Hacker News Reader

Comment by tghw | Hacker News Reader

Just to play devil's advocate, how is this any different from running analytics on your websites? They are keeping track of where people go, just like most people on HN do with their own users. And to be honest, I think it's a clever hack that could give them information about how to improve the layout and offerings at the mall.

So why are people having a negative reaction to this? Because they can track your purchases? Websites could easily be doing that too, if they were willing to cooperate (the same way the stores would have to cooperate with the malls by giving records of all purchases, which seems unlikely). Or is it creepier just because it's your physical location?

View on HN

>"So why are people having a negative reaction to this?"

Because the opt-out isn't viable and you're being opted-in without consent.

It's the equivalent of saying "What, they're just tracking your car by intercepting your OnStar comms that your car sends out anyway. They could do that with satellites (and WalMart, among others, does, for parking-lot analysis to see how many are in the store)."

This is a MiTM attack on privacy. If you keep accepting stuff like this without protest, you WILL continue to be tracked and profiled and sold to more and more aggressively with each year.

They need to make AdBlock + for IRL.

An easier comparison for anyone who reacts negatively to this story: for years the mall closed circuit video system has recorded you walking around malls, going into stores, emerging with shopping bags. Mall management has always been able to compile the same statistics based on video analysis.

It was helluva more costly though. That's like saying that spam was possible for years because someone could just send a billion copies of an advertisement via the post office.

For that matter, how is it any different than just having people with clipboards walking around taking notes?

I think I would liken that more to having your sys admin do analytics by watching the logs, but yes, the general idea is the same.

because it's an automated, low-cost, literally man-in-the-middle attack on privacy.

Website analytics for malls is a good analogy. Five years from now, people will clap technology on the back for giving them more efficient store placements because of "mall analytics", but in the present, people are constantly fighting the future.

The negative reactions even remind me of The Oatmeal's comic on every time Facebook changes its layout: http://theoatmeal.com/pl/state_web_winter/facebook_layout

>Five years from now, people will clap technology on the back for giving them more efficient store placements because of "mall analytics"

If there were a way to bet money against that statement, I'd be doing it. Honestly, have you been to a mall lately? Did it give off a "trying our best to make shopping less of a bitch" vibe to you?

Web analytics can create value for the consumer because a website can morph to fit the user. Earth malls do not have that option.

And to the extent that this data will be used to inform store placement at all (maybe for new malls; probably just sold to stores in existing malls), it may actually be in the mall's best interest to move popular stores further apart. That way, you're forced to pass shops for which you have no prior expressed interest. Probably Cinnabon. Win?

Yes, malls already make the bathrooms and food hard to find because they know that everybody needs those, and making you search for them increases your chance of buying something on the way. If the malls knew which "store transitions" were most popular, they would definitely try to maximize their length.

Simple objective function for the mall: maximize the sum over all paths of the path length times the number of people who took that path.

I think the difference is that it's a lot easier to opt out of online tracking. You can turn on private browsing mode. You can decide not to shop online.

With this kind of tracking, there's much less that you can do, especially if more essential shops like grocery stores start to implement it. Sure, you can turn your phone off, but I at least feel like merchants should be polite enough not to track my every movement without my explicit permission.

You're still making a distinction between online and the physical world, which is that for websites, you do something extra to opt out, whereas in the physical world you want to give explicit permission before they track you.

Note that it's very easy to opt out of this: turn the phone off. You click one button. And arguably it's more effective than private browsing mode, which still leaks a lot of information about you.

The physical world is quite different. If I have my phone with me, and on, then I can do things which I might not otherwise do. If my wife were expecting and nearly due, or my client might call, then I could shop and still be available if needed.

This adds another factor - how much do I want to be tracked?

For web sites I can (and do!) have different browsers for different tasks. I use Firefox for Facebook, and regularly write FB cookies on Safari. But in the physical world of this example, I can't work around things by getting two mobile phones.

The analogy carries: there are things you can't do or are more tedious when you're opting out. You have to whitelist things for FlashBlock and AdBlock, your preferences aren't saved in private mode, etc. Moreover, I can still get your IP address and correlate your browser fingerprint, with reasonable confidence, to other visits you've made while using your private browser.

Likewise, you could easily have a cash-prepaid phone you use for times you don't want to be tracked and use Google Voice to forward calls to it.

The point is, you really can't opt out of tracking on the internet as easily as you're suggesting.

I'm arguing that it isn't a strong analogy, not that it isn't an invalid analogy.

Fundamentally, people expect to be able to reach me by phone, and there are times when I want to be reached. I can even tell me phone to only allow a short list of numbers to make my phone ring.

On the other hand, going to a web site means I want something from them, and their analytics are part of what they take as compensation.

You argue, I believe, that "going to the mall" becomes similar to "going to a web site." By picking up my prescription at the mall pharmacy, I implicitly grant the mall and (I presume) other stores in the mall knowledge about where I go. I suppose the same would apply if my hypothetical daughter went to a Planned Parenthood office in a shopping center.

