These tracking "pixels" are used across the entire ad tech industry. It is very pervasive. Amazon, Twitter / X, Facebook / Meta, Pinterest, Snap, TikTok...
It's not just pixels. They strongly encourage site owners to send (normalised and hashed) personal data from every interaction to them, with the promise of better targeting for the site's ads. You cannot block this or opt out because it's server-side.
> You cannot block this or opt out because it's server-side.
Facebook’s latest approach is to give people instructions on setting up a relay server in their own infrastructure so that privacy software that blocks third-party tracking still works, even when it looks at IP addresses to detect things like CNAME cloaking.
I recently told my bank I don't agree to their new privacy terms. I sent them all 26 pages, marked up with various red lines crossing out the objectionable clauses. One was about tracking pixels, web beacons and the like.
There was also much worse stuff contained like behavioral profiling and sharing my data with outside advertising conglomerates.
After-the-fact opt out mechanisms were described for a lot of it, but I explained very clearly that I am not consenting in the first place. The fact they provide an opt out for some of the most shameful portions reinforces that they don't need consent in the first place to provide me with banking services. I don't know who in their right mind would accept such terms. Unfortunately most individuals I know wouldn't have a clue what the jargon means or how it affects them.
A meeting was set up with my bank manager, and to underscