Slashdot Mirror


Digital Ads Are Starting To Feel Psychic (theoutline.com)

It seems like everyone these days has had a paranoiac moment where a website advertises something to you that you recently purchased or was gifted without a digital trail. According to a new website called New Organs, which collects first-hand accounts of these moments, "the feeling of being listened to is among the most common experiences, along with seeing the same ads on different websites, and being tracked via geo-location," reports The Outline. The website was created by Tega Brain and Sam Lavigne, two Brooklyn-based artists whose work explores the intersections of technology and society. From the report: "We are stuck in this 20th century idea of spying, of wiretapping and hidden microphones," said Brain. "But really there is this whole new sensory apparatus, a complicated entanglement of online trackers and algorithms that are watching over us." It is this new sensory apparatus that Brain and Lavigne metaphorically refer to as "new organs," as if the online surveillance framework used by social media platforms like Facebook has somehow transfigured into a semi-living organism. "These new organs don't actually need to listen to your voice to know that you like Japanese knives," Lavigne told me. "They actually have ways of coming to know things about you that we don't fully understand yet." In other words, these new methods of data collection have become so uncannily accurate in their knowledge of you as to occasionally feel indistinguishable from actual ears listening in on and understanding intimate conversations.

There are a few things that we do already know about these new "organs" of data processing, as defined by Brain and Lavigne. We know, for instance, that they have an insatiable appetite for personal data. They gather this by first tracking online activity, which is enough to tell them what people like, what they search for, what they listen to, what they read, where they're walking for dinner, and also, worryingly, who their friends are and what they like, read, purchase -- data that is gathered without their awareness. But, then, the organs also gather information purchased from commercial data brokers about people's offline lives, like how many credit cards they own, what their income is, and what they purchase when they go grocery shopping. And all of this information is triangulated with friends' data, because if they know what those dear to you are buying -- a Japanese knife, for instance -- there is a good chance that that person will be interested in that very same thing. The new organs process this enormous amount of information to break you down into categories, which are sometimes innocuous like, "Listens to Spotify" or "Trendy Moms," but can also be more sensitive, identifying ethnicity and religious affiliation, or invasively personal, like "Lives away from family." More than this, the new organs are being integrated with increasingly sophisticated algorithms, so they can generate predictive portraits of you, which they then sell to advertisers who can target products that you don't even know you want yet.

106 of 182 comments (clear)

  1. I use NoScript by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And don't have this problem.

    1. Re:I use NoScript by vtcodger · · Score: 3, Informative

      Or you can use the the hosts file available at http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/ho... It's a little bulky at 470K bytes or so, and I haven't the slightest idea where Windows hides the hosts file nowadays (Unixen put it where they always have at /etc/hosts) But it certainly does work for linux.

      If and when web advertisers clean up their act and quit trying to play games with me and MY computer, I'll be more than happy to remove my hosts file and display their ads (if they will kindly serve them promptly and keep the number and bandwidth within reason. And as long as they don't even think about including audio). .However, I imagine that in practice, I'll simply skip past their ads just like I do with magazine and newspaper ads.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    2. Re:I use NoScript by viperidaenz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Usually C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc

    3. Re: I use NoScript by houghi · · Score: 2

      https://pi-hole.net/ is good. Easy install and you can add mvps if you like. If you have Windows, buy a Raspberry zero W and install it there.
      I have added VPN, so my phone is not serving ads either.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    4. Re:I use NoScript by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Same - Ghostery.

      It's a shame that ghostery have been working hard at completely fucking up the interface, you used to be able to open settings in a tab, now settings is restricted to a small box, great fun when you're trying to look at hundreds of lines.

      I wish developers would put usability before whatever the fuck design thing they're following. They've gone down the route of hey, lets replace all the meaningful words with lots of confusing icons that do fuck-knows-what. And top top it off I have no fucking idea if those are toggle buttons or what ever, I don't know if they are on or off if they are toggle buttons.

      And this:
      [not] Smart blocker - "automatically block and unblock trackers to optimize page performance", FML, do I need to explain why this is just wrong.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    5. Re: I use NoScript by kurkosdr · · Score: 1

      You didn't read the article right? They also mine credit card information, so if you don't favor cash for most of your transactions, you are being tracked. Keep that in mind the next time the word "cashless" falls out of some politician's mouth.

  2. I wouldn't know.... by Zurkeyon3733 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Advertising stopped working on me about 25 years ago. The internet CURED me of being able to watch advertising. My computers have Every form of ad blocker known to man on them. And any adds that DO get through, go on the "Do not buy" list. because they "Annoyed" me. GOOD LUCK ADVERTISERS ;-P

    1. Re:I wouldn't know.... by Known+Nutter · · Score: 4, Informative

      Just going to leave this here:

      https://pi-hole.net/

      --
      Beware of the Leopard.
    2. Re:I wouldn't know.... by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Where are these internet ads?? (I use uBlock origin personally, no ties).

      The first late-night, auto-playing, pants staining ad that I ran into sometime around 1999 was the first and last. It's been open warfare since then, and the malware spreading ads that have popped up in the last 5 years or so have just reinforced my position.

      I don't really see ads. If someone does and has some issue with them, that's their problem. It's a choice on their part, knowingly or not, and any issue they have is theirs.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    3. Re:I wouldn't know.... by Mandrel · · Score: 1

      Are you only against "ambush" advertising that intrudes itself into the environment you're living in, the devices you're using, and the media you're consuming? Or do you also find useless other forms of advertising like point-of-sale, classified sections, highly-targeted direct mail, and websites? Yes, the latter still spin, but at least they're pretty much opt-in.

      Where do you get the desire to buy something, and how do you choose which products to buy and the vendors to buy from?

    4. Re: I wouldn't know.... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      I don't know how people can stand unfiltered youtube. Really,

      It's like every video you watch has a 10 second advert at the start of it and/or popups in the middle. How can this possibly be popular? Beats me. (shrug)

      --
      No sig today...
    5. Re:I wouldn't know.... by EETech1 · · Score: 1

      I'll put this next to it!

      https://blokada.org/index.html

  3. Not Psychic, Stalker . by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It seems like everyone these days has had a paranoiac moment where a website advertises something to you that you recently purchased or was gifted without a digital trail

    That doesn't feel like someone reading my mind at all. To me it feels more like someone peering in my windows and following constantly.

    I'm pretty sure most people find it just as creepy as I do, even non-technical people I know have mentioned this un-prompted and also that they found it creepy.

    Companies have to be really careful using techniques like this, because they often fail in horrible ways that paints the company with a brush they would not want if they knew.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Not Psychic, Stalker . by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I wonder why they would show you ads for something you've already bought though. It seems counterproductive and like a waste of money, but if it's becoming pervasive it must work or it makes no sense for everyone to do it.

      Maybe the people who don't use some form of ad blocking really are that stupid.

    2. Re:Not Psychic, Stalker . by dohzer · · Score: 1

      Well lets face it, psychics are normally stalking you for information. Either that, or just making generic guesses until one of them is a match for your situation.

    3. Re:Not Psychic, Stalker . by vtcodger · · Score: 2

      "I wonder why they would show you ads for something you've already bought..."

      Have you ever talked to an advertising person? Their "thought" process appears to be a mixture of Lewis Carroll, Ayn Rand, and Franz Kafka. I don't think that expecting it to make sense is likely to produce much in the way of results.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    4. Re:Not Psychic, Stalker . by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They probably aren't completely sure you bought it or not.
      The ad trackers will know you visited the product page. They may know the next page you visited was the shopping cart page, implying you've added it. But they can't be sure it was in your cart when you visited the checkout page, not without buying data from that particular online shop.

    5. Re:Not Psychic, Stalker . by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mine feels like someone VERY stupid going through last week's trash honestly. I'll look up a part, lets say a replacement battery for a customer's laptop, and then for a month I'll get "OMG u want laptops? We got laptops PLZ BUY LAPTOP!!"...no you retards, if I wanted a NEW laptop I wouldn't be looking for a BATTERY for what I have, would I?

      The sad part? The old ads that just went by what you were looking at on the web? Actually worked, these? Haven't bought a single thing in years. With the old ads I would be looking at say an article on some new GPU and I would see "Hey you want a GPU? We have those on sale, also having a sale on RAM and HDDs, just FYI" and many times I would go "Hmm that IS a good price, I could use a prezzie for myself" and off I would go to buy something. These new ads are always a day late a a fist load of dollars short as thy completely IGNORE what I'm looking at for something I searched for ages ago.

      This should be blatantly obvious, if I'm looking at GPUs or RAM or a new battery for my vape pipe, shouldn't you offer to sell me those? Wouldn't that make sense? Instead I look at something simple and obvious like a new holder for my phone and get "ZOMFG U WANT A SAMSUNG GALAXY? WE GOT SAMSUNG GALAXY"...No dipshits, I did NOT look for a PHONE, I looked for a HOLDER, why would I want a new phone if I just bought a holder for the one I already have? Fucking idiots.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    6. Re:Not Psychic, Stalker . by olsmeister · · Score: 1

      I've experienced that and wondered the same thing. The only explanation (other than blatant stupidity) that I could think of is that a certain percentage of people will be unhappy with their purchase and return it and look for another one. The only thing is, a lot of the time the ads I see are for the exact... same... item... that I bought.

    7. Re:Not Psychic, Stalker . by HiThere · · Score: 1

      But Lewis Carroll always makes sense, if you follow it through in detail. You don't always need to agree with him, e.g. a "rath", which Humpty Dumpty defines as a small green pig, was the title of an Irish hill tribe chieftain, but he always makes sense.

      I'll admit, though, that I haven't successfully traced down the roots of "Jabberwockery". Jabber is pretty clear, but I'm uncertain about "wockery". I'm guessing the poem was inspired by someone blathering at him when he was trying to work on a math problem, but it's a guess.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    8. Re:Not Psychic, Stalker . by msauve · · Score: 1

      " I'm guessing the poem was inspired by someone blathering at him..."

      That would be the slithy toves.

      But, don't mind me - I incessantly stand on my head. Do you think at my age that is right?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    9. Re: Not Psychic, Stalker . by astrofurter · · Score: 2

      I was sitting at the bar the other day, and my friends got to talking with this old geezer tourist. Visiting from Milwaukee, the dude must have been 70 something. So my buddy asks him for his Facebook. And the geezer says: "Don't you use any less-evil form of communication? Facebook is just creepy." And I thought, whoa man, that old geezer is woke.

    10. Re:Not Psychic, Stalker . by petes_PoV · · Score: 1

      That doesn't feel like someone reading my mind at all. To me it feels more like someone peering in my windows and following constantly.

      That sounds a lot like paranoia.

      Do you feel the same about people in the street? People who look at you? Do you have feelings of hostility towards the mailman, who might actually know what he is delivering - is that an invasion of your privacy? Of the supermarket checkout person who sees all the stuff you buy - as does everyone else in the queue, behind you?

      It isn't creepy. It is just part of everyday life. If you don't like it, go and live in a cabin in the woods on your own. Grow your own food and never use the same shop twice.

