Surveillance capitalism.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

"In cahoots"? No, I definitely didn't say that. What I did say was that, back in the day, store owners paid attention to their customers' shopping habits--

Your wording was - ''In simpler times, store owners would simply talk about their customers with each other and that's how they could gather more information about you'' - which suggests that they are conferring, that they are 'cahoots' on the matter of gathering information about their customers.

I grew up in 'simpler times.' I have no such recollection.

You grew up in the middle ages?

You were simply a regular customer.

No, you most certainly were not if the store owner had any brains at all, but don't take my word for it. I only hold a master's degree in marketing and have spent the last thirty years professionally engaged in the practice.

No shit. And maybe 8 out of 10 times, marketer's will be wrong about that judgement. Which would mean that 20% of the time, they are not. Which would mean an increase in sales of 20%. Which is HUGE for any company to increase their return by 20% annually. Which is why companies spend billions of dollars on marketing and advertising.

Nope

Yep.

there is a vast difference between someones subjective guess work, which may be fairly accurate in a broad and casual sense, and systematic hard evidence gathering of your personal information, your habits and preferences, building a profile of you

Nope. No difference at all. It is entirely subjective guess work no matter how many bits of information I have about you as your own previous observation evidences; judging books by covers and all. The key word is "judging," an inherently and inescapably subjective condition.

There is no comparison between 'simpler times' and the situation in this day and age.

You are simply wrong. It's the exact same process. Gather as much information as one can and then use that information to make a guess as to what you may need or want from that information. The key to it is that it's not that fucking complicated. Any halfway attentive individual can see--yes, just by looking at you--a dozen or so general and specific indicators that in turn would allow them to make an educated guess as to what you may need or want at any given moment.

Hell, a good con man can do it in an instant gestalt for the most part. Sorry, but humans are simply not that mysterious. The more information you have, the easier it is to make more accurate predictions, but it's still a matter of guesswork; of trial and error.

And as I have already provided descriptions of the risks and pitfalls of such a level of information gathering/surveillance

Once again, it's not "surveillance" except in a completely misleading false equivalence sense that undermines your own argument.

I should not need to repeat the downside of this practice.

And I should not need to teach a grown man remedial logic and language and the improper use of fallacies, or the history of marketing, but here we are.

 

[DBT]

You grew up in the middle ages?

No. I grew up in a time when the grocer, the newsagent, etc, did not stick their nose into what was not their business. Given that cash was the means of transaction, business owners/managers need not have known your name. In terms of history, it was not that long ago.

No, you most certainly were not if the store owner had any brains at all, but don't take my word for it. I only hold a master's degree in marketing and have spent the last thirty years professionally engaged in the practice.

Given cash transactions in a fairly large town or city in the fifties, sixties and seventies, there was no way for a business to keep track of all its customers.

There was no CCTV, no security cameras, the check out operators had no interest in gathering information on their customers, nor were they expected or instructed to do it. That would have been considered creepy.

You may have a Masters Degree in marketing, no doubt (and that may explain your defense of information gathering), but you are clearly not familiar with living conditions in Australia during that era.

Once again, it's not "surveillance" except in a completely misleading false equivalence sense that undermines your own argument.

Surveillance

''Surveillance is the monitoring of behavior, activities, or information for the purpose of influencing, managing or directing.''

''Surveillance is used by governments for intelligence gathering, prevention of crime, the protection of a process, person, group or object, or the investigation of crime. It is also used by criminal organizations to plan and commit crimes, and by businesses to gather intelligence on their competitors, suppliers or customers. ''

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

No. I grew up in a time when the grocer, the newsagent, etc, did not stick their nose into what was not their business.

Horseshit. You just were ignorant in regard to what was going on. That or you had remarkably stupid store owners in Australia in the fifties, sixties and seventies.

''Surveillance is used by governments for intelligence gathering, prevention of crime, the protection of a process, person, group or object, or the investigation of crime. It is also used by criminal organizations to plan and commit crimes, and by businesses to gather intelligence on their competitors, suppliers or customers. ''

So, once again, it's not "surveillance" except in a completely misleading false equivalence sense that undermines your own argument.

 

[DBT]

No. I grew up in a time when the grocer, the newsagent, etc, did not stick their nose into what was not their business.

Horseshit. You just were ignorant in regard to what was going on. That or you had remarkably stupid store owners in Australia in the fifties, sixties and seventies.

Horseshit? No, I was there.

There was no CCTV. All transaction were using cash.

Nobody kept track of each and every individual customers buying patterns, purchases or preferences, just general stock movement, what sold well and what did not...and general marketing and advertising directed at customers in general, not individuals.

You may not want to accept this because it doesn't suit your world view, yet it is true regardless. It was a simpler time, a different era.

So, once again, it's not "surveillance" except in a completely misleading false equivalence sense that undermines your own argument.

Whether you like it or not, systematically gathering information on individuals for whatever purpose is the very definition of surveillance;

surveillance
noun
1 - a watch kept over a person, group, etc., especially over a suspect, prisoner, or the like: The suspects were under police surveillance.
2 - continuous observation of a place, person, group, or ongoing activity in order to gather information:

Furthermore:

The assault on behavioural data

''We’ve entered virgin territory here. The assault on behavioural data is so sweeping that it can no longer be circumscribed by the concept of privacy. This is a different kind of challenge now, one that threatens the existential and political canon of the modern liberal order defined by principles of self-determination that have been centuries, even millennia, in the making. I am thinking of matters that include, but are not limited to: the sanctity of the individual and the ideals of social equality; the development of identity, autonomy and moral reasoning; the integrity of contract, the freedom that accrues to the making and fulfilling of promises; norms and rules of collective agreement; the functions of market democracy; the political integrity of societies; and the future of democratic sovereignty.

In the fullness of time, we will look back on the establishment in Europe of the “Right to be forgotten” and the EU’s subsequent invalidation of the Safe Harbor doctrine as early milestones in a gradual reckoning with the true dimensions of this challenge.''

