You weren't asking me, but I almost never do. For one, I get no third class mail -- I told the carrier not to deliver it.
But it's sent to you regardless if you receive it or not, and it also means that your information was sold or shared. Turning a blind eye to it doesn't stop its existence.
But it's sent to you regardless if you receive it or not, and it also means that your information was sold or shared. Turning a blind eye to it doesn't stop its existence.
By definition, third class mail wasn't sent to me. It was sent to everyone.
Now, sure I get stuff from my bank or from ATT. But they already have my info, since I'm using their services. Now, if I started getting stuff from, say, a different bank, or from Verizon or something, that would be different. But I don't.
Does Apple advertise on behalf of advertisers like Google does, or do advertisers using iAds have to reach out themselves? Google has so many web properties and has such a vast database that advertisers basically trust Google to deliver the ads to the appropriate viewers. Could it be that an advertiser needs more customer data to wage an equally effective ad campaign with iAds?
Why, exactly. Unless I'm missing what you're saying (which I admit is quite possible). As I said above, iAd is essentially a rounding error when it comes to Apple's revenues -- less than 0.05%.
My point was that while you can congratulate Apple on a stance of not passing personal information to advertisers, if the net result is that advertisers don't use iAd and use someother ad network that does pass information on, well that's rather a pyhrric victory for iAd.
Obviously iAd succeeding or failing doesn't mean much to Apple's bottom line. But why offer a service at all if it doesn't make money and no one is getting anything out of it? It's just a distraction. In that case I'd say Apple is going to have to do something to get iAd working (either compromise more on the personal information, or find some other value add), or they should scuttle the service as a failed endeavour. Apple aren't the sort of company to put time and effort into 0.05%ers that don't add anything to their brand.
My point was that while you can congratulate Apple on a stance of not passing personal information to advertisers, if the net result is that advertisers don't use iAd and use someother ad network that does pass information on, well that's rather a pyhrric victory for iAd.
Obviously iAd succeeding or failing doesn't mean much to Apple's bottom line. But why offer a service at all if it doesn't make money and no one is getting anything out of it? It's just a distraction. In that case I'd say Apple is going to have to do something to get iAd working (either compromise more on the personal information, or find some other value add), or they should scuttle the service as a failed endeavour. Apple aren't the sort of company to put time and effort into 0.05%ers that don't add anything to their brand.
Ahh, gotcha. I figured I wasn't catching on.
OTOH, even if it's fairly meaningless, they might as well hold onto it. Just because they haven't found (or revealed) a grander purpose, it also doesn't hurt anything.
Google sells you the end user Apple doesn't, this false equivalence you are trying to sell isn't flying, Apple and Google aren't the same, the Ad men are happy with Google for a reason they share user info.
You are clearly not following, as for one I never stated anything about them being equivalent and no they don't share user info. The difference between Apple and Google is that with Apple the only channel is the targeted advertising channel (like Google's admob). While Google also supplies aggregated anonymous data (like is used in research and such), which are for example handy for trend analysis and stuff like that. That's the difference, Apple doesn't offer that and could be of great value to marketers, advertisers,... Aggregated anonymous data is not user info, it's as personal as general demographic statistics (i.e. number of people employed in car manufacturing), so not at all.
You are clearly not following, as for one I never stated anything about them being equivalent and no they don't share user info. The difference between Apple and Google is that with Apple the only channel is the targeted advertising channel (like Google's admob). While Google also supplies aggregated anonymous data (like is used in research and such), which are for example handy for trend analysis and stuff like that. That's the difference, Apple doesn't offer that and could be of great value to marketers, advertisers,... Aggregated anonymous data is not user info, it's as personal as general demographic statistics, so not at all.
SAN FRANCISCO — Those long-forgotten posts on social networks, from the pasta someone photographed to the rant about her dentist, are forgotten no more. Social networks want to make them easier to find, and in some cases, to show them in ads.
Google on Friday announced that it would soon be able to show users’ names, photos, ratings and comments in ads across the Web, endorsing marketers’ products. Facebook already runs similar endorsement ads. But on Thursday it, too, took a step to show personal information more broadly by changing its search settings to make it harder for users to hide from other people trying to find them on the social network.
And from further on in the article:
Quote:
Google, which is under the supervision of the F.T.C. for a previous social networking privacy violation and faces privacy audits and fines for privacy misrepresentations, is taking pains to show that it has considered the privacy implications of the new ads. For instance, it will notify users of the change with banners on Google’s home page, in search results, in Google Plus notifications and elsewhere.
