Hacker News Reader

Comment by Frost1x | Hacker News Reader

I suspect we as a society need new legislation to deal with these sort of issues. Before, much of this was incredibly difficult to impossible so legislation and regulation was entirely avoidable and relatively rare occurence could be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

At this point, technology has enabled this sort of behavior at mass scale, now revealing far more personal and useful information about individuals.

A feasible model to work from may be go look at the healthcare industry and HIPPA requirements/liabilities and adapt as needed. Certainly not perfect but it's a good starting point for widespread data laws.

The question is, will our representatives actually give teeth to real data protection legislation (not a facade with no teeth only enacted by name) in the US or are they too deeply in bed with industry that they'll protect business rights over real people who suffer real direct damages.

View on HN

So I originally studied chemical engineering, and one of the common catchphrases is, "regulations are written in blood." The reason there's a requirement to put a pressure relief valve on that tank is because at some point a tank like it didn't have one and it blew up and killed people. However, safety in chemical engineering has been evolving over centuries as we have understood more about the dangers and consequences of dealing with chemical manufacturing.

For software, it feels like we're only at the beginning of understanding the dangers and consequences of the software, business models, and technology our industry has created. Unfortunately, if it follows the same path as other engineering disciplines, we likely will experience decades or centuries of bloodshed before it is regulated appropriately.

>will our representatives actually give teeth to real data protection legislation

No. The majority of them don't even understand what data is being collected, how it can be used, or the technology behind any of it. Until the people in office change, the idea that our representatives can or will protect us is toothless and spineless.

What trouble Congress is in! They have to be experts in law, warfare, every industry from oil refining to adtech, science (at least as far as funding it goes), ecology, economics, medicine...

In fact I would say that it's impossible to expect anyone to understand enough to know what they're legislating. Aside from being a powerful libertarian argument against the excessive involvement of government, I think it shows that we have to figure out a way to work around the fact that congressmen don't understand everything that they're in charge of, rather than trying to remedy it.

Congress used to have an office which would inform them of how things work, but unsurprisingly, proceeded to dismantle it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Technology_Assessmen...

This is why members of Congress have staffers and various groups like http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/ which have subject-matter experts on staff to offer advice and research arbitrary topics of legislative interest.

A quick refresher on the details of how congress actually goes about their day-to-day plus the roles of the various permanent government and de facto government organs, shows "expertise doesn't scale" isn't really a problem. If it was, the whole thing would have come toppling down ages ago. So the libertarian argument is only "it's hard to do well", not "it's impossible".

I'll leave you to find your own references to get a detailed picture, but in short two basic forms of organizing do a lot of the work: big teams/staff for each congressman to help out, and special interest committees and caucuses. On top of that at least some take the idea of "representation" somewhat seriously, so if they need to know about a topic they're not experienced in, they tend to meet with supposed experts in those topics (which can come from a dedicated pool, lobbyists, state university department, and occasionally private industry owners or high level employees) for information and sometimes policy recommendations.

That's a cop-out. Data use and technology are major issues that are required understanding going forward. Understanding the oil industry is not at all the same as having a basic understanding of technology. Technology usage is only going to grow in scale.

Yes, because that's what they are - representatives. Of a general public.

The only way to make these chameleons (pretend to) care about an issue is to make the general public (aka voters, source of their wellbeing) care about the issue.

> I suspect we as a society need new legislation to deal with these sort of issues.

Why not ban targeted advertising altogether?

Because it has value, both to the advertiser and to the target, compared to un-targeted advertising. Advertising is an attempt to transfer information. Targeted ads means that the information is more likely to be relevant, whatever its other downsides. Let's not throw out that baby with the bath water.

"Advertising is an attempt to transfer information" is deeply misguided unless you adjust that to say "transfer very biased information". Advertising is an attempt to influence one party to give their money to another party, generally through manipulation and guile.

Targeted advertising is like the difference between spam and spear phising. The person being advertised to rarely (if ever) benefits.

I benefit if Youtube shows me advertisements for desk chairs and lathes instead of beauty products and kids toys. Targeted advertisements help me discover new products and product categories, while untargeted advertising just wastes my time. This is in essence no different than companies buying advertising time in specific TV shows with a known audience.

Of course the abuses are also plentiful and dangerous. We probably do need a lot of regulation. But in general targeted advertisement is a useful thing to have.

The equivalent of buying advertising time in specific TV shows with a known audience is... buying adverts on specific Youtube channels with a known audience. Funnily, a lot of Youtubers now perform advertising of this sort - I'm sure you've seen the VPN ads.