Capitalism has been hijacked by surveillance

''The assault we face is driven in large measure by the exceptional appetites of a wholly new genus of capitalism, a systemic coherent new logic of accumulation that I call surveillance capitalism. Capitalism has been hijacked by a lucrative surveillance project that subverts the “normal” evolutionary mechanisms associated with its historical success and corrupts the unity of supply and demand that has for centuries, however imperfectly, tethered capitalism to the genuine needs of its populations and societies, thus enabling the fruitful expansion of market democracy.

Surveillance capitalism is a novel economic mutation bred from the clandestine coupling of the vast powers of the digital with the radical indifference and intrinsic narcissism of the financial capitalism and its neoliberal vision that have dominated commerce for at least three decades, especially in the Anglo economies. It is an unprecedented market form that roots and flourishes in lawless space.''

 

[ruby sparks]

Furthermore:

The assault on behavioural data

''We’ve entered virgin territory here. The assault on behavioural data is so sweeping that it can no longer be circumscribed by the concept of privacy. This is a different kind of challenge now, one that threatens the existential and political canon of the modern liberal order defined by principles of self-determination that have been centuries, even millennia, in the making. I am thinking of matters that include, but are not limited to: the sanctity of the individual and the ideals of social equality; the development of identity, autonomy and moral reasoning; the integrity of contract, the freedom that accrues to the making and fulfilling of promises; norms and rules of collective agreement; the functions of market democracy; the political integrity of societies; and the future of democratic sovereignty.

In the fullness of time, we will look back on the establishment in Europe of the “Right to be forgotten” and the EU’s subsequent invalidation of the Safe Harbor doctrine as early milestones in a gradual reckoning with the true dimensions of this challenge.''

Capitalism has been hijacked by surveillance

''The assault we face is driven in large measure by the exceptional appetites of a wholly new genus of capitalism, a systemic coherent new logic of accumulation that I call surveillance capitalism. Capitalism has been hijacked by a lucrative surveillance project that subverts the “normal” evolutionary mechanisms associated with its historical success and corrupts the unity of supply and demand that has for centuries, however imperfectly, tethered capitalism to the genuine needs of its populations and societies, thus enabling the fruitful expansion of market democracy.

Surveillance capitalism is a novel economic mutation bred from the clandestine coupling of the vast powers of the digital with the radical indifference and intrinsic narcissism of the financial capitalism and its neoliberal vision that have dominated commerce for at least three decades, especially in the Anglo economies. It is an unprecedented market form that roots and flourishes in lawless space.''

Thanks for posting. I think there are aspects of this general issue which are concerning to say the least. As ever, the discussion of when and where and to what degree this concern should kick in is complicated, and can be disagreed about, but in general terms I think it's important to flag up the concept, as you have done.

As an aside, I see that the writer of that article is a Professor of Business Administration at Harvard, has a Ph.D in Social Psychology from that university and a BA in Philosophy from the University of Chicago. So if nothing else, at least the article seems to come an academically informed source of opinion and analysis, and I read that the writer has also had involvement in projects and initiatives outside academia.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Horseshit? No, I was there.

That doesn't mean you were omniscient or had any clue as to what the store owners were doing. Regardless, the point remains that gathering data on customers to better inform a store owner's commerce is centuries-old.

You may not want to accept this because it doesn't suit your world view, yet it is true regardless. It was a simpler time, a different era.

Ok, grandpa. I didn't realize you read the minds of every store owner in Australia.

So, once again, it's not "surveillance" except in a completely misleading false equivalence sense that undermines your own argument.

Whether you like it or not, systematically gathering information on individuals for whatever purpose is the very definition of surveillance]

It's not the definition that is the problem. Do you not understand what a false equivalence is? Your own source notes that he's coining a new phrase ffs:

The assault we face is driven in large measure by the exceptional appetites of a wholly new genus of capitalism, a systemic coherent new logic of accumulation that I call surveillance capitalism.

He then goes on to assert that:

Capitalism has been hijacked by a lucrative surveillance project that subverts the “normal” evolutionary mechanisms associated with its historical success and corrupts the unity of supply and demand that has for centuries, however imperfectly, tethered capitalism to the genuine needs of its populations and societies, thus enabling the fruitful expansion of market democracy.

He is literally telling you that he is no longer talking about the use of the process of gathering demographic data for customer profiling; that instead the process is being used with a more nefarious intent.

And then he goes off the rails a bit into personal ideology, thus undermining his (and your) argument:

Surveillance capitalism is a novel economic mutation bred from the clandestine coupling of the vast powers of the digital with the radical indifference and intrinsic narcissism of the financial capitalism and its neoliberal vision that have dominated commerce for at least three decades, especially in the Anglo economies. It is an unprecedented market form that roots and flourishes in lawless space.

A knife can either cut a birthday cake or a jugular vein. It is the intent behind the wielding of the knife that matters. All this man is saying is that demographic target marketing works. We know that. We also know that governments are using the same tools as companies to market a very different product. Propaganda. We know this too. That the tools have become sharper due to advances in technology is not surprising, but it's still like saying "this knife is really really sharp" as you plunge it into a birthday cake as opposed to slicing someone's throat. It's still a matter of intent and to falsely conflate the two is not justifiable no matter how the metaphor fits an author's personal ideology.

 

[DBT]

That doesn't mean you were omniscient or had any clue as to what the store owners were doing. Regardless, the point remains that gathering data on customers to better inform a store owner's commerce is centuries-old.



Ok, grandpa. I didn't realize you read the minds of every store owner in Australia.

There was no need to read anyone's mind.

You clearly do not understand the conditions at the time, or you willfully ignore that critical factor because it does not suit your own beliefs.

Prior to the time that PC's and mobile phones came into the picture, more or less the nineties, nobody had the means to systematically gather information on their customers.

