> You track me to sell my data and to profit from the ads. I gain nothing
Sure you do; you get to use Gmail and Facebook for free because they generate enough money from ads not to have to charge.
I can understand that there people like yourself that don't want to be tracked, that's cool, but if the majority of people don't care, should the system at least be opt-out? Or left up to the user to use the do-not-track features of browsers?
I'm not saying tracking must be forced on everyone, but this piece of legislation seems like a massive hammer to hit a very tiny nail.
On what grounds do you make this sweeping absolute statement? I'm personally willing to accept lots of tracking by Google, Facebook, etc. in exchange for free or cheaper services.
> Some people in the privacy community seem to think advertising and tracking in any form should not exist and will always make a stink about whatever incarnation they take.
I don't think I'm in the "privacy community". It's my opinion that advertising will always exist, but tracking is complete horseshit and should be abolished ASAP. I don't think this is a very unpopular opinion either. There seems to be an attempt to Stockholm us all into thinking tracking is a necessary evil we must accept.
it seems like your issue is more with the inefficiency of the various algorithms rather than the use of data per se. And you re right, e.g. right now my supposedly AI youtube is full of the same type of videos.
> seems unfair they don't get a cut
This may ring true on the surface, but people always make money out of other people, by definition. Compensation would not work, it would be like buying a pair of shoes and then expecting to get a partial refund. One issue however is that users in this case do not have a mechanism to affect the price personalized ads so in total it seems unfair.
> and Nazi Germany,
I think you mean cold war germany. in any case it is interesting how the latest EU law completely ignores that aspect of privacy.
> a federal agent followed you a
Good point, being tracked does feel like you re being followed by an annoying salesperson. This IMHO is more annoying than the gathering of private data takes place on the internet. Privacy is not the default mode of life, in fact there are few places where one goes to when he wants to be private. Most of life involves interaction with other people and nonprivacy. One could even claim that this kind of privacy is not violated with things like ad tracking, as it happens behind screens, in safety and with relative control from the user. Of course there need to be limits to when and where this information can be gathered.
>That’s not what I am saying, actually. I think tracking should be illegal. But I don’t live in a fantasy world. My point was that in our real world, where everything already tracks me, who cares?
I do. I'm not a secretive person (in fact, should we meet down the pub, I'll probably tell you way more about me than you want to know), but I am a private person. That is to say that I don't hide who I am or what I do/say/think, but I want it to be my choice as to whom I share such information.
Or, to be more concise: My business is my business, not anyone else's.
Pervasive tracking is incredibly annoying. And while I do some things to protect my privacy (custom android roms, ad/tracker blockers, both local and network-based, disable GPS/location services on my phone, aggressively manage cookies and a raft of other things I either do or don't do to minimize leakage of my life), I have to put up with some tracking (my cellular provider needs to track my phone or they can't connect calls, deliver data, etc.) because I'm not interested in squatting in a lean-to out in the woods somewhere.
But that doesn't mean I have to like it or, more to your point, not care about it.
> Is there some other solution to this tracking proliferation?
Not in capitalist countries. Serving someone an ad that is actually relevant to them is good business.
The government doesn't need web cookies to find you, they can just call your ISP or your phone carrier, or check surveillance cameras, ask your bank, so-on. No one from these private companies has the time to look at the data, you are just a number to them.
Though it might feel like it, you aren't being spied on in any meaningful sense. You are just being profiled, as a tax to use all of the free services you have access to.
Paid services that don't sell your data are the way to go, if that kind of thing scares you. But the ads you see online are going to suck.
>The general public hates being tracked and having their privacy invaded. Just look at the political mess created when congress gave ISP's the right to sell user browsing data at the end of last month.
You gotta be kidding me. If that were the case nobody would ever use Facebook, or browse the web without an ad blocker and blocking 3rd party cookies. I also like privacy but we have to understand that nobody really cares about that. Maybe it's because they are not educated and don't know what the risks are, but whatever the reason, privacy is ignored by most people.
