Google/Microsoft/Twitter/Facebook Announce The Open-Source Data Transfer Project

[starshipeleven]

Well, Adobe and Microsoft are innovating in this regard: you pay for a service but still are a product.

Sadly this trend isn't "innovative" anymore. It's common to harvest data from paying customers.

[starshipeleven]

I never said it was; I know that's not the point (though honestly - I don't have anything to hide). My point is people think they're more important than they really are, and that somehow their life is made worse by these companies as they voluntarily support these companies by using their products.

My point is that you didn't understand what people really mean when they say they don't want to let their data go in the wrong hands.

How exactly is any of that a bad thing? How does this hurt me in any way that actually matters? What are these risks you speak of? It's not my problem if sheeple buy into the stupid crap marketed toward them.

You are still human, no matter how strong you think you are, you still have weaknesses that can be exploited.

Data collection at this scale is exactly what is allowing ads to evolve from garden variety obvious bullshit to something more subtle that actually works better across the board.

Right... because everything should just be given for free out of the kindness of everyone's hearts, right? What an appealing incentive, to be a developer or journalist who survives solely on donations or their country's welfare system. </sarcasm>

Considering the quality level of most ad-supported "journalism" I'd like to see them shut down for good. I don't look at that crap anyway, regardless of blockable ads.

Same for ad-supported software, it's usually crap.

It's all a user scam that lowers average quality level and cuts profit of those that actually sell decent software. Everyone loses.

I'm perfectly fine with having a banner ad that my brain ignores on instinct while not having to pay for a service that is adequate for my needs. When a site or app uses pop-up ads or takes up more than 1/4 of my screen for an ad, I avoid it and where possible, will down-vote it.

That's garden variety stuff, we aren't in 90s anymore.
The data is used to customize search results and other interactions with you (depending from what the service does) to reinfoce your beliefs in something by showing you more of the articles that validate that, or break that by doing the opposite if needed, and so on. That's the next generation of marketing, and that's why they want to make it easier to share data between themselves.

Even showing you normal ads can have a primary target that isn't just showing you the ad you are looking at.

That's fair - I feel there aren't enough sites that give you the option.

That's because they know full well none in their right mind would pay for their crap. See above.

[sjekkel]

Wow, and just when I thought people here were clinging tight to their tin-foil hats, here you are, locking yourself up in a full-blown Faraday cage.
When an ad repeatedly shows up in the same location in a site you visit all the time, the ad can be effectively and entirely ignored. This is so well-known that there's a term for it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banner_blindness

This is a pretty well-researched topic, and there are other scientific papers on the matter.

Maybe read the link that you posted?

This, however, does not mean that banner ads do not influence viewers. Website viewers may not be consciously aware of an ad, but it does have an unconscious influence on their behavior.

Or alternatively instead of doing a google search to confirm your side, do a search for the opposite, you know trying to find out how targeting the subconscious part of your mind is abused in advertising.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subliminal_stimuli

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/unconscious-branding/201306/how-marketers-manipulate-you-without-your-knowing

but it's also cool to just call me a tinfoil hat nutter, I mean that makes for a really good argument for yourself. o.O

[Marc Driftmeyer]

Shouldn't people be applauding Apple right now? You don't see them joining this alliance because it would go against their privacy stance.

[sverris]

Shouldn't people be applauding Apple right now? You don't see them joining this alliance because it would go against their privacy stance.

They do their own thing, and the result will not differ that much.

[ossuser]

@schmidtbag: you might want to check out this video https://media.ccc.de/v/34c3-8874-gamified_control Mandatory in 2020 in China, and coming to you within the foreseeable future. And yes, they need all your data.

[cueball]

[QUOTE=schmidtbag;n1037043]
Do you know how little any of that matters, and doesn't dispute anything I said? They can do whatever they want with my info as long as it doesn't negatively impact my life in any way, directly or indirectly. As I stated before, having ads that are more targeted toward me isn't a negative impact. However, if they give my phone number to telemarkters, that's something worth complaining about.


I never said it was; I know that's not the point (though honestly - I don't have anything to hide). My point is people think they're more important than they really are, and that somehow their life is made worse by these companies as they voluntarily support these companies by using their products.

---
This whole "i dont have anything to hide is so short sighted". You might think you have nothing to hide, but i'd be surprised if you posted your tax details on this forum. And, I bet you actually would mind if your friends could read your email (all of your email, including the ones with your bank details, your tax return, etc). And,... i'd be surprised if you enjoyed giving naked photos of yourself to your neighbours, in particular footage of your last sexual encounter.

You 'might' like to do some/any of the above, and you might not. Privacy is about you actively deciding what you want to share, not other people choosing for you.

[schmidtbag]

My point is that you didn't understand what people really mean when they say they don't want to let their data go in the wrong hands.

The only thing I don't understand is why anyone thinks this negatively affects them. I understand the principle in the matter, I just find it petty.

