I’ve got it on less than 6 months.

> Uber Intelligence will let advertisers securely combine their customer data with Uber's to help surface insights about their audiences, based on what they eat and where they travel.

So the companies have the identities. It sounds like they're going to be learning something about their customers, the question is just how much detail they'll get.

This narrative is incredibly toxic and honestly a very antisocial viewpoint of people as if they are all just stupid sheep who deserve to be exploited.

There's zero reason why its unfair for a person to both object to advertising because of the annoyance (because it is annoying) AND for a person to not want to be digitally surveilled endlessly without their consent.

It isn't out-of-keeping in this kind of company for a person to start discussions about personal data privacy. In fact: We chat about this stuff here all the time.

But in reality: The number of discussions I've had about personal data privacy and monetization face-to-face with people that I did not meet through a computer network, or bring up myself is exactly 1.

It's thus my observation that most people in the world care about this issue approximately...never.

(The reason they don't care may be that they don't know enough to even begin to question whether the people behind their air fryer, genealogical DNA service, garage door opener, and food delivery system may have ulterior motives.

But guesses about root causation are, at best, both tangential and broadly inconsequential. We can guess and figure and re-figure and even prove theories until the cows come home.

And it doesn't matter.

They didn't care yesterday, they still don't care today while I write this, and they will continue to not care tomorrow.)

So now, to justify removing someone from your pool of advertisees, they don't just need to pay what could be made by advertising to them; they need to pay for what could be made to advertise to them and (unwittingly) several poorer people.

So a fancy way to say that if you have 10 dollars?

“If you don’t pay for a product, you are the product”

It’s

“If you don’t pay for a product, you are a less valuable product than if you’d pay for the product”

I'm not paying crave anymore.

There just needs to be a blanket-law where your data is considered every-bit as intellectual property as a piece of copyrighted media and for there to be consent established to sell or give your data to a third-party there needs to be an active exchange of payment, credit or services that is opt-in only, not opt-out from an intentionally obfuscated EULA update email.

Require active opt-in and consent along with a clear set of goods/services/payment, and active simple on-demand revocation with strict timelines, and you could have companies actually properly incentivizing users to sell them their own personal data instead of it just being harvested.

Unfortunately too many libertarian nutjobs out here think that the market here will magically fix all issues.

At the same time you have processes like increasing suburbanization and development of even more car-centric infrastructure, which makes houses and restaurants even further from each other, and makes cheaper delivery vehicles like motorbikes infeasible.

HBO was the first offering that didn't have ads during the show.

No, it was quality of reception, especially for people who were farther from (or had inconvenient terrain between them and) broadcast stations; literally the only thing on early capable was exactly the normal broadcast feed from the covered stations, which naturally included all the normal ads.

Premium add-on channels that charged on top of cable, of which I think HBO was the first, had being ad free among their selling points, but that was never part of the basic cable deal.

> It uses LiveRamp's clean room technology, which lets companies aggregate their data in a privacy-safe environment, without sharing or seeing each other's raw or personally identifiable customer information.

It's apparently not that they directly sell your PII at least.

They have also advertised for the Starbucks in thr Target stores long before when you go to pickup something.

I don't follow... it certainly improves the grocer's margins, but how does that do anything at all for the consumer?

I like good recommendations better than bad recommendations. The value I get is better recommendations.

Like, I literally update the categories of things I'm interested in, in my Google profile, so I get less useless ads.

People complain about bad and useless recommendations and irrelevant ads all the time. Personalization is how you get better ones.

Are people suddenly moving more between corp A and corp B? Must be something going on, let's buy the stock.

Suddenly multiple Ubers are dropping off people at a residential building during the night? They probably know each other. Let's flag that as a potential risk.

https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/special-topics/d...

Flatbush Ave and Church Ave in Brooklyn also have a good amount of $1 buses and $1 cabs going up and down the avenue. This is on top of the MTA busses and subway in the area.

Consider what will happen every time there is a trade-off to be made between making/keeping the data more useful to the companies involved, and actually upholding the anonymity of the data subjects.

Anonymization is nearly impossible to get right even when you're trying really hard, and this is more likely to be a fig leaf to be able to do things that are illegal by sufficiently obfuscating them.

I hope that if EU customer data is included in this, the EU will have the balls to actually enforce GDPR. Uber is one of the few tech company cases where 2-4% of overall revenue would actually hurt, rather than being a small "tax" on the extra profit made through the illegal use of data.