Does anyone else find that the Times sometimes listens to them?
My friend rhapsodizes about her Japan Rail pass: next day, targeted ads.
I tell my husband my knee hurts: next day: “one simple trick for knee pain.”
I turn off Siri, I disable microphone, and I’ve not searched any of these terms. It’s only paranoia if the tinfoil isn’t working.
Really, NYT, shame.
@Ann Ann, the Times uses Google's ad software. Google puts users into profile groups. Likely you and your friend were in the same profile group. They searched for trains a lot, so they showed a train ad to you.
A quarter of all Americans experience consistent knee pain, so ads like that are quite common. Keep in mind that you see tons of ads every day, and its statistically likely that at least some of them relate to things you've discussed. This is even more so if this is taking place over months.
Finally, its unfeasible for them to do it. Apple devices actively alarm you if you're being recorded. For them to record when the microphone is not enabled would require malicious code. Does it really make sense for one of the most prestigious news organizations in the world to hack your device for some ad dollars? How would that not get revealed in weeks? Why would they do that while regarding the massive backlash?
Of course, the ads could be targeted to the content of the article, rather than the individual. If I am reading a technology article, I get tech ads; the automotive section, autodealers and aftermarket part ads. That seems just as likely to get clicks as the current system, and they would not have to spend as much on systems of dubious worth.
I use a highly modified hosts file and an ad blocker, so I do not see a lot of ads. Prior to that, I never felt that I was seeing anything that particularly piqued my interest so the result of all that collected data was ineffective ads. The reason I started using these was that the ads themselves had become so numerous, and so offensive, with autoplaying sound and video, that they became intolerable.
Now many sites track users without consent using cookies. Europe has passed GDPR prohibiting this. But even many EU websites do not comply with the regulation.
There is a special free service that checks site cookies in a few seconds. (see https://2gdpr.com )
Every second checked site has cookies tracking issues.
3
Opinions and comments on these pages are more than probably assessed, stored and could be misused not only by the NYTs, but the consulting companies that support it. Wouldn’t be surprised if at some point in the future we find out that Congress was being blackmailed by foreign hackers - support for war anyone?
You are highlighting concerns that designers, writers, content developers and programmers have been passionately warning about for decades.... decades...! People continue to ask themselves the following question. How do companies like Google and Facebook make the billions of dollars they have in their coffers. It's not through selling advertising and ANYONE who has worked at an AD agency is well aware of this. They sell your data to anyone and whomever will pay for it. That includes Putin, Trump, oligarchs who remain unnamed. ILLEGAL? No... UNETHICAL? Yes.... Anyone who thinks that Facebook, Google and their competitive cohorts are going to self-police their actions is a FOOL. The NYT needs to get FB, Google and Twitter off of their online sites. Many young people who are attached to their mobile devices have no idea how their thoughts, passions and lives are being tracked and manipulated by these unethical monsters.
3
Speaking of tracking, can anyone give me a good reason why this newspaper requires one to register (create a separate account) to read the Parenting blog?
Why should we support the New York Times when they do this?
Maybe the Times should respond by telling us how much of their revenue comes from:
a) subscription payments by users
b) advertising online
c) selling information to tracking companies.
Times, it may be legal, but it is also unethical. Your privacy policy takes a lawyer or a computer science professor to understand, just like those credit card agreement addenda and those long things you sign when you rent a car. Legal is not necessarily moral. Do you so desperately need the c) revenue above that you morally betray your readers?
4
Quick partial solution: Subscribe and read on paper....
From a subscriber:
Does the NYT offer a PDF downloadable version of each day's paper? If they do not, they should- with no cookies.
4
Very interesting, and insidious!
"From a privacy perspective, news websites are among the worst on the web."
Solution? "...if providing privacy is not unduly harming revenue, why shouldn’t The Times provide enhanced privacy to all its readers?"
Man-o-man, who are you kidding?
1
Speaking of ad targeting:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/01/business/rolling-stones-social-security-retirement.html
“...said that people who attend the band’s shows are “our target demographic: 45- to 72-year-olds with investable assets between $75,000 and $2 million...
While this comes as a jarring revelation to some of their fans – they should have known...
https://www.nytimes.com/1983/02/14/movies/jagger-39-shows-no-sign-of-quitting.html
“...At 39, Mick Jagger remains a remarkable performer. In the film, he not only sings the band's lead vocals, but also transforms the concerts into a spectacular show...
“...Fame, after all, came early for the Stones...Jagger, who had dropped out of the London School of Economics, found himself a star at the age of 20...
...
If dear old Mick had bought one of these annuities at the ripe old age of 39, he wouldn’t have to be still hitting the road touring now...
But back in ’83, there was no place to place such ads – Alex Trebek wouldn’t air till a year later:
https://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/01/tv/signoff-no-1-quiz-show-what-is-jeopardy.html
PS
Clue: The single best – by far – information archive for a Jeopardy-playing AI bot
1
ghostery and adblock. until something better comes along, they will have to do. (and do for me.)
ghostery tells me that doubleclick (an ad network), amazon.com (huh?) and media.net have tried to track me on this page; essential, google tag manager and optimizely have also chucked a digital harpoon my way.
i don't feel bad that adblock has deflected six or seven ads. NYT publishes ads as news articles all the time -- Brad Pitt here, a new restaurant there, movie reviews and candidate profiles and articles on health and wealth and the latest cars and home furnishings -- and 52 places to travel!
who needs advertising, when you have news like that?
Where's Chomsky when you need him? He famously showed how the print edition of the Times was just an ad vehicle.
Plus ca change...
1
Read the paper newspaper.
No need to complain. As end users, it is incumbent upon us to take safety precautions when online. There is very simple and free way to block all of this surveillance.
Download the uBlock Origin (not to be confused with uBlock) extension for your browser. It will block 3rd party cookies and a plethora of trackers from Google and Facebook and who knows what else.
As if paying the subscription fee for "journalism" isn't enough, the NYT deigns to make another quick buck selling our privacy. Don't let it.
Looking to the future, if Trump is re-elected, heaven forbid, he could potentially seize the (what he would consider treasonous) comments and recommendations of NYT readers by some sort of executive order and start retaliating against people who disagree with him.
From hitwise.com
Publishers with Audience Insights Form Better Content: NY Times Study
"Y Times readers are also 201% more likely than the average person to visit a website in the Gay & Lesbian category. This is perhaps unsurprising considering the progressive bent of NY Times readers, however it is notable because Gay & Lesbian is the most over-indexed website category across all major Lifestyle website categories "
"The Politics section is massively popular, and the only section that appears in the Google listing for the New York Times.