      And so with online advertising. It isn't "stalking" you. Just learn to ignore it.

      --
      politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    11. Re:Not Psychic, Stalker . by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      Try reading the whole of Jabberwocky with a German accent. It reveals a lot.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    12. Re:Not Psychic, Stalker . by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      psychics are normally stalking you for information.

      No. Thats psychotics.

      Now we have Artificial Intelligence, we also have to put up with Artificial Psychotics. It is a natural consequence of all those GPUs eating Brainz.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    13. Re:Not Psychic, Stalker . by Bongo · · Score: 1

      I guess it’s a question of intent. And much of society is built on trust. So although the amount of information that’s being gathered will surprise people, for most it’s a big meh. They have lots of “data” scraps and computers are not terribly smart about making sense of it. Psychology is more art and guesswork than science. There’s plenty of real problems to worry about in life.

    14. Re:Not Psychic, Stalker . by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      Nah, try saying it as Mr.T. It makes perfect sense.

      --
      No sig today...
    15. Re:Not Psychic, Stalker . by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      They probably aren't completely sure you bought it or not.

      Really?

      In that case there's a LOT of money to be made by telling the advertisers what the person has purchased. That info might even be worth more than the spyware.

      Or maybe you're wrong and advertisers really are that stupid.

      --
      No sig today...
    16. Re:Not Psychic, Stalker . by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Maybe they want to show you a better or cheaper item so that you'll send the other one back for a refund and buy theirs instead.

      --
      No sig today...
    17. Re:Not Psychic, Stalker . by asylumx · · Score: 1

      I don't know -- Amazon loves to show me ads for things I already bought *from them* right on their front page. They call it "Inspired by your shopping trends" and "recommendations for you" but both of those sections show products similar to items I have purchased through them recently. They should be pretty sure I bought it already at that point, since I bought it from them.

      That said, maybe the sales/ops department and the marketing department are disconnected from each other, the way departments at any dysfunctional fortune 500 get disconnected...

    18. Re:Not Psychic, Stalker . by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      That's true. But I believe first line advertisers are not really the problem. The implications of large scale data aggregation on individuals goes far beyond "he looked at a dishwasher so let's sell him another dishwasher". What happens when they know where and when you work, who all your friends are, when you leave home, when you get back, where and when you shop, where you go on vacation, etc.? Put that information in the hands of a stalker, criminal, or any government agent (domestic or foreign) and you start to see the problem. And you can't get rid of it. Sure, they can pass a 'forget me' law, but that only applies to people you know have the data. The fifty other organizations who copied the data, legally or otherwise, all still have their copies.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    19. Re:Not Psychic, Stalker . by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      I wonder why they would show you ads for something you've already bought though.

      Because they don't know how not to. The sale doesn't get communicated.

      More generally, the data showed (or someone thinks it shows) an interest in something, but there is no data that shows lack of interest in something, including the sudden lack of interest that comes with a sale. (Though one might infer something, when the "theme" of searches switches from pre-purchase research to post-purchase support.)

      Left hand and right hand don't talk. Perhaps that'll be the tech's next step...

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    20. Re: Not Psychic, Stalker . by nasor · · Score: 1

      If you're shopping for a laptop battery, you probably have a laptop that's giving you battery trouble. Sounds like a great person to advertise a new laptop to. It's not ideal because you're showing some willingness to fix it rather than replace it (at least, for the time being...), but advertising new laptops to someone who is having problems with their current laptop seems way better than advertising to random people.

    21. Re: Not Psychic, Stalker . by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Then explain the holder for the phone, or when the wife spent a whole 2 minutes looking for a CASE for her glasses only to get for a solid month "WE WILL SELL U SOME NEW GLASSES LULZ"?

      They are NOT going by watch you searched for, what they are doing is trying to make their ads fit anything because that is what they have to sell, whether you give a flying fuck or not. In a way it reminds me of the old porn bugs I used to have to clean off customer's PCs in the 90s, they would be looking at say "big titty blowbangs" and would get a porn bug constantly trying to sell them twinks in tutus...now do you HONESTLY think someone who is looking for big titty blowbangs gives a single shit about twinks in tutus? Nope but that is what ads the ad company has for sale so that is what you get whether you will give a fuck or not.

      Its the same thing here, in the old days they would base the ad on what you were actually looking at, an article on new GPUs would get GPU and RAM sales because if you are looking at GPUs you might be in the market, today? Today they have certain products they want to push to EVERYBODY so they are gonna grab at any straw they possibly can to make that ad fit, not because you might buy it but because that is what they are shoveling sales be damned. I mean is there a single snowball's chance in hell I'm gonna buy a new phone when the HOLDER I just bought isn't gonna work on that phone? Of course not, don't be silly. But cell phone COMPANIES pay good money for their ads so the ad companies are gonna shove that shit at ANY excuse because that is where the money is at. Its a scam, the companies are making less money, the customers are tuning out and adblocking, the only one making cash is the ad companies selling their snake oil metrics.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    22. Re: Not Psychic, Stalker . by nasor · · Score: 1

      Looking for a glasses case = probably uses glasses, so a better person to target with glasses ads than someone random who might not wear glasses. The same is true for the cellphone case, although so many people have cellphones now that it probably hardly makes it more targeted. Rather than looking at it as "Does shopping for X indicate that I *probably* want Y?" ask "Does shopping for X make me better to advertise Y to than a *totally random* person?"

    23. Re:Not Psychic, Stalker . by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Maybe they're showing you things other people bought, who also bought the same thing as you.

      Seems pretty reasonable to me.

