
Opera’s founder calls for a ban on tracking on Facebook and Google - tolt
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/jon-von-tetzchner-opera-facebook-google
======
nercht12
Where do you draw the line for the "ban" though? ISPs, Google, and many of
these companies collect PI for payments and associate these payments with
invoices/receipts/etc. so in effect, they already have some of this info. We
could ask for no analytics code on sites, but then we speculate on what code
belongs to the "analytics" and what is there merely for "services". The latter
would blanket everything. Besides - who's going to do the inspecting? Some
inspector with his pockets full of lobbyist money? Some disinterested
bureaucrat? A ban is pointless. What is really needed is for businesses to
find a more effective advertising means that doesn't entail collecting so much
PI.

~~~
eveningcoffee
Most important thing is to make it impossible to create feedback loops.

Nobody should not be able to know how successful the ad campaign was for every
single person.

------
TimJYoung
I don't understand why people are so enamored of personalized ads. Advertising
was around a _long_ time before personalized ads were even a thing, yet it
managed to still work by targeting publications that matched the target
customer. This was accomplished by geographic location, for general consumer
ads, or by interest, for targeted ads, B2B, etc.

~~~
bobajeff
Because it's an invasion of privacy.

If you have a personal conversation to a friend about a party you had when you
were five you don't expect to hear details referenced by a busker the next day
at a park you frequent.

Edit: I was arguing with no one.

~~~
downandout
It's an invasion of privacy that you agree to and receive valuable services
(for free) in return for. Don't want to be tracked? Don't use Google or
Facebook. Problem solved.

~~~
bobajeff
I'm pretty sure no one who uses Google or Facebook is presented with a dialog
that says 'This service is free in exchange for your privacy. Do you agree?'

Even if that were the case the fact that both of those services are monopolies
means that the choice is essentially between using public utilities or
becoming Amish.

~~~
downandout
_> I'm pretty sure no one who uses Google or Facebook is presented with a
dialog that says 'This service is free in exchange for your privacy. Do you
agree?' _

That's pretty much exactly what happens. Have you read those TOS that you
agree to? It's a contract...you should read it.

------
theprop
Nice thoughts on privacy. Vivaldi is good, but the Epic Privacy Browser is
better and it also blocks a lot of Facebook & Google tracking.

------
yuhong
Looks like their argument is that "We don't need ads that are personal. You
can just get ads that are based on location."

~~~
mankyd
And yet...

To make up an example, when I walk into a movie theater, I prefer to see ads
for movies that I might actually go see. If I have kids, I might be interested
in the latest G-rated film. If I don't, that probably won't tempt me.

Location alone doesn't tell you that info. I kind of like getting at least
some specificity and personalization with my ads.

~~~
ginko
When I walk into a movie theater, I already know what movie I'm going to see.
Ideally I don't want to have to see 15-30 minutes of trailers before the
actual film starts either.

~~~
paulddraper
I don't mind seeing 1 plus 6 hundreds movie for the price of 1.

------
digi_owl
I hate to say it, but Oslo Freedom Forum has a checkered history.

~~~
ghughes
You hate to say it, yet you were able to ignore the substance of the article
and say it anyway.