Donald Trump remains the key area of focus for NY Times readers, who are 226% more likely than the average person to search for “trump” and 116% more likely to search for “trump news.” The Times’ investment in covering Trump appears to be paying off: in spite of the president’s vocal disdain for the publication, their paid subscriptions have actually risen since the election."
https://www.hitwise.com/en/articles/ny-times/
TIn response to such analysis the NYT then increases the Trump coverage, sometimes trivial, at the cost of reporting on e.g. how the negotiations between Britain and the EU are progressing.
Tuning a newspaper to maximize sales does not make for a better newspaper
I personally prefer Le Monde and the NZZ over the NY Times - and both , being EU papers, track you less
A comment in two parts:
This article is essential and troubling, but its conclusions come as no surprise after having recently read Sulzberger's position on privacy (the statement from 4/10 shown as a call-out in the current article). I encourage others to read that statement. It is appalling: It states, in effect, that NYT deems it acceptable to track its readers, then goes on to assert its virtuousness in tracking them less aggressively than other sites.
After reading that statement, I disabled cookies for NYT.com. The result was that the site became unusable. Most pages would not load, period. This demonstrates in practice what Sulzberger's statement indicates in the abstract: NYT is perfectly willing to invade users' privacy in the name of profit.
And here's a related question: No-cost websites claim that data tracking is the price users pay for free access. But every NYT subscriber pays to be on the site. How, then does Sulzberger claim that such tracking is regrettable but necy? Further, there's no doubt that marketers would continue to pay for access to the consumers represented by NYT readership even if that meant access to less targeted advertising.
(To be cont'd)
Comment, part 2:
NYT readers would be advised to make their anger known. A bombardment of Sulzberger's email and Twitter accounts with scathing assessments of the paper's privacy policy might attract his attention and cause a reassessment of the acceptability of the site's policies. At the very least, it will call out his disingenuousness in trying to claim for the NYT the privacy high ground.
Twitter: @AGSNYT
Email: agsulzberger@nyti
And I'm worried about my ex-husband, a complete incompetent, who stalks me online (and knows everything about me).
Clearly, I should be worried about FAR more nefarious actors.
Like the NYT!
Fortunately, I doubt the NYT is armed.
Then open-source "Disconnect" tool in my Chrome browser shows 12 trackers..and the 13th just got detected, on this NYT article.
The NY Times concealed information on NSA spying before the 2004 Presidential election. Why did the Times sit on that story?
Reporting that information could very well have kept George W Bush from getting re-elected, and changed the way we view - and the laws that govern - privacy.
"This could involve creating a digital ombudsman or public editor to represent the privacy concerns of readers."
How can the author not cite the fact that the NYT canned its ombudsman a long time ago?
“The Times ignores the “do not track” browser setting.” Excuse me? That’s infuriating.
Given recent major fails by this newspaper, I am fine myself trusting you folks less and less.
I suggest one use a vpn with a European server...how the Times can spout endless articles about the evils of tracking and then be one of the worst offenders is kind of...pathetic.
Comment in 2 parts:
This article is essential and troubling, but its conclusions come as no surprise after having recently read Sulzberger's position on privacy (the statement from 4/10 shown as a call-out in the current article). I encourage others to read that statement. It is appalling: It states, in effect, that NYT deems it acceptable to track its readers, then goes on to assert its virtuousness in tracking them less aggressively than other sites.
After reading that statement, I disabled cookies for NYT.com. The result was that the site became unusable. Most pages would not load, period. This demonstrates in practice what Sulzberger's statement indicates in the abstract: NYT is perfectly willing to invade users' privacy in the name of profit.
And here's a related question: No-cost websites claim that data tracking is the price users pay for free access. But every NYT subscriber pays to be on the site. How, then does Sulzberger claim that such tracking is regrettable but necy? Further, there's no doubt that marketers would continue to pay for access to the consumers represented by NYT readership even if that meant access to less targeted advertising.
When i noticed the fine print saying that the NYT Privacy policy is being run by Google, it inspired me to cancel my subscription. I would like to support investigative journalism, but not if it means i must be a pawn of Big Brother Google. What an unholy alliance!
1
Oh no -- the New York Times (and other news sites like it) are profiting off my data! Oh no ... I'm going to get more relevant ads! My poor privacy! An algorithm "knows" approximately who I am, I'm doomed! In all seriousness, though, I fail to see the big issue here. Your health isn't at risk, your wealth isn't at risk, your identity isn't even at risk. Certain types of data tracking (location data, for instance), I understand the fears. As the NYT showed a handful of months back, there is legit risk when that information gets into compromised hands. But this? The fact that I read an article? Meh.
I recently received an unsolicited email from the New York Times telling me how many articles I had read, who was the columnist I read the most ( I was surprised to find it was Michelle Goldberg) and other stuff. What snoops, I remember thinking. They know more about me than I know about me. Now, after reading this article, I realize it is worse than I imagined. Just because you subscribe to a newspaper doesn’t mean you sign up to have your whole life monitored. Or does it?
2
At home I read the print edition of the NYT - no tracking occurs. When traveling I scan the NYT online headlines but rarely open and read the articles - tracking detail is greatly limited. I deliberately avoid opening "click-bait" articles. Sorry NYT (and other news sites), I consider what I read private.
In contrast to the tracking of our reading on the web, see the America Library Association regarding patron privacy as a core value. http://www.ala.org/advocacy/privacy/toolkit/corevalues
Just added the NYT site to my list of sites that have cookies their discarded when I close the session. I do my level best to block all of their numerous trackers and I never allow any ads, ever. Never will I ever. When I used to buy a physical paper, ads were granted one eyeball impression while I read through the paper. Now, they've gotten greedy and they don't get a single eyeball from me for one single ad. Don't spy on me, bro. I'm a customer of your paper, not a product for you to sell.
5
Thank you for this article.
Is it too much to ask to NY Times to eat their own dog food.. and put paid users Privacy Right ahead of Profits & Marketing Ads?
Maybe it is time to re-assess the value of a NY Times Digital Subscription .... as well as other paid news services... when this type of stuff is going on.
2
Nothing on the world wide web is secure. NOTHING. If they can hack into the pentagon they can do anything.....
Thanks for clarifying what we pretty much knew was happening. Just as evangelicals undercut their legitimacy with their hypocrisy, so watchdog media, investigative reporting lose a bit of their ‘shine’ credibility by allowing themselves to be part of our tracking society.
