Everybody has stories like this: Today I was doing some bottom-feeding and saw a mention of a Gilbert Gottfried video in which he reads the dirty lyrics to the song "WAP." Once you start bottom-feeding, you might as well go all the way ... but my kid uses devices that are logged in to my Google account, and I didn't want to have the view associated with my YouTube account. So I switched to the Brave browser where I am not logged in to Google, watched the disappointing video, and then the original version to compare, for science. About an hour later I turned on Amazon Music on the television* for some atmosphere, absently selecting Massive Attack "Mezzanine" as a starting point. Nineteen predictable genre songs followed, then "JU$T" by Run The Jewels came on, but I had added a Killer Mike playlist recently so this was excusable. Then, four songs later, it was Cardi B and her WAP again. I think Mr. Gruber makes a number of unwarranted assumptions, starting with "We wouldn’t tolerate it." Two percent of air travelers opt out of facial recognition checkin. Not that it matters; your face is already in the system whether you opt in or not. Where did the airlines get all those face photos? Hubski hated this article so much it eviscerated a bunch of arguments the author didn't make: Most people by now must realize that web sites track users and sell targeted ads. I think they reasonably consider that an acceptable cost of getting access to a huge variety of amazing tools and information for free. You can request a copy of your Amazon data. I got the whole load and was unable to find anything more interesting than Kindle page turn events. Of course my entire order history was in there. I would prefer to think that Amazon does not provide my name and order history to anyone willing to pay (not sure if they do), but it sure was helpful to be able to immediately re-order the exact same car headlight bulb or obscure battery without doing a new search. * Smart TVs Are Cheaper Than Ever, and It's Because They're Selling Your Data I saw Cardi B on a 43" 4K Samsung I had delivered for $250 plus tax. Somebody has to know what I'm watching, but it doesn't have to be Samsung. I use a Chromecast or Fire dongle and never enter a wifi password into a television. If you care about privacy, you can take steps that mitigate a lot of the harm, and you can always choose not to use services that collect data.
Consent to what exactly? Businesses have to collect some data to provide individualized service. Is it reselling the data? Then there’s a question of who owns the data. I think there’s a fair presumption that when you go to a web server and type data in and submit it, you are literally giving your data.
Well for instance, when I navigate to CNN to read national headlines let’s say, I know they do not need to insert advertising trackers on my computer without my knowledge or consent in order to provide the service I through I was seeking when I went to the site. As far as who “owns” my data, is say that placing anything persistent on my computer without my knowledge or consent is a pretty clear and fair dividing line that one could argue shouldn’t be crossed. It will be interesting when Apple surfaces this choice for consumers to make. I have a feeling that both advertisers, myself, and you know how it will turn out :)
But that’s how HTTP works. You click a link, and a server that receives your request sends HTML and JavaScript and CSS and images and who knows what else right on your hard drive. It is persistent until you clear the cache.placing anything persistent on my computer without my knowledge or consent is a pretty clear and fair dividing line that one could argue shouldn’t be crossed
CNN is not a charity, to provide the service you demand they incur costs. Of course there are a variety of models but by far the most popular by Internet consensus is “free content” whatever the consequences. It’s been interesting since I set up Pi-Hole. I used to think of ads as a kind of tax on browsing. Annoying and inevitable like junk mail, and at worst something that would make me spend less time online. But blocking ads made browsing much pleasanter. Everyone should do this ... but I hope they don’t so I can continue to be a free rider. Some sites broke. I learned that family members actually click on the sponsored links in search results, even when the desired link appears just below. Some sites detect the ad blocker and refuse to serve the content, with a polite explanation. Others request that I enable ads, but allow me to dismiss the request without complying. I usually decline any kind of tracking, and would probably use the Apple feature, but I don’t assume I will have a better experience. I’ll just see more random ads and fewer targeted ads.
Oh I totally agree that CNN is not a charity! But what is interesting is that I have ad blockers installed on my browser, and there a number of sites that recognize that, and refuse to load when it detects them unless I turn them off. Which is great, as it means the software I’ve installed to block the non-consensual Software from being loaded onto my hardware is working. And you know what? I’ve never granted permission and loaded an article I was trying to read when the price of admission was allowing it to load software onto my machine. When consent exists and the choices are surfaced for the participants, different permissions manifest I think.
