How to prevent data-mining

[Cryssie]

Honestly, I can't follow you. But I can't follow many women.

I'm not concerned w/Google having my information. Your ISP knows way, way, way more about you than Google does. Your cell provider knows more about you than Google does. It knows who you call, when you call them and where you are when you call them as well as how long you talk to them. On a privacy scale there are many places that have more information on you than Google does. Heck, the grocery store I go to offers a discount card. You scan it, you get discounts on certain grocery items. I guarantee you they're tracking what groceries I buy. They know what I eat. So on a privacy scale, Google doesn't have nearly the information that other places do.

Crazy woman at your service! Don't worry, I drive my boyfriend banana's too.

I beg to differ!
Rainbow: Google is tracking your personal info - Omaha.com

I will see if I can dig up more details and better sources, but he has a a very legit point imo.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Your ISP has far more data on you than that though. Facebook has just as much info on you as Google does and probably more. Your ISP knows every single website you visit and exactly how long you are spending there, what files you are downloading, what you are uploading, what programs on your computer are accessing data in the background and what they're connecting to, etc..... I already mentioned that my grocery store knows everything I eat. My phone company knows every phone call I make. All of this data can be subpoenaed by law enforcement. The idea that we have privacy is an illusion.

 

[argedion]

The only way to be truly private is to not have a phone, computer, or a shopping card. Buy only with cash. Oh yeah and have employer only pay you in cash. Be mute. Oh yea and never post on a forum.

 

[Cryssie]

Oh well, I am a hopeless optimist.

I fished up my ISP's Privacy statement, just for kicks.
They only collect logfiles they need to conduct their business: Aggregated data on how much national and international traffic their customers generate, data nessecary to provide customers with a catching webproxy if the customers want it and datatraffic per page.
It also clearly states that they do not look at, analyze, or save what a customer does on the internet.
We also have laws on netneutrality and as a rule an ISP does not surrender information or block a page without being ordered to do so by a judge. (We have an ongoing Pirate Bay debacle atm and a long row of ISP's refusing to block it.)
You have a point about Facebook and that is why I have not given them more information than necessary to run my personal and business facebookpage. I do not let Facebook know my location, do not like webpages, use no apps etc.
I intend to treat Google the same: need to know.
My Supermarket has no idea what I buy. Unless you use a customer discount card (which not every supermarket provides) and if you do, it is a breeze to get an anonymous one.

Difference in local laws nonwithstanding, you have a point about losing our privacy. Everyone leaves a paper/digital trail of different density, depending on what they do... or something.
However: the difference between you and me is: I am not going to roll over and say "oh well, you have that information anyway. You might as well take the rest." I will not accept that. I have the right to a certain amount of control over my own information and decide who gets to see what part of my private life. I do not want to be in a public phone and address directory, so I am not. I do not want my supermarket to know where I live so I shop anonymously. I do not want Google to have control over my contacts so I will not provide it to them.
And of course "if somebody really wants it, they will get it anyway", but that is no reason to make it easier.

 

[A.Nonymous]

There was a story recently where Target (a local retail chain) was tracking customer's buying habits so they knew which one's were pregnant. Then they targetted offers at those customers. It happens in the brick and mortar world too, not just in the digital world.

As a side note, there was another story where Google wanted to install software on people's browser's that would track every thing they did whether they went in incognito mode or not. It was completely opt-in and Google would pay people the grand sum of $25 for this. You'd think that in a worse case there'd be a huge outrage that Google would find people's data was so cheaply valued and that best case people would shake their heads and just go on with their lives. Instead, so many people flocked to the sign up page that it crashed and burned. That's how much privacy is valued here in the US. People will sell it for a $25 Amazon gift card.

 

[Cryssie]

The target story does not really surprise me. Because a dutch Supermarket is moving towards that as well. The Albert Heijn has a system where you can only get the weekly offers with a discount if you have a Bonuscard. They want to track purchases and offer personalized discount products.
I think it is a dubious practice.... Fortunally it is just one of the many stores.
Looking for pregnant women is just.... weird....

Your second story just makes me very sad. I don't know if they do it because they don't care or because they are that hard-pressed for some money.
But, wow. That is very sad.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I can't imagine being so hard pressed for cash that a one time $25 gift card makes a difference. I certainly can't imagine so many people so desperate that they'd crash a web site.

 

[zuben el genub]

Data mining for advertising purposes is nothing but a pain. Ads got a lot more pushy, disregarding the fact that a lot of people couldn't afford the products, decided that they didn't really need it, or the article was just plain trashy.

So far, I haven't seen ads do any improving except for something like free apps.
Cable started as subscription, got ads, those ads don't seem to do much except put money in the ad agency's pocket. Consumers complain about getting less for more money, and cable complains about the high cost of the programming. Cable, cell, satellite are trying to control how you get information. Your town can't even put in a fiber system on its own. The cable lobby will yell. You are getting less data for your dollar and either cut off or throttled. Yet there isn't too much competition in the GSM area. "You allow us to put ads on and it will cut the costs" No, it will cut the service. Pretty soon it will be all ads interrupted by a program.