It literally could not be done. Not on the scale that is now of concern. Not even in the ballpark.

Very few businesses owned a computer, there was no internet in the fifties, sixties, etc.

It only become an issue as computing power increased, PC's, Cell phones and cashless transactions enabled information acquisition on the scale that is now causing some people concern.....but of course not marketeers, there is no problem for marketeers and those who benefit from the practice of systematically gathering information about consumers.

Which, despite your objections, is the very definition of surveillance.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You clearly do not understand the conditions at the time, or willfully ignore that critical factor because it does not suit your own beliefs.

Irony. Big fan.

Prior to the time that PC's and mobile phones came into the picture, more or less the nineties, nobody had the means to systematically gather information on their customers.

It literally could not be done.

there is no problem for marketeers and those who benefit from the practice of systematically gathering information about consumers.

You seem to think that it is somehow inherently evil for someone to look at what you're buying and think, "Hey, this guy uses this toothpaste. I wonder if he'd like to try this toothbrush? I'll offer it to him for 15% off and see if he wants it." That is the full extent of your marketing boogeyman. It is literally what every single store owner has always done to you throughout your entire life; tried to figure out what else you'd want to buy from them based on what you usually buy from them. You just apparently never figured out that pathetically obvious fact until this very second.

And no, the fact that you're old does not mean anything was different "back then" other than your shocking myopia that you seem to be taking some sort of pride in...for some bizarre reason.

 

[DBT]

Irony. Big fan.





View attachment 25084

That's funny. Hilarious even... given cash transactions nothing other than ''somebody bought a hot dog at 11am'' could have be written down prior to computerization.

Customer numbers, stock movement and sales was about it as far as capacity to gather information goes. Without the necessary technology, private and personal information about customers (except personal cheques) being completely absent.

The issue here and now is that technology enables information gathering on an unprecedented scale and scope.

That is the point you need to consider when you stand in front of a mirror and give yourself a much needed face palm.

You seem to think that it is somehow inherently evil for someone to look at what you're buying and think, "Hey, this guy uses this toothpaste. I wonder if he'd like to try this toothbrush? .

Nobody mentioned 'evil' when describing the concerns of information gathering on the scale that is now possible. Why do you ignore these risks to privacy?

For example:

''...recent advances in information technology threaten privacy and have reduced the amount of control over personal data and open up the possibility of a range of negative consequences as a result of access to personal data..''

''Discussions about privacy are intertwined with the use of technology. The publication that began the debate about privacy in the Western world was occasioned by the introduction of the newspaper printing press and photography. Samuel D. Warren and Louis Brandeis wrote their article on privacy in the Harvard Law Review (Warren & Brandeis 1890) partly in protest against the intrusive activities of the journalists of those days. They argued that there is a “right to be left alone” based on a principle of “inviolate personality”. Since the publication of that article, the debate about privacy has been fuelled by claims regarding the right of individuals to determine the extent to which others have access to them (Westin 1967) and claims regarding the right of society to know about individuals. Information being a cornerstone of access to individuals, the privacy debate has co-evolved with – and in response to – the development of information technology. It is therefore difficult to conceive of the notions of privacy and discussions about data protection as separate from the way computers, the Internet, mobile computing and the many applications of these basic technologies have evolved.''

Personal Data

''Personal information or data is information or data that is linked or can be linked to individual persons. Examples include explicitly stated characteristics such as a person‘s date of birth, sexual preference, whereabouts, religion, but also the IP address of your computer or metadata pertaining to these kinds of information. In addition, personal data can also be more implicit in the form of behavioural data, for example from social media, that can be linked to individuals. Personal data can be contrasted with data that is considered sensitive, valuable or important for other reasons, such as secret recipes, financial data, or military intelligence. Data used to secure other information, such as passwords, are not considered here. Although such security measures (passwords) may contribute to privacy, their protection is only instrumental to the protection of other (more private) information, and the quality of such security measures is therefore out of the scope of our considerations here.''

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Irony. Big fan.





View attachment 25084

That's funny.

It was not meant to be, other than in the irony of a grown man not being able to comprehend what gathering marketing data entails.

given cash transactions nothing other than ''somebody bought a hot dog at 11am'' could have be written down prior to computerization. Customer numbers, stock movement and sales was about it as far as capacity to gather information goes.

It's a damn good thing your livelihood wasn't/isn't dependent upon owning a retail store.

As I already pointed out, I can tell--yes, just by judging your book cover--at least a dozen different demographically identifying indicators about you and your likely buying habits. Again, where do you think the whole concept of target marketing comes from?

You are a certain age; a certain skin tone; have a certain accent; wear certain clothing, shoes, jewelry, tailored coats or tattered linens; are of a certain educational background evident in the way you speak, what words you choose, the grammar; how you carry yourself can tell me if you're sick or healthy; your weight can tell me if you're a man with a voracious appetite or a bird's constitution; the way you avoid eye contact or come up confident and direct; are you married, do you have kids and what ages and genders are they; whether you pay in large bills or small change; what items you look at, pick up, ignore; whether or not you respond in particular to a sale or discount or simply ignore those items and pay top dollar; and most importantly of all, what you buy on a regular basis, only sporadically and what you steadfastly avoid.

I can do ALL of those things in my head--and just by being a halfway decent store owner who pays attention to his customer base--and keep a running assessment on an individual basis and on a more general demographic basis (with a simple fucking pencil if not, once again, just in my head) that gives me a good sense of my entire customer base; i.e., percentages of women to men that shop with me; their relative age groups; their marital/family status; items most often purchased in bulk as opposed to speciality items; etc; etc; etc.

Without the necessary technology, private and personal information about customers (except personal cheques) being completely absent.

