8 ms·

I still can't figure out why my browsing data being sold is objectively a bad thing. I don't see how it makes my day-to-day worse in any way. There are plenty o

I still can't figure out why my browsing data being sold is objectively a bad thing. I don't see how it makes my day-to-day worse in any way. There are plenty of smart people who feel that it's bad, so maybe I'm just missing something, and I'm open to sound logic that convinces me that it's going to make my life worse. Also, the example they make at the bottom asking the reader to imagine hundreds of people following them around and watching their every move is a bit disingenuous. It's more like a handful of people following millions. At that point in time, you're not much more than a data point.

simias 13y ago
I think the problem is that it's creating an infrastructure that can then be used for nefarious purposes. And then there's no way for you to know when the line is crossed between what you consider tolerable and what you feel infringes on your privacy.
metastart 13y ago
There are hundreds of companies that track you actually and they sell that data to many, many others. In an average hour of browsing, about 40 will try to track you. What you browse & search is very personal and very revealing - it's dangerous that anyone have that data and use it to determine what prices to charge you for goods, for insurance or whether you should even be offered a policy, or more e.g. searching for "pressure cooker" and "backpacks" led to a visit from six FBI agents to a writer. https://medium.com/something-like-falling/2e7d13e54724 https://medium.com/something-like-falling/2e7d13e54724 ...there are tons more examples I could provide!
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- metastart 13y ago
  Thanks for the update to the pressure cooker/backpack article - nevertheless there was a police visit based on his googling which is a bit scary. There are many dangers you could imagine if what you search could be used against you (assuming it's not private).
- mmcnickle 13y ago
  The police were tipped off about the backpack/pressure cooker searcher by their previous employers, not some anonymous internet company: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/an-update-on-the-pressure-cookers-google-search-story/ http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/an-update-on-the-pressure-c... They were detectives, not FBI agents.
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    That's ironic since counterterrorism[1] is the supposed primary mission of the NSA surveillance enabled by FISC / PATRIOT Act. [1] Provided that you think a simple Googling of "backpack" and "pressure cooker" in the days following the Boston Marathon Attack implies a probable link to terrorism.
guizzy 13y ago
While I agree that many are blowing this out of proportion, there are data analysis tools that can transform a few isolated data points into a complete profile quite quickly.
mbrubeck 13y ago
Some people object to the way the data is used for behavioral ad targeting, because it's "creepy" -- it causes companies to reveal that they know things about you, without making it clear who gave them that information or how they gathered it. This can be surprising, and possibly unsettling. Personally I'm not terribly bothered by the targeted ads themselves, but I see them as one symptom of a deeper problem. The data being used and sold is not data that I volunteered; much of it is data that is leaked unintentionally as a side effect of technical design of the web and other information systems. (This includes data like "the person who is visiting site A today also visited site B several times last week.") These leaks make it hard to know or control how much we reveal about ourselves (and to whom) when we use these systems. Even if you aren't concerned with any specific information you may accidentally disclose today, you should still be interested in ways that our software and networks could be designed to give users better knowledge and control over these disclosures, because (a) other people are legitimately concerned about this, and (b) you may have reason to be concerned in the future.
saraid216 13y ago
> There are plenty of smart people who feel that it's bad Please do not forget that intelligence isn't all-pervasive in a person. Privacy tends to be a trigger issue for many intelligent people on a forum like Hacker News.
hannibal5 13y ago
Because it it gives companies advantage over you. For example banks and insurance companies want to know everything possible about you. So do potential employers. Profiling people and putting them into categories and calculating their risk profiles makes their position weaker. For example: Google "lump in the testicles" and browse medical sites. Then wait one week and try to get mortgage or insurance.
- 3JPLW 13y ago
  Is there any evidence that your example could impact somebody today? Sure, it's just a matter of the right (wrong) people connecting the dots... but is anyone currently doing that?
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    Isn't the fact that such a vulnerability exists reason enough to not allow it to happen? I mean, at that point, you're basically trusting the Bad Guys to not do bad things. Look at internet security circa late 1990's to get an idea of how that works.
    - aiiane 13y ago
      Nitroglycerin can be used to make things blow up. It can also be used to help prevent heart attacks. Should we completely ban nitroglycerin simply because it can be used to blow things up? I mean, we're basically trusting people to not use it to blow things up.
      - Karunamon 13y ago
        False equivalence. Explosive quantities of nitroglycerin are regulated. Actually, wait a sec. So is government snooping of communications, the problem is they're not following the existing regulations.
- kllrnohj 13y ago
  Except companies like Mozilla and Google (even Microsoft) don't give that data to those companies, and have no incentive to do so. Indeed, to a company like Google that would be corporate suicide as it would undermine their main source of revenue. Google's money comes from being a middle man, they want to keep their competitive advantage (your data to target ads) secret more than you do. So your scenario doesn't exist.