If data miners want to be a PITA, I will be one right back.

 

[argedion]

One thing I don't see mentioned is the fact that most of these companies can obtain this information through other than direct sources.

Explaination:

Cryssie you call me (Here in US) In Netherland the companies are bound by the constitution of your country. However the ones Here in the United States are not. And While I have Agreed to their Privacy statement you technically haven't. However, Since you called me though then vicariously you have also agreed by just calling me or sharing data with me. They collect the data on my end.

Here in the United States there is always a loop hole. We don't have private browsing as people would like to believe. If you search for certain key words it brings up red flags and your IP will contact the authorities. This is all legal here alot of this is to "Protect our Children" from Child rapist and those type of Criminals and also "Terrorist". After all Keeping our country safe is more important than someones basic rights. And While I agree with these Practice's to some extent I also don't agree to them on the other hand. I think anytime you give someone that much power its to easy to corrupt what was really there and make up your own truth.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Data mining for advertising purposes is nothing but a pain. Ads got a lot more pushy, disregarding the fact that a lot of people couldn't afford the products, decided that they didn't really need it, or the article was just plain trashy.

So far, I haven't seen ads do any improving except for something like free apps.
Cable started as subscription, got ads, those ads don't seem to do much except put money in the ad agency's pocket. Consumers complain about getting less for more money, and cable complains about the high cost of the programming. Cable, cell, satellite are trying to control how you get information. Your town can't even put in a fiber system on its own. The cable lobby will yell. You are getting less data for your dollar and either cut off or throttled. Yet there isn't too much competition in the GSM area. "You allow us to put ads on and it will cut the costs" No, it will cut the service. Pretty soon it will be all ads interrupted by a program.

If data miners want to be a PITA, I will be one right back.

As I pointed out, tech companies aren't the only companies who do it. My grocery store does it. Target does it. Everywhere you shop does it. I use Mint.com for my finances. They offer me different credit cards, loans, savings accounts, etc... I guarantee you those recommendations are based on what I'm spending money on. Nothing in this life is free.

 

[Cryssie]

I do not have anything new to offer, I am reading up on a couple of things. (Safe harbor principles etc.)
But this is on wikipedia and I thought it was interesting.

Europeans are acutely familiar with the dangers associated with uncontrolled use of personal information from their experiences under World War II-era fascist governments and post-War Communist regimes, and are highly suspicious and fearful of unchecked use of personal information.[17] World War II and the post-War period was a time in Europe that disclosure of race or ethnicity led to secret denunciations and seizures that sent friends and neighbors to work camps and concentration camps.[4] In the age of computers, Europeans

 

[zuben el genub]

The EU is proposing this:
European Commission Proposes ‘Right to Be Forgotten’ Legislation | Video | TheBlaze.com

There is also no law that I have to bother with any of the ads. Circulars just get tossed in the trash unread before mail gets in the house. TV gets ignored. I will get grocery coupons, but only use the ones I want. The others go in the trash. Browsers have ad blockers. If I can do it - I also turn off images.

I get newsletters (opted in) from companies I am interested in. Sometimes I can get a better deal online - especially with free shipping. I will also look for pre-owned stuff.

This will get to the point like things did with telemarketers. Some will push too far.
Google has both Apple and MS complaining about Google getting into the browsers.
This is a case of the pot and kettle - MS managed to put an extension into FF. Eventually things will get regulated which will open another can of worms.

If you accept only targetted ads - some other merchandisers will scream about their free speech and the ability to get you as a customer.

 

[A.Nonymous]

The EU is proposing this:
European Commission Proposes

 

[Crashdamage]

That legislation would completely and totally break the Internet.

That might be a little strong. But it would radically change the internet as we know it and greatly increase the cost of using it.

 

[argedion]

Never will there be an avenue of entertainment, business, a walk in the park or even a dinner that you will be free of some form of advertisement.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Like I said earlier, nothing in life is free. Not even this forum. This forum has value because of the content that we create. Because of the content we create, this forum is able to attract more people and is able to attract advertisers whose ads we then block with browser extensions. If everyone stopped posting here tomorrow, this forum would wither and die as the content would become worthless and dated. AF makes money off us. In return,they provide a place where we can come and bitch about them making money off us.

 

[zuben el genub]

That might be a little strong. But it would radically change the internet as we know it and greatly increase the cost of using it.

I know it would change things - so the easiest thing would be an opt-out of targetted ads for general ads instead.

Money talks - whatever lobby has the most legislators ears will try to get action. As long as corporations are regarded as people - free speech will get consideration.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I know it would change things - so the easiest thing would be an opt-out of targetted ads for general ads instead.