    24. Re:Not Psychic, Stalker . by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      They usually don't bother to filter out the people who actually bought the product because advertising is very cheap,

      And this is the entire source of the problem with modern advertising. IT'S CHEAP! It's so cheap, that the advertisers don't give a damn if they target too many wrong people. It's so cheap it may as well be free. Their major expenditures are paying out to web sites that use their third party service ("don't think about it, just embed our links"). They are NOT paying out money to support the bandwidth to get the advertisements to people, instead the customers are paying to support bigger bandwidth to support all these ads. Even the cheap ass snail mail advertising flyers are once a week only because they have to actually pay bulk rate fees. If the internet figured out a way to apply a bulk rate fee to advertisers then these problems would likely start clearing up.

    25. Re:Not Psychic, Stalker . by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Too many advertisers. I suspect they are selling data about what you purchased to advertisers, but that doesn't mean every single advertiser is paying for this and getting the data. So a couple advertisers may see that you purchased a baby crib and now probably you're going to be looking for baby clothes, but there are probably hundreds of advertisers that only know you looked at baby crib ads.

    26. Re:Not Psychic, Stalker . by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I think a lot of this comes from blocking too much data so they only see a small part of the picture, so that they have a flawed analytical model which makes the ad selection look stupid. Other people who say "who needs privacy?" and leave everything wide open may be seeing ads that really are highly targeted, who may or may not feel creeped out by it all.

      For me, I'd rather have the stupid ads than highly targeted ads.

    27. Re:Not Psychic, Stalker . by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      I think it comes down to statistics.

      Buying the same product again is not that rare. You may want to buy a second one for someone else, or you may need two but only buy the second one if the first one satisfies you. You may also be unsatisfied send it back and buy another brand, or stumble on an accessory you missed. These may be low probabilities but how are the probabilities that you now want to buy something completely different. Algorithms rely on statistics, they don't look tor the reason why, so if suggesting the same product you already bought correlates with a bigger number on the bottom line, it's what they do.

      For example, let's say you bought a coffee machine, seeing ads about coffee machines may remind you that you now need to buy cups, so you click anyways and search for cups. You may also be thinking it could make a good gift for your parents, after all, you already did your research, and you think it is a good one, plus it is easier since you already know how it works. They could suggest you something completely different, like a hairdryer (because somehow, hairdryers and coffee machines appeal to similar groups or something), but that would be a wild guess, probably not as effective as suggesting you a second coffee machine.

      Algorithms are also working on incomplete data. They may not even know if you actually bought the coffee machine. They typically have to work with small, apparently insignificant (but correlated) details. They may not even by aware of the big events (like purchases, life events, ...). It leads to a mismatch between your reasoning and what the algorithm show you: sometimes, it feels psychic, sometimes completely retarded.

  4. If AI doesn't feel predictive... by snapsnap · · Score: 1

    then that's bad AI.

    1. Re:If AI doesn't feel predictive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But AI shouldn't be able to predict future behaviors so this is stalkerish rather than facts-based.

    2. Re:If AI doesn't feel predictive... by M0j0_j0j0 · · Score: 1

      Even if is an AI to predict failure?

  5. An ad that advertises something I recently bought. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    Hmm, seems like a really badly targeted ad to me.

    After all, if I just bought one, I'm not terribly likely to buy another right away....

    Unless we're talking consumables. Ads trying to sell me consumables is neither surprising nor especially annoying. Because I have mastered the secret to happiness - I ignore ALL ads....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  6. It's a variant of "small office telepathy" by davecb · · Score: 1

    You get really bizzare effects when people become aware of random facts about one another. I used to work in a small company in a small room, and could jump in any time it was helpful. We fixes some subtle bugs that way. Alas, this doesn't work for larger incarnations, even of the same company. Some kind of communications hierarchy is needed.

    Now, if I were communicating with an AI (or just artificially stupid) agent of the advertiser, we might have a more useful discussion. The classic one might be "I just bought a Subaru, don't tell me about why I want an Outback, talk to me about trailer hitches for the Outback".

    --dave

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
    1. Re:It's a variant of "small office telepathy" by javaman235 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Or if we could let the AI know about who we WANT to be, to get pushed in that direction: e.g. healthy food, education opportunities, etc. That would be nice too.

      --
      -The art of programming is the pursuit of absolute simplicity.
  7. Digital Ads are fucking pathetic and terrible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I keep hearing Amazon and Google and all of these companies bragging about how incredible their AI are and all of these places telling us how unbelievably accurate their ad tracking and advertising methods are for targeting an individual.

    Then I go online (to Amazon or anywhere else) and the ads I get are for the thing I *just* fucking bought yesterday.

    Hey, dipshit... how many 65" widescreen HDTVs do you think I'm in the market for this week? The time to try and sell me one was *before* I bought one yesterday. Not after.

    Sorry, but AI has yet to be more than a bunch of "if then else" loops. I don't give a fuck. Bots aren't taking over jack shit in this century when they can't even figure out when I'm less likely to buy a $5k tv.

    1. Re:Digital Ads are fucking pathetic and terrible. by vtcodger · · Score: 2

      Really? My experience is that Amazon shows me stuff that I looked at six weeks ago, but didn't buy. That sort of make sense ... As much as anything on the modern Internet makes sense. Maybe I forgot about it, but still am interested? ... Could happen I suppose ... Maybe once or even twice a decade.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    2. Re:Digital Ads are fucking pathetic and terrible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wait for the hockey mask ads...

    3. Re:Digital Ads are fucking pathetic and terrible. by Bongo · · Score: 1

      True. Take my supermarket. I always shop there. And I have a apecifi diet. I am strict about my diet. You’d think by now some AI could have spotted a pattern and not given me offers constantly for stuff I never buy in years. AIs have to be trained.

