Comment by nologic01 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nologic01 | Hacker News Reader

So many words to defend the indefensible. Its not a "war", it is asserting the collective will of an entire continent (made up of fairly diverse cultures and a long history of painful social strife, political and racial oppression and persecution). The aim is to close Pandora's box that was (as it happened) opened by the amoral and asocial advertising industry that cannot see beyond its (admittedly long) nose.

The issue is not advertising, the issue is the construction, classification and use of human profiles through the collection of behavioral data, by-and-large without the subjects being aware or cognizant of the possible short and long-term implications. Once that practice has been legitimized and proven ultra-lucrative and empowering for its practitioners it has undermined the very foundation of digital society.

Just to be clear, there is nothing the adtech industry can do to assure us that behavioral targeting can be made safe. The large scale processing of human behavioral data followed by the direct algorithmic application of real life actions is a weapon of mass social destruction. It is inherently dangerous and should be outlawed. Full stop.

There is a case to be made for taming the nuclear energy of behavioral data in reactors (as opposed to bombs). But the architecture of such systems will be dramatically different to the digital wild-west regime that has been inflicted on society. Consequently also highly regulated with countless lead layers of protection (and thus also far less lucrative / interesting for the digital cowboys).

> The issue is not advertising, the issue is the construction, classification and use of human profiles through the collection of behavioral data, by-and-large without the subjects being aware or cognizant of the possible short and long-term implications.

I don't disagree that collection of data isn't bad, but two things:

1. The collection of data isn't the goal, the advertising is. The data is only practically valuable to do advertising better (and of course for surveillance, but I suspect the market for data for surveillance is orders of magnitude smaller). If you kill the advertising, you kill the need for data. If you kill the data, the advertisers will just find other ways to make their advertising convert better.

2. We should all be outraged at the idea of corporations using psychological tricks to influence our behavior. The human mind was not pentested before shipping to production. Some ads just remind you that a product exists, but many try to create positive associations to make the product more appealing or to make you think of it later.

We just let this happen and don't care. Mostly because we don't really notice it working. You don't think "oh yeah, I'll buy the name brand paper towels because I saw that commercial", you just buy them because they're the ones that your brain has an association with cleaning up the whole dribble of blue liquid. Of course you'll buy the one that works. Our brains are unpatched Linux kernels and advertisers are botnets.

Like, be outraged at the data mining and selling. But be more outraged at why it's happening.

I too see issues with advertising as such. It has created an unsatiable society that cannot find balance even though it churns through an ever growing slice of the planet. But I feel it is a longer term problem about how to organize markets and disseminate product availability in a less manipulative way. In a strange way the internet is actually a pull medium that should orient people more towards seeking information rather than being pushed stuff. In a sense the walled gardens and the timelines aim to replicate a push relationship (that was at its heyday during the TV era).

But I really think the risks from personal data based profiling are more serious and broad based. If these practises get normalized for adtech they are normalized, period. Every industry will want to get in the act. Car manufacturers will want to grab and sell behavior, supermarkets, banks, toothbrushes, fridges, thermostats and doorbells will want to do the same.

But ultimately I think we might be agreeing on the why things are happening as thus underlies everything: Unhinged pursuit of profit (= claims on society) without any care about the impact on that same society.

The various risks we are discussing will only keep multiplying and aggravating if we dont find more effective harnesses to channel these behaviors towards more positive goals.

> Car manufacturers will want to grab and sell behavior, supermarkets, banks, toothbrushes, fridges, thermostats and doorbells will want to do the same.

I'm curious why you think so if the goal isn't advertising. Behavior data is useful for business that deals with behavior. But I can't think of broad reasons for these companies to collect such data when you're already a customer, because they don't need to affect your behavior that that point, right? Unless they're advertising to you.

Exactly. I essentially think we need an amendment to the constitution that protects an individual’s right to not be solicited.

What law would stop Google and Facebook in their tracks is more the question we need to answer.

Data collection is a means to an end for advertisers and not in and of itself bad (nor are applications and/protocols that use PII or globally unique IDs, etc.), which is why GDPR hasn‘t really moved the needle much. It’s fighting the symptom not the cause. Invasion of privacy and “spooky” knowledge about individuals is all downstream.