Money talks - whatever lobby has the most legislators ears will try to get action. As long as corporations are regarded as people - free speech will get consideration.

If you can opt out of targetted ads then companies like Google, FB and even this forum will see their revenue cut significantly. Non-targeted ads just aren't as valuable.

 

[Cryssie]

I am going to say something very silly now:
What if we get to decide what ads we want to see?
Think about this: There could be a system in place where a user inserts a minimum of x keywords and shown ads are based of that. And a blacklist with things you don't want. Instead of Google trying to guess what interests me, I will tell Google what interests me.
Wouldn't that be a good way to provide targeted advertising and keep the user in control? I would happily get rid of adblock for that if that meant no more tracking.

Edit:
I am mulling this over and it would actually be really convenient. You could edit your keywords if you are shopping for a new computer or tv and remove them if you have purchased one. It would not be terribly different from filling in your interests in a social network. You can fill in your favorite bands and get ads from the records company when a new cd has been released.
When you find something new, ad it and when you lose interest, remove it.
I am liking this idea.

 

[zuben el genub]

I'd rather see the likes of Google, FB, et al make less money than have a fettered internet.

MS, Google, Apple and FB are going to wind up with all kinds of suits and countersuits over this. Google has already been accused (true or not) of sneaking code into Safari and IE.

Ads will have to be injected into your browser. You can avoid search pages by using bookmarks. If you belong to another social site rather than FB, you use the bookmark, and with the site itself having its own ads, you don't see the targeted ads. Now everyone's purpose is defeated. You will also get ads pushed to your phone - if you are prepaid, this would be a killer.

Ad battle already:
Microsoft goes for Google's throat

As this escalates - everyone will suffer in one way or another. The companies want to monopolize your eyes. MS, Google, Apple, do have their own OS. This leaves FB out.
If ads ever got locked to your OS so you got a download of ads first thing in the AM or on bootup - don't you think FB would be hitting the courts?

If you choose the same type of advertising on all sites - the first site you use has the most value. By the time you get to the second site, you have seen the ads and are ignoring them.

 

[A.Nonymous]

If companies like Google and FB make less revenue than you will see a fettered Internet. Those companies will either scale back the services they offer or start charging for them. You want to Google something, you pay for the search results. So the digital divide becomes even wider and you have people who can afford to pay and people who can't. The way the Internet is used today will be extremely fettered. The reason the 'net is "free" right now is because there are so many companies monetizing it.

If you let people opt in to what kind of ads they'll see, the vast majority of people are too dumb/too lazy to do it and won't opt in to anything. That's why companies try to guess what ads you're interested in. They can do it in a generic way (like advertising a phone on a site like this) or they can do it very specifically (like you search for the Galaxy Nexus and get two ads for it as well as accessories for it). The specific ads are more valuable as they're more likely to get a response from you. You may or may not click on the ad for the Galaxy Nexus somewhere on this site. If you search specifically for the Galaxy Nexus, you're far more likely to click on that ad.

 

[zuben el genub]

Advertising wars are no different than the patent wars we have now. All cases will eventually wind up in a court and could be under injunction until SCOTUS moves.

Both wars involve the corporations right to make money.

This is an example of new divided loyalties. And the user does lose.
Apple vs. Facebook: Why users are the losers | The Social Analyst - CNET News

Another on the subject:
http://www.infoworld.com/t/internet...lves-186975?source=rss_infoworld_top_stories_

Here's another:
http://www.hardocp.com/news/2012/02/21/facial_recognition_billboard_only_shows_ads_to_women/#63;%20Please%20discriminate%20against%20me%20more%20and%20show%20all%20the%20commercials%20on%20TV%20to%20the%20women%20too%20please.%20I%20think%20this%20falls%20into%20the%20category%20of%20\%22You\%27re%20doing%20it%20wrong!\%22The%20b

I'd be very offended since I am not interested in the usual women's stuff. Some on here would be offended if they only got ads for pots and pans when they would rather have technology.

If most males opted for gaming, tech and cars - some large company that sells baby products would argue that men should buy these gifts for grandchildren, and you are costing them revenue by not allowing their ads. If you opt out of food type ads - you are not supporting your community by dining at local restaurants. The restaurants are losing business and the city is losing tax income.

If even 25% of the populace does select targeted ads, that will be 24% too many for some.

 

[HannibalX]

Question? if you're going to go through all this, what is the point of having an Android phone? Doing the above defeats the purpose and function of the phone?

No, not at all. The phone is a mobile personal computer, not a mobile Google computer.

I have a Google account which I signed up for when I got my Android phone. I don't sync anything to Google or give Google access to my data and don't actively use the account. I wouldn't even have it if it wasn't required to use the market. For the record I have never linked a CC and bought anything off the market, I just use free apps.

There is so much you can do with a smart phone - Google services do not need to be a part of it. I like the Android platform but I'm not married to it. I don't need Google services. About the only one I really use are Google Maps.