And just as with old newspaper practices, often dependent on a few large, influential advertisers, when will today’s advertisers start requesting certain ‘test’ articles, content, to further target we readers? Who actually made the decision to include that abortion article? And if I read it, am I reading it for me, a family member, a friend, general knowledge?
Rather makes today’s companion article on NS Letters....laughable?
I do my best to never click on an online ad. There is no reason to feed this machine.
I feel free from such manipulation when an emu cop and a walrus goalie are trying to sell me insurance.
I know and understand I'm being tracked and collated and sold with every click of the mouse. Amazon and Google know more about me than I do. Between search engines, retailers and insurance companies my data is out there. I know that but someday I'll try to remove as much as possible and go full Tor network and use VPNs for everything. That's technology today.
‘General Adversarial Networking’ is just a euphemism for Satan, given form through binary code.
Mathematics are truly fascinating.
I stand by whatever I believe in, and therefore have no problem with any organization from whom I have purchased something, read an article from, or written a comment to sharing that fact. If the fact that I am a Libertarian who owns an MG Midget that needed a jump start box is of some interest to some anonymous entity, be they a commercial venture of a government body, so be it. That is who I am and I do not care who knows it.
Interesting article. Indeed, the NYT should be more stringent about readers privacy.
I usually don’t let the NYT use cookies by reading it in Firefox Focus. I have to log in as a paid subscriber, though, so they probably track what I read.
And if I connect my students to articles in the NYT that are relevant to their education, then the Times also exposes their privacy. Come on Times-- you are far better than this.
smile-- BlueKai is watching
1
The NYT advocates “all the news that’s fit to print.” How about all the news that it could afford to print without breaking the golden rule. That is, don’t do onto others which you would not want done onto yourself. And, that could apply to all media companies that stay on business because of the money made from not valuing other’s privacy.
Amusingly, users are unable to pay more for an advertising-free subscription to the Times. The option just doesn’t exist. I’ve asked.
I will pay extra for my NY Times subscription if I could get zero tracking. I will pay even more to get zero advertising. Why not?
1
Just last week, I wrote to the NY Times about the embedded ads in the Android app that clearly reflected what I'd recently searched for on the Web. Their response said that they had no control over the frequency of certain ads, sidestepping the question entirely. Not good.
Only 59 comments ! ?
2
Nice Article. The NYT should do more about privacy. Congrats Tim!
1
Funny you should mention this, because the NYTimes iPhone has been spying on people for some time now. Often when I open the app on my phone, I notice that the location services icon appears on my screen. When I tried to change the settings, the NYTimes app doesn't even show up in the list of apps. Further, the NYTimes app sets background refresh to on and does not give the user a choice as to whether or not they want this app constantly open in the background.
I have written to Apple about this and look forward to hearing from them. In the meantime, I have removed this app from my phone and am considering exchanging my NYTimes subscription for the Washington Post.
I find it amazing that NYT is calling out everyone but itself!
5
I already pay for an NY Times subscription. While I’m surprised and a bit annoyed that that doesn’t already entitle me to avoid having my data sold to advertisers, I would gladly pay extra for the privilege of privacy. I’m happy to support the Times for its value in my life. That said, it’s a sad reality that reading the newspaper is no longer a private activity by default like it used to be (aside from that nosy neighbor looking over your shoulder on the train).
5
"When readers load an article on the Times website, those protected by G.D.P.R. get a page that better protects their privacy. In comparison to the nearly 50 companies tracking users on that article in the United States, I found only 16 in the European Union."
Advice to U.S. readers: Use a VPN set to an EU IP address, a pro-privacy browser and voila! You're an instant digital European with the privacy benefits noted in the above quoted section of the article.
You also get the added bonus of VPN encryption which lets you thumb your nose at the ISP's who lobbied for (and won) the dissolution of Net-Neutrality.
Happy web surfing.
4
That's my boy, the human rights activist computer scientist!
3
By using my computer to read the NYT I am opening myself to scrutiny.
I’ll endure just so much intrusion before I finally pull the plug!
1
Good for the editorial side of The Times for running this article, and good for Mr. Sulzberger for not stepping in to block it. If The Times is making money in Europe, then I'm not going to worry that a more user-friendly policy here will bankrupt it. But the sorts of changes that Mr. Libert describes will only be possible under a Democratic administration, if then.
2
The article references NYT website use and article links through FB. How does the NYT app play into all of this?
I’m already paying a fair price for my subscription, but I wasn’t aware that I was paying to have my personal data sold—potentially through app use too. Very concerning.
Ready to delete the app and stick to my newsprint if that’s the case. (Although this sort of arrangement multiplied would increase the NYT’s carbon footprint between materials and delivery).
Good way to drive people who pay attention away, NYT. Thankfully, there’s always NPR.
3
Thank you Mr. Libert! I have become increasingly aware of the NYT cookie dissemination policies and the almost unrestricted abuse of them despite attempts to block them through the hypocritically named "do not track" process. I suppose we should be thankful that it has taken so long for 1984 to catch up with us.
“Why shouldn’t The Times provide enhanced privacy to all its readers?”
Why indeed. Among other effects, setting all those cookies slows down page loads. As a paid subscriber, I shouldn’t have to be subjected to the same barrage of advertising as a free reader. My customary NYT reading experience is on my computer using Firefox. I have no idea what the iOS NYT app, say, may be doing under the covers.
3
I have long been concerned with the Times' approach to privacy. Their statements about respecting user privacy are nullified by the cookies, beacons and trackers they allow from third parties. Shouldn't my subscription funds be sufficient to remove this alternate, morally compromised revenue source?
I have looked at the Times' webpage code and there is indeed a separate track for GDPR protected readers. The Times should extend that model to its readers in the more legislatively-challenged countries such as its home.
1
It used to be we could go to the library and check out a book confidentially - the government had to get a warrant to obtain our reading habits. Same with book stores. That's long gone because big business profits and tyrant needs are more important than the rest of us.
I know this article and my comments are spying on me. The fact I can't do anything about it, short of not reading The Times at all and become ill-informed, is absurd. There's no amount I can pay that guarantees me full opt-out - a choice overridden by overpaid MBAs that continue adding data harvest, spy and manipulation features as valuable 'added revenue streams' for their boss.
The Times and others should offer their product - journalism - with a paid opt-out option, washed of all advertising, tracking, data gathering, etc. Calculate what is lost per reader not selling their private data and add that to the base subscription cost to those who want it - like me.