> How do you know those sites have those trackers before visiting them? The only way to "opt-out" of the sites with such trackers is to stop using the web entirely.
iframes going to facebook, scripts going to google-analytics.com/ga.js, etc mixed with knowledge about what these elements do (facebook iframe article, obvious in regards to analytics, etc).
> In the (European) country I live in, public organizations have been prevented from invading privacy (e.g. setting CCTV cameras) by our national data protection commission.
So public organizations are prevented from data gathering from themselves? Well that solves that problem. I'm sure if the NSA comes out and says they'll start enforcing protection against spying that some would even believe them!
> How is web analytics and personal data mining a product of State spying?
I'm not saying it is! I have no problem with facebook or google. I don't use facebook, and use google only to the extent I am comfortable with. Never have these companies used this information, some exploitable, to exploit me. They want me to use their services.
On the inverse, could you explain to me in your own words why this legislation is necessary?
> You should have a right to know if a given company wants to track you, and to decide if you want to still do business with them as a result.
Theoretically true, but what happens when all sites engage in spying? We're nearly there right now.
You could argue that I still have the choice to avoid using online services entirely. Which is what I do (outside of a small handful of exceptions, such as HN -- and even then, I have to actively put a lot of effort into defending myself).
But, this strikes me as being wrong on so many levels, starting with the fact that it seriously reduces the utility of the web and certain swaths of the internet.
> I am curious what widespread legislation on this front is going to cause
Nothing. More dark patterns to trick people into accepting tracking. Look to how the industry reacted yo GDPR.
> personalized ads that creep on you were essentially made a load-bearing column of the Internet before anyone knew how creepy they were going to get with it
You can have personalized ads without invasive and pervasive tracking
>> we need a new law barring all 3rd party tracking, data brokering, and all individually tailored advertising
> Why do we need to ban it? I care about my privacy. I would like clear disclosures and easy opt outs. But I don't need it banned for everyone else.
Opt-outs aren't practical for the consumer and therefore don't work [1]. All that tracking/data brokering needs to be banned unless clear disclosures have been made and the consumer explicitly opts-in.
[1] I know: years ago I literally spent several 8-hour days opting myself out of just one kind of data broker (scammy online people search websites). I still haven't gotten around to doing that for my wife, who is less likely to engage in quixotic quests, and sees opting out as a pointless waste of time.
> Yep... I understand that they aren't doing it for the primary purpose of "surveillance" or "tracking" -- the primary intention is advertising and analytics, of course -- but I do feel this sort of thing is hypocritical.
They might not be doing it for that purpose. They only help collect data in exchange for better ad service. The data lives on, however, and someone else uses it for surveillance and tracking.
>They don’t care if Amazon, Facebook, and Google know what they are doing online. They opt in to tracking by joining loyalty programs to save a few bucks. Privacy is just not a concern most people have.
I disagree. Most people have no idea what's going on behind the curtain.
> Our goal is to protect privacy and to find out how many people are opposed to tracking.
Asking how many ppl are opposed to tracking is a silly question that won’t get you anywhere — it’s answer in a vacuum doesn’t make sense as it needs to be contextualized. “Are you ok with google seeing your IP so they can sell you ads to give you free YouTube” is an example of context where people see trade offs. Most people won’t understand the full spectrum of what’s going on, and if it all in the end results in just ads, many are fine with that as long as they’re getting free stuff with it.
The bigger questions on societal level trade offs shouldn’t be answered by lay people but rather regulation in the name of public interest.
Sure you do; you get to use Gmail and Facebook for free because they generate enough money from ads not to have to charge.
I can understand that there people like yourself that don't want to be tracked, that's cool, but if the majority of people don't care, should the system at least be opt-out? Or left up to the user to use the do-not-track features of browsers?
I'm not saying tracking must be forced on everyone, but this piece of legislation seems like a massive hammer to hit a very tiny nail.
reply