And in some sense, you are right. They already track us, with cameras, with staff, and even with consultant anthropologists. The issues are: how much tracking is appropriate ("retail vs. wholesale surveillance" as Schneier terms it). What are the social tradeoffs, especially when there might be no real alternative to using one of the stores in the mall. (And why do so many stores ban photography while asserting the right to photograph us?)

But they don't track us with the devices we use to contact others, who have nothing to do with the store. That would be (to use yet another analogy) like a web site asking you to install a plug-in "for great discounts!!!" but which also tracks all others sites you visit? (Presume that that tracking is mentioned in the fine print.)

In your analogy, is "the mall" really like "a web site" or like a "web hosting company"? I go to a mall to visit stores, and don't care so much about the mall itself. So "the mall" would be the "web hosting company", and the individual stores correspond to a web site? As someone who has a hosted web site, I would be uncomfortable if my hosting company started doing per-person/per-page traffic analysis other than what I've set up for my own use, and would really not like it if they shared that information with other web sites also hosted by the same company.

Of course, some hosting sites might do this, but in the physical world it's harder for a store to leave the mall if it feels like the mall is doing the wrong thing.

So while you can make the analogy, it doesn't feel like a strong one. Why not just argue this case without analogies?

> Note that it's very easy to opt out of this: turn the phone off. You click one button.

I agree with you on the first part, and I really see this as no different and no worse than online visitor tracking. It's a trivial thing to worry about and I don't think people should be concerned over it.

That said, though, for the folks that are, it's not always that easy to just turn off the phone. Sure, most people have their cell phones on as a convenience and it wouldn't hurt them a bit to turn it off for a few minutes while in the store, but if you have the phone on because your kids are home alone, or your ailing parent may need you at any moment, etc. it becomes much more problematic.

So, in this case, while the opt-out option is simple and trivial for most people, it's practically outright unavailable, or at least perceived as unavailable, to a particular segment of the customers. Even in those instances, the cell phone is often as much or more about peace of mind than actual emergency, but I'd argue that's just as valid a reason to keep the phone on for someone in those situations.

It's very easy to avoid the repository effects of pepper spray, just hold your breath. I don't understand why all these people with asthma are making such a fuss over this.

No, you can't opt out of online tracking any easier. Private browsing mode doesn't hide your IP address. Plus you've got companies like Facebook that can (or try) to track your activity outside of their website. Ever use public internet? Someone may be sniffing your traffic to watch exactly where you're going.

Also you're "you can decide not to shop online" applies to the mall too. Richmond has several high quality malls in the area.

>"No, you can't opt out of online tracking any easier" Not true.

1.) Tor 2.) http://priv3.icsi.berkeley.edu/ 3.) Public WiFi + HTTPS Everywhere + private browsing mode 4.) AdBlock+

Most combinations of these can thwart tracking.

It isn't, which is why I'm surprised more people don't opt out of those things.

Both physical analytics and electronic analytics are reprehensible, imo.

Really? It's "reprehensible" for a website to know how many people visit, what countries they come from, what pages they spend most time on, what buttons are most effective, etc?

Tracking between unaffiliated websites is a different story, but the mall is only tracking our movements around the mall, just like any website that gives a damn about user experience is going to track you around its pages.

This information is sufficient to track you through unrelated visits to the mall, and paired with CCTV video, sufficient to associate you with your face. It's also a small step to associate you with your credit card purchases at various stores.

It's also a small step to associate you with your credit card purchases at various stores

You do realize that they (the credit card companies) already do this (and have for years), right?

Do they have your face on file? Do they provide this purchasing information to malls?

I don't see it as the least bit reprehensible. See, I'm not one to care much about tracking and privacy like others are. Some people just hate any tracking at all and want total privacy. I'm not them. At the same time though this does concern me.

This mall thing really is innocent. They're trying to maximize profits and provide a better experience for the customers. Fine. Same with website Analytics.

It gets scary when you think of the future implications of this. In an ideal world we would be okay with this kind of tracking and we'd be confident that they won't pry too far. But we don't live in that world. We're dealing with people who will see that they can get this innocent and totally legit data and then begin to push the limits to the point where people's privacy truly is being invaded.

So this stuff is cool with me but I'm also prepared for something more sinister to come down the pipeline in the future.

>"which is why I'm surprised more people don't opt out of those things." Because people don't know about them. That's also why there isn't more public backlash -- they're just doing what they can [barely] get away with legally.

You're right, I had the exact same thought about Analytics too. My browser does have a privacy mode, there are plugins that help, and a variety of ways to opt out. And yeah, I know even after all that I can still be tracked online.

So while you might be right there are 2 insidious things about this. First, opting out has a serious downside to it whereas not being tracked online can only cause minor inconveniences here or there. Secondly, where does it end? I think that's the real disturbing thing. Today it's location tracking through cell signals tomorrow we have implanted microchips that can be read by satellites at all times. That's a pretty far out example but if you told someone from 50 years ago about that story they'd probably have a similar reaction to what my implanted microchip quip probably got out of those here who read it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com