This Article Is Spying on You | Hacker News Reader

This Article Is Spying on You

nytimes.com

19 pointsgnicholas13 comments

I give credit to the NYT for allowing this to run on their site. Doesn't change what they're doing, but at least they're acknowledging it.

Don't give them credit.

It is a very crafty "limited hangout"[1]. It is designed to distract that they are doing the exact thing they are crying foul about, under the guise of being "open" re their opinion section.

My opinion: If you (or others) still think NYT is the "good guy", you are in for some massive disappointment. Or maybe not? Ignorance has always had a nice element of bliss derived from it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout

Just becaude NYT had never been either very truthful or very honest doesn't mean that the "other guys" aren't actually bad.

I didn’t say that. There are no good guys in media. It’s all trash.

Who said anything about the media? Big Tech is worse.

Tech aside, NYT is clearly in the realm of "the media".

Yes, but wasn't the initial comment about NYT's rather consistent complaints about "big tech" when they aren't exactly blameless themselves?

For the record, I don't think the NYT "is the 'good guy'". I just think it would have been worse if they had refused to run the piece.

I wrote the op-ed and I give the NYTime a huge amount of credit for publishing this. On more than one occasion I've had reporters at other major papers be interested in doing a story on my news privacy research and had had the stories killed by editors. The Times actually came to me to ask about doing this and were hugely supportive the entire time.

also, they came up with the awesome title!

Is there anything else you can share about the process working with the NYT, or other papers? Has the process changed in recent years at all?

They initially approached me and I pitched an idea I thought they'd reject out of hand (an op-ed about tracking on the page you're reading). I thought they wouldn't get back to me after that, but they did, and they were wonderful to work with.

Otherwise, I don't think process has changed, it's mainly about personal contacts, being accessible, and taking the time to talk to people and explain the tech in a way the target audience understands. My rule is if a journalist doesn't understand my research it's because I'm not explaining it the right way. I get annoyed when academics complain journalists get their work wrong without making an effort to actually talk to any.

The vast majority of internet and smartphone users have no idea whatsoever

1) how much information is being collected on them

2) what that information is being used for

3) how much harm could be done with it

4) how little governmental regulation there is in this whole space.

If they knew, then I think we would see some action.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com