<h1 style="color:rgb(75,75,75);">Google to Sell Users’ Endorsements</h1>
SAN FRANCISCO — Those long-forgotten posts on social networks, from the pasta someone photographed to the rant about her dentist, are forgotten no more. Social networks want to make them easier to find, and in some cases, to show them in ads.
Google on Friday announced that it would soon be able to show users’ names, photos, ratings and comments in ads across the Web, endorsing marketers’ products. Facebook already runs similar endorsement ads. But on Thursday it, too, took a step to show personal information more broadly by changing its search settings to make it harder for users to hide from other people trying to find them on the social network.
That only applies to endorsements you already made public. It would be shown to whoever you already shared this with (and only these people, and only when they are logged in). All Google does is digg it back up and place it where it's relevant. Please read the whole correct story before quoting. The title is also completely wrong there is no selling of endorsements what so ever. But what it does do is add a new advantage to advertising on top of the search engine. Because personal recommendations from friends are stronger than just the search ads on their own.
And that last part had nothing to do with the endorsements but rather the failed experiment Buzz that didn't offer clear ways of controlling what you shared. Although it clearly was an offence it has nothing to do with the selling of user info of any kind.
That only applies to endorsements you already made public. It would be shown to whoever you already shared this with (and only these people, and only when they are logged in). All Google does is digg it back up and place it where it's relevant. Please read the whole correct story before quoting. The title is also completely wrong there is no selling of endorsements what so ever. But what it does do is add a new advantage to advertising on top of the search engine. Because personal recommendations from friends are stronger than just the search ads on their own.
I did read it. But why the hell would I want that done in the first place? I mean, I post "Taylor Swift's 'Red' is BY FAR her best album." And suddenly it's showing up as an endorsement somewhere else on the 'net?! WTF?
I did read it. But why the hell would I want that done in the first place? I mean, I post "Taylor Swift's 'Red' is BY FAR her best album." And suddenly it's showing up as an endorsement somewhere else on the 'net?! WTF?
What's my name? What do I look like? You did notice that the article said, "Google on Friday announced that it would soon be able to show users’ names, photos, ratings and comments in ads across the Web," right?
What's my name? What do I look like? You did notice that the article said, "Google on Friday announced that it would soon be able to show users’ names, photos, ratings and comments in ads across the Web," right?
Frak that noise.
How did they get it if you didn't post it to begin with?
I did read it. But why the hell would I want that done in the first place? I mean, I post "Taylor Swift's 'Red' is BY FAR her best album." And suddenly it's showing up as an endorsement somewhere else on the 'net?! WTF?
Well you can always opt-out although I do agree opt-in would be better. It's one of the latest habits of Google I'm not to fond of making stuff opt-out instead of opt-in. But at least you can always opt-out, which is something that can not be said about Facebook.
How did they get it if you didn't post it to begin with?
I'm not on Google+ so I don't know, but do you have to use your real name?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipsy
Well you can always opt-out although I do agree opt-in would be better. It's one of the latest habits of Google I'm not to fond of making stuff opt-out instead of opt-in. But at least you can always opt-out, which is something that can not be said about Facebook.
Yeah, opt-out is really BS. How may people know about all this stuff? I mean the privacy policy is over 2,000 words long. I doubt many people read it. And they shouldn't have to in the first place.
As to Facebook, yeah. They are even worse, no question.
Just to make it clear, when someone says that Google does not provide your personal information to advertisers, that means they aren't giving out your name, address, etc. to advertisers. But, Google is telling them about your collective behavior and habits and associating with your devices individually and collectively.
The fact that an advertiser does not know your name is true. But, they know your device address and can be even more specific in what they target you with that any mail addressed to "occupant" that reaches your mailbox.
To Google, it's all semantics.
No that's not true. Google doesn't provide any personally identifiable information to advertisers, not even anonymous personally identifying information. Advertisers provide keywords and other criteria to Google, and Google makes sure that users who make the right searches see the right ads. Google then provides the results of the advertising (clicks, views, sales, etc.) to the advertisers without ever revealing who those people were.
I'm not on Google+ so I don't know, but do you have to use your real name?
Yeah, opt-out is really BS. How may people know about all this stuff? I mean the privacy policy is over 2,000 words long. I doubt many people read it. And they shouldn't have to in the first place.
As to Facebook, yeah. They are even worse, no question.
I've read it . But yeah I'm probably an exception. It is something that Google has had trouble with in the past, clearly communicating such changes (which is what most privacy violations regarding Google are about, not necessarily the policy itself). But it's been greatly improved these last years (with the exception of opt-out instead of opt-in) and everything they do with their privacy policy is always under great scrutiny of watchdogs so I'm not too worried.
