[teej]

Give me a break.

This isn't evil marketers hiding in their underground lair. This is web developers, designers, and product managers gaining insight about their users. They don't package this information and sell it wholesale to advertisers. They use it to make the product better.

You are taking this -way- too seriously. The ability to have perfect information on how users interact with your product is one the earth-shattering advantages we have as makers in the digital world. It means we can make something people want - better and faster than ever before.

I'm not saying that all use of tracking is good. All power can be used for good and for evil. But that doesn't mean that power is implictly evil. Save your rage for when you discover someone actually being evil.

[zedshaw]

Bullshit. If it was used to improve a product, they wouldn't use a tracking method that tracks me between sites. They can track what I do on their site, but if I'm going from goat-sucking-maggot.com to hulu.com, then Hulu has no business knowing that and knowing that doesn't improve their damn product.

This is entirely just an attempt to get competitive analysis about their competitors at the expense of user privacy.

[mwexler]

Accd to the article, Hulu didn't know that the ID was the same between sites, and (imho) probably didn't care. The fact that it's the same was revealed by Wired, and users of KissMetrics appear to have not known. It sounds like KissMetrics didn't do much more than could be gained from a referrer in their linking between sites, though clearly more could be done if they wanted to be bad. (Yes, I understand the bad in placing an "unkillable" cookie even on folks who didn't want to be tracked; I'm referring to the specific concern you raised).

There is no evidence in the article that Kissmetrics stitched these together in any way other than what is available in standard referrers. If you hand typed the info in, referrer is blank, and I don't think Kissmetrics imputed the referrer from their data. I don't use the tool, however; can actual customers let HN know if it actually does what Zed thinks it does? Because that would clearly be stepping some bounds if it did this even on "do not track" folks.

And is the fact that it CAN do this is different from the fact that it CAN but isn't (well, if it actually isn't, see previous paragraph)? If they are, then let's yell. But if it's just possibility, then it's like yelling about Google seeing all my searches. The answer: Yes, they do. I can choose not to use Google, or I can benefit from their tech at the cost of sharing some info.

Instead of believing that no one has any right to collect any data on my usage in a world where we leave digital tracks all over the place, lets instead work to minimize risk and maximize value for users. There is always data leakage, and that data can actually help folks if treated with respect and ethics.

And yes, actually, Hulu could use that data to improve their product. But if you don't want to tracked, it's none of their business and they'll have to find another way.

[sixtofour]

I'm not defending KM, and I'm not disagreeing that "Hulu has no business," but ...

If Hulu sees that noticeable numbers of visitors to sites like goat-sucking-maggot.com, or that site and a combination of other sites, tend to watch movies of a certain genre or other attribute, they can offer more movies like that, and suggest them for visitors to g-s-m.com. Which does improve their product, especially for visitors to g-s-m.com.

[pretzel]

It's not competitor analysis, necessarily. I think rather they are trying to find out where users came to their site from so they can more accurately attribute the site that directed them, and thus throw more money at sites that do a good job of referring you to them, as opposed to just using "last click attribution". It's about them finding out how to best use their advertising budget.

[jaredmck]

Since when have users been entitled to privacy? It's just more obvious now when user data is collected, and things move much faster so it's on a more tangible scale. Small town gossip was used in much the same way to gain competitive edges at the expense of customer privacy, it just wasn't as easy to see/prove how the data moved from one spot to another back in the days of pre-electronic commerce.

[sixtofour]

Users can demand privacy. It's not a given who has rights to what, privacy or data.

[cowboyhero]

> They don't package this information and sell it wholesale to advertisers.

Yet. Genie, meet bottle.

Thinking this information will never be sold is short sighted and naive.

When it becomes advantageous for them to do so, they'll sell it in a heartbeat and then sell it again. Somewhere in there the FBI and the NSA will start making "requests" for them to share with the government.

What begins as clever social commentary in movies like Minority Report tends to wind up as a sad fact of life years later.

[jefft]

Let's be clear: this ability isn't used to have perfect information on how users interact with your product.

It's used to allow publishers to make more money from their consumers through advertising.

[palish]

I think the reason you're being downvoted is because you didn't provide any proof.

[jefft]

Sites like Hulu and Spotify predominately use web analytics to gauge their audience in order to sell advertising, not to make their sites better. That may be a by-product, but that's not driving their analytics usage.

Additionally, cross-site tracking isn't used for feature/usage tracking. It's used for highly targeted advertising.

My point was the "shattering advantages" are really advantages for advertisers, not web designers.

This technique wasn't developed with web designers in mind, so let's be clear about that.

[palish]

... And my point was, you didn't cite any evidence to back up your claims. Twice.

EDIT: But apparently no one cares, and will listen to whoever talks like an authority.

[jaredmck]

Spotify has perhaps the least targeted ads i've ever seen/heard on any media source. We listen to indie rock and classics all day only to hear the latest Jason Derulo clip several times a day as an advertisement. That's clearly not targeted in any way. There is 0% chance we will do anything but hate the song as a result of this ad. None of the ads are in any way relevant or appear to be targeted by anything more accurate than "18-35 demographic, serve them ads for shitpop" without discretion:

[justincormack]

Spotify dont sell enough ads to make targetting feasible. They play you all their inventory. Until you buy a subscription because it is too annoying...

[thehotdon]

Marketers do nothing to "make the product better".

They pump exorbitant amounts of money into advertising, thereby increasing the final price paid by customers without increasing product quality. Furthermore, they use these advertisements to inflate their customers' perceived value of the products, once again, without actually increasing product quality.

Marketers maximize profits, not quality.

[sixtofour]

If a product is crappy, no one will see the advertisements. If a product is great, people will use it, and see.

Google is nothing but an advertising company, yet 99+% of us only ever see them as a search, email, blogging, and cloud docs company. A huge number of us use their products, because they're good products. As their products improve, their cash accumulates.

I've never been in a Google meeting, but I suppose Google's marketers have some input into product development; at Google, that input is probably based on data.

[klbarry]

Value does not exist except as what the customer perceives value to be.

[a3_nm]

> Save your rage for when you discover someone actually being evil.

So it's okay for them to be evil as long as we don't discover that they are? More seriously, once they have the info, how can we be sure we nail them? The best way is still to ensure that they don't get the information in the first place.

[itg]

Sure there is nothing wrong with that, but these are sneaky underhanded tactics. Users should be able to opt-out if they don't want to be tracked.

[jaredmck]

Want to opt out? Don't visit sites using tracking methods with which you disagree. This is a fairly trivial way of opting out of such tracking, and would help incentivize those sites to change their tracking policies and technologies. If you really care that much, vote with your actions. It won't change anything, much like voting in united states elections, but you can at least back up your stance while knowing that most people do not care one bit nor wish to think about what happens behind the scenes of each website, tv program, and news story they consume in the course of being entertained. You're free to choose, at least until you decide not to be.

[goombastic]

I really miss not being able to down-vote you.