Wrong again. I offer delivery, so I know where you live; I just fucking talk to you at the check-out, or while you're shopping and I can get all kinds of personal information; I just listen to you chatting with someone you run into in the store or out in the world, where I also live and shop. And yes, you can, if you're that type, scrupulously try to avoid giving me any such information, but as I've pointed out repeatedly now, what you don't tell me can also tell me things about you personally. For example, the fact that you steadfastly refuse to ever provide me with any such information tells me you might want to buy security related items, either for your home or your person. Iow, I can market to your paranoia.

It's not exactly rocket surgery.

The issue here and now is that technology enables information gathering on an unprecedented scale and scope.

Yep.

That is the point you need to consider

I've never not considered it.

when you stand in front of a mirror and give yourself a much needed face palm.

Awww. Cute.

You seem to think that it is somehow inherently evil for someone to look at what you're buying and think, "Hey, this guy uses this toothpaste. I wonder if he'd like to try this toothbrush? .

Nobody mentioned 'evil' when describing the concerns of information gathering on the scale that is now possible.

That's why I qualified my assessment with "You seem to think."

Why do you ignore these risks to privacy?

I don't. I just don't think "privacy" is the boogeyman you evidently do. You have never been "private." To be private is to not interract in the public square. The second you do, nothing about you is "private" except for your thoughts and even those are not that difficult to discern to anyone with half a brain.

Again, I'm sorry to be the one to inform you, but humans, in general, are simply not that mysterious. We are social animals evolutionarily geared toward sharing our thoughts, not feverishly hiding them in a paranoid dream. Without the gestalt of being able to read each other's expressions, for example, we would have all been a lion's dinner long long ago.

You are not even consciously aware of how many dozens--thousands really--of tiny clues (data sets) you are picking up on and processing about every single person you ever meet just as a matter of course. You instantly scan every single person in your path for any hints of danger; you scan for possible sexual mates; familiar features; clothing; social cues; etc.

YOU are the most advanced demographic marketing data processing machine on the planet. The only difference between you and AI marketing software is that you currently don't have the myopic focus, but I can assure you from first hand experience that it doesn't take much. All you have to be is observant ffs.

Look at Facebook. Every single person on there willingly gave up their rights by agreeing to the TOS and yet, predictably, complained when they found out what was in the thing they agreed to but did not read. They complain about a lack of privacy while at the same time willingly and openly share every fucking thing about their lives to total strangers on an hourly basis. Why? Because that's our nature.

The fact that others are collecting that data and using it for marketing purposes should not come as a shock to anyone and yet, here we are; a wall of ignorance and feigned indignation at something that should be painfully obvious, particularly since it's literally stated in the TOS.

For example:

''...recent advances in information technology threaten privacy and have reduced the amount of control over personal data and open up the possibility of a range of negative consequences as a result of access to personal data..''

..."by bad actors," is the proper qualifying end to that ellipse. Again, a knife can either cut your cake or your throat.

Since the publication of that article, the debate about privacy has been fuelled by claims regarding the right of individuals to determine the extent to which others have access to them (Westin 1967) and claims regarding the right of society to know about individuals.

Yep. And the debate stops at the public space, because once you enter it, there is no possible way you can stop me from making judgements about you. And if you give up your information freely, then it's entirely on you for doing so. You don't have to be on Facebook. You don't have to go online for that matter. You currently have several ways to block your data from being mined, but again, bad actors are bad actors and if you decide to walk out into the public space, then you do so knowing you might be mugged or have your pocket picked, etc.

But more so than any of this noise, is why you think "privacy" is anything at all. You just seem to think it's somehow axiomatically sacrosanct. Why? What possible difference does it make if a marketer knows what toothpaste you like and wants to send you a discount to buy more or try a different one? At worst, it's a minor annoyance.

Once again, SEPARATE OUT BAD ACTORS FROM GOOD. A bad actor is going to fuck you over no matter what you do. If the government wants to frame you, you're framed. They don't need your browser history and don't give a fuck about what toothpaste you buy. They'll simply plant heroin on you or kiddie porn on your laptop or any number of other very simple ways to frame you.

As to what China is doing, that too is the action of bad actors forcing its citizens to behave in ways it has always forced its citizens to behave in and yes, that would suck here to have a government trying to control its citizenry like that. But that's a matter of constraining the state from being a bad actor. Taking away the internet won't stop a government from being a bad actor. Stopping service providers like google from selling their marketing data tools won't stop the government from being a bad actor.

You are talking about two completely different things and conflating them into one. Why? Are you not intelligent enough to comprehend that a knife can be used to cut a cake at the same time it can be used to slit a throat? If you are, then why are you focusing on the knife and not on the ones wielding it?

 

[DBT]

It was not meant to be, other than in the irony of a grown man not being able to comprehend what gathering marketing data entails.

I know what gathering data entails. The issue was always about the means, scale and scope that data can now be gathered using technology that was not available in the past that is the issue...and how this sheer magnitude of personal data is used without the knowledge or consent of the individual, not a shop keeper with a pencil.

Now, as you are a grown man, one who has completed a degree in marketing it is surprising to me that you don't appear to grasp this distinction or the risks that it entails even after they are described by numerous sources.

It's a damn good thing your livelihood wasn't/isn't dependent upon owning a retail store.

You were the one who condescendingly posted a picture of a pencil, meanwhile failing to grasp what was being said about technology as the means of gathering information on an unprecedented scale. Worse, failing to take into account the business owner did not have access to your private information, not even knowing your name unless you offered that information.

As I already pointed out, I can tell--yes, just by judging your book cover--at least a dozen different demographically identifying indicators about you and your likely buying habits.

Pointed out? You made that claim. You believe that you can judge a person by their appearance. Which does not mean that you actually can do that beyond a few generalities.

General impressions is not the point.Hard data in the form of personal information is the point. One more time - the issue here is the sheer size and scope of personal information that technology has enabled business and government to gather, collate and analyze, name, residence, holidays, spending habits, work history, health, etc, etc.....something that the corner store operator with his pencil and notepad could only dream of a couple of generations ago.