The irony making matters even worse is we keep spending tons of money upgrading to faster iPhones and PCs with ever more and faster CPU cores, memory and features like GPS, beacons, high-res cameras and microphones, even AI and neural learning chips and capabilities, all to run more and more sophisticated and detailed spyware on us while we do the same trivial stuff we've done for years.
The Times and other "fake news" outlets, likely places its readers on a black list for targeting by the trumpites to abuse when trump's finished seizing all power
5
I wonder what you would have to pay in subscription dues to not be tracked?
1
Gee, I'm just not losing sleep over this "critical" issue.
We were told years ago that our privacy is gone. Did you not believe them? Did you think it was false, or that it might happen just to some people, or that they meant it would happen someday far in the future?
Advertisers have hungered and thirsted for more info on consumers forever. It probably helps everyone in a capitalistic society: Profits must be made, which, if you've ever run a business is damnably difficult: Most new businesses go belly-up soon. Their demise approaches 100 percent according to a WSJ article years ago.
So we've been somehow living in this peeping-tom era for decades, but nonetheless managed to survive. I know: Just wait; soon Judgment Day will come. The sky is falling all around us.
Bah, humbug, I say.
And the government knows private stuff about me, you say? I was in the navy for four years; it has my fingerprints, blood type, social security number, personal history, including all my addresses ever, names of my family members, my picture, my personnel records, even phone numbers. What's left out? My dream diary?
Nothing's happened to me, and I'm 70. The government has been very good to me: the G.I. Bill paid my way through four years of college; it's always dealt with me fairly.
And even businesses haven't knocked down my front door or cleaned out my bank account.
Okay, my head's in the sand, but it's peaceful down here. I recommend it for bravehearts.
Paranoia strikes deep.
1
Recently I found that an abundance of ads on the NYT (that I read online/on app) were for lingerie, and I did make a complaint, because honestly! I want to be able to read the NYT in a public place! I received back an apology, and those ads have mostly disappeared, but the answer also indicated that the NYT targets ads based on your preferences... what in my reading preferences makes me a good target for underpants ads from Calvin Klein?? I'm uncomfortable with ads being targeted to me which I don't like, but I suppose I should be more upset if they correctly figure me out...
1
Here are some ways, not mentioned in this article, to take guarding your private data into your own hands:
Use different aliases across all social media, never your real name. Enter a random birth date when forced to enter it. Use individual disposable email addresses such as Abine to sign up for online accounts. Never provide your real address or phone number unless you have to. Never enter your social security number unless it’s a legitimate, secure government website. Randomly change your gender, your sexual preference, and religion when forced to enter it. Never enter your real income. Never enter where you went to school, who you're married to, and who your kids are. Etc. ad infinitum.
Aside from ad targeting, there are real consequences in terms of data mining including fraud and identity theft. So give up as little as possible. Obviously, you need to use your real info to apply for a mortgage. But if you don’t have to sign up to visit a website, then don’t do it. When you’re online for leisure or entertainment, don't hand over any accurate info about yourself. Companies capitalize on it when you do, and profit from it, and use it against your own best interests. Keep your private details to yourself.
5
Your organization is a big enough fish that if you chose to, you could demand a different, less exploitive playing field for advertising in your paper.
Articles about the issue do not address the exploitation, they merely report on it.
There's never a bad time to stand up for your readers.
6
I am so disappointed. I subscribe to the Times because their news is better researched and more reliable. I spend several hours a day on their site, to learn that they so freely track and share my info is so depressing and demoralizing...its just awful.
1
So there is nothing new in this article. We live in a world where everyone is spying on each other and its never ending. People are looking into your every movement and there is nothing you can do about it. When your getting murdered none of the cameras are working to catch the murder or the bigot who beat you up on the street. The film is always grainy and the suspect is never captured because that is not how cameras who are spying, works for normal victims.
I enjoy writing my comments because it keeps me in touch with people who are so out of touch that I dont care who reads it and if they are stalking me. Life is meant to be lived not worrying about Trump ,Russian,Chinese and the rest of the gang surveillance peepers and other people who have nothing better to do than spy on you
Not surprising. Ghostery on my Firefox browser identified and blocked four trackers, and NoScript another seven.
I'm a huge supporter of high-quality journalism (print, radio, whatever) and in the case of the NYT (and several others) I pay for it with a digital subscription. After reading a few articles like this it makes me think seriously about switching to the print version with all it obviously downsides, taking more extreme measures to hide my identity when on NYT web site, or cancelling my subscription altogether. Would it be so hard to at least offer a "no tracking" ad-free or non-targeted ads only version?
Really depressing.
@Jason Stephens The price of electronic doohickeys has gotten so cheap that they’ll probably be embedding tiny tracking devices into newspapers and magazines before too long. You Can’t Escape Big Data!
At absolute minimum, NYT should have the strictest privacy protocols for paying subscribers. Why our information and habits should be mined while on a site and app that we pay to access is beyond me.
3
I have now added the NYT site to my list of sites which have their cookies removed at the end of the browser session. They have always employed trackers as numerous as any other profit-making corporation, so they get treated as such. I do my level best to block as many trackers, beacons and ads as possible. Third party cookies are absolutely disallowed; if it breaks a website, I abandon that website. It's my computer and I alone decided what it displays. I do not cede control to a faceless advertising company.
Interesting how my first and original comment on this article, which was similarly critical of the NYT, has vanished quietly.
NYT is a profit-making company no better than any other. That's their bottom line. Treat them that way.
6
When I turn the "cookies" function off, I cannot get on the NYT or the WaPo. When I leave their sites and check the amount of cookies following me around, it's disheartening. I can get on other news websites, like the Guardian News, NBC News and even CNN with the cookies function off. It's depressing that the NYT and WaPo allow so much abuse of our privacy on their sites. Not everything should be about money and advertising dollars. I hope congress is successful implementing new laws that will protect us from all these privacy intrustions.
1
Ads support the web. Ads seen by users of the Times website help to keep NYT from going out of business in the way of many other news organizations.
The privacy of readers is not absolute.
The question we need to answer is how granular should the data collection be on the site.
Is it enough to know that I regularly read the front page and sports sections, or is it necessary to know that the team I follow is the Jets and rangers and that I read a specific columnist.
The answer in Europe has come from the legislature of the EU. It’s unlikely that businesses including the NYT can strike meaningful balance on this issue her in the US without government regulation.
In the not so distant future each of us in turn will become a spy, spying on everyone else's world. the Human race is destined to destroy itself, this is how it will do it. The thought police are coming.
I remember so clearly as a kid my mom telling me that SHE remembered realizing, around age 6, that her thoughts were her own. No one could hear or control them.