And if I want to be solicited and psychologically manipulated into consume consume consume, then I really want it to be as relevant and effective as possible, don’t I? Yet another reason why attacking the data collection is ultimately barking up the wrong tree. But solicitation definitely shouldn’t be legal without my consent and probably broadly illegal to do to children.

Let’s play devils advocate for a moment:

Why should I be able to control what someone else knows about me? Seriously? If you sit in a park bench and watch me running around on a hot day I can’t compel you to “forget I was there”. And if you use that knowledge as data to support opening a lemonade stand, and even to reach out to me directly and offer a discount on cold drinks, who is being socially harmed? Where is the “social atomic bomb” here?

And, if I consent to this because you can offer me better prices if I allow you to cookie me, and I don’t see a problem, it seems everything is humming along ethically and harmlessly.

So I’m not sure I buy the conclusion that “behavioral advertising is ethically bankrupt”. Notice in your comment you have to evoke the idea of “mass behavioral knowledge”. What does this mean and how is it bad or different from “minor or regular behavior knowledge”?

Please understand I’m not writing this comment to defend the advertising industry. I’m writing it because I also believe this stuff is potentially grievously detrimental, but I don’t think we have a good foundational construction today for why. And we can’t say what is wrong. If we could, we could more easily point a finger at it, declare it unethical, and make laws against it.

But, no, I don’t think we’ve yet landed on the answer. It’s not some innate “right to be forgotten” and it’s not GDPR telling everyone abstractly that “you can’t use PII in your application”. (The GDPR bit is kinda moot because you argue that it’s unilaterally not okay regardless of consent and the GDPR argues it’s okay with consent, so the GDPR is not a solution to your argument.) There’s something else here to build a case against.

If real harm is impacting individuals or society then shine a light on it! Otherwise it’s just ra ra we hate behavioral advertising because it’s spooky. Which while fun to rally around, doesn't really carry social and legal weight. Pointing this out does not bring me snarky joy, rather it frustrates me because I think we’ll be stuck banging our tech heads trying to make every internet standard and protocol 100% anonymous fighting the digital boogie man until we try a new approach. In order to make social and legal progress, because I do suspect the solution is social and legal, we need a really clear understanding of the problem.

In the face of a globally connected world, what new fundamental right do humans have, that behavioral advertising robs them of, that we must take extreme measures to protect as a society?

> Why should I be able to control what someone else knows about me?

Why should companies be allowed to relentlessly spy on everything you do without your consent?

For instance, Google literally buys a copy of everyone's credit/debit card transaction data.

> as Google said in a blog post on its new service for marketers, it has partnered with “third parties” that give them access to 70 percent of all credit and debit card purchases.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/05/25/242717/google-no...

I fully support a requirement that citizens must give consent before a company is allowed to invade privacy to this extent.

Note that the GGP is arguing a stronger stance: that no amount of consent makes this okay. You’re saying “it’s okay with consent”. You’re taking a weaker stance, one which I don’t necessarily disagree with, but that’s besides the point.

This is the stance the EU has taken. The Surveillance Capitalism business model requires informed consent.

Great question. Let me first answer the meta question that i see all the time, from someone who studies systems science. There’s a supposed “crisis” with the scaling of X that involves millions or billions of people, and our largest societal institutions. Here’s a simple folksy example of x that’s not really much of a problem, how is that different from X? The answer is always the same, because scale matters, always.

In this case, here’s why scale matters. We know these ads work. On an individual basis let’s say you have a 0.31% chance of buying a thing you wouldn’t have otherwise. On this individual scale it seems like no big deal, certainly no amoral or unethical undue influence. On a massive scale however a 0.31% increase makes the advertiser a lot. AND there’s a network effect because desire is contagious, so the more people that buy, the more others will want - double winner. Now let’s say there’s a organization that wants to push some new technology into people’s lives, let’s say voice assistant smart speakers. At scale this doesn’t just sell smart speakers, now 5% of homes have one, and this now has the power to fundamentally change a small slice of culture more broadly as it becomes more common, ubiquitous, and relied upon. And the drift in a small slice of culture drifts the ultimate the trajectory of our civilization - simply by using small but statistically proven edge to influence people. Not to mention in this case, it further entrenches this power of corporate data collection and influence! And now, imagine instead of selling smart speakers, an organization wants to push a political idea, let’s say for example, that democracy is an conspiracy built by elite bankers. I think you can see where this goes.

