Someone should clear out his bank account and then ask him how tired he is of privacy advocates.
4 Likes
better ads! that improves his life!
2 Likes
We all have the right to privacy. If a person doesnāt want to exercise that right, that is their choice. But when they argue against privacy, then they are arguing against that choice.
I choose to be private. Whatās the big deal? I argue and fight for that right, that choice. And guys like this are pissed off about it? Why? If they want to expose themselves, so be it.
So why do people like this guy want me to be as publicly exposed as they choose to be? Why do they make it an Us vs Them battle? For ābetter adsā? Like we donāt get enough already. Iāve read in various places that we get exposed to over 4,000 different ads EVERY day.
Let them be exposed. Let them be inundated with ads for whiter than white tooth paste and doggier than dog food. And let me go about my business my way without having to wade through a thousand spam ads with my morning coffee.
7 Likes
I think there is some kind of parallel here to the character Cypher in the Matrix: itās better to not occupy yourself with the fact that theyāre tracking your every action and just enjoy the fancy steak.
2 Likes
Iām unable to find a single instance where an ad, good or otherwise, has improved my life one iota. Thereāve been a few that made me laugh with derision, but thatās about it.
1 Like
2 Likes
Since everyone else here seems to be on the āPrivacy-advocacyā or āFuck Robert Scobleā bandwagon, here are a few words from someone who probably shares his opinion on the matter.
If you are reading this, than this kind of privacy advocacy is probably a waste of time. But I could be wrong; Are you reading this under the watchful eye of an internet-repressive government? Or maybe you are a whistleblower or publisher with damaging secrets about our government. Instead, you are probably like me and just a somewhat nerdy american who has a choice about what things to invest my time and energy into.
And Iām just not interested in hearing anything more about what tools I can use to hide myself on the internet. I donāt care because it doesnāt apply to me. If I want to hide porn or a wedding ring purchase or something from other people on my computer thereās incognito mode. Tell me other reasons to hide everything.
I understand the importance of online security. I have good password practices and understand the actual threats of unencrypted webforms or phishing. But this āhide everything that you do just so you can get poor advertisements or make the NSAās job harderā is dumb and a waste of time and meaningless and a distraction from legitimate internet security issues.
Stop reading those kinds of Wired articles and find some other hobbies (or reading interests at the very least).
3 Likes
I didnāt know what Scoble was known for other than wearing Google Glass in the shower, and finally got curious enough to look it up. Apparently he was Microsoftās technology evangelist. So a person whose poor judgement is long established, yes?
2 Likes
The opposite of āprivacy advocateā is āassholeā. That is, the fundamental problem of privacy isnāt about technology, itās about ethics and politics. In a way, Iāve been frustrated with the discourse of privacy advocates, but mostly because so much of the discussion is about self-defense through use of encryption (and often, through avoiding social media sites).
In much of familiar, daily life, privacy is a matter of social conventions, and those that wilfully violate those conventions are subject to public opprobrium. Itās trivially easy to eavesdrop on the conversation at the next table in the restaurant. But itās an asshole who deliberately, overtly does it. Closed doors and paper envelopes are generally reminders that we expect privacy ā theyāre not technical guarantees of privacy, and no one expects them to be.
Iām frustrated that so much privacy advocacy is focused on encryption, on hiding from our persecutors. Even if the efforts to popularize these tools were successful, it would have an effect not much different from self-censorship ā it would mean the withering of open, public discourse.
We need to start talking about how to go on the offensive. We shouldnāt be talking about hiding from the NSA ā we should be talking about how to shut it down.
5 Likes
I should not even have to read a Wired article to maintain my privacy. I refuse to accept that my use of the internet should not be anonymous by default.
I feel the same way about CCTV cameras being put all over city streets as a matter of course. I know itās different in other countries but in my home country you cannot record a phone conversation without getting consent from the other party.
Cookies were originally introduced so that web sites could provide (persistent) sessions over the stateless protocol that it runs on. Since those early days theyāve been abused to the point where I just want to turn them off. Unfortunately some sites would be completely useless without them.
