And the funny thing is they roll that into "services" like it's something Apple provides
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Data Broker Acxiom Comes Out in Support of Apple CEO Tim Cook's Call for US Data Privacy Regulation
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Google doesn’t sell your identity to others. Google positions sellers ads for them, offering to put those ads in front of persons whose activities suggest they might be interested in the seller’s offerings.
I'm not really sure how you're associating Google with "small business". I'm not sure you've quoted the right post because we seem to be talking about two completely different things here.
But if people are lazy, and this is the result we end up with, then we still end up in a society that's either dysfunctional or helped by regulation preventing this abuse.
[doublepost=1547934202][/doublepost]
What's your source for behavior not having changed much?
I for one find it a far greater deterrent, and am more likely to either opt out or close the tab altogether.
In my mind, this means one of two things:
1. Acxiom doesn't like California's privacy laws and would like to see them preempted on a federal level.
2. Acxiom forsees a future in which to operate in all 50 states, they'll have to comply with 20+ privacy regulatory systems and don't want to deal with that
As a consumer, I don't really have sympathy for either argument.
You cant have your cake and eat it too. If Tim wants these services he must accept what they are going to do with them "outside of his control."... You don't go in saying, "If you want to be in our platform, we have to change your business model"
But that's exactly what Tim is trying to do. A data blocker is not gonna lie just to make someone else happy. By the same standard Apple won't lie either about themselves..
Google makes it possible for small businesses with modest budgets to reach an audience that only large budgets could accomplish with conventional market research and carpet ad strategies.
You said you were concerned that small businesses were buying indentifiable information about you. That was true before the Internet, when businesses could purchase mailing lists and records from organizations and marketing services. Instead, Google guards your identity and delivers ads to persons, like you, who satisfy a certain profile or demographic. The advertiser doesn’t know who your are unless you respond to his ad and share details about yourself during a transaction.
If that were true, my inbox wouldn't be flooded with spam emails. Google isn't the one and only source of information.
Yikes. Which email service and client are you using? It should have SPAM filtering to intercept incoming messages from persons not in your contacts, nor that you emailed previously.
Also, if you’re routinely using your email addy as a login name for accounts on sites, use an alias addy for those you want no solicitations from. Omit the alias mailbox in your client app. The unwanted emails will only exist in the ether.
That's kind of the point right there. If my private data was kept private, I wouldn't need to jump through hoops to prevent unwanted solicitation.
And simply saying "it's on you to read the terms and conditions" (not saying that directly to you) is also a bit naive. Sure, that works for Facebook and Snapchat. But what about a utility company, a doctor, your children's school, a credit card application, a job application? While I'm sure you could pretend you live in a cave and do everything old school, most people don't find that convenient. There are times when life happens and you need to give someone your email and other personal information. Not everyone can afford to turn down a job because the company's data governance policies on PII (and PHI at my job) were deemed inadequate.
People seem to act like the only two options here are to either live completely off the grid or expect no privacy. There has to be some middle ground. You should be able to have a modern, digital life with some level of security above and beyond crossing your fingers. Lengthy terms & conditions documents that might as well be written in Gibberish for lots of people isn't the answer. Spam filters aren't the answer. Having technical savvy isn't the answer. I'm not saying Tim Cook and Apple will find the answer, but I appreciate that they're looking into it.
Excellent points. I agree that your personal utilities, such as email and text/phone, shouldn't be exploited by advertisers whom you didn't implicitly invite.
You suggest a "middle ground". What expectations would you have of it? What is your standard/definition for privacy?
Personally, I feel that consumer profiling has benefits for consumers. Web surfing is considerably more efficient and personalized because of Google's knowledge about us. I think what disturbs people most is not knowing who else is doing the same, and how they're using that data. Google's presence, activities, and data applications are apparent. In exchange, you get tools to use the Internet, organize your life, control appliances, and be informed of relevant products and services. What if you could choose which data-driven service(s) you trust to shadow you? What if websites had to explicitly reveal which data services they partner with, and that those services can't monitor you unless you subscribe to them beforehand? Imagine, data miners would have to solicit you personally, convince you of their value, and offer you something in exchange.
When I talk of privacy, I think it should work like it does in the real world. You want my phone number? Well, I don't want you to have it, so too bad. End of story. If that means my doctor can't call with my test results (giving away some personal information to make my life easier, aka the Google argument), well, that was MY decision. Maybe I'd rather call them. Maybe I have a good reason. It doesn't really matter. I get to choose the level of invasion I want in my life.
In the real world my personal information is requested and those requests are granted or not. It's not taken from me without my knowledge. Much like I wouldn't expect Safeway to attempt to get my phone number from my doctor without my knowledge. People would be outraged if businesses did that. Yet when similar things happen online and businesses get someone's email, some people blame the customer for not reading the T&C crap or for not being smart enough to know what would happen (it's Facebook, what did you expect?) or it's for their own good (you don't want to see ads for things you DON'T want do you?) or whatever. I think it's absurd. It's like saying "If you don't want Safeway knowing your phone number, you should just grow your own food. You choose to purchase food and make your presence known to them, so really, it's all your own fault."
To be completely fair, businesses need a way to run a business online as well. Advertising to some degree needs to happen or the sale of goods would grind to a complete stop. We can't all have absolutely privacy or the internet as we know it would be a very different place. Places like this site would likely need to find new revenue streams or shut down. That's what I mean by there needing to be a middle ground. But the information must be given, not taken.
It's time for the next evolutionary step forward. Steam powered cars didn't last. Now gas cars are slowly getting replaced by electric. Hopefully someday people will talk about how the old "internet/email/web/Facebook/etc" was so corrupt and insecure until the new "whatever" came along and fixed a lot of those problems. Till that day comes, there needs to be way more focus on our online security and privacy. So I wish Mr. Cook and Apple the best in doing what they can.
I don’t think Cook’s/Apple’s vision will be enough for you. Cook didn’t reject data-mining outright in his OpEd:
First, the right to have personal data minimized. Companies should challenge themselves to strip identifying information from customer data or avoid collecting it in the first place. Second, the right to knowledge—to know what data is being collected and why. Third, the right to access. Companies should make it easy for you to access, correct and delete your personal data. And fourth, the right to data security, without which trust is impossible.
Cook’s expectations would make data miners and their intentions more obvious. It would give you the ability to edit the data that is collected. Ultimately, it won’t exempt you from data mining activities. Instead, it will put the burden of auditing the data on you.
Cook’s suggestions are unsurprisingly tame—even Google doesn’t object. He can’t criticize his contemporaries when Apple is facing lawsuits for its own consumer assaults. Meanwhile, there may be a lesser known motive for Cook’s concerns:
https://www.inc.com/geoffrey-james/...ts-government-regulation-of-user-privacy.html
