a different level -- that was just the first example that popped in mind (and I hesitated posting it, worrying that I could offend someone else). But you have the same problem with any analogy; there are always differences between the two items being compared. I think the problem for me is that I see it as a software bug, and since it is a bug that comes to light based on personal actions / data, it gets under my skin. Kind of like how Clippy got annoying back in the day. Or when Tivo makes inappropriate recommendations because you happened to watch a particular show (such as "My Tivo thinks I'm an 80-year-old retired grandmother").
- tomkarlo 13y ago
  Part of the issue, I suspect, is that we aren't as forgiving of computers (and in particular, ad servers) as we are of people, due to different expectations. If you went to a video rental store (back when those existed) and the guy recommended 3 videos to you and 1 was a clunker, you wouldn't be annoyed. But when your Tivo does the same you may not be as patient, even though it's making rational decisions based on your past behavior.
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    If you went to a video rental store (back when those existed) and the guy recommended 3 videos to you and 1 was a clunker, you wouldn't be annoyed. Can you speak for yourself? You're kinda proving the point here. Know yourself, but don't pretend to know or speak for others... that goes for everybody, orders of magnitude more so for corporations.
    - tomkarlo 13y ago
      Using "you" in that context doesn't mean I'm "speaking for you". It's a didactic device used to convey a hypothetical situation.

gaius 13y ago

One day you'll make a claim on your health insurance, and having bought your search history, your provider will say "pre-existing condition, denied".

derekp7 13y ago
I really don't see that happening, unless it was done under the table. And even then, it would most likely be with lower-tier companies that believe they could fly under the radar and get away with it. Of course I'm a bit burned out on what-ifs and conspiracy theories in general.
moultano 13y ago
Google doesn't do that. http://www.google.com/policies/technologies/ http://www.google.com/policies/technologies/ "We don’t sell users’ personal information."