That is what you conveniently overlook in your marketing defense and your zeal to defend information gathering on a scale that is becoming an issue of ethics and privacy.

For example:

The Use of Deceptive Practices

The ease with which a company can access and gather data about its customers can lead to deceptive practices and dishonesty in the company's research methods. This type of ethical problem can run the gamut — from not telling customers that information is being collected when they visit a website to misrepresenting research results by using faulty data. At no time should a researcher ever coerce or pressure a respondent to give a particular answer. Any action that uses lies and deception to find out or establish information about consumer opinions falls under this category.

Invasion of Privacy

One of the most serious ethical considerations involved in market research is invasion of privacy. Companies have an unprecedented ability to collect, store and match information relating to customers that can infringe on a person's right to privacy. In many instances, the customer does not know or understand the extent of the company's infiltration into his life. The company uses this information to reach the customer with targeted advertising, but the process of targeting can have a chilling effect on personal freedom. Recent laws such as the EU's GDPR have increased punishments and fines for data privacy violations. Similarly, California has adopted a new law granting greater protections to resident consumers as well.
Breaches of Confidentiality

Another significant ethical consideration involved in market research involves breaches of confidentiality. Companies regularly share information about customers with partners and affiliates, requiring the customer to opt-out of the sharing if he doesn't want to be involved. (US and EU have different standards.) Some companies sell information they have gathered on customers to outside companies. Ethically, any unauthorized disclosure of customer information is problematic.''

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I know what gathering data entails.

Clearly that is not the case, since you keep thinking that "The issue was always about the means, scale and scope" as if that makes any difference. Here, you then qualify it with:

and how this sheer magnitude of personal data is used without the knowledge or consent of the individual, not a shop keeper with a pencil.

You were very clearly grossly ignorant of all of the personal data that was being collected and used without your knowledge or consent by every shopkeeper you have ever frequented and the only "harm" that ever befell you was that you got certain products you wanted or needed at a slight discount.

Now, as you are a grown man, one who has completed a degree in marketing it is surprising to me that you don't appear to grasp this distinction or the risks that it entails even after they are described by numerous sources.

You are confusing "not grasping" with counter argumentation, while at the same time, ironically, not grasping the fact that there is no expectation of privacy in a public space. That's what the word "public" delineates.

The capitulations you keep referring to in regard to consumers being able to prevent service providers like Google from monetizing certain online activities is purely placebo, because there seem to be people like you that have some sort of irrational trigger when it comes to the word "privacy," like it's just inherently sacrosanct and not the ironic legacy of criminal ancestry.

It's not exactly a mystery why this should be a trigger to Australians and "Americans" in particular (in quotes to denote the fact that I'm not referring to the indigenous peoples that were here originally and, furthering the irony, were famously non-privacy oriented tribal peoples).

Instead of comprehending that every time you go online, you are doing the exact same thing as walking into the town square (aka, a "public space") and thus should know that you have no expectation of privacy, you want the government to reinforce your falsely equivalent paranoia, not understanding that you're ironically blaming the cake eaters for slitting your throat.

You want to stop bad actors from weaponizing your behavior against you for nefarious purposes, but instead of focusing on the governments that are doing precisely that, you're focusing on the most benign good actors; the ones who literally just want to make you a happy return customer. That's it. That is the full extent and purpose and intent behind every form of marketing. You like that? Try this. If you don't like it too, I'll refund your money.

HEAVEN FORFEND!

Are there scam artists out there acting in bad faith? Of course. Always have been; always will be. But once again what you're talking about is BAD ACTORS who will scam you no matter what tools are available to them to do so. They'll scam you with NO tools as has been the case for as long as humans have "civilized."

So what is it that you are railing against? The by product of using Google is that it has a wealth of information that it can in turn provide to marketers to give you discounts. That's the cake. The same information used by bad actors can manipulate your political ideology and do what China is doing in regard to police-state social engineering. That's the slit throat. You're conflating the two. Why?

Right now, every single TOS requires what is known as "opt out" options for consumers. You know what you CAN'T opt out of? That state gaining access to your data. So where is the problem? With the cake eaters or the throat slitters?

YOU are angry at the throat slitters but taking it out on the cake eaters.

meanwhile failing to grasp what was being said about technology as the means of gathering information on an unprecedented scale.

Once again, never did I ever fail to grasp anything you have posted. It is insipid sophistry filled with hyperbole and false equivalence predicated on the general assumption that "privacy" is somehow a god-given right and not exactly what it actually is; a social construct stemming from questionable actions and a healthy fear of government tyranny. NEITHER of which has fuck-all to do with a store owner profiling their customers for the purposes of offering better merchandise.

Worse, failing to take into account the business owner did not have access to your private information, not even knowing your name unless you offered that information.

HE DIDN'T NEED IT. All he had to do was exactly what I have repeatedly told you is the case. The very basics of marketing. JUST PAYING ATTENTION.

But what is endlessly fucking ironic is the fact that most people would freely give him their name and address in order to get the convenience of home delivery.

So now he has your name, your address and what you bought from him. He now has the option of selling that information to another store owner or marketer. Why is that bad? You gave him that information. He is not a priest or a doctor. There is no confidentiality agreement between the two of you.

If you wanted there to be one--and you said, "I will give you this information, but you cannot sell it to anyone else or I will no longer be your customer"--that is certainly within your right to do so, just as it would be in his best interest to accommodate that to keep you as return customer, but beyond the minor annoyance of you getting easily disposed of "junk" mail offers (discounts, no less) how does his selling your information harm you in any significant or substantive fashion? He broke a trust that did not exist? That hurts your feelings?

What--EXACTLY--is the egregious harm you are imagining in regard to marketers using your buying habits to provide you with discounts on other products?

As I already pointed out, I can tell--yes, just by judging your book cover--at least a dozen different demographically identifying indicators about you and your likely buying habits.