As for ads, I find the targeted ones are very occasionally appropriate but the enormous costs to my privacy far far far outweigh any minor benefits. (Iām more inclined toward the more mature and carefully chosen ads that are hosted by smaller players like the Deck Network because I consciously know theyāre not shitting all over my privacy.)
This is a matter of principle and as Rob pointed out in the OP, not everyone is comfortable with being spied on. Some peopleās whole lives rely on certain levels of privacy. If you gave us an option to use your site/service without the invasion of privacy, weād probably choose it - even if it meant more ads to pay for it.
Plus what FoolishOwl said.
3 Likes
Iām so tired of Robert Scoble.
I, too, see two groups of people. Those that think ads are good, and those that donāt.
This harks back to a conversation that was had on the TWiT podcast recently, along the same lines.
If you come from the presupposition that ads are good, and more ārelevantā ads are better, then you will come to these conclusions.
If, on the other hand, like me, you thoroughly dislike the very notion of advertising (to put it mildly), then no amount of increased relevance will ever make ads better.
3 Likes
Want to know if using an ad blocker is destroying your life?
Subscribe to AdBlokRemoovTryPlus. Only $20 - one time charge*.
-
- per trial
3 Likes
No idea who Scoble is, and I donāt feel a need to know. No, I donāt want ābetterā ads, when better is used to mean targeted. I donāt mind untargeted ads, like television commercials, as there is potential to learn about something outside my normal areas of interest. Targeted ads just remind me about things Iām already familiar with. As far as internet ads go, I have never clicked on an ad and doubt the intelligence of anybody that does, though I will admit that I have gone to a few websites because of ads, I just type the website in manually rather than clicking through. Way too much malware, and too many viruses, get installed by the click-through method. The risk-level, for me, is even too high to even not use products like Ghostery and Adblock.
If sites want to go back to making their ads simple pictures (i.e., no Java), I have no problems with displaying those.
1 Like
I can see both sides. I think we should be able to be anonymous, since there are many theoretical problems when large organisations know too much about you and there are no controls on how they use it.
On the other hand I see a quid-pro-quo in effect. Facebook gives me a way to easily keep in touch with friends. Google does all sorts of useful stuff for me (maps combined with ānowā can be really useful).
Telling last.fm my taste in music lets them create an audiostream thatās good for me and lets them recommend music purchases. They earn commission if I click through. but I donāt actually lose anything.
In return I give them information that is of little value to me, but of significant value to them. I trust google enough to know that they arenāt going to sell my web-history to my job-interviewer or whatever.
Iām totally cool with this, so long as these things are relatively transparent (so basically, Iām a bit suspicious of facebook and donāt give them too much information).
I see that boingboing uses google analytics cookies, so I guess Beshizza is cool with it too.
Some privacy advocates go too far (IMO) and refuse to acknowledge the fact that giving away your data isnāt always a zero-sum (or negative-sum) game. Likewise, this guy refuses to acknowledge that sometimes it is.
2 Likes
Thatās what I assumed too. My first thought was, āOh, this must be brilliant satire that, by the end, will have highlighted the necessity of privacy!ā
1 Like
As someone who works in algorithmic advertising (Yeah, Iām the one that picks the ads by following you around the Internet.), no real person wants to see ābetter ads.ā People just donāt give a shit. Companies on the other handā¦
2 Likes
There have been very few images on the web where iāve had the desire to right click and select āAdblock Plus: Block imageā¦ā but scobleās shower wank-face is surely up there. Simultaneously making me retch eughā¦
1 Like
The only improvement I can think of is ānot having to do critical analysis when making a purchase.ā
thinking is hard, let our ads be the guide
Arnāt the tools (ie encryption) technically the same as requesting privacy, although in a brute manner?
If encryption were a physical carrier like an envelope, itād be akin to mailing a locked safe with a letter attached.
Your point seems to be about how relative privacy is, and how itās a social norm that should be emphatically enforced.
But you elide over the fact that privacy is about knowledge, and we discuss ways to ensure privacy, because we simply do not believe you can force people not to sit at a table next to you and listen to what you say.
Youāre not going to stop technology with policy; you can limit the feasibility, but that kicks the can down the road.
Encryption is important as it allows everyone, not just those with a proper functioning government, to receive a modicum of privacy in their dealings.
1 Like
