Re: [projectvrm] Bad consumers! Bad! Bad!

[Don Marti < >]

begin Guy Higgins quotation of Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 07:20:19AM -0600:
> 
> Don,  Interesting taxonomy ‹ where would you put the NSA?  That¹s not a
> facetious question.  The government has really good people, but they work
> within an equally dysfunctional system.

Different game.  This A-D list is participants in
a market, who will choose to avoid certain actions
because of costs or risks that wouldn't deter the
NSA or PLA.  On the other hand there are plenty
of risks created by the negative-sum game played
by surveillance marketing against other Internet
businesses that the NSA/PLA don't have an incentive
to participate in.

(I'm skeptical of legal restrictions on the NSA,
because the PLA doesn't have to follow them and in
many cases has different or better access, but that's
another story.)

The technical/political project of making mass
government surveillance harder has some overlap with
the technical/economic project of making surveillance
marketing harder, but each one has some potential wins
that don't apply to the other.

Don

> Guy
> 
> On 7/11/15, 6:38 , "Don Marti" 
> <
 >
>  wrote:
> 
> >According to at least one major credit bureau, I
> >started working two years before I was born.
> >
> >The whole point of Big Data is the promise of being
> >able to take large quantities of noisy, low-quality
> >data and get something out of it.  This is something
> >that will work if you are a skilled mathematician,
> >but your average data scientist or growth hacker?
> >The inside of their OODA loop could look like the
> >infield at the Indianapolis 500 and they wouldn't
> >know it.
> >
> >Mary is right that the average spoofer can't hang with
> >the best of the surveillance marketing threats. But it
> >seems like there is more than one level of threat...
> >
> >A-list: Secret Masters of Fraud, best math people at
> >Google and Facebook. The big leagues.
> >
> >B-list: Mainstream successful fraud, best of the rest
> >of the surveillance marketing companies, high-skill
> >privacy nerds.
> >
> >C-list: Other successful surveillance marketing
> >companies, low-skill fraud, mainstream privacy nerds,
> >clean CRM system maintainers.
> >
> >D-list: Completely fraud-pwned surveillance marketing
> >companies, low-skill privacy nerds, most CRM system
> >maintainers.
> >
> >...and it's realistic for a user who cares about it
> >to expect to be able to spoof the Cs and Ds and some
> >of the Bs.
> >
> >
> >begin Jim Pasquale quotation of Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 08:48:20PM -0400:
> >> 
> >> I have an old time friend with many many years in the industry that has
> >>six different spam email address being used, which are using eight
> >>different birthdays, living in multiple locations for city and state.
> >>Go Figure.
> >> 
> >> Sent from an iPad
> >> 
> >> 
> >> > On Jul 10, 2015, at 10:56 AM, M a r y H o d d e r 
> >> > <
 >
> >>wrote:
> >> > 
> >> > Customer Commons did research on this about 2.5 years ago, where we
> >>found that 92% of customers, at some point,
> >> > did something to obfuscate their data in some manner.
> >> > 
> >> > It's what is called an "Illusion of Control" where users submit false
> >>information as a measure of control, because they know their
> >> > data is being sold and matched down the supply chain, but it doesn't
> >>really solve their problem. This is because the fingerprinting
> >> > of their machines, the beacons and data matching (often back to a
> >>common 'spam' or junk email address they use for 'bad sites' that
> >> > require an email address) outs them. So in the end, they have a
> >>common profile(s) aggregated about themselves at the data trackers/
> >> > collectors, but also the data is dirty because the volunteered
> >>information is full of fake stuff.
> >> > 
> >> > But.. the trackers still know who we are.  Esp if we use any mobile
> >>device to login even once.
> >> > 
> >> > The whole thing is such a mess.
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> >> On Jul 10, 2015, at 5:30 AM, Don Marti wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> From today's marketing news...
> >> >> 
> >> >> Consumers are Œdirtying¹ databases with false details
> >> >> By Mindi Chahal
> >> >> 
> >> >> 
> >>http://www.marketingweek.com/2015/07/08/consumers-are-dirtying-databases-
> >>with-false-details/
> >> >> 
> >> >> The research shows that 60% of consumers
> >> >> intentionally provide incorrect information when
> >> >> submitting their personal details online.
> >> >> 
> >> >> ...
> >> >> 
> >> >> ³The upside of providing information has not been
> >> >> articulated,² says managing director at Verve
> >> >> Colin Strong. ³The case is not always made by
> >> >> companies about what consumers are going to get in
> >> >> return for providing information, but people see the
> >> >> immediate effects of being put on more marketing
> >> >> lists and being pursued by online advertising and
> >> >> email spam.²
> >> >> 
> >> >> Upside?
> >> >> 
> >> >> People know that price discrimination is a thing
> >> >> (although nobody calls it that). And if you can't
> >> >> reliably use your data to get into the low-price
> >> >> group, your best strategy is to spoof.
> >> >> 
> >> >> How about a better headline: "Most People Are
> >> >> Better At Applied Behavioral Economics Than Database
> >> >> Marketers Are."
> >> >> 
> >> >> (Yes, this story is regwalled. How meta. Go nuts.)
> >> >> 
> >> >> -- 
> >> >> Don Marti 
> >> >> <
 >
> >> >> http://zgp.org/~dmarti/
> >> >> Are you safe from 3rd-party web tracking?
> >>http://www.aloodo.org/test/
> >> > 
> >> 
> >
> >-- 
> >Don Marti 
> ><
 >
> >http://zgp.org/~dmarti/
> >Are you safe from 3rd-party web tracking?  http://www.aloodo.org/test/
> 
> 

-- 
Don Marti 
<
 >
                   
http://zgp.org/~dmarti/
Are you safe from 3rd-party web tracking?  http://www.aloodo.org/test/