Pointed out? You made that claim.

oh ffs

You believe that you can judge a person by their appearance.

In order to make an educated guess about mundane things, like which toothpaste they like? You're goddamned right I can. It's how I make my living. So can millions of others. That's why marketing is a multi-billion dollar industry.

Which does not mean that you actually can do that beyond a few generalities.

Which are all that are necessary. The more data, the better, but it's still always and forever a scattershot guess. See if you can follow this, grandpa. If I'm wrong 90% of the time, that still means I'm right 10% of the time. Do you seriously not understand what a 10% increase in sales would mean to any company in existence?

General impressions is not the point.Hard data in the form of personal information is the point.

So you keep regurgitating like it's in any way controversial or exhaustive. "Hard data" meaning what exactly? Your name? Your address? Why the fuck does it terrify you so for the government--the GOVERNMENT--to know that, let alone a company? The government is the one that sold you that property. You had to register it and pay taxes on it so LONG BEFORE THE INTERNET the government has known precisely where you live and what your name is and how much money you make every year and what you do to make that money, etc.

So you don't want Amazon to know your name or your address? Ok, then don't fucking order anything off of Amazon. Problem solved.

You still can't grasp the fact that just because you're sitting in your home, YOU ARE IN A PUBLIC SPACE WHEN YOU LOG ON just as surely as you are if you go into town or buy a home!

One more time - the issue here is the sheer size and scope of personal information that technology has enabled business and government to gather

One more time, I KNOW WHAT YOU THINK IS "THE ISSUE." What you can't comprehend apparently is that it is NOT an issue. What IS an issue is bad actors, not the knife they use to slit your throat with.

collate and analyze, name, residence, holidays, spending habits, work history, health, etc, etc.....something that the corner store operator with his pencil and notepad could only dream of a couple of generations ago.

First of all, horseshit. Second of all, so what? What harms are done to you by Amazon offering you a 10% discount on the brand of deodorant you purchased last week?

For example:

The Use of Deceptive Practices

Jtfc. That article is about the consequences of using bad practices in your marketing research. The consequences to the company, not to the consumer. Here, they say it right up front in the first paragraph:

Further, companies can be faced with a public backlash if their market research practices are perceived as unethical.

They close with:

Marketing and advertising have a significant impact on public perceptions. Market researchers have an ethical obligation to conduct research objectively, so that available data allows for the development of a balanced or reality-based picture. Researchers who allow their own prejudices to skew their work tend to contribute to the perpetuation of stereotypes in advertising, the development of destructive social constructs and the enabling of unjust profiting from poverty. For example, a market researcher with a one-dimensional view of minorities could do a fair amount of harm if allowed to shape an advertising campaign based on skewed data collection.

It's a "when conducting market research, marketeers, don't be scam artists or it will give us all a black eye" kind of article.

But what's most ironic is that YOU are the one that continues to avoid addressing exactly what it is about "privacy" that paralyzes you so. You keep using the word like it's just inherently kryptonite or something.

So let's do this again: I am a store owner. I know your name, where you live, what you buy from me and from the other stores in the town. I use that information to try to get you to buy more stuff from me than you do from my competitors in town.

And......?

DO NOT regurgitate any stupidity about "you don't get it, the point is the magnitude of the information" as that is meaningless.

Let's stipulate that I am omniscient when it comes to every single aspect of your life--that the amount of data I know about you and have collected about you and put in a super computer that hasn't even been invented yet can tell me instantly exactly what you want to buy at every second of every day.

And.....?

I know EVERYTHING about you. You don't have a single private thought that I can't quantify or predict with my super computer instantly.

And......?

This seems to terrify you for some unknown reason that you have yet to articulate and seem to consider to just be obvious. It is not. Explain in exhaustive detail how my knowing your every thought in regard to your consumer choices is somehow detrimental to you. I know you like Crest toothpaste.

AND...?

Because, so far, what you are REALLY pointing to as being detrimental are the throat slitters, not the cake eaters. Which, once again, goes to intent and is entirely different. As different, in fact, as someone wielding a knife to cut cake and someone wielding the same knife to slit throats.

 

[KeepTalking]

As far as shop owners knowing about their customers habits, and using that information for marketing purposes, you don't even have to go back as far as 1970's Australia to see examples of that (regardless of how some refuse to acknowledge those examples). I have those same exact experiences today.

I am a comic book reader who enjoys the physical experience of going into a brick and mortar comic book stores on at least a weekly basis. About a year ago, a new shop opened up fairly close to home. It has since become my regular shop, even though it is not as big as the store I previously frequented. The owner has got to know me, he knows which books I buy, he knows what kind of stories and art I appreciate, he even knows who I come into the shop with regularly (my wife and my granddaughter). I came in one day, and found that one of my favorite comics was sold out on the shelves, but when I went to ask about it, I found out that the owner had pulled a copy for me, as it was selling so well that day, and he knew it would sell out before I came in. He knows I like to pick up cool variant covers, and often holds those he thinks I will like behind the counter until I get there. When I first started going there, he had very little merchandise geared towards small children. Now that I am bringing my granddaughter into the store on a weekly basis, more and more of that merchandise keeps popping up, including the "blind boxes" that he never carried before. Why are there blind boxes geared towards small children in the shop now? I know for a fact that he overheard my granddaughter saying how she liked to go to the old store because they had blind boxes she likes there. And, just last week I went into the old store because they were having a sale, and the owner there asked why I had not been coming in lately. He knew me and my habits as well as they owner at the new store, and wanted to gather some data on how he might be able to win my business back.