Good. Keep the ads value lower (not zero, just less) but keep my privacy too. Apple doesn't depend on selling personal info.
"aggregated, non-personally identifiable information" is pseudo-comforting language, carefully chosen to placate if you don't think too hard about it or follow the money.
Google is forming detailed profiles on you and every user they can. They may identify you with a number, username, email address and YouTube name, rather than your real name (which they probably also know) but it's still specifically tied to you. They don't just know that "some 27-year old male" searched for a divorce lawyer. They know that one specific one did--the same one that reviews his favorite restaurants on the west side of Chicago, and posts videos to YouTube from a California trip once a year, and has a given list of friends and family, and has a certain political leaning, and owes money on both a mortgage and a car loan, and fits the statistical profile of someone at risk for gambling problems.
That's on a whole different scale than what Apple collects, and is worth a ton of monetary value. And then Google shares more of that with advertisers than Apple does. And makes it less easy to opt out. In fact, Google has been caught intentionally bypassing people's opt out (Safari cookies).
When I'm using a web site and Google-served ads are showing me things based on searches I did two weeks ago, while iAds are not.... yes, I hope Google tolerators see the light more and accept less of that kind of tracking. (I point the same finger at Facebook.) That's to say nothing of cases where your data is shared OUTSIDE the official privacy policy: by bad employees or by hackers, for example. An unavoidable side effect if deep tracking is where your income comes from. Privacy is the enemy to Google's business model.
I'm much more comfortable being the customer who pays for something, instead of the product being sold.
Good post. I've been using Yahoo search for a couple of years now, having used Google all the time before. It's fine; I've never struggled finding things.
Comments
So you get zero junk mail to your house?
You weren't asking me, but I almost never do. For one, I get no third class mail -- I told the carrier not to deliver it.
But it's sent to you regardless if you receive it or not, and it also means that your information was sold or shared. Turning a blind eye to it doesn't stop its existence.
But it's sent to you regardless if you receive it or not, and it also means that your information was sold or shared. Turning a blind eye to it doesn't stop its existence.
By definition, third class mail wasn't sent to me. It was sent to everyone.
Now, sure I get stuff from my bank or from ATT. But they already have my info, since I'm using their services. Now, if I started getting stuff from, say, a different bank, or from Verizon or something, that would be different. But I don't.
Does Apple advertise on behalf of advertisers like Google does, or do advertisers using iAds have to reach out themselves? Google has so many web properties and has such a vast database that advertisers basically trust Google to deliver the ads to the appropriate viewers. Could it be that an advertiser needs more customer data to wage an equally effective ad campaign with iAds?
Why, exactly. Unless I'm missing what you're saying (which I admit is quite possible). As I said above, iAd is essentially a rounding error when it comes to Apple's revenues -- less than 0.05%.
My point was that while you can congratulate Apple on a stance of not passing personal information to advertisers, if the net result is that advertisers don't use iAd and use someother ad network that does pass information on, well that's rather a pyhrric victory for iAd.
Obviously iAd succeeding or failing doesn't mean much to Apple's bottom line. But why offer a service at all if it doesn't make money and no one is getting anything out of it? It's just a distraction. In that case I'd say Apple is going to have to do something to get iAd working (either compromise more on the personal information, or find some other value add), or they should scuttle the service as a failed endeavour. Apple aren't the sort of company to put time and effort into 0.05%ers that don't add anything to their brand.
My point was that while you can congratulate Apple on a stance of not passing personal information to advertisers, if the net result is that advertisers don't use iAd and use someother ad network that does pass information on, well that's rather a pyhrric victory for iAd.
Obviously iAd succeeding or failing doesn't mean much to Apple's bottom line. But why offer a service at all if it doesn't make money and no one is getting anything out of it? It's just a distraction. In that case I'd say Apple is going to have to do something to get iAd working (either compromise more on the personal information, or find some other value add), or they should scuttle the service as a failed endeavour. Apple aren't the sort of company to put time and effort into 0.05%ers that don't add anything to their brand.
Ahh, gotcha. I figured I wasn't catching on.
OTOH, even if it's fairly meaningless, they might as well hold onto it. Just because they haven't found (or revealed) a grander purpose, it also doesn't hurt anything.
