[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.