Further (replying to my own comment), watch The Social Dilemma on Netflix. I almost didn’t watch it because I thought I’ve heard it all before. But it really shocks the conscious when you see it all laid out clearly with strong real world examples - building from the mental health crisis, to the culture wars, to the erosion of worldwide democracy writ large - all driven by the power of adtech.

To be honest, personally I’d argue for a stronger stance: the right to not be solicited. I think all advertising is poisonous and insidious and leads to the things you describe, not just targeted behavioral profiling. So I’d say the missing right that we need to codify lies somewhere in that realm.

Still I think we’re a little stuck on the consent bit. If 98% of society consents to be solicited, all the problems of scale come back. So we need a framework to declare that the power granted to solicitation networks, if centralized, is too great and either reserve it for the gov’t or ideally outlaw it.

It’s illegal, in many places, to sell your vote. Extending that example to a general principle — if you have any decision making power/responsibility over others, then allowing it to be subverted (for pecuniary or other benefit) is a dereliction of fiduciary responsibility.

If you are only selling consequences on yourself (we can debate the legality of that, and protections necessary against exploitation) that’s a different scale of potential harm compared to selling away the power concomitant with your duties.

By that logic, it might be possible (if the potency of behavioral advertising can be established) to forbid people from holding decision making responsibilities (including voting) if they wish to sell away their decision making power for benefits.

At the extreme, imagine board members or government heads deciding a question of enormous importance, and their decision making getting hacked by personal behavioral targeting. If that sounds too fantastical, imagine a popular streaming service promoting an emotionally charged war drama (for Washington DC subscribers) when Congress is in session discussing geopolitics questions. Or more precise targeting analogues — aiming at key decision makers, or their friends/family. I doubt shareholders / stakeholders would be okay with that.

I actually really like this construction/framing. I’ve been wondering for awhile how we claw out of this state where voting is a right not a privilege. You can’t discriminate on anything close to a protected class for obvious reasons, which roundabout includes education. But discriminating on whether you allow yourself to be solicited or not seems kinda brilliant. I don’t want peers who sell their souls to the sexiest corporation casting votes that have been tainted by corporate marketing dollars. I don’t want politicians in office who are exposed to that either. Amd of course I would love to flip a switch and have it be illegal to solicit me and never see another internet ad or receive another flyer or fake important envelope in the mail. Seems like it could be fruitful to draw a hard line between being open to being influenced by advertising and having any sort of political power.

i would also recommend the podcast called “Undivided Attention” from the same authors

It's the passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes. It's one thing if a single lemonade stand keeps track of its customers. When the same lemonade stand can almost instantly access its customers' complete life history, it's a completely different thing.

Imagine being hailed by a random lemonade vendor, "Hello Mr. dcow, I have some cold lemonade for you! It's sugar-free, so don't worry about your diabetes. I can even put it on your tab, since I know you've never been late with your payments and you pass through here every Saturday"

It sure might be convenient, but that doesn't make it less creepy.

Try going around a park photographing what everyone is doing. Further, start giving selectively (to kids and other vulnerable people) lollipops in exchange for them identifying everybody in their friends and family circle by name. At best you would be chased out of the park. At worst you would be lynched.

The cry to identify "real harm" is insidius and malevolent. There have already been documented instances of political manipulation. Given the opaque nature of the sector and the massive leverage it affords its very likely this was just the tip of the iceberg. Risk management is not just making sure you dont die of food poissoning today. It is also about avoiding that heart attack that will come decades early.

Again, its not about the act of advertising as such. It is the behavioral profiling that is the toxic practice. What grave harm can behavioral profiling possibly insert into policing, medicine, finance, education, relations with state and corporate employers etc? Its not even a rhetorical question. Its a societal disaster of historic proportions.

The moral bankruptcy of the adtech industry is not just the original sin of rolling this practice out, but, (after they have been outed) to pretend that they have this under control. That it is a sandboxed environment. It is not. The digital domain is interconnected and leaky. Economic and political dynamics is unpredictable and all the above mentioned domains come into play with adtech itching to expand its reach.