It sounds like you have found a good balance. You learned about the tech, you made an effort to install ad blocking, and now things are better. That time and effort is a cost not everyone wants to make when they could be looking at more cat photos. I asked around the house a week after Pi-Hole and nobody had noticed the change. I live with people who will watch a video with a banner covering the bottom quarter of the picture. Pity them if you will, but the bottom line is people who are tolerant of ads make CNN free for all of us. It’s cool that Apple is experimenting with this feature, though they are also in the game. Usually the solution is to demand legislation to fix the problem, and we end up with the same internet but we have to accept cookies fifty times a day.
I'd argue that the ability to request a copy of your Amazon data amounts to not much, because nobody knows that you can, by design, and doing so doesn't do anything to prevent it from being collected, stored, and possibly sold in the first place. But at the end of the day, I do like that Apple is taking stand and differentiating in a way that lets consumers decide on if they want to buy their products for these reasons or go with an alternative. I just find it hilarious that tracking companies are crying foul. Even if you don't buy Gruber's other framing, you have to admit that they have zero right to complain here. Side note: I do think that if people were better informed they would take more issue with these types of intrusions. It's the entire reason that the Apple ad resonates and can be effective at all.
I agree, the Amazon data dump was just a curiosity. I was surprised at how little personal information it contained. The tracking companies are free to complain, and Apple should do what is best for Apple. What the ad doesn’t show is how when your personal info is broadcast someone seizes the moment to shill some product and the presumed victim is instead delighted to buy the gizmo relevant to their personal situation.
Speaking as someone who used to spec Vizio TVs a thousand at a time, they were going for quantity before they were smart. The profit margin on a Vizio TV was around 4% in 2005 and at quantities of a thousand, wholesaler discounts were 1.5%. Compare and contrast with Philips, who would offer you a whopping 15% discount in an environment where the traditional reseller discount was 40%. This is the principal reason my entire industry died while I was away. Of the 20-odd installers, distributors and consultants that were the ecosystem when I left it in 2007, three are still standing. Vizio was the American face of LeEco, a Chinese National Champion, until even support by Chinese state funds wasn't enough to prop up LeEco's business model at which point they were absorbed by Sunac, another Champion firm. Vizio sued. Vizio's TVs, as with so many Chinese TVs, are cheap for the same reason Solyndra couldn't make any money: the Chinese are subsidizing their production at a loss in order to take market share from Korea and Japan. From 2001 to 2004, 80% of the large-scale LCDs in the world were made at one Chinese factory and different brands just bought their panels off different places on the yield curve. By 2010 95% of the large scale LCDs in the world were made at about four Chinese factories and foreign firms only had access to two, as I recall. Your Samsung TV is so cheap because the Chinese are forcing the world to compete on Chinese terms. Samsung is a Chaebol, and has never not been subsidized. The data Vizio is selling isn't worth much. Every little bit helps, sure but it's like Amazon Kindles: would you pay an extra $20 to have the thing not show you ads? Your arguments fundamentally presume that there are no externalities and that both parties are operating with perfect information. Take your 2% facial recognition opt-outs. The question is not "am I willing to forego the convenience of facial recognition for my privacy" the question is "am I willing to antagonize every gate agent and security official for my privacy." It's much like the TSA's porno scanners: when traveling alone, I would absolutely refuse to use them, require the TSA to pull me aside, stand there with my arms crossed while they ignored me for fifteen minutes, glower at them while they picked apart my luggage and call their supervisors over when they decided that I couldn't fly with cheese. "I don't want to use your porno scanner" is shorthand for "I want to fight the TSA" and both parties know it. Opting out of an airline's system means antagonizing the humans you do have to interact with. Those humans control things like first class upgrades and, if you fly American, who gets bumped. Opting out of any system any airline comes up with gives the airline employees carte blanche to antagonize you at every point of interaction. Privacy advocates see these systems as antagonism and bullying in no small part because the employees who enforce them use them for antagonism and bullying. To view it as a purely economic transaction is myopic.