ihsw 13y ago
It's about control and regaining control of your browsing habits, namely giving users the capability of opting out of global surveillance networks. Many advertisers screamed (and are still screaming) bloody murder over Do Not Track settings being on by default, and this is a message to send to them: your screams are irrelevant and you have no right to track me.
- nrivadeneira 13y ago
  I have control of my browsing habits. That's my point - I'm not terribly worried about if companies see what I do, so it doesn't change my behavior. Thus, I don't see how this point shows that tracking makes my life worse.
  - Zuider 13y ago
    >I'm not terribly worried about if companies see what I do, so it doesn't change my behavior. It sounds like you are saying: "I'm not doing anything wrong, so why do I need any privacy".
    - nrivadeneira 13y ago
      And if I am? Everyone has varying degrees of privacy preference. Who's to say that any end of the spectrum is wrong or right? Mine just happens to fall on the more liberal end.
      - InXorWeTrust 13y ago
        You're right, there is a spectrum of preference. But just because some are ok with it, doesn't mean all of us. Why encapsulate everyone under the same policy of track everything? On the Do Not Track, I think turning it on by default is a bad idea. It gives companies no incentive to follow it and abide by it. (Yes, they have no reason to abide by it right now either). There is no law that says they have to abide by it, but it seems to me they might be more willing to abide by DNT if those that are tracking conscious were to turn it on, rather than it to be turned on by itself. They wouldn't lose as many people to track if it was opt in instead of opt out.
alan_cx 13y ago
1) You data has value and it belongs to you. If it is taken with out permission, that is stealing. Bad thing. 2) Taking one cent from your back account every day wont make your day to day life worse. Day to day being worse is not a standard that is useful.
- nrivadeneira 13y ago
  1) I don't agree with this. If I walk into (or around) a Best Buy and they capture my movement on a security camera, are they stealing from me? Technically, they are recording data of my movement. Also, stealing generally infers that the victim is left without the stolen item. That's why we don't call piracy stealing. So, if anything, trackers are 'pirating' my browsing information and possibly reselling it. Truthfully, I wasn't doing anything with that information before, so my life hasn't changed for better or worse because of this. No proof of bad thing here. 2) It is a useful standard. I avoid being nit-picky about the little things, and so I like to make a distinction between things that are worth worrying about. If ~$273 is taken from my bank account over my entire lifetime (based on average lifetime), I'm really not going to worry about it. If data tracking is on the same side of the distinction as taking 1 cent from my bank account, I'm fine with that.
  - megantic 13y ago
    1) we'll take another example, let's say you have your own religious views and those get collected in a database, seemingly no harm done here. Then comes a newly elected government with different religious views who decides people holding the same religious views as yours should wear a distinctive sign to warn the public, then to gather those people in camps, then starts mass killing those people on an industrial scale. This happened before, if it were to happen again in the future you would have no way of hiding facts about you as everything has been collected about you for years.
    - nrivadeneira 13y ago
      Wow....you just took web analytics and tracking and somehow morphed it into the holocaust. That's probably the biggest slippery slope argument I've ever seen in my life.
plg 13y ago
Because I didn't consent to it.
megantic 13y ago
That's probably because you don't grasp what can be done with this data, and for how long this data will be around. The bottom line is in the relation between privacy and freedom. There's a few point to raise here: how do you object or prevent the sale of your data ? how much of the money from the sale of your data went to your pockets ? what control do you have on your sold data over time ? Then it's not only about you and your life, ever heard of first they came [1]? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came
- nrivadeneira 13y ago
  I'll ignore your belittling comment and ask you to clarify what exactly you suppose will be done with the data about my browsing habits. I'll return the sentiment, however, and suggest that maybe you don't grasp that there are people who do understand and are not quite as scared as you. I generally don't live my life in fear, regardless of what dangers loom around the corner, known or unknown. This is the second time you've correlated internet browsing tracking to Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. It amazes me that you even use the internet with such enormously exaggerated fears. I'll go further to suggest that you are unaware that knowledge, intellect, understanding, and the capability to grasp these concepts is in no way correlated with susceptibility to fear and worry.
daemonk 13y ago
Because it potentially encourages using the data in a technically wrong way. What I mean by "wrong" has nothing to do with morality. I mean "wrong" as in people who think they can predict behavior will over-interpret the data in a technically incorrect way and try to apply that model causing real harm. That might mean giving insurance companies an excuse to over-interpret health data to increase rates or law makers legislating discriminatory laws based on bad data analysis. It gives scam artists extra ammunition to peddle their crap.
roflcopterlawl 13y ago
yeah because when i search for ingrown hairs on google, amazon emails me about products that remove ingrown hairs.

