5 ms·

Because it it gives companies advantage over you. For example banks and insurance companies want to know everything possible about you. So do potential employe

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.
- abraxasz 13y ago
  1) "Google [...] doesn't give that data to those companies". What about selling that data? That's in line with what you call "being a middle man" I think. 2) "[they] have no incentive to do so". They have no incentive in trumpeting that they are doing it. But without having read their ToS, I'm sure they got that covered. Of course this is pure speculation and I have exactly zero proof that this is the case. I would actually never have believed those claims 6 months ago, but today, I wouldn't be surprised.
  - aiiane 13y ago
    So you admit not even having read the ToS, but now you're ready to believe that it happens, despite the fact that (for example) Google has a fairly straightforward privacy policy that enumerates what they use data for: http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/ http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/ As the person who originally replied to you mentioned: it'd be political suicide for Google to provide the information they use for their own ad targeting to others, even for a fee, beyond users' explicit consent. It'd also be business suicide, given that it would allow people to cut Google out of the loop, rather than using Google as the advertising platform.
  - kllrnohj 13y ago
    > 1) "Google [...] doesn't give that data to those companies". What about selling that data? That's in line with what you call "being a middle man" I think. 1) Nobody really actually wants to buy that data in the first place. Companies that buy ads just want to sell you shit, they really, really don't care about you in the slightest. Sorry, but your personal information by itself isn't actually worth a damn thing. Hell, if companies were willing to pay for my browsing history I'd sell it to them myself. 2) Why on earth would Google sell one of its advantages? If Google sold data Facebook or Microsoft would buy all of it in a snap and Google would be screwed.
nrivadeneira 13y ago
Does that really occur? If so, then I'd agree that would be a good reason to be against tracking, but I haven't seen hard evidence to show this happens.
jbigelow76 13y ago
>For example: Google "lump in the testicles" and browse medical sites. Then wait one week and try to get mortgage or insurance. I'm calling bullshit on this one unless you can provide a concrete example.
- millstone 13y ago
  Courtesy of http://donttrack.us http://donttrack.us: "Life insurers are testing an intensely personal new use for the vast dossiers of data being amassed about Americans: predicting people's longevity.” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704648604575620750998072986.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870464860457562... It was just a pilot test, but that was three years ago, so who knows where is now.
- hannibal5 13y ago
  http://verdict.justia.com/2012/01/03/will-insurers-begin-to-use-social-media-postings-to-calculate-premiums http://verdict.justia.com/2012/01/03/will-insurers-begin-to-...
  - jbigelow76 13y ago
    This link has nothing to do with your original scenario of googling for "testicular cancer" and subsequently getting denied for insurance or a mortgage. It's about social media. Social media != anonymized search data. There is a huge difference between publicly stating for the whole world to see that you have cancer by posting it to Facebook and searching google and browsing webmd and an insurer somehow surfacing that search and browsing intent and then acting on it. You backed up nothing.
    - hannibal5 13y ago
      It was meant to be taken as literal case. Just as example of how it will be used.
    - megantic 13y ago
      google tracking != anonymized search data

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.

abraxasz 13y ago
1) "Google [...] doesn't give that data to those companies". What about selling that data? That's in line with what you call "being a middle man" I think. 2) "[they] have no incentive to do so". They have no incentive in trumpeting that they are doing it. But without having read their ToS, I'm sure they got that covered. Of course this is pure speculation and I have exactly zero proof that this is the case. I would actually never have believed those claims 6 months ago, but today, I wouldn't be surprised.
- aiiane 13y ago
  So you admit not even having read the ToS, but now you're ready to believe that it happens, despite the fact that (for example) Google has a fairly straightforward privacy policy that enumerates what they use data for: http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/ http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/ As the person who originally replied to you mentioned: it'd be political suicide for Google to provide the information they use for their own ad targeting to others, even for a fee, beyond users' explicit consent. It'd also be business suicide, given that it would allow people to cut Google out of the loop, rather than using Google as the advertising platform.
- kllrnohj 13y ago
  > 1) "Google [...] doesn't give that data to those companies". What about selling that data? That's in line with what you call "being a middle man" I think. 1) Nobody really actually wants to buy that data in the first place. Companies that buy ads just want to sell you shit, they really, really don't care about you in the slightest. Sorry, but your personal information by itself isn't actually worth a damn thing. Hell, if companies were willing to pay for my browsing history I'd sell it to them myself. 2) Why on earth would Google sell one of its advantages? If Google sold data Facebook or Microsoft would buy all of it in a snap and Google would be screwed.

nrivadeneira 13y ago

Does that really occur? If so, then I'd agree that would be a good reason to be against tracking, but I haven't seen hard evidence to show this happens.

jbigelow76 13y ago

>For example: Google "lump in the testicles" and browse medical sites. Then wait one week and try to get mortgage or insurance. I'm calling bullshit on this one unless you can provide a concrete example.

millstone 13y ago
Courtesy of http://donttrack.us http://donttrack.us: "Life insurers are testing an intensely personal new use for the vast dossiers of data being amassed about Americans: predicting people's longevity.” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704648604575620750998072986.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870464860457562... It was just a pilot test, but that was three years ago, so who knows where is now.
hannibal5 13y ago
http://verdict.justia.com/2012/01/03/will-insurers-begin-to-use-social-media-postings-to-calculate-premiums http://verdict.justia.com/2012/01/03/will-insurers-begin-to-...
- jbigelow76 13y ago
  This link has nothing to do with your original scenario of googling for "testicular cancer" and subsequently getting denied for insurance or a mortgage. It's about social media. Social media != anonymized search data. There is a huge difference between publicly stating for the whole world to see that you have cancer by posting it to Facebook and searching google and browsing webmd and an insurer somehow surfacing that search and browsing intent and then acting on it. You backed up nothing.
  - hannibal5 13y ago
    It was meant to be taken as literal case. Just as example of how it will be used.
  - megantic 13y ago
    google tracking != anonymized search data