  8. Too bad it doesn't work by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    The closest I see for "targeted advertising" is when Amazon shows me ads for something I already bought. Must be that amazing AI stuff I keep hearing about.

  9. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  10. Or block google analytics. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Google Analytics is what makes things look "psychic".

    I was wondering why my iPad, which doesn't have any blockers, always shows ads for the last things I shopped for from companies I shopped at.

    Common denominator that made the ads look "psychic"?

    Google Analytics.

    Ghostery and uBlock are pretty good.

    1. Re:Or block google analytics. by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      Yep. Just block google analytics in your hosts (or wherever). Clear out your cookies, 90% of tracking will be gone.

      Anybody who isn't doing this but still comes on here and complains about "privacy" is an idiot.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Or block google analytics. by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      It seems just stupid to start advertising something I just bought. Why would I go buy another so soon? Oh, I just bought a new car, so why are you trying to sell me a second new car? Why do they think I need a second baby crib as a backup?

      Google analytics, and anything with the word "analytics" in the URL gets blocked by me. These tend to relatively safe, most web sites work just find without enabling those. The few that don't work I don't need to visit.

    3. Re:Or block google analytics. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Sometimes I unblock ads, or use an unprotected browser for particular sites. Ie, at work they're highly in love with Microsoft and Cloud based solutions and everything, from HR to corporate announcements to training. So nothing works with them if you have any sort of scripting protection, even protection against cross-site scripting attacks will break all of this stuff. So I set up a second browser that has no adblock or noscript or even popup blocking.

      Now I tried this at home, mostly because I was having troubles watching Big Bang Theory for a few months now. I used to use IE for this but it stopped working there. So as an experiment I got Chrome and tried there. Videos refuse to play even with no addons and wide open security. Then I remembered that I have an adblock running on my router, so I tried shutting that down, but still no videos played. However a quick test at work shows that the videos played fine. So there's something that refuses to play if some site is inaccessible. I used to fix this in the past by finding just the right script to block that everything starts working, but not so many scripts that nothing works. At this point it's just too much effort to bother...

      It's stuff like that that pisses me off, because these companies are training their customers to not be secure on the internet. If you try being slightly secure, stuff breaks. Just a plain jane adblock stops stuff from working. So most people just leave things wide open, and follow instructions that say "please turn off adblock" or "please turn off your tracking protection" or "please enable all cookies".

    4. Re:Or block google analytics. by Baki · · Score: 1

      More and more sites friendly ask you to disable your ad-blocker because it is their only way of funding.

      I usually send them an angry message explaining why I block ads, I think such sites are complicit to spying on my and putting my computer security at risk.

    5. Re:Or block google analytics. by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      It seems just stupid to start advertising something I just bought. Why would I go buy another so soon?

      Asked the same from a friend that is in the corporate social media business. What you are seeing is the first layer and still on your computer. Most people spend several days shopping for items on the internet and the keeping sites they have visited in mind boosts the probability that they'll buy that product. That is just your webpage picking up and displaying products from cookies on your computer from participating companies. No server is telling it to give you those ads. Sure, it seems stupid when you see ads for things you've already bought, but on average over most the population, it works.

  11. In a previous life we wanted 3% by davecb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    These days, 1% is good

    In a previous life (Xanaro), we were doing bound-in ads in a print pub, and knew we would have succeeded sy a 3% response rate.

    These days, advertisers struggle for 1%, which means they're doing something rather badly

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
    1. Re:In a previous life we wanted 3% by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      These days advertisers are competing against 1000's of times more competition than back in the print only ad days.

    2. Re:In a previous life we wanted 3% by davecb · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure we don't have so many more appearances of the ad to completely drown out the additional advertisers, or that additional advertisers have an effect on (in modern terms) click-through after someone read an ad.

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    3. Re:In a previous life we wanted 3% by houghi · · Score: 1

      Well, if you get 10 times as much ads thrown at you, the 3% went to 10% from a persons point of view.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    4. Re:In a previous life we wanted 3% by davecb · · Score: 1

      But I get 10x as many people, so it might well average out.

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
  12. I've had enough of marketing lies by wakeboarder · · Score: 2

    This is from a digital marketer trying to convince you that your life will be better through digital marketing, until you think about the dangers of it. First off, more than 50% of americans think its wrong for the government to monitor others, and the 2nd most thing that people try to avoid while online are advertisers at 30% (and all bet that the rest of them don't know that their every move online is being monitored. If you were talking to your friend on the street, and a third person started listening in on your conversation, how many of us would tolerate that? Most of us do this every day on line.

    The organs word in the article also stems from a book called 'Gulag Archipelago' by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the word organs refers to the intelligence network setup by the Soviets which they used to throw 66 million people into jail. Why you would use this word in a marketing article is sheer stupidity. We are only scratching the surface on abuse of what should be private digital information, and someday the axe could come down hard on us.

    If the marketers really 'knew' who I was they would quickly realize that I've only clicked on under 10 ads a year. They wouldn't even display them on websites because they would know that I find ads unappealing. They would realize that it is no use to show me digital ads. I guess they don't know me well enough yet, and that's a good thing.

  13. What ads? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Wait, you want to tell me there are still people who don't use adblockers and privacy browsers or at least privacy extensions?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:What ads? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      They are doing it with webcams and microphones now and at an OS and software level.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:What ads? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Well then since there are none of those in my house either (no smartphone, no smart TV, no webcam or microphones connected to the computer, and so on) then I've got nothing to worry about; great! :-)

    3. Re:What ads? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Same :) Its nice to know social media is not spying with a live microphone.
      That the smart TV is not sending back details about every media file watched.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:What ads? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 2

      That explains it. The other day, my PC was acting up so I was yelling "Fuck, fuck, fuck!". Then I got ads for condoms!

