demonicpaul

gatorguy said:

Rayz2016 said:

gatorguy said:

Gaby said:

So google, in an obvious PR stunt played the sheep and revoked access to the extension even though they were slyly paying for the data being collected. I guess they didn’t count on being outed as one of their customers...  

Why anyone would willingly opt in to data collection in the first instance is what I will never understand. Their needs to be some sort of education for people to understand best practices for and why they should be protecting their identity and personal information. Not to mention some firm laws put in place governing any and all collection and or sale of that data because these conniving corporations will simply come up with ever more creative ways of spying on and monetising individuals. 

Sometimes companies call it analytics for "improving the app and/or user experience". It can still end up collecting user data for other purposes. We all tend to allow it tho when they make it sound so innocuous, and in fact it's the default in a lot of operating systems and applications. You have to actively opt out. 

As for Google, Microsoft etc buying data it was apparently from Jumpstart and almost certainly predated the Avast purchase of the company this past year. Jumpstart FWIW was a fairly well-regarded and very well-known "analytics" firm who dealt with a wide swath of big businesses who needed reliable information on internet marketing: Site traffic, where leads originate, browser shares, conversion rates, etc. Heck Apple themselves might have purchased data from them as they were a trusted source on various web metrics and site visits and a useful resource for those spending money on web advertising. 

The problem is when the companies we trust to protect us from harvesting are doing the harvesting themselves. That's why all the large browsers, Mozilla, Google, Microsoft etc removed the Avast browser extensions after being advised that that they were pulling user data via their malware detection software without disclosing where and what it was being used for. At least that's what I'm reading. 

The point of buying more 'anonymised' information is simple: the more anonymous data you have then the easier it is to tie that data until you have a complete profile of someone that is not anonymous at all. And of course, you have the wonderful get-out clause built right in: we don't collect people's personal data, however we're happy to buy  as much of it as we can from shady third parties.

The problem with selling this data (as Google does) is that you don't know what the buyer already has, so they can easily the data complete the profile from what you've given them, especially if you sold them a different facet of the data a year before.

Oh, and your attempt to implicate Apple into this without a shred of evidence was  weak, woefully transparent  and, quite frankly, a little bit desperate.

Ummm... Yeah.... Ok then. Google sells anonymized user data?
What user data is it you think Google is selling, and where do you purchase yours? I guess you don't get out and read a lot. 

For this article the company selling data is Jumpshot who last year was purchased by Avast. That's why this is a story, not because Jumpstart has customers. And yes Apple buys data as well, if not from Jumpshot then some other company with empirical market data based on user visits and interactions. Did you know Apple has employees tasked with data-mining "anonymized" user data and marketing analytics such as the kind Jumpstart sells? One of their more recent facilities flying under the radar is in Austin with another in San Jose.
https://www.glassdoor.com/Jobs/Apple-data-mining-scientist-Jobs-EI_IE1138.0,5_KO6,27.htm

So whether Apple might have purchased data from Jumpshot too, and it would be no huge surprise if they did, matters not one whit for this particular AI story any more than any of the other companies mentioned as Jumpshot customers. The point is not that there's a market for analytical data. There is and a vibrant one.
What makes this a story is that Jumpshot's new owner who sells malware detection software is mining the same customers it was tasked with protecting from intrusion when they use that malware protection software.

Adding Google and Microsoft to the story is the clickbait part to get you to read it. Kinda like using "companies such as Apple" in a marginally connected story makes it more attractive as a lead-in. You know, the kinda thing you would typically complain about.

Jumpshot has thousands of customers who purchase data, many of them world-class market leaders: Revlon, Conde Nast, Yelp, TripAdvisor, Google, Kimberley-Clark, Unilever, Nestle, Microsoft, IBM...
It does not make those companies "evil" does it? A company whose primary business is protecting you from malware is the story.

BTW, for those who have no idea what this "data" is, why any company would want to purchase it, and you're not interested enough to spend much time searching for the answer here's a time-saving link or two.
https://www.jumpshot.com/solutions/industry/brands
https://www.jumpshot.com/solutions/industry/retail