zlacker

>>pbrw+(OP)
Comments here so far focus on personalised ads as the issue -- but that's a symptom of what's being banned, which is the mass collection of personal data.

Personalised ads are beside the point. The issue is how they are personalised, namely by building a rich profile of user behaviour based on non-consensual tracking.

It isnt even clear that there's a meaningful sense of 'consent' to what modern ad companies (ie., google, facebook, amazon, increasingly microsoft, etc.) do. There is both an individual harm, but a massive collective arm, to the infrastructure of behavioural tracking that has been built by these companies.

This infrastructure should be, largely, illegal. The technology to end any form of privacy is presently deployed only for ads, but should not be deployed anywhere at all.

>>mjburg+kc
Why should it be illegal? I don’t understand the moral threat. Personally I feel that privacy gets too much airtime as a value — I see lots of other more direct issues (like political manipulation) that will remain an issue even with “strong privacy.”

>>dr_dsh+kg
The ability to aggregate personal information of large numbers of people is a form of political power. Facebook can, if it so wishes, provide a list of all gay people in an area; all supporters of gaza or of israel; all people who have recently commented on an article about drugs.

The very ability to provide that list previously required an expensive secret police; today it does not.

This is an extremely dangerous ability for anyone to have -- human rights (such as that to privacy) were won against oppression. They aren't optional, they're the system by which we prevent those previous eras from reoccurring.

This is why i'm suspicious of the being a meaningful sense of 'consent' here -- if enough people consent, then the tracking agency acquires a novel political power over everyone. This is why the infrastructure of tracking itself is a concern.

>>mjburg+oj
Yes, as can Apple, Google, every cable company, every telecom, the credit card companies, Grindr, health clinics

>>lefsta+Nl
Credit company does not have microphone near your bed, they do not know which posts you like, or not, they do not have all your mails, and not necessarily know where you drive and how often.

Keeping all of the data under one company umbrella is vulnerable, target for hackers, and easy target for governments.

Your post is not correct.

>>renega+ht
While I am all for privacy, which companies enable the microphone next to your bed and collect personal data with it?

>>garden+uA
Every voice assistant enabled company store voice audio. Some by accident. Some to "make" voice assistant better. Some to do other stuff with it. Your voice is stored for undisclosed time on their servers. It does not have to be stored for long. Unknown contractors look at the footage of your iRobot,tesla.

No regulator will find any proof of anything though, as regular employees will not have access to such crucial data. Regulators will also can be fooled by the maze of interfaces and servers.

There is also incentive for governments to "not see" any wrongdoings of the companies, if they profit from surveillance system.

Ad business is like Palantir in lord of the rings. You do know know who is watching on the other side.

All you have is some "vague" promise from corporations that your data are properly removed.