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  14. I might be getting a free PS3 controller by Snotnose · · Score: 1

    Around Christmas I wore my PS3 controller out, and bought one from Amazon. It's a perfectly cromulent controller (hard to find with all the astroturf reviews), and I gave it a 5 star review.

    Got email today implying I'm getting a free PS3 controller Any Time Now (tm), and asking me to review it.

    I think I could learn to like this new economy :)

  15. If they were really "psychic" by MpVpRb · · Score: 1

    .. they would be better

    Yeah, after I buy something, I often see a lot of ads for the same thing from different sellers, or a similar product from different manufacturers

    This is a stupid waste of ad spending. I already made my decision

    "Psychic" ads would give me interesting alternatives for products I'm researching

  16. Re:I use cash by riverat1 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I use cash for anything up into the $200-$300 range, maybe higher than that if I plan ahead. That way they don't get any tracking information from me. I recently had to break down and order a dryer door switch on-line after not being able to find it locally. After that I kept getting advertisements for dry door switches. How many of them do they think I need?

  17. Typo in Subject line by Kotukunui · · Score: 1

    You mis-spelled "Psychotic"

  18. google does image recognition by known_coward_69 · · Score: 1

    if you buy something and text someone about it on an android phone google will know. one time my wife texted me a picture of something for the kids and within the hour i start getting ads about it.

    personally i don't care. most of the ads i get is stuff i looked at just for info with little intention of buying RIGHT NOW. or stuff i just bought. Like why the fuck would i need two SSD drives right after I bought one? if i needed a second one i would have bought two of them. or why would i need a second $150 bike helmet after i bought my first one?

    1. Re:google does image recognition by Kaenneth · · Score: 2

      Her phone tracked her location within the store, and noted that she stopped in a particular aisle for a while.

      I stood in the shelving aisle at Fred Meyer just to be out of the way while taking a long phone call from a client; got shelving ads, for the brand they sold in that aisle, for several weeks afterwards.

    2. Re:google does image recognition by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 1

      Sounds a lot like stalking followed by harassment. It is simply amazing what people are willing to tolerate, even worse, most are oblivious it is happening to them.

  19. Stop supporting ads by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Dont place a live mic in your work and dwelling. Enjoy communications with people you enjoy to talk to.
    Dont have gps track you. Use a map.
    Cover that web cam. Use a cam with people you want to cam with.
    Dont use a free OS from an ad company. Ensure a real OS can block ads and tracking.
    Dont use a free OS from a brand that supported the NSA and GCHQ. Stop supporting brands that wont secure their own products, services, networks.
    Dont use a free OS from a brand that never had the skill to detect the NSA and GCQH deep in its products. Stop supporting brands don't have the staff skills to secure their own products.
    Dont use a free browser from an ad company. Look into the ad blocking of different browsers.
    Dont use a free map product from an ad company. Use a map.
    Dont buy VR hardware from an ad company. Look into who is making the VR product.

    When buying product with a CC online try and buy locally with cash first.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Stop supporting ads by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      AC adblocking wont protect from a brand of OS, its OS services and approved software that is set up to collect on all users.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  20. Re:snail mail, too by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Buy a jewel that actually looks nice, like a sapphire or emerald. Diamonds are worthless -- their value is basically the product of the DeBeers Cartel's slick advert campaign in the 1930s. DeBeers are scum -- they did a lot to prop up the apartheid regime in South Africa until the late 80ies.

  21. What ads? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    I can't remember the last time I saw an ad on my computer, and the majority of spam automatically gets permanently deleted, and anything that doesn't gets flagged by me so the next time I likewise won't see it. I don't use Facebook or Twitter or any other social media (pre-emptive strike: this place is NOT social media, damnit, it's a news site with commenting!) nor will I ever in the future, I don't even use my real name online anywhere I can get away with it (did you really think my name was Rick? LOL!) and I don't buy a whole lot of anything to start with, so there's precious little I buy online and it's few and far between. I pay cash for in-person purchases of pretty much everything for more important reasons than privacy, but that's a side benefit. These so-called 'organs' they're talking about would die of starvation on a diet of Me. You can starve them out too if you're willing to do what it takes.

    (More pre-emptive strike: IDGAF what anyone says about how much 'publicly available information' can be purchased about the Real Me. That boat sailed a long time before the Internet and there's no reason to even concern myself with it, so go troll someone else.)

  22. Weird shit that happened by Chewbacon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Was in Target with the wife and kids. Wife was grabbing a few things off one aisle while I turned down the coffee maker aisle and waited on her. I was killing time and talking to the kids in our cart. Wasn't looking at coffee makers. Had not shopped for them on the web either. We don't talk about coffee makers, because we have one. That night on my Facebook feed: coffee makers! Oodles and oodles of the fucking things!

    A few weeks later, a buddy is over visiting and we are in the garage having a beer. I told him my wife wants me to get a shed for the yard equipment. Conversation ends there. Here comes Facebook with tool sheds!

    My wife was talking to her cousin about how her brother rented a bounce house for his kid's birthday. Bounce houses in her facebook feed!

    I then realized my phone's microphone was enabled for Facebook, so I turned it off. Facebook denies they do this citing the demands of data, but I think their denial highly dubious given they can easily look for keywords to make ads relevant.

    I guess Target could uniquely identify me and track my position in the store via wifi and, since I likely it isn't unreasonable I opened the Facebook app in the store, I was waiting to have that data linked to my profile.