All of this seems to be of great benefit to me when it comes to shopping for comic books and related merchandise in a brick and mortar store, yet I am now supposed to get worked up about Amazon knowing that same information so that I have a better experience of finding what I am looking for when I go to their site? No. It's not a problem for me, and I definitely see a similar benefit when I am shopping Amazon (or whatever site I frequent online). I'm not sure how anyone would even weaponize that data against me, or why, any more than the comic book shop owner would weaponize the data in his head against me. I suppose that if he was particularly nefarious, he might use that data to track me down and kill me if I ever stopped shopping in his store, but that is so remote a possibility that it doesn't bear dwelling on. The same principle applies online, where I am just one data point in a sea of billions, and in which Amazon would have even less reason to track me down and kill me than the local shop owner.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Exactly. And the boogeyman seems to be this vague reference to computers and the magnitude of the "hard data" (whatever the fuck that is; data is data). We clearly have seen examples of personal behavior being manipulated by bad actors (such as Russia's information warfare and what China is doing), but, again, those are throat slitters using the same knife that others have used to cut cake in a very different manner.

So it's a question of intent, not of process. Which means the focus needs to be on the bad actors, not the good (or indifferent). Yet people like DBT seem to be easily manipulated by those bad actors into shifting the focus off of the bad actors and instead onto the benign actors (for a better general term).

It is endlessly ironic. It's like the ACLU. They are forced into a double bind whenever they defend certain positions like a right to privacy, because the REAL motivation behind anyone arguing for privacy is the fact that they don't want their questionable or criminal activity revealed. They won't ever acknowledge that, of course; and the ACLU doesn't ever touch on that, because there is a grain of truth they cling to as well, but the real motivation--for the most part--is that criminals back all right to privacy crusades because they don't want anyone to reveal their actions.

Very rarely in human history has the phrase, "Mind your own business" meant something happy and beneficial to all. ALMOST always--ALMOST (and it's within that tiny percentage that the ACLU is forced to uphold)--someone fiercely arguing for a right to privacy is doing so because they fuck cats or otherwise do shit they know would get them tarred and feathered if it were ever to be revealed.

But, because there is that tiny percentage of righteousness to the concept, we all have to pretend that it's really not about the 95% other hinky shit going down that is itself just a hold over from the days when our ancestors got kicked out of every decent country for fucking cats. Or the like.

The difference for the ACLU is that the cat fuckers usually addend it with "as part of our religion" or the like and so that triggers the defense, or, as in this case, a general unspoken assertion that we have some sort of fundamental right to PRIVACY, writ large so it seems impressive and like it's set in stone, when in fact it's NOT a part of a well-functioning society. Just the opposite (as, again native American culture arguably demonstrated).

It's the "right" to be an asshole defense and while it's technically true--anyone can be an asshole if that's what they choose to be--the whole point of a well-functioning society is that people aren't supposed to want to be assholes.

But, fuckheads be fuckheads and that's why we don't get lawn darts anymore and the ACLU must defend Nazis--if only inadvertently--when they defend free speech.

 

[ruby sparks]

I must say I think the idea that marketing sorts are necessarily good actors is rather sweet.

As is the idea that large numbers of people, perhaps especially vulnerable people and/or young people can’t be or aren’t increasingly and more easily being manipulated into doing things that may not be in their best interests (targeted ads for gambling for example).

The suggestion that the scope, subtlety and scale of the data collection and end uses is irrelevant is also .....interesting to hear.

As is the idea that you necessarily lose ALL your privacy ‘rights’ in a public space.

And the range of commercial transactions and markets so far discussed doesn’t seem to have gotten far past being toothpaste-related, for some reason. Monetising (ie capitalising) data by selling it to political lobbyists and parties or to businesses with political agendas and influences might be considered relevant, in which area I think we are potentially getting further away from ‘good actors’ and possibly in an area becoming rife with propaganda and misinformation. And if anyone thinks capitalism is not in some way, possibly even closely, tied up in that, I’d say catch yourself on, wake up and smell the coffee; it’s on special offer, this week only, just for you.

 

[DBT]

Clearly that is not the case, since you keep thinking that "The issue was always about the means, scale and scope" as if that makes any difference.

Of course it makes a difference. Having a bit of general information about your spending habits is nothing like have detailed personal information about you, up to and including psychological profiling. Not to mention again that the consumer has no control of where that information ends up, who has access to it or how it is used.

That is the point...if you haven't figured it out, which appears to be the case.

Your rambling posts are too long to deal with, aka, Lumpenproletariat , so I'll just say that your comparison of a sixties store keeper taking notes on customers (which probably rarely happened, if at all) and systematic and comprehensive information gathering of information on consumers is not only absurd but demonstrates a complete and utter lack of understanding of the issues and concerns being raised.

Furthermore, you have tried to make it a personal issue from the start, engaging with insults and innuendo while ignoring or misrepresenting what is being said.

Just for the sake of the topic, I'll add this article, which of course is not a matter of me making claims or anything personal, just the concerns that are being raised in regard to technology and its capacity to gather information;


Big data security problems threaten consumers’ privacy

''As more personal information is collected up by ever-more-powerful computers, giant sets of data – big data – have become available for not only legitimate uses but also abuses.

Big data has an enormous potential to revolutionize our lives with its predictive power. Imagine a future in which you know what your weather will be like with 95 percent accuracy 48 hours ahead of time. But due to the possibility of malicious use, there are both security and privacy threats of big data you should be concerned about, especially as you spend more time on the Internet.

What threats are emerging? How should we address these growing concerns without denying society the benefits big data can bring?

How big data is used – for you or against you

There are also other privacy concerns about big data. Companies are eager to deliver targeted advertising to you and tracking your every online move. Big data makes this tracking easier to do, less expensive and more easily analyzed.

A service like IBM’s Personality Insights can build a detailed profile of you, moving well beyond basic demographics or location information. Your online habits can reveal aspects of your personality, such as whether you are outgoing, environmentally conscious, politically conservative or enjoy travel in Africa.

Industry representatives make benign claims about this capability, saying it improves users’ online experiences. But it is not hard to imagine that the same information could be very easily used against us.

For example, insurance companies could start questioning coverage to consumers based on these sorts of big-data profiles, which has already begun to happen.''