simias 13y ago

I think the problem is that it's creating an infrastructure that can then be used for nefarious purposes. And then there's no way for you to know when the line is crossed between what you consider tolerable and what you feel infringes on your privacy.

metastart 13y ago

There are hundreds of companies that track you actually and they sell that data to many, many others. In an average hour of browsing, about 40 will try to track you. What you browse & search is very personal and very revealing - it's dangerous that anyone have that data and use it to determine what prices to charge you for goods, for insurance or whether you should even be offered a policy, or more e.g. searching for "pressure cooker" and "backpacks" led to a visit from six FBI agents to a writer. https://medium.com/something-like-falling/2e7d13e54724 https://medium.com/something-like-falling/2e7d13e54724 ...there are tons more examples I could provide!

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
metastart 13y ago
Thanks for the update to the pressure cooker/backpack article - nevertheless there was a police visit based on his googling which is a bit scary. There are many dangers you could imagine if what you search could be used against you (assuming it's not private).
mmcnickle 13y ago
The police were tipped off about the backpack/pressure cooker searcher by their previous employers, not some anonymous internet company: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/an-update-on-the-pressure-cookers-google-search-story/ http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/an-update-on-the-pressure-c... They were detectives, not FBI agents.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  That's ironic since counterterrorism[1] is the supposed primary mission of the NSA surveillance enabled by FISC / PATRIOT Act. [1] Provided that you think a simple Googling of "backpack" and "pressure cooker" in the days following the Boston Marathon Attack implies a probable link to terrorism.

guizzy 13y ago

While I agree that many are blowing this out of proportion, there are data analysis tools that can transform a few isolated data points into a complete profile quite quickly.

mbrubeck 13y ago

Some people object to the way the data is used for behavioral ad targeting, because it's "creepy" -- it causes companies to reveal that they know things about you, without making it clear who gave them that information or how they gathered it. This can be surprising, and possibly unsettling. Personally I'm not terribly bothered by the targeted ads themselves, but I see them as one symptom of a deeper problem. The data being used and sold is not data that I volunteered; much of it is data that is leaked unintentionally as a side effect of technical design of the web and other information systems. (This includes data like "the person who is visiting site A today also visited site B several times last week.") These leaks make it hard to know or control how much we reveal about ourselves (and to whom) when we use these systems. Even if you aren't concerned with any specific information you may accidentally disclose today, you should still be interested in ways that our software and networks could be designed to give users better knowledge and control over these disclosures, because (a) other people are legitimately concerned about this, and (b) you may have reason to be concerned in the future.

saraid216 13y ago

> There are plenty of smart people who feel that it's bad Please do not forget that intelligence isn't all-pervasive in a person. Privacy tends to be a trigger issue for many intelligent people on a forum like Hacker News.

hannibal5 13y ago

Because it it gives companies advantage over you. For example banks and insurance companies want to know everything possible about you. So do potential employers. Profiling people and putting them into categories and calculating their risk profiles makes their position weaker. For example: Google "lump in the testicles" and browse medical sites. Then wait one week and try to get mortgage or insurance.

3JPLW 13y ago
Is there any evidence that your example could impact somebody today? Sure, it's just a matter of the right (wrong) people connecting the dots... but is anyone currently doing that?
- Karunamon 13y ago
  Isn't the fact that such a vulnerability exists reason enough to not allow it to happen? I mean, at that point, you're basically trusting the Bad Guys to not do bad things. Look at internet security circa late 1990's to get an idea of how that works.
  - aiiane 13y ago
    Nitroglycerin can be used to make things blow up. It can also be used to help prevent heart attacks. Should we completely ban nitroglycerin simply because it can be used to blow things up? I mean, we're basically trusting people to not use it to blow things up.
    - Karunamon 13y ago
      False equivalence. Explosive quantities of nitroglycerin are regulated. Actually, wait a sec. So is government snooping of communications, the problem is they're not following the existing regulations.
kllrnohj 13y ago
Except companies like Mozilla and Google (even Microsoft) don't give that data to those companies, and have no incentive to do so. Indeed, to a company like Google that would be corporate suicide as it would undermine their main source of revenue. Google's money comes from being a middle man, they want to keep their competitive advantage (your data to target ads) secret more than you do. So your scenario doesn't exist.

