> We also use it to develop and improve products and features for all our customers and to gain insights into how our products are being used, assess customer engagement, identify potential quality issues, analyze our business, and customize marketing offers.
Targeted marketing is, in itself, something that's reasonable for someone to want to block regardless of whether or not there's a mustached villain tracking you. Privacy is about more than stalkers, it's about the effects of data usage. For some people, targeted advertising is a harm regardless of whether or not the company knows their name.
To go a step farther, I also don't understand why it's LARPing to be worried about a company who is actively being investigated for misusing seller data.
I bring this up every time that one of these threads/stories gets posted, but there's (appologies, but for lack of a better word) some kind of weird gaslighting that always happens in these situations. Before it broke that Echo and Siri queries were sometimes listened to by 3rd-party contractors, if I had posted that suspicion on HN people would have called me paranoid. Once the story broke, the argument then shifted to, "well of course they're doing that, how else would you improve the service?" That kind of thinking applies to Amazon as well.
I don't know that it's likely, but I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that Amazon might use this information in the future to help target pirates, change book rankings on their store, perform highly targeted advertising and book recommendations, or turn it over during government subpoenas. Those are completely reasonable usages that their privacy policy leaves them permission to do.
Similarly, I don't know that it's likely, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that this information might get sent to 3rd parties with less responsible data practices, or that employees might be given direct access to it in an unobfuscated form[1]. It's not something I'm losing sleep over, but I wouldn't be shocked to my core if someday all this information got leaked publicly and correlated to people's email addresses.
These are all situations where privacy matters regardless of the original intention. The "I only want to make my service better" defense applies to basically all data collection that most companies do. Even advertisers use that defense. It's reasonable for people to want to avoid being a part of that.
Of course, it's also reasonable for people not to care, to say that hacking is a risk they're willing to live with, and that they don't mind targeted ads, and that the books they read aren't sensitive. But it's not LARPing if someone has a different opinion on whether or not they want to tolerate that stuff.
> We also use it to develop and improve products and features for all our customers and to gain insights into how our products are being used, assess customer engagement, identify potential quality issues, analyze our business, and customize marketing offers.
Targeted marketing is, in itself, something that's reasonable for someone to want to block regardless of whether or not there's a mustached villain tracking you. Privacy is about more than stalkers, it's about the effects of data usage. For some people, targeted advertising is a harm regardless of whether or not the company knows their name.
To go a step farther, I also don't understand why it's LARPing to be worried about a company who is actively being investigated for misusing seller data.
I bring this up every time that one of these threads/stories gets posted, but there's (appologies, but for lack of a better word) some kind of weird gaslighting that always happens in these situations. Before it broke that Echo and Siri queries were sometimes listened to by 3rd-party contractors, if I had posted that suspicion on HN people would have called me paranoid. Once the story broke, the argument then shifted to, "well of course they're doing that, how else would you improve the service?" That kind of thinking applies to Amazon as well.
I don't know that it's likely, but I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that Amazon might use this information in the future to help target pirates, change book rankings on their store, perform highly targeted advertising and book recommendations, or turn it over during government subpoenas. Those are completely reasonable usages that their privacy policy leaves them permission to do.
Similarly, I don't know that it's likely, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that this information might get sent to 3rd parties with less responsible data practices, or that employees might be given direct access to it in an unobfuscated form[1]. It's not something I'm losing sleep over, but I wouldn't be shocked to my core if someday all this information got leaked publicly and correlated to people's email addresses.
These are all situations where privacy matters regardless of the original intention. The "I only want to make my service better" defense applies to basically all data collection that most companies do. Even advertisers use that defense. It's reasonable for people to want to avoid being a part of that.
Of course, it's also reasonable for people not to care, to say that hacking is a risk they're willing to live with, and that they don't mind targeted ads, and that the books they read aren't sensitive. But it's not LARPing if someone has a different opinion on whether or not they want to tolerate that stuff.
[0]: https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=...
[1]: See, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/12/12/creepy-net.... Is it LARPing for me to be weirded out by a marketing department trolling over my reading/listening/watching habits looking for viral tweet material?