This, like TV, doesn't require tracking of individual people who haven't consented to such.

> This, like TV, doesn't require tracking of individual people who haven't consented to such.

That's a stretch. How do you think they determine any information about the "known" audience? Obviously, they do all sorts of research to determine more about the audiences watching certain shows and channels, likely by sifting through social media, show reviews (IMDB, etc), and elsewhere to determine who's watching what shows, then looking into their profiles to determine their interests. Aggregate that data, find what they all have mostly in common, and cater to those interests. It's just a more generalized and difficult process of the same thing, and eventually it's going to become more narrowed and specific to individual targets.

The difference is that if I don’t want to let anyone know that I watch My Little Pony... I don’t have to! There’s no little black box connected to my TV that tells an advertiser that I’m watching it without asking me.

I can also have a discussion with my friends about My Little Pony and how amazing the last episode was without an algorithm picking that up, unless I publish it to the world or explicitly send it to the advertiser.

I understand your point, and I agree that it's easier to keep your television viewing habits hidden from your internet viewing habits, for obvious reasons, but I'm just pointing out that there are still ways to aggregate data to the point where they are able to determine, with significant accuracy, which ads are the most effective based on demographics, locality, cross-referencing social media, web traffic, consumer surveys, department store sales information, and probably tons of other details.

They benefit when they use valuable services for free, which is paid by targeted ads.

> The person being advertised to rarely (if ever) benefits.

Instagram has gotten so good at targeting me that I probably click on at least 1/2 the ads because I find them interesting. I've purchased things because of those clicks too, and have enjoyed the purchases. Things I would have never known about were it not for the ads.

Targeting doesn't work. There is no baby.

I recently bought a set of clamps on Amazon to join two shipping containers together. Since then I've seen a bunch of related ads, such as for shipping container vents, shelving, etc. I clicked on a couple of those ads, and while I didn't buy anything, I did learn some useful information. I probably would have learned less, if anything, from untargeted ads in those same slots.

> while I didn't buy anything

And so targeting didn't work!

Yes, "targeting" can put stuff in front of your eyeballs that may occasionally have marginal utility, but for sales? Nu uh.

In the baby/bathwater metaphor, you saw some ads for strollers. Still no baby.

It didn't work for the advertiser, but it did for me. I learned about options and prices for container accessories, which will help me make future choices. I would not have been better off if those ads had been less interesting to me.

“Targeted advertising” is just a euphemism for the secretive creation and sale of dossiers on unwitting Internet users. It should already be illegal under existing laws.

In most cases, this isn't true. The dossiers and maintained very closely by Facebook, Google, etc in order to leverage their knowledge on a target to produce the most effective targeted ads. If they sold the dossiers, they would lose the continued revenue.

Most things has value by some definition. Question is if the sum is positive. I'm not sure that is the case for targeted advertising.

No advertising is really untargeted. Even billboards tend to carry ads for the type of driver that passes by them and broadcast TV has ads for the type of person that watches that show.

Ads targeted to an individual without that individual's consent should probably be banned. In addition, the law should make it clear that when a company does hold data about individuals, the individual should have some rights to that data including the ability to block the sharing or transfer of that data.

So, when Google buys FitBit, every user of FitBit should have to explicitly opt-in to their data being transferred to Google.

> Advertising is an attempt to transfer information.

If you want to inform me, just give me a website I can visit where I can enter my needs and provide perhaps some context information, and which deletes/forgets this information when I leave. There is no need AT ALL to figure this info out behind my back.

The use-case isn’t advertising, it’s QoS. So you collect the data and give your best customers fast access, or maybe you balance it out: your most complaining customers get preferential treatment and the most reasonable wait a little longer on the line because you know they won’t complain.

Or, framing it more broadly: mass personalization implies a worse deal on average for everyone on the atomized/consumer/low-power (individual) side, because the high-power participants (companies) will optimize their outcomes at the expense of individuals.

Isn't GDPR enforcing on this vein? You could build something similar in North America.

Looking out how the spam act played out, which allows implicit opt in compared to Europe’s explicit opt-in.

I believe US govt will always be at the mercy of corporations.

Now some things are great. Like CCPA, California’s version of GDPR. But getting it accepted throughout the US is a mammoth task.

I have hope though.

I've been wondering: if there was a world government, corporations would probably reach a point in which they are unstoppable from a law point of view. The bigger the machine, the harder to steer it in a good direction.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com