    On some other spying notes, my company has banned Alexa in all corporate offices since she records and stores everything and that data can be subpoenaed. Also, I recently heard Alexa maybe serving your hotel room! Next time you're in a hotel, just start talking to Alexa and see if she answers. You may get a sneak peak at the new service they're planning on rolling out!

    --
    Chewbacon
    The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
    1. Re:Weird shit that happened by Known+Nutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You need to seriously consider getting off Facebook.

      --
      Beware of the Leopard.
    2. Re:Weird shit that happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      None of what you described required audio capture. People in your network searched for sheds and bouncy houses and then you met up with them, thus you're now getting similar ads. Your locations and contact lists are the most important details. Stop using those and never pay for anything using your phone.

      Target is one of the biggest data miners. They definitely tracked your location through the store and noticed you spending more than the average amount of time near coffee makers. They then find you on Facebook and send you ads.

      You also need to take into account personal bias. Just like you only notice all the yellow cars when someone points one out or when you buy one, you're more likely to notice ads about things that were recently in your mind. You could have been receiving them before and been passively ignoring them. Now your brain is drawing your attention to them. Remember, our brains are pattern matchers. They want to see patterns everywhere and they make up patterns if they can't find one. In terms of survival, too many false patterns is safer than missing an important one.

  23. Re:Advertisers getting smarter? Doubt it. by HiThere · · Score: 1

    FWIW, cows don't like to be branded either.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  24. It's about the searching, not the storing by raymorris · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's not about storage space, in this case. It's about searching through 20,000 lines several times each time you load a page. Suppose a page calls resources from five different domains. The system then has to go through those 20,000 lines five times before it can start loading the page.

    With that many entries, it's about time to instead run named in a caching configuration (the default for some distributions), except add the blacklisted entries. Alternatively, put the blacklist in a browser extension so it never even asks the system to look up the name, and then try to connect to 127.0.0.2 or whatever you point it at.

    1. Re: It's about the searching, not the storing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This raises a question, and I know I'm asking for trouble. It makes sense that scanning 20,000 entries many times consumes a lot of resources. Now APK claims that he's blocked every ad server that exists in his hosts file, which I believe is a highly dubious claim to begin with. However, that also has to be a massive list. Can his hosts file software really provide anywhere close to the performance he claims it will? This seems very suspect to me, but I know he claims it's a far faster solution than the browser extensions you reference.

      As an aside, don't browser extensions also consume substantial resources? For example, uBlock loads several lists of rules by default, and other lists can be turned on if the user desires. The user can add their own custom rules, too. Some of the uBlock filters contain thousands of rules, so this can't be particularly efficient, though perhaps better than hosts. I'm curious if you think these are necessarily more efficient, given how many filters are in these lists.

    2. Re:It's about the searching, not the storing by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      It's not about storage space, in this case. It's about searching through 20,000 lines several times each time you load a page.

      Is the implementation really this stupid? Why doesn't it hash it on the first access? Even just sorting it would reduce subsequent searches to log-log interpolative searches.

    3. Re: It's about the searching, not the storing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Er, his 'software' is an app that downloads a list from multiple sources, sorts and merges and spits out a host file.
      Or so I'm told. By a friend.

      It also has the capacity to add your 'favourites' to the beginning so that they are found more quickly.

      All the increases in performance that he claims are based on making a lookup from a host file vs making a DNS request, or by comparing resource usage from a host-only solution vs a mix of browser extensions and/or AV.

      His claims hinge on some very specific comparisons with shifting goalposts. A lookup from a host file is milliseconds faster than querying DNS, but the savings you make are swamped by the minutes you need to spend tending the host file each time you browse - opening his app, downloading, sorting, merging, writing etc. Using hosts alone uses considerably less resources than using browser extensions and or antivirus products, but a host-only solution isn't recommended by anyone - even he won't make that claim any more.

      He posts some comparisons of browsers using (IIRC AdBlock) vs not. It's a bit dated, but it's of the order of low triple digits of MB. When most machines, these days, are running with GBs of RAM, a couple of hundred MBs is single digit percentage of system resources at maximum.

      The entire point of computing resources is to use CPU, RAM and disk to perform tasks that would otherwise have to be performed by me. Using RAM to run a browser app to make administering a blacklist is exactly what I want to spend resources on. Saving those resources by increasing manual intervention is losing sight of why those resources are useful.

      If you are on a system that's constrained in some fashion, then perhaps a lower level and lower resource solution like using the host file makes sense. It's hard to to find real world cases. If the resources are constrained enough, why is it being used for general browsing, and if it is being used for general browsing, why not look at blocking at the router/firewall than on the device? For most people it's a false economy. As a solution, blocking based on a host file was more useful when people had a single internet connected device that was a lot less powerful than today.

      Using a host file is a blacklist. From a security perspective, a black list is of the form 'allow all and block [list]'. This is inefficient and ineffective. You are better from an efficiency and effectiveness to whitelist - 'allow none except [list]'.

      You mention uBlock, have you taken a look at uMatrix? By the same author, it has a fairly intuitive interface that lets you block/allow by site and by resource requested (script, css, image, etc.). You get to choose what, apart from the domain and child domains that you visit are allowed to be called. That can either be a temporary permission, or saved as a rule. No association with the maker - I've used and like uBlock but have mostly moved to uMatrix.

    4. Re:It's about the searching, not the storing by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      It's not about storage space, in this case. It's about searching through 20,000 lines several times each time you load a page.

      Complete rubbish.

