4 ms·

> Google should be ashamed for trying to pay for their millions of dollars of infrastructure? "Google's 2013 third quarter profits were nearly $15 billion; tha

> Google should be ashamed for trying to pay for their millions of dollars of infrastructure? "Google's 2013 third quarter profits were nearly $15 billion; that profit is the difference between how much our privacy is worth and the cost of the services we receive in exchange for it. " (Bruce Schneier => https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/11/surveillance_as_1.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/11/surveillance_...)

GeorgeOrr 13y ago
Did you find that by googling it? Just wondering.
- lazyjones 13y ago
  No, I read Bruce Schneier's blog post only minutes before the above comment.
twoodfin 13y ago
That's a little much. Google could still make a hell of a lot of money with completely untargeted contextual ads, which don't require me to trade any "privacy" at all.
- jerf 13y ago
  I would be intrigued to know the delta between person-targeted advertising and mere search-term targeted advertising.
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    Just a wild-ass-guess, but I bet the order of importance for factors driving Google's search ad revenue goes something like: - Search terms (AdWords) - IP geolocation - Demographics (age, gender, income: derived or otherwise acquired) - Search/browsing history The line between the last two blurs a bit, since surely Google will try to fill in your demographic blanks based on your search and browsing patterns. But regardless, the first two they can do completely anonymously, and anyone who wants can likely escape the last two with the right browser settings or privacy extensions. Personally it doesn't bother me that much, since the results relevance I "trade" my privacy for has value for me as well as advertisers.
- kylnew 13y ago
  I actually don't get this mentality. You are saying you would prefer to receive irrelevant ads? To me the worst thing about advertising is its lack of relevance most of the time. When ads are targeted I at least feel like I'm getting offered things that appeal to my tastes. I find that much less bothersome.
  - WalterBright 13y ago
    I recently bought a faucet from an online plumbing company. I now find my browsing bombarded with ads for the same kitchen faucet, from that same company. How many kitchens do they think I have?
    - eitland 13y ago
      Here some recommended reading from someone even more frustrated :) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5553285 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5553285
    - dudus 13y ago
      Of course this is a technology shortcoming. It doesn't mean that targeted ads are inferior, they are just not perfect. The idea is that you get targeted ads for things you are looking for. Not always the recommendation is perfect, that is bad for you, Google, Publishers and Advertisers. If you can fix that you might be into something big.
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    I agree completely. The underlying assumption of Schneier's comment is that advertising provides no value to the consumer, which is untrue. Google has made advertising incredibly valuable to the consumer (they're clicking the links, after all!) which is the chief reason they're so profitable.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    twoodfin said contextual, not irrelevant. Instead of adapting the ads to the user, you can adapt the ads to the content of the page they're being inserted on. The ads remain relevant (often more relevant, since targeted ads have a tendency to show you what you already know) without having to mine your personal data. For example, if you go to Hack-a-day, all the ads are relevant for their user base, even though they're fixed and not automatically assigned by Google's All-Seeing-Eye.
- grecy 13y ago
  >That's a little much. This is a great question raised by Capitalism, and the extreme lengths the United States has taken it to. How do you define how much profit is enough? If you're suggesting Google can still make "enough", shouldn't McDonald's pay their workers a few bucks more and still make billions? Shouldn't banks lower fees and still make trillions? In our current world, the only amount of profit that is enough is "more", and that will be attained at all costs (i.e. employees living below the poverty line, banks destroying the global economy and in Google's case, we lose our privacy)
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    That's not what I meant. I was using the colloquial "little much" to suggest that Schneier's statement was too sweeping to be accurate. If the U.S. passed a law tomorrow that made user tracking and profiling on the web illegal, Google would still make plenty of money from AdWords.
    - grecy 13y ago
      >Google would still make plenty of money from AdWords. Of course they would. And McDonald's would still make plenty of money if they were forced to pay a decent wage, and banks would still make plenty of money if they were forced to be more responsible and lower fees. But you don't see that happening, because the drive for more profit is all consuming, and it's the corporations that have the most influence in these laws.

GeorgeOrr 13y ago

Did you find that by googling it? Just wondering.

lazyjones 13y ago
No, I read Bruce Schneier's blog post only minutes before the above comment.

twoodfin 13y ago

That's a little much. Google could still make a hell of a lot of money with completely untargeted contextual ads, which don't require me to trade any "privacy" at all.

jerf 13y ago
I would be intrigued to know the delta between person-targeted advertising and mere search-term targeted advertising.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  Just a wild-ass-guess, but I bet the order of importance for factors driving Google's search ad revenue goes something like: - Search terms (AdWords) - IP geolocation - Demographics (age, gender, income: derived or otherwise acquired) - Search/browsing history The line between the last two blurs a bit, since surely Google will try to fill in your demographic blanks based on your search and browsing patterns. But regardless, the first two they can do completely anonymously, and anyone who wants can likely escape the last two with the right browser settings or privacy extensions. Personally it doesn't bother me that much, since the results relevance I "trade" my privacy for has value for me as well as advertisers.
kylnew 13y ago
I actually don't get this mentality. You are saying you would prefer to receive irrelevant ads? To me the worst thing about advertising is its lack of relevance most of the time. When ads are targeted I at least feel like I'm getting offered things that appeal to my tastes. I find that much less bothersome.
- WalterBright 13y ago
  I recently bought a faucet from an online plumbing company. I now find my browsing bombarded with ads for the same kitchen faucet, from that same company. How many kitchens do they think I have?
  - eitland 13y ago
    Here some recommended reading from someone even more frustrated :) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5553285 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5553285
  - dudus 13y ago
    Of course this is a technology shortcoming. It doesn't mean that targeted ads are inferior, they are just not perfect. The idea is that you get targeted ads for things you are looking for. Not always the recommendation is perfect, that is bad for you, Google, Publishers and Advertisers. If you can fix that you might be into something big.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  I agree completely. The underlying assumption of Schneier's comment is that advertising provides no value to the consumer, which is untrue. Google has made advertising incredibly valuable to the consumer (they're clicking the links, after all!) which is the chief reason they're so profitable.
- icebraining 13y ago
  twoodfin said contextual, not irrelevant. Instead of adapting the ads to the user, you can adapt the ads to the content of the page they're being inserted on. The ads remain relevant (often more relevant, since targeted ads have a tendency to show you what you already know) without having to mine your personal data. For example, if you go to Hack-a-day, all the ads are relevant for their user base, even though they're fixed and not automatically assigned by Google's All-Seeing-Eye.
grecy 13y ago
>That's a little much. This is a great question raised by Capitalism, and the extreme lengths the United States has taken it to. How do you define how much profit is enough? If you're suggesting Google can still make "enough", shouldn't McDonald's pay their workers a few bucks more and still make billions? Shouldn't banks lower fees and still make trillions? In our current world, the only amount of profit that is enough is "more", and that will be attained at all costs (i.e. employees living below the poverty line, banks destroying the global economy and in Google's case, we lose our privacy)
- twoodfin 13y ago
  That's not what I meant. I was using the colloquial "little much" to suggest that Schneier's statement was too sweeping to be accurate. If the U.S. passed a law tomorrow that made user tracking and profiling on the web illegal, Google would still make plenty of money from AdWords.
  - grecy 13y ago
    >Google would still make plenty of money from AdWords. Of course they would. And McDonald's would still make plenty of money if they were forced to pay a decent wage, and banks would still make plenty of money if they were forced to be more responsible and lower fees. But you don't see that happening, because the drive for more profit is all consuming, and it's the corporations that have the most influence in these laws.