5 ms·

Thank you for responding in a meaningful way. I appreciate it. > There are ways to make anonymous payments on the net, I can use cash to buy cash-cards in deno

by enneff 13y ago

Thank you for responding in a meaningful way. I appreciate it. > There are ways to make anonymous payments on the net, I can use cash to buy cash-cards in denominations up to $500 that work just like debit cards online, they are even branded with Visa and/or MasterCard. This still puts you at greater risk of exposure than creating a Gmail account through an anonymizing proxy. Prepaid cards can be traced to where they are purchased, which at least narrows your location geographically, if not the exact location. From there the NSA could probably catch you buying it in person by reviewing CCTV footage. > The rise of advertising as the primary source of online funding has choked out development of alternative online payment systems in the same way that an invasive species chokes out native species that occupy the same ecological niche. If it weren't for companies like google we wouldn't be in the situation we are now because a lot more work would have gone into the development of alternative payment systems. I don't really understand this point. You seem to be positing a world where online advertising didn't become the dominant mechanism for making money on the web, but you don't explain how this could come about. Perhaps if "companies like Google" did not exist? But there were advertising companies before Google and there will be long after Google is gone. Advertising is an inextricable part of the global economy. It would take a revolution to change that. > So instead of each vendor only knowing about the specific transactions they have with you, there exist multiple databases that amalgamate all of your transactions (online and offline) across multiple vendors into one central record that is for sale. I think this is deeply wrong and I wouldn't be working for Google if I thought we were heading in this direction. It's not my place to comment further on your other assertions about Google. > So, in short, his claim was so blindered that it really was quite ridiculously naive/ignorant. I don't see how your argument supports this claim. Nothing you have said would be news to Mike, who has been thinking about all this stuff longer and more deeply than most people. He just has a different perspective to you, that's all.

Amadou 13y ago
This still puts you at greater risk of exposure than creating a Gmail account through an anonymizing proxy. I note that you've specifically gone to the most extreme case of the state looking to track you rather than some other private entity. The NSA/FBI looking at camera footage at the point of purchase for a cash card is just as likely as the NSA de-anonymizing your proxy (well probably less likely given what the NSA has been up to). However, for private databases nobody is going to make those efforts. But what they will do (and do all the time) is cross-reference web activity to minimize anonymity and increasing "targeting." Advertising is an inextricable part of the global economy. It would take a revolution to change that. That's circular. My point is that the industry's overwhelming movement toward advertising as a payment system starved out the development of alternative payment systems, micropayments, e-cash, etc. Hell, paypal could be so much more privacy preserving simply by not disclosing your email to the seller but they don't make that trivial effort because they have no competition. I think this is deeply wrong and I wouldn't be working for Google if I thought we were heading in this direction. If you think I am specifically talking about Google, you are mistaken. Go install Ghostery and watch how simply visiting a web page like The Verge gets you into the databases of at least 7 different trackers other than Google. If Mike Hearn was arguing that google should have a monopoly on advertising because google currently doesn't deliberately share its secret stash with anyone, then that opens up a whole different line of disagreement.
- enneff 13y ago
  The industry moved to advertising because it works. When something more compelling comes along, people will move to that. So far it doesn't exist, but many people are trying. PayPal are not a monopoly, by the way. I would not be surprised to see them unseated from their current position in the next few years. I do have Ghostery installed. I'm glad it exists, and wish more people would use it so that they could see the extent of the tracking that's going on. > If you think I am specifically talking about Google, you are mistaken. I was responding specifically to your paragraph about Google.
  - Amadou 13y ago
    The industry moved to advertising because it works. That's really overly simplistic. It's a complex system and to assume that its the best system (as Mike Hearn stated) is to ignore the fact that there are competing interests at work and the ones who value privacy have significantly less clout than the ones that don't. PayPal are not a monopoly, by the way. That's just wordplay. Paypal has not faced significant competitive pressure for over a decade, if ever.

by enneff 13y ago

Amadou 13y ago

This still puts you at greater risk of exposure than creating a Gmail account through an anonymizing proxy. I note that you've specifically gone to the most extreme case of the state looking to track you rather than some other private entity. The NSA/FBI looking at camera footage at the point of purchase for a cash card is just as likely as the NSA de-anonymizing your proxy (well probably less likely given what the NSA has been up to). However, for private databases nobody is going to make those efforts. But what they will do (and do all the time) is cross-reference web activity to minimize anonymity and increasing "targeting." Advertising is an inextricable part of the global economy. It would take a revolution to change that. That's circular. My point is that the industry's overwhelming movement toward advertising as a payment system starved out the development of alternative payment systems, micropayments, e-cash, etc. Hell, paypal could be so much more privacy preserving simply by not disclosing your email to the seller but they don't make that trivial effort because they have no competition. I think this is deeply wrong and I wouldn't be working for Google if I thought we were heading in this direction. If you think I am specifically talking about Google, you are mistaken. Go install Ghostery and watch how simply visiting a web page like The Verge gets you into the databases of at least 7 different trackers other than Google. If Mike Hearn was arguing that google should have a monopoly on advertising because google currently doesn't deliberately share its secret stash with anyone, then that opens up a whole different line of disagreement.

enneff 13y ago
The industry moved to advertising because it works. When something more compelling comes along, people will move to that. So far it doesn't exist, but many people are trying. PayPal are not a monopoly, by the way. I would not be surprised to see them unseated from their current position in the next few years. I do have Ghostery installed. I'm glad it exists, and wish more people would use it so that they could see the extent of the tracking that's going on. > If you think I am specifically talking about Google, you are mistaken. I was responding specifically to your paragraph about Google.
- Amadou 13y ago
  The industry moved to advertising because it works. That's really overly simplistic. It's a complex system and to assume that its the best system (as Mike Hearn stated) is to ignore the fact that there are competing interests at work and the ones who value privacy have significantly less clout than the ones that don't. PayPal are not a monopoly, by the way. That's just wordplay. Paypal has not faced significant competitive pressure for over a decade, if ever.