No longer! What we think, we share, thoughtlessly, on the web. If not in a comment, then in our endlessly tracked reading choices. I’d pay a gasquillion dollars to be forgotten.
For all those out there complaining, do you care enough about you're privacy to take any actions? At a minimum you can:
-Set your browser(I use firefox ... don't use chrome!) to automatically delete cookies, logins, search history, browsing history, cache, site preferences and offline website data. Also disable location services.
-Use a trusted vpn ( I use protonvpn, there are several other options as well).
-Use a paid email service that doesn't scan you email messages (unlike gmail, yahoo, etc)
-Log out of facebook and gmail accounts.
-Use DuckDuckGo as your search engine
-Disable GPS when not required (also disable location services to all apps).
After all this you still have the issue of browser fingerprinting, but you should notice a significant change in the amount of targeted adds you receive.
I'm sure there are more actions that can be taken, I'd be interested to hear any ideas
6
I've been waiting for the right NYT article to come along to write this... I bought a specific skin product from Amazon, and it shows up the next day, and again and again, as an NYT ad. Bought a certain printer paper from Amazon, and, same thing. But the worst invasion was seeing ads for metastasized cancer treatment of the type I once had (not metastatic). Too much and unforgivable. P.S. I've tried opting out of everything as best as a normal person can.
1
You can improve your privacy by adding a Pi Hole to your network; this is a device which black holes ads and trackers by redirecting DNS requests. Prices start at $39 and there are lots of tutorials on setting it up. Search for 'Pi hole'
After receiving an email from the NYT detailing the percentage of articles I read in different categories (opinion, US news, world news, etc.), I complained to the membership department and asked to opt out of that tracking. It was disappointing, but no surprise, that the was informed I could not. The NYT could easily add that option but chooses not to do so, casting doubt on its sincerity in protecting its subscribers’ privacy.
8
Man, it seems like the European Union is the only effective legislative body in the west remaining. The General Data Protection Regulation seems like such a good idea, and we here in America have zero chance of our government being capable of delivering anything like the protections offered by the GDPR. We even managed to lose net neutrality despite 95% of people being in favor of it, because a corporate hack runs the agency. Meanwhile a corporate hack also runs the Environmental Protection Agency. This sucks. I want to join the European Union.
6
If corporations are persons, then perhaps consumers can use anti-stalking statutes against them.
14
To the extent this information gathering is focused on targeting ads, I would have liked to see more discussion of potential positives of ad targeting, and whether and how those positives could be preserved without such extensive intrusion. I once read a comment (I wish I could remember where) from someone starting a small business saying that ad targeting significantly helped that business get more impact per dollar for its ad spending, so much so that it was essential to making that new business potentially competitive with entrenched competitors. Is that something we want to eliminate completely? Is there a way to keep positive aspects of the practice while limiting the negative ones?
3
The bottomline? Easy. The default on any internet use on my data is mine.
3
um why is the eu result qualitatively better than the us result? Quantitatively better, yes but still dismal. If a solution is needed, it doesn't appear to me that it's the eye approach.
um why is the eu result qualitatively better than the us result? Quantitatively better, yes but still dismal. If a solution is needed, it doesn't appear to me that it's the eu approach. Spelling correction
1
I've long quit caring about the advertising, based on a lack of internet privacy -- I figure if I use the internet, I'm subject to its invasive "dark web" and manipulation by those wanting my data. I wanna buy stuff, I'm gonna pay, in a lot of ways.
However! A far, far bigger price comes with data companies that will (not might) or already are shuffling data off to sources, such as the government, that squirrel away my information for future use: Am i marching in a pro-life march? Am I purchasing books that lean too far to the left? Am I descrying the NRA too often?
Putting all my radical interests together might well look far too suspect to some agency in the future that wants to keep me in check. Paranoid? I marched against Vietnam. It's not paranoid if you're living in "1984."
8
I’ve always suspected NYT was being hypocritical in putting the boot into Google and Facebook, but until I read this article I had no idea how much. While NYT should be commended for ‘fessing up, the publication of one story DOESN’T absolve you. How about actually DOING SOMETHING to protect readers privacy? I mean you can’t even say we’re getting a service for free because we subscribe. I was also very interested to read that there are actually differences in tracking depending on where you access the NYT website because my friends who work in tech told me that the European protections had a global reach in that big multinational corporations would have a website that applied to everyone. At the moment, I’m less concerned about targeted advertising controlled by NYT and most of it’s kind of funny, although there is potential for it to turn into something very exploitative. I don’t want my articles to be personalised, that defeats the purpose of a newspaper. Of more concern is information going to governments, employers and others we don’t know about, who can put it together with other information and extrapolate it out and starting making decisions about our lives. Also, most of those inferences are likely to be wrong. There are many reasons I might read an article - just because I read an article about abortion doesn’t mean I’ve had or will have an abortion or mean I’m pro-choice or pro-life. I may read an article just out of general curiosity. I am more than what I read.
12
This brings us back to THX 1138 George Lucas 1971 masterpiece.
1
Imagine 20 years ago if somebody had told you when you visited a library someone was watching over your shoulder noting what books you looked at, what paragraphs you read, and monitored your emotional response to all of that.
You know what you'd call that: abuse.
We are all being abused,
Permitting the ad tech/surveillance economy develop meant inevitably that powerful corporate interests dependent on it would grow until it would be impractical for anyone to be able to opt-out of it without opting out of daily life.
It's great that The Times is reporting on its involvement . But like almost everything on the net, it's become an addict to the OxyContin of the web economy.
9
@Eben
Agree regarding library privacy policy. Here is the American Library Association policy statement.
http://www.ala.org/advocacy/privacy/toolkit/corevalues
1
That has always been obvious to me, and is one reason I love to comment. I ain’t scared!
3
About a year after Snowden, Homeland complained about people using encryption would thwart their efforts to protect the country, prosecute criminals. Yet, it is they who prompted many people to look into encryption, people that wouldn’t have otherwise thought it was necessary. Now, also as a result of Snowden’s whistleblowing, (which I consider the height of patriotism incidentally) Apple apparently encrypts everything. They can’t give access to law enforcement even if they wanted to.
However, in the face of a valid court warrant, I want law enforcement to be able to search whatever the warrant says. There are bad guys out there, criminals, etc., that these agencies protect us from.
Companies complaining of ad blockers in the face of, (over 50 trackers the article mentioned?!) is absurd. Just like Homeland, these companies have created their own problem.
Similarly, companies in various industries complain of regulation and oversight, but it is their egregious behavior that prompts such. We wouldn’t have an EPA if companies weren’t discovered pumping toxic sludge into the water supply, and similar incidents.