      Do you know how SLOW a real DNS lookup is? That 20,000 line text file is acting like a local cache. Given that almost every page out there will hit a couple of addresses in that file then it will speed things up, not slow them down.

      PS: Your OS probably has a secondary DNS cache, because real DNS lookups are SLOW (did I mention that?).

      --
      No sig today...
    5. Re:It's about the searching, not the storing by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      On Linux and Windows the hosts file is parsed and lookups are very fast, as you would expect. In fact the extra time taken for the lookup is more than offset by the download and image decoding time savings anyway.

      If it really bothers you then you can set up a PiHole, a Raspberry Pi that provides DNS with ad filtering. Then all the work is outsourced to a dedicated low power box.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  25. That should be "psychic" by tyme · · Score: 1

    Digital ads only feel "psychic" if your psychic can only see the recent past and thinks that they're looking at the future.

    --
    just a ghost in the machine.
  26. Inexpertly targeted by joe_frisch · · Score: 2

    I see a lot of targeted adds, but they seem very badly targeted. I get adds for things I've already bought. Recommendations for hotels in places I've just left. Adds for things that seem similar to things that I do, but which are not usually correlated. Meanwhile I don't get adds for things I am actively trying to find (either in my work life or in my personal life).

    It feels very open-loop, as if they are not making any use of information on what is actually purchased as a result of the adds, as opposed to things that are correlated. Showing car adds to someone who just bought a car is really stupid.

    So I'm not surprised that I'm being tracked, but I am surprised that advertisers don't do a better job with all the information that they have about me.

  27. Re: Advertisers getting smarter? Doubt it. by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 3, Funny

    It sounds like we have a branding problem and should probably pull together a quick focus group.

  28. With a good ad-blocker, they just feel absent by gweihir · · Score: 1

    When I turn the ad-blocker off, I just stop to want to surf the web anyways, so I do not even feel guilty...

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  29. I like to look at watches by InterGuru · · Score: 1

    So I click on watch ads all the time. As a result, I get almost exclusively watch, bracelet and ring ads. Some are for watches in the $250k range. Sorry, I am sticking with my $35 Timex watch. It tells time just as well, off by 10 seconds/month for you nerdy types.

  30. Re: I use cash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately now they know. You're a hermit. You live within your means in an estate off the grid. Your only interest is dry switches - so if humanity produced only that then we can welcome you back into the fold.

    For the next few millennia all of humanity will devote their time to producing better dry switches.

  31. I just drove past by martinX · · Score: 1

    I drove past a van for a small plumbing business with an unusual business name (can't remember now, but it stuck out at the time). Within 24 hours I was getting ads for them.

    --
    When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
  32. Talking about another unconveiniend truth ... by MxMatrix · · Score: 1

    ... who uses google chrome browser here? And still you are surprised by those tracking ads?

    --
    Bach says it all.
    1. Re:Talking about another unconveiniend truth ... by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 1

      Daily Chrome user here... I can't remember the last time I saw an ad that wasn't made of paper.

      --
      Take off every 'sig' !!
    2. Re:Talking about another unconveiniend truth ... by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 1

      I should maybe reiterate... Chrome, Gmail, iPhone, Alexa, Facebook user. And also, I should correct myself. I do see ads in Amazon and Ebay search results, as well as Facebook posts, which are irritating. Solution: a little less FaceBook :)

      --
      Take off every 'sig' !!
  33. Re: I use cash by riverat1 · · Score: 1

    Ack! You've got me figured out! I am a bit of a hermit, I'm retired and single living in a 3 bedroom house with 2 cats. I do live within my means but I'm not off the grid (Why would I need a dryer switch if I was off the grid? I'd be hanging my clothes out to dry.)

  34. The only escape is not playing by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

    Facebook responded that users can discern the use of third-party data if they know where to look. Each time an ad appears using such data, Facebook says, users can click a button on the ad revealing that fact.

    Not to mention, now their profile on you records that you are the type of person who clicks on buttons for more information about ads.

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  35. Really? by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    For the most part, the ads I see tend to be the same largely irrelevant junk that I never buy. It's true that I use adblockers galore, and don't get to see so many ads anyway.

  36. That's not the comparison being made by raymorris · · Score: 1

    The comparison GP made was between a hosts file that's too long and one that's right-sized, containing the names that you'll actually encounter, with some frequency. A smaller list can be searched faster than a larger list.

    It's the same as any caching scenario - you want the cache to be just big enough to hold the frequently accessed items. Too large makes the cache unnecessarily slow, too small means some frequently-used items aren't in it. There is an optimum size which is neither too small nor too large.

    Re "how slow a DNS request is", DNS over the internet is fairly slow. DNS on your network is a lot faster, which is why routers have provide a DNS cache. Faster still is a local DNS caching server on the same machine. Faster than that is not looking up the name at all by blacklisting it in-browser, such as by using a browser extension.

  37. Not to get all James Randi on you, but... by Sloppy · · Score: 2

    That doesn't feel like someone reading my mind at all. To me it feels more like someone peering in my windows and following constantly.

    Peering in your windows (or something like that) is how psychics work. Even Jim Jones knew to dig through his members' garbage in order to later impress them enough to drink the Kool-Aid.

    If it seems like they're peering in your windows, that's probably the most authentic psychic experience you can have. How would you expect it to feel different?

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  38. I run an R-based URL fetcher to run Google searches all night long and during idle time.

    The searches are all for unicorns, leprechauns, and UFOs. I use the 42nd displayed word, whatever it is, to pick the next search. I vary the depth of this recursion when I am whimsical.

    I figure flooding the system is better than trying to block all the accesses.

    It's called "chaff".

    --
    "There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.