ihsw 13y ago

It's about control and regaining control of your browsing habits, namely giving users the capability of opting out of global surveillance networks. Many advertisers screamed (and are still screaming) bloody murder over Do Not Track settings being on by default, and this is a message to send to them: your screams are irrelevant and you have no right to track me.

nrivadeneira 13y ago
I have control of my browsing habits. That's my point - I'm not terribly worried about if companies see what I do, so it doesn't change my behavior. Thus, I don't see how this point shows that tracking makes my life worse.
- Zuider 13y ago
  >I'm not terribly worried about if companies see what I do, so it doesn't change my behavior. It sounds like you are saying: "I'm not doing anything wrong, so why do I need any privacy".
  - nrivadeneira 13y ago
    And if I am? Everyone has varying degrees of privacy preference. Who's to say that any end of the spectrum is wrong or right? Mine just happens to fall on the more liberal end.
    - InXorWeTrust 13y ago
      You're right, there is a spectrum of preference. But just because some are ok with it, doesn't mean all of us. Why encapsulate everyone under the same policy of track everything? On the Do Not Track, I think turning it on by default is a bad idea. It gives companies no incentive to follow it and abide by it. (Yes, they have no reason to abide by it right now either). There is no law that says they have to abide by it, but it seems to me they might be more willing to abide by DNT if those that are tracking conscious were to turn it on, rather than it to be turned on by itself. They wouldn't lose as many people to track if it was opt in instead of opt out.

alan_cx 13y ago

1) You data has value and it belongs to you. If it is taken with out permission, that is stealing. Bad thing. 2) Taking one cent from your back account every day wont make your day to day life worse. Day to day being worse is not a standard that is useful.

nrivadeneira 13y ago
1) I don't agree with this. If I walk into (or around) a Best Buy and they capture my movement on a security camera, are they stealing from me? Technically, they are recording data of my movement. Also, stealing generally infers that the victim is left without the stolen item. That's why we don't call piracy stealing. So, if anything, trackers are 'pirating' my browsing information and possibly reselling it. Truthfully, I wasn't doing anything with that information before, so my life hasn't changed for better or worse because of this. No proof of bad thing here. 2) It is a useful standard. I avoid being nit-picky about the little things, and so I like to make a distinction between things that are worth worrying about. If ~$273 is taken from my bank account over my entire lifetime (based on average lifetime), I'm really not going to worry about it. If data tracking is on the same side of the distinction as taking 1 cent from my bank account, I'm fine with that.
- megantic 13y ago
  1) we'll take another example, let's say you have your own religious views and those get collected in a database, seemingly no harm done here. Then comes a newly elected government with different religious views who decides people holding the same religious views as yours should wear a distinctive sign to warn the public, then to gather those people in camps, then starts mass killing those people on an industrial scale. This happened before, if it were to happen again in the future you would have no way of hiding facts about you as everything has been collected about you for years.
  - nrivadeneira 13y ago
    Wow....you just took web analytics and tracking and somehow morphed it into the holocaust. That's probably the biggest slippery slope argument I've ever seen in my life.

plg 13y ago

Because I didn't consent to it.

megantic 13y ago

That's probably because you don't grasp what can be done with this data, and for how long this data will be around. The bottom line is in the relation between privacy and freedom. There's a few point to raise here: how do you object or prevent the sale of your data ? how much of the money from the sale of your data went to your pockets ? what control do you have on your sold data over time ? Then it's not only about you and your life, ever heard of first they came [1]? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came

nrivadeneira 13y ago
I'll ignore your belittling comment and ask you to clarify what exactly you suppose will be done with the data about my browsing habits. I'll return the sentiment, however, and suggest that maybe you don't grasp that there are people who do understand and are not quite as scared as you. I generally don't live my life in fear, regardless of what dangers loom around the corner, known or unknown. This is the second time you've correlated internet browsing tracking to Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. It amazes me that you even use the internet with such enormously exaggerated fears. I'll go further to suggest that you are unaware that knowledge, intellect, understanding, and the capability to grasp these concepts is in no way correlated with susceptibility to fear and worry.

daemonk 13y ago

Because it potentially encourages using the data in a technically wrong way. What I mean by "wrong" has nothing to do with morality. I mean "wrong" as in people who think they can predict behavior will over-interpret the data in a technically incorrect way and try to apply that model causing real harm. That might mean giving insurance companies an excuse to over-interpret health data to increase rates or law makers legislating discriminatory laws based on bad data analysis. It gives scam artists extra ammunition to peddle their crap.

roflcopterlawl 13y ago

yeah because when i search for ingrown hairs on google, amazon emails me about products that remove ingrown hairs.