Its not a "new right" that people to defend, the framing is again odius. Who gave the right to certain entities to institute mass surveillance? They simply abused the lack of regulation. Moved fast and broke things.

At stake are fundamental questions about human agency, transparency and accountability of the actions of organised enterprise (and public sector), and the very nature of our social systems as we move deeper into the digital era.

The start of that era is certainly dystopic-looking with unscrupulous private sector and captured governments. The major question is if the (unexpected to be honest) principled stance of the European Union will help boot into an alternative operating system.

> If you sit in a park bench and watch me running around on a hot day I can’t compel you to “forget I was there”.

I will naturally forget because I’m a human with fuzzy memory / storage.

I am not an highly consistent, available and resilient database which will store the information for the next 5 / 10 / 15 / 30 / N years.

Appreciate this is a bit of a nit pick on your argument, but I feel it is also important because it highlights the massive risk / impact difference.

Would your answer really turn on whether the observer had imperfect memory? What if they had photographic memory?

Think the retention period for ad tracking is only a few months or years - probably because storage is too expensive these days and there isn't a terrible amount of value in keeping raw data forever.

> Why should I be able to control what someone else knows about me?

The right to privacy is:

- complete sovereignty over oneself, including data about oneself

- control over public knowledge about oneself

In other words: I am my data, my data is me. I own myself.

To deny my fundamental right to privacy is to deny my personhood, to deny my membership in a society of equals.

--

It's corny, but I sometimes liken privacy to the "true name" plot device. In fantasy, knowing a person's "true name" gives one power over them. In sci-fi, the "true name" would be something like a password or root private key.

Usually the responsibility falls on the individual to not reveal their true name, though. Once known no-one gets to litigate knowledge of it. Usually one must change their identity so much that their true name changes as well, or forever be vulnerable. Everyone does have a right to privacy, to not be tracked and surveilled, what’s being discussed here is an extension of that that argues it’s unethical to retain any data about anybody period, even with their consent. I’m having a hard time making that much of a leap.

Why would any one retain surveillance of me? Because it has value. And if it has value, then I want my cut. Pay me or erase it.

Behavioural advertisment runs counter to the goals and aspirations of a free democratic society. We have enough atomization of the information space as it is.

What makes me pause is that there are truly people who are like "Pff! Free society!" or "Pff! Survival of the human race on planet earth!" and then go to explain how their profits are really what the rest of us should care about. In their worst version these people would sell Cyclon-B to the nazis if it just made them a good enough profit and there are people who see that kind of apocalyptic nihilism and confuse it with strength and power.

The rest of us should ban, tax, punish and prevent more of this totally braindead behaviour. Go ahead and make a profit, but if you can't manage to make it in a way that doesn't impact the rest of us, you can go fuck yourself.

> the collective will of an entire continent

If you ask the average man on the content "would you like your behaviour tracked?" he will indeed reply "No!"

But if you ask him "If you have to choose between seeing ads for women's clothing or ads relevant to your interest, which would you choose?", then he will pick the option that requires behavioural tracking.

I don’t think that’s true, I think most people would actually choose to have adverts that are irrelevant, much easier to tune them out if the signal to noise ratio is low. I think most people don’t like or want adverts in their lives at all.

Like Shen Yun?

The case you describe can be served with contextual ads, no need to know anything more than what I have searched for just now.

No history, no fingerprinting, no profile that follows me everywhere, that gets sold, stolen, triangulated and potentially used against me without me even even knowing.

Maybe I take human history too seriously. Maybe others are morally bankrupt and will try mental and moral somersaults to justify their stance. You judge.

I can think of many searches that do not at all make clear which ads I would find interesting.

I don't think anybody is claiming you should be tracked against your will. The more interesting question is if we should force everybody to oppose tracking, which is what's happening now, with the consequence of less relevant ads being shown.

I don't work for Google, I'm just annoyed that the ads I'm forced to watch are getting less and less relevant as a consequence of (well intentioned) privacy measures.

I think he’d probably prefer to not see the ad altogether. Who actually wants advertising besides the people attempting to sell things.

If you ask him “would you like to see ads”, then the answer will indeed be “No!”

But if you ask the more realistic question “would you like to pay for Google or would you rather see ads”, then I think most will choose ads.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com