You are clearly not following, as for one I never stated anything about them being equivalent and no they don't share user info. The difference between Apple and Google is that with Apple the only channel is the targeted advertising channel (like Google's admob). While Google also supplies aggregated anonymous data (like is used in research and such), which are for example handy for trend analysis and stuff like that. That's the difference, Apple doesn't offer that and could be of great value to marketers, advertisers,... Aggregated anonymous data is not user info, it's as personal as general demographic statistics (i.e. number of people employed in car manufacturing), so not at all.
You are clearly not following, as for one I never stated anything about them being equivalent and no they don't share user info. The difference between Apple and Google is that with Apple the only channel is the targeted advertising channel (like Google's admob). While Google also supplies aggregated anonymous data (like is used in research and such), which are for example handy for trend analysis and stuff like that. That's the difference, Apple doesn't offer that and could be of great value to marketers, advertisers,... Aggregated anonymous data is not user info, it's as personal as general demographic statistics, so not at all.
From: http://tinyurl.com/pzollzp (NY Times)
Google to Sell Users’ Endorsements
SAN FRANCISCO — Those long-forgotten posts on social networks, from the pasta someone photographed to the rant about her dentist, are forgotten no more. Social networks want to make them easier to find, and in some cases, to show them in ads.
Google on Friday announced that it would soon be able to show users’ names, photos, ratings and comments in ads across the Web, endorsing marketers’ products. Facebook already runs similar endorsement ads. But on Thursday it, too, took a step to show personal information more broadly by changing its search settings to make it harder for users to hide from other people trying to find them on the social network.
And from further on in the article:
That only applies to endorsements you already made public. It would be shown to whoever you already shared this with (and only these people, and only when they are logged in). All Google does is digg it back up and place it where it's relevant. Please read the whole correct story before quoting. The title is also completely wrong there is no selling of endorsements what so ever. But what it does do is add a new advantage to advertising on top of the search engine. Because personal recommendations from friends are stronger than just the search ads on their own.
And that last part had nothing to do with the endorsements but rather the failed experiment Buzz that didn't offer clear ways of controlling what you shared. Although it clearly was an offence it has nothing to do with the selling of user info of any kind.
That only applies to endorsements you already made public. It would be shown to whoever you already shared this with (and only these people, and only when they are logged in). All Google does is digg it back up and place it where it's relevant. Please read the whole correct story before quoting. The title is also completely wrong there is no selling of endorsements what so ever. But what it does do is add a new advantage to advertising on top of the search engine. Because personal recommendations from friends are stronger than just the search ads on their own.
I did read it. But why the hell would I want that done in the first place? I mean, I post "Taylor Swift's 'Red' is BY FAR her best album." And suddenly it's showing up as an endorsement somewhere else on the 'net?! WTF?
Then don't post anything on the 'net.
Then don't post anything on the 'net.
What's my name? What do I look like? You did notice that the article said, "Google on Friday announced that it would soon be able to show users’ names, photos, ratings and comments in ads across the Web," right?
Frak that noise.
How did they get it if you didn't post it to begin with?
Well you can always opt-out although I do agree opt-in would be better. It's one of the latest habits of Google I'm not to fond of making stuff opt-out instead of opt-in. But at least you can always opt-out, which is something that can not be said about Facebook.
How did they get it if you didn't post it to begin with?
I'm not on Google+ so I don't know, but do you have to use your real name?
Well you can always opt-out although I do agree opt-in would be better. It's one of the latest habits of Google I'm not to fond of making stuff opt-out instead of opt-in. But at least you can always opt-out, which is something that can not be said about Facebook.
Yeah, opt-out is really BS. How may people know about all this stuff? I mean the privacy policy is over 2,000 words long. I doubt many people read it. And they shouldn't have to in the first place.
As to Facebook, yeah. They are even worse, no question.
Just to make it clear, when someone says that Google does not provide your personal information to advertisers, that means they aren't giving out your name, address, etc. to advertisers. But, Google is telling them about your collective behavior and habits and associating with your devices individually and collectively.
The fact that an advertiser does not know your name is true. But, they know your device address and can be even more specific in what they target you with that any mail addressed to "occupant" that reaches your mailbox.
To Google, it's all semantics.
No that's not true. Google doesn't provide any personally identifiable information to advertisers, not even anonymous personally identifying information. Advertisers provide keywords and other criteria to Google, and Google makes sure that users who make the right searches see the right ads. Google then provides the results of the advertising (clicks, views, sales, etc.) to the advertisers without ever revealing who those people were.
What misconceptions? Google is evil. End of discussion.
What misconceptions? Google is evil. End of discussion.
I've read it
Good post. I've been using Yahoo search for a couple of years now, having used Google all the time before. It's fine; I've never struggled finding things.