Considering the quality level of most ad-supported "journalism" I'd like to see them shut down for good. I don't look at that crap anyway, regardless of blockable ads.

Same for ad-supported software, it's usually crap.

I definitely can't really argue against that, but, I think calling it a scam is a bit much. Some of them are scams, but some of them are just people who want to make decent software for people who don't want to pay out of pocket, but can't afford to be a charity.

That's garden variety stuff, we aren't in 90s anymore.
The data is used to customize search results and other interactions with you (depending from what the service does) to reinfoce your beliefs in something by showing you more of the articles that validate that, or break that by doing the opposite if needed, and so on. That's the next generation of marketing, and that's why they want to make it easier to share data between themselves.

I still see banner ads; Phoronix even still uses them.
But again, I don't really see what's so especially bad about what you said. People always stick with what they're comfortable with or what they believe in whether a company caters to them or not. Ads may be exploiting this behavior, but I don't really see it as immoral, unethical, criminal, or whatever negative term you could throw at it. Sure, they're definitely not helping the closed-minded nature of the general public, but it's not all that horrible either.

That's because they know full well none in their right mind would pay for their crap. See above.

That's definitely true in some cases, but not all.

Or alternatively instead of doing a google search to confirm your side, do a search for the opposite, you know trying to find out how targeting the subconscious part of your mind is abused in advertising.

Don't you see how your point is effectively meaningless? You're the one making definitive statements here, not me. There is apparent proof on both sides, so who is right? You clearly have an agenda to push, so you're deliberately focusing on your biases. I, meanwhile, am just saying that not everyone reads ads, and that not everybody caves into what companies are trying to sell them.

but it's also cool to just call me a tinfoil hat nutter, I mean that makes for a really good argument for yourself. o.O

I'm not the one paranoid about what companies are doing with my data. I'm not the one claiming thoughts are subliminally put into my mind. I'm not the one fearing this data transfer project. I'm not the one who has a problem with ads (other than the fact I find many of them to be obnoxious).

This whole "i dont have anything to hide is so short sighted". You might think you have nothing to hide, but i'd be surprised if you posted your tax details on this forum. And, I bet you actually would mind if your friends could read your email (all of your email, including the ones with your bank details, your tax return, etc). And,... i'd be surprised if you enjoyed giving naked photos of yourself to your neighbours, in particular footage of your last sexual encounter.

You 'might' like to do some/any of the above, and you might not. Privacy is about you actively deciding what you want to share, not other people choosing for you.

Like I said before, having nothing to hide isn't my point. My point is nobody cares about you as much as you think (and same goes for me). What you, and many others fail to understand is there's a big difference between revealing private data to those who know you personally, vs revealing private data to companies who don't even know if you're even a human, let alone alive. Footage of sexual encounters being shared with neighbors is incomparable to Google collecting porn searches and learning about what kind of kinks the person is into. In the former, that actually hurts your reputation. It can affect your ability to get a job, or your social life. The latter, meanwhile, is a convenience, because it might help give you more relevant searches catered to your previous experiences.



All of you keep touting how terrible it is that companies are collecting data, how it's an invasion of privacy, how your data is being sold, etc, but NONE of you have come up with 1 single compelling argument as to how this negatively hurts you in any way, with proof. Yes, I understand the potential that this data could ruin your life, but there is no evidence such a thing has ever happened. I understand how they're exploiting human psychology, but again, is this actually hurting anyone? And if that still doesn't convince you - stop using their products.

[jo-erlend]

Here's an idea:
Don't use their services. You can control your own data, pretty effortlessly.
Nobody is forcing you to upload your data to them. Unless you're a high-profile criminal, despite what you think, nobody cares about you or your data - you're not special, you're not important, and you're not interesting. Neither am I or anyone else.

But what if you _are_ suddenly considered a criminal and a threat to society? I mean, what if you're a socialist or a non-socialist, religious or an atheist? What if you're homosexual or left-handed? All of these groups have suddenly been seen as threats to society in the past, even if they weren't before.

I don't think it's a bad idea to care about how your data is stored and who has access.

[schmidtbag]

But what if you _are_ suddenly considered a criminal and a threat to society? I mean, what if you're a socialist or a non-socialist, religious or an atheist? What if you're homosexual or left-handed? All of these groups have suddenly been seen as threats to society in the past, even if they weren't before.

Uh... if you're a criminal, you deserve whatever happens to you upheld by the checks and balances of your country. If the laws aren't righteous, then move somewhere where it is. If you don't have the ability to do so (such as financial restrictions) then maybe you have more important things to worry about than Facebook finding out that you clicked Like on a random cat video.

And besides, I still don't think any of these companies are legally allowed to use your information to get you arrested. Even if they did, in 1st world countries (which are the predominant demographic of these companies' products/services), your religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc are not legally incriminating. So inevitably, nothing you said is anything to worry about.

For the billionth time: don't use their stuff if you don't like what they're doing with your data. It's seriously not a hard concept to grasp.