If you don’t police yourself, demonstrate ethics, or even act in general consideration for humanity at large, someone will eventually be called in to deal with it.
Complaining after the egregious behavior has been discovered and steps are being taken is ridiculous.
Over 50 trackers?!
4
I got the new Brave browser a month ago to protect from this tracking and I was shocked when I went to the NYtimes site and it was blocking ads and tracking left and right. Why do I pay a subscription? If they need more money for the subscription, so be it I'm ready to pay up but not ready to lose my privacy.
16
The colossal amount of user data being collected by big tech companies will eventually be used against citizens, I have no doubt.
Is that data valuable? Valuable enough that Facebook expects being dinged by the occasional government for a billion here or five billion there, and writing those checks is already written into their financial setup.
The spookiest part? As soon as we started learning of Google's partnership with the Red Chinese Big Brother social valuation system, we learned it was already being done here as well.
How many of us thought that the explosion in computing power would simplify our lives, not simplify oligarchs' converting what they knew about us into cash?
8
I think you’re showing the tip of the iceberg. My son came to see my wife and me. He asked about subscribing to Spotify. My wife sort of took over, and I picked up a nearby device and started scrolling thru my Facebook newsfeed. The second post was a first-ever Spotify ad! I talked about this amazing coincidence with my wife and son. We then continued talking about Spotify. Why do you need it? It helps me study, etc. Finally, I go back to FB. One post under the Spotify ad was a first-ever ad for Apple iTunes! I can’t believe this was all coincidence. But everything was oral, no cookies involved. I can only think this device, on my night table, which had been set to listen for a certain command, was listening in. Talk about a Brave New World.
9
This thoughtful and well-researched report raises one of the most profound questions of our generation. The next question is how are we Americans are ever going to get our congress to pass laws protecting our privacy, when they too are dependent on what Shoshana Zuboff termed “surveillance capitalism”? Our AI race with China could very well leave our minds and lives as free as China.
5
People should also know that the Chrome web browser is spyware in itself.
Other browsers look-up the IP address of the desired website (using domain servers) and then connect directly to the website. Yes, the browser then gets the tracking cookies sent back by the website.
Chrome goes one step farther. It routes all requests through Google's own domain servers where the request is first logged into their databases. Google then connects Chrome to the desired website. All transactions are routed through Google where it collects information - all of which are directly associated with the computer running Chrome. It's all about serving ads.
There is also a reason why Chromebook computers are cheap: the user is paying for them by giving up even more personal information. Chromebooks are basically spyware devices.
14
@WRH
So, of course, is Google's search engine, with any other browser.
The internet nearly killed the newspaper business. A few, like the NYT, are one of the increasingly few survivors--so far. I imagine their total subscriptions barely keep the lights on so the additional revenue has to come from somewhere. The Times didn't invent web tracking, they just do what every other online business does. I agree that tracking is creepy and invasive and should be regulated, but until we can all agree on what to replace it with, it is what it is. Personally, I care more about losing good journalism that I do about web tracking, but I agree we have to start looking at alternatives.
11
I'm fearing searching for things on the internet will be customized by user data and preferences, if this doesn't happen already. Would Google's search algorithm provide differing answers based on the same user criterion?
1
@Alexia
Yes, it does.
For instance, if you spend your days doing searches regarding jungle biology, rather than shopping, a search for "Amazon" will turn up different information.
3
While I agree that some type of regulation is needed, browsing a web subject to GDPR restrictions is not a great user experience (as others have noted), and most users will happily agree to give up their privacy in order to read the article they want.
The best thing individuals can do to protect themselves is to use a browser like Brave, which is based on the same codebase as chrome (which Google made public years ago). Without requiring any action or technical knowledge on the part of the user, it blocks cross-site cookies by default.
8
It would appear that the easiest way not to be tracked by cookies is to stick with old fashioned print distribution. Or to download the whole content of a newspaper, read it offline and then destroy the evidence before logging back on.
5
I'm currently in France. Every time I go to a new website I'm advised that they use cookies and are about to compromise my privacy. I must agree to move forward. I think we all understand that the Internet cannot simply exist in an unfunded fashion. I hope it's not already too late. But I do believe we need massive controls over who or what tracks us, and, even more, what can be tracked and to what uses the information may be put.
9
Tell your browser to DELETE THE COOKIES. Several browsers (including Firefox and Opera) let you set them to delete all cookies when you close the browser; thry also let you refuse third-party cookies. Of course, doing these things may make your browsing less convenient; the advertisers are counting on that.
Other things: NEVER stay logged in to Google, Facebook or Twitter. Use a VPN that automatically changes your location (my NYT ads are for a Texas firm but were from Florida yesterday). I enjoy the idea that virtually all the ads that are delivered to me are totally wasted due to my disinterest.
Finally: go get the ADCHOICES app for your tablet or phone, and turn off ALL the tracking companies. (But do read some of their descriptions which are written for potential customers; they're scary.)
4
The collecting of our readings preference data and the sale of the resulting profiles is an abominable violation of our privacy and no less egregious because there is a disclaimer saying that all media companies do this. Running a series like the privacy project does nothing to mitigate this violation of our fundamental rights. Does this not present a conflict of interest in the reporting of this vital issue? Is the fox watching the hen house?
8
@Robert Fisch Yes, but by revealing it, the Privacy Project allows us to decide to change things through our legislators.
This is unfortunately the mentality of many sectors of business, if they can get away with it, it's not on them, its up to the public to close loopholes, and so on. Its sad, but unless there is a law against it, a company will dump toxic sludge into a river.
This is the very reason we need regulation and oversight of....well everything, even the agencies that provide such for industries. The FDA, for example, has long demonstrated that we need better oversight of this agency and in this case, it is definitively "the fox guarding the henhouse."
I want my privacy to be "my privacy'.
They have some nerve using my data of reading for there purposes.
If they want to invade my space they have to ask me. This is what the gov't should be doing for our society.
I know I'm dreaming. There's money to be made. Hark again, Money is the culprit.
12
I wonder if one way to foul up the tracking system is for all users of any site, especially news sites given what is said in this article, to randomly click whatever other sites now and then to (1) increase the volume to the trackers and (2) to confuse the targeted ad system.
I have sometimes done that by checking on some commercial items or clicking at random some ad sites and laughing at the "targeted" ads that immediately came to my browser.
5
@Notmypresident Unfortunately, "big data" is not appreciably affected by individual behavior. You would need a lot of people to do this, millions.
3
@Notmypresident
One thing these big data companies might think about is I’ve gotten so I think twice before I click on a product I could have been a customer for. I do this because I know I’ll be getting so many ads for that product or related ones and I don’t care a lot about buying whatever it was. I get annoyed by these ads and it begins to make me dislike the company. One less purchaser multiplied by ?
3
@Notmypresident The problem is that once personal information about you has been collected, it is forever stored and associated with you. To manipulate the all of the software and extremely sophisticated algorithms that are profiling you every time you connect to the internet, you'd need to employ equally sophisticated Bayesian inference methods and software yourself. For example, if you added hundreds of fictitious events, children, schools, employers, addresses, interests, etc. to your Facebook profile, their software will serve up a few ads and recommendations that fit this fictitious profile. But that's just for Facebook. The zillions of other sites you visit are still gathering your personal details and selling it to commercial data-brokers and social media companies, where it will be combined with your Facebook profile, resulting in a fairly refined and accurate profile of you. Have a look at this to get an idea of tracking basics: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/23/opinion/data-internet-privacy-tracking.html
2
Beyond the debate about the legality or morality of how those with the means to gather and monetize scraps of personal information lies a set of more fundamental questions about the qualities that are required to engage in such behavior.
Setting an algorithm loose to churn through amounts of data unimaginable a few short years ago doesn’t change the nature of the effort - its intent still lies with the bloke that clicks on the ‘Go’ icon. The credit, blame or praise depending on one’s perspective, rests firmly on those shoulders; the enormity of the automated task doesn’t distance those who chose to set it to work from responsibility for the result.
We faced a similar moment when the ability of law enforcement officers to probe deeply into almost anybody’s private affairs became routine. Several high profile cases of abuse of the apparent ‘freedom’ to pry dominated news reports for a year or two, then diminished to a low background.
We argued at the time that there were already laws in effect that reflected the common sense of right and wrong in such cases, peeping Tom statutes. Policy gradually morphed to reflect that sensibility.
There are similar laws applicable to this situation, namely, stalking statutes. The intent to ‘stalk’ online users habits, and in particular the enabling manipulation of the presentation of online media present a clear picture of the same behavior seen in ‘ordinary’ stalking. The difference is only one of scope, orders of magnitude more victims.
6
Yes, I read an article about honey and vegans on one sight. It was a Pretty obscure article and not something that I feel strongly about. Then I opened Facebook and got a suggested article about the bees being oppressed by agriculture. I then went back to the first company and accused them of sharing my information with Facebook. They responded by saying I needed to ask Facebook about its policies. Not a very satisfying interaction. I’m not sure who’s responsible but it’s creepy and chilling. I don’t think we understand how this could work against us in the future.
11
@Bitter Mouse - I have had similar experiences. A TV show I was watching online showed up in ads on Facebook, I don’t know how, but they did. People I spent time with at meetings or at work appeared in my LinkedIn recommended connection list. Google must have been tracking my GPS and put me in a room with them. Then Google shared this info with LinkedIn. I’ve deleted my Facebook account. The thing is, how do they know all of the things that they do? Do they, or can they, know my passwords too?
13
The idea of privacy is an absurd notion while living in a dense computer data rich environment.
The smart phone with GPS can track your location, digital cameras used on the street for traffic control and most stores and retail outlets have running video capture and an ability to retrieve it.
The concern would be the ability to systematically combine this data into a narrative form for the use in persuasion and propaganda. This not anything new; it is as old as adverting itself. What has changed is the ability to direct targeting of particular data to a particular subject or subjects.
3
@sidecross Beyond psychological manipulation, the concern is that the private data that's gathered is already so rich, and mined (and shared, bought, and sold) so comprehensively, that it's not just completely personalized, but also possible to learn virtually anything about someone simply by analyzing what ad suggestions they receive, never mind what they actually buy. Every time you connect to the internet, your personal data is being hijacked and sold to dodgy data garages, where it's get sliced, diced, combined, and mined for valuable intel, then distributed or sold. It's a matter of knowing virtually everything about an individual while having the singular goal of obtaining their money. People such as yourself don’t seem to understand what they’re giving away, even when it's explained to them, as it is in this article and may others like it.
15
Yes, the press has lots of problems, but that’s okay. If the sense of the next steps forward now are acceptable to the broad range of consumers worldwide, proceed.
Combat against modern day slavery today is a battle against the same source of motivation as 500 years ago, economic advantage. We can fight with things like fair trade, living wages, and education. These are acceptable steps to empower and strengthen now.
Since the global economy is based upon production and consumption (and always will be), it doesn’t matter the form of governance whether democracy, republic, monarchy, or other form. They all derive power from compliant individuals. That cooperation must, MUST be reconciled with the governance of production and consumption. It is a gamble that increases existential risks with each new encroachment upon unalienable rights. New agreements can be sold “to all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all off the time...”, but the margins are thinner than ever.
If the press serves, what ought WE intend for it to serve next?
If the next steps require a new social contract - recently cheap talk among corporate leaders - then, let’s talk about the structures for action, New York Times...
Join the governance of the future before you are obsolete.
5
I appreciate the candor of the article. Lots we don't know about NYT, or most other sites do, but at least it's self-referential.
What I would like to see is a graphic / charting illustration to show the classes of cookies and trackers. Most especially the ones that send anything to any sort of governmental, including defense and intelligence sites (yeah you HS Dept) or law-enforcement sites.
Also would like to see what tracking, ads or whatever ends up being revenue to the business. Wanting to know how much revenue my usage brings in. And if someone is willing to pay a certain fee then the site will not allow ANY of the monetization stuff to continue. We realize newspapers and content sites have to pay the bills.
18
What's more alarming is the way advertising revenue algorithms promote and elevate bad stuff. Somebody became President by figuring out that the algorithms that heat-seek and glue eyeballs to bad storms, bad accidents and mass murderers can be manipulated by craftily manufacturing political controversies.
He tied himself to a concept pioneered at the national enquirer and WWE and realized that google and Facebook would add rocket fuel to a quest for free air time and name recognition in exchange for sensation manufacturing and creative controversy.
"Birtherism" was a field test.
"The Wall" an act of media manipulation.
"I can shoot someone on 5th Avenue" a revelation. a confession.
We have not a President in the White House, but a rudderless character, designed only to manipulate and hoard attention.
40
'User Beware' should be the caution of any internet web use.
The recent book by Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism is a good primer for more exploration on this subject.
I do miss what Marshall McLuhan would have written about today's media.
15
If Marshall McLuhan we’re alive today, he would be saying, “Help, help, let me out, it’s dark in here!”
Not original, but curiously fitting...
—T&K
Beyond simple concerns about privacy invasion or identity theft, is the value of privacy itself. Privacy is more than a value or a responsibility, it's a basic human right that's vital for developing and preserving dignity, autonomy, civil rights, democratic participation, and liberties. News organizations provide a public service, and depend on public trust. Online news providers should clear the highest bar for online surveillance and privacy ethics, yet they don’t reach even the lowest bar.
Browsing, tweeting, shopping, and watching videos all leave data traces. Individual data elements might say little, but assembled together, corporations and law enforcement can use them to track our movements and create a reasonably accurate image of who we are and what we do. Visitors to major news sites may not be aware that their user information is shared with social media companies, and sent to commercial data-broker companies who sell information on the open market. These companies aggregate data from multiple sources to provide a full personal profile including home address, income level, job description, and many other private details.
WebXray reveals my visit to this page is being tracked by at least 44 third-party servers, including a number of tracking servers. Using privacy search engines and installing privacy software and browser extensions won't spare you from tracking, but do provide some ability to choose what information about you is available and collected.
30
Makes me want to return to getting my newspaper delivered to my front door instead of reading it online. :)
81
I was thinking along these lines as I read the article, the slow burn within me rising with each new paragraph I read. Even now, I'm pondering making this my last visit to the NYT website.
@ana and having a flip phone and/or land line.
The author raises a good point--one which will doubtless be unpopular on the business side. Times subscriptions are already fairly expensive. Why is it also necessary to invade readers' privacy?
95
@M. agreed. I experience the same thing with some online services I pay for monthly yet they complain I'm blocking their additional efforts to track and monetize. Even if it's advertizing their own products - HEY I'M NOT PAYING TO HAVE YOU TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ME AND MY DATA!
1
In answer to your question? Greed? Running a business beyond necessary means?
@M. The business side won't be too troubled, because they know Americans don't care.
So what’s the New York Times doing to get better at protecting the users privacy?!
44
@Nils Buurman
nothing really; lip service, at the most.
My browser shows 24 trackers are being blocked on this site as I write this comment.
A serious question must be asked if the NYT is in the news business or in the Big Data business?
Why is the NYT allowing this pervasive tracking?
Why are they constantly hassling for subscriptions when they are already selling our data?
And make sure to remember that every story your read, every comment you make, is being recorded and will be used against you. Now it my be to 'just' sell you ads and psychologically manipulate your vote but is just a matter of time until your very thoughts and beliefs will be used against you in a more punitive fashion.
The New York Times, proudly contributing to Surveillance Capitalism and using you, the reader, as its product.
Hard to trust the "news" once you realize it is only there to help advertisers, and others, get a better understanding of the ways they can manipulate you.
86
This is disturbing, because I've thought same thing--& because of it, have modified before hitting send or just deleted/exited.
7
@JMC Years ago I was a reporter for a daily newspaper owned by what was then known as Donrey Media. It did not take long for the reality that the newsroom was subservient to the Advertising department. The format is different, but the business model really hasn't changed all that much.
@JMC
Those are the 24 you may know about.
Oh, so should a NYT online subscriber think that because the NYT has to play by the current news media privacy standards that that absolves the NYT from not putting their subscribers’ privacy interests first and foremost above their own interest to continue a periodical concern? Oh, puhleeze.
15
Come on, NYT, put your money where your mouth is! If you really care about your consumer's privacies, take steps to insure it. Don't allow cookies. Don't ignore the "Do not track" request. Be a good social citizen! If you don't, who will???
101
Agreed...except please do NOT call your fellow readers "consumers", ESPECIALLY of media! The article is still safe and sound and quite un-eaten after we've both looked it over, thank you very much.
So let's not spread that lie. That's how the fragmented video streamers have their monopolies on each show and STILL each get so much money.
8
I'm a bit concerned about the transparency issue mentioned in the article. One of the issues that I haven't seen discussed with ad-tech is the issues that advertising providers have with bots and click-farms, otherwise known as invalid traffic (IVT). Many other industries track the amount of IVT they're seeing on their websites, but I haven't seen any recent statistics for news organizations.
This is lack of transparency seems especially concerning considering that NYT like many other news publications use analytics to help inform reporting decisions (and they've even written articles about how they A/B test headlines). As the article notes, many news organizations have called out others for privacy issues without self reflecting. Likewise, those organizations have called out social media for not allocating enough resources towards detecting bots amplifying content. Without transparency, it's hard to evaluate if news coverage has been similarly impacted.
6
I would enthusiastically support the Times tracking my reading habits if it helps then improve their reporting or customizing stories to me. I would not extend the same leniency to a company like Facebook, which preys upon users like a vulture and extracts every ounce of value from them through deceptive and illegal business practices.
Totally different situations.
5
Being a devil’s advocate re your sentiment... why should you benefiting from the NYT’s reporting be okay? What makes you better than Facebook’s owners? Shouldn’t privacy concerns to all and not just select groups who some think those concerns don’t apply?
4
I appreciate the author’s comparison of data privacy in the US and in The E U. We need evidence to see how screening can help this chaos we call internet privacy.
12
This article hones the questions I have had for some time, and finding reliable answers is incredibly difficult.
WHO exactly, are those nebulous, ethereal partners mentioned in the fine print that these web sites choose to share or disclose our data to, based on even more difficult to ascertain criteria? I'm betting the criteria are whether or not the bill has been paid to the web site to be allowed to get our data. There is no list of who may, or any way to determine who did, get my data. Smoke and mirrors at best, mischief at the worst.
Another question is even if they say they've honored our request to purge our data (Google, Facebook, et. al.) there are clear indications in their fine print, too, that not all data are expunged. And this article points out that if the Do Not Track option is turned on, the software writers can and do thumb their nose at this. It's like renting a car and being told that all service bulletins and safety recalls have been met, when indeed nothing was ever done except to pay lip service.
Finally, not one expose so far has given names and web sites of the humongous data vacuums which market our data. They are out there, obviously. They sell a lot of data (see how rich some companies are). We are kept from pulling the curtain aside to see who they are.
22
The New York Times and other news outlets deserve a huge amount of credit for their reporting on privacy and on the misinformation spread by social media.
The articles are great, but they are often woefully unbalanced. Hopefully, this article will help more folks at the Times understand the nuances of this discussion. If it is their livelihood that is at stake, then maybe they will work harder to tell both sides of the story. Privacy issues are complex and deserve to be reported in full, not just from a single perspective.
30