The size of the potential problem

First of all, due to the sheer scale of people involved in big data security incidents, the stakes are higher than ever. When the professional development system at Arkansas University was breached in 2014, just 50,000 people were affected. That’s a large number, but compare it with 145 million people whose birth dates, home and email addresses, and other information were stolen in a data breach at eBay that same year.

From the perspective of a security professional, protecting big data sets is also more daunting. This is partly due to the nature of the underlying technologies used to store and process the information.

Big data companies like Amazon heavily rely on distributed computing, which typically involves data centers geographically dispersed across the whole world. Amazon divides its global operations into 12 regions each containing multiple data centers and being potentially subject to both physical attacks and persistent cyberattacks against the tens of thousands of individual servers housed inside.

 

[DBT]

I must say I think the idea that marketing sorts are necessarily good actors is rather sweet.

As is the idea that large numbers of people, perhaps especially vulnerable people and/or young people can’t be or aren’t increasingly and more easily being manipulated into doing things that may not be in their best interests (targeted ads for gambling for example).

The suggestion that the scope, subtlety and scale of the data collection and end uses is irrelevant is also .....interesting to hear.

As is the idea that you necessarily lose ALL your privacy ‘rights’ in a public space.

And the range of commercial transactions and markets so far discussed doesn’t seem to have gotten far past being toothpaste-related, for some reason. Monetising (ie capitalising) data by selling it to political lobbyists and parties or to businesses with political agendas and influences might be considered relevant, in which area I think we are potentially getting further away from ‘good actors’ and possibly in an area becoming rife with propaganda and misinformation. And if anyone thinks capitalism is not in some way, possibly even closely, tied up in that, I’d say catch yourself on, wake up and smell the coffee; it’s on special offer, this week only, just for you.

Exactly. It seems that the right to privacy and control of your own information is no longer of value to people. Out sight is out of mind. Trust in the powers that be that they always have our best interest in mind....plus we get to see a bunch of ads that are tailored especially for us, woo, hoo. Well, isn't that nice.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I must say I think the idea that marketing sorts are necessarily good actors is rather sweet.

Who posited any such idea?

The suggestion that the scope, subtlety and scale of the data collection and end uses is irrelevant is also....

Full of straw.

As is the idea that you necessarily lose ALL your privacy ‘rights’ in a public space.

As with everything I write, read it again please. You’re 0 for three now.

And the range of commercial transactions and markets so far discussed doesn’t seem to have gotten far past being toothpaste-related, for some reason. Monetising (ie capitalising) data by selling it to political lobbyists and parties or to businesses with political agendas and influences might be considered relevant

Goddamn it. 0 for 4.

in which area I think we are potentially getting further away from ‘good actors’ and possibly in an area becoming rife with propaganda and misinformation.

Fucking hell. 0 for fucking 5. Seriously, what the fuck?

It’s bad enough I got grandpa DBT wailing about how “talkies” will ruin pictures without you completely missing everything I’ve already very carefully and exhaustively laid out in your bizarre zeal to burst into a room like a precocious fat kid and stuff binary straw.

At no point did I argue marketers are “necessarily good actors”; at no point did I argue that people being manipulated into doing something harmful to them is a good idea; at no point did I argue that the “scope, subtlety and scale of the data collection and end uses is irrelevant” (the exact opposite in fact); I said that when you walk into the public space you axiomatically lose privacy—except for your thoughts—because what you do in public can be seen by the fucking public HENCE THE WORD PUBLIC; I repeatedly went “far past” toothpaste by specifically delineating the use of the same knife for political reasons, noting EXPLICITLY that it is there where the throat slitting occurs, i.e., “getting further away from ‘good actors’ and possibly in an area becoming rife with propaganda and misinformation;” nor did I argue that “capitalism is not in some way, possibly even closely, tied up in that” (I argued the false equivocation of surveillance).

And it isn’t “monetizing (i.e., capitalising) data by selling it to political lobbyists...etc.”. You don’t get to slip another false equivalence of “monetizing” with “capitalising” to try and shoe horn in Capitalism. The government doesn’t BUY the data from Google. Politicians and lobbyists don’t BUY the data from Facebook.

Congratulations. You literally got every single thing wrong in one post.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

DBT, since you stooped to comparing me to Lumpen, let’s just do this:

Your online habits can reveal aspects of your personality, such as whether you are outgoing, environmentally conscious, politically conservative or enjoy travel in Africa.

Hey, that’s JUST LIKE the shit I was talking about in regard to my own abilities or any halfway attentive store owner or marketer. So, it’s only real when YOU quote it?

Industry representatives make benign claims about this capability, saying it improves users’ online experiences. But it is not hard to imagine that the same information could be very easily used against us.

Well, gee, you mean, from BAD ACTORS? So the knife that can cut a cake can ALSO be used to slit a throat just like I’ve been repeating over and over and over again?

 

[DBT]

DBT, since you stooped to comparing me to Lumpen, let’s just do this:

I had no need to stoop.

You were in fact producing walls of text that, had I the time and inclination to respond, our posts would grow exponentially.

That style of posting, sheer volume, is what I was pointing out...and Lumpenproletariat is a fine example of the art. That's just the way it is.

Hey, that’s JUST LIKE the shit I was talking about in regard to my own abilities or any halfway attentive store owner or marketer. So, it’s only real when YOU quote it?

There never was a comparison to be made between a seventies storekeeper with a pencil keeping and an eye on customers, and the capacity to gather information in this day and age.

A shopkeeper with a pencil who doesn't even know the names of his customers doesn't even rate when it comes to acquisition of private information.

Well, gee, you mean, from BAD ACTORS? So the knife that can cut a cake can ALSO be used to slit a throat just like I’ve been repeating over and over and over again?

Dismissing the risks does not address the issue. As that and other articles mentioned, that takes having the necessary safeguards to be put in place, which in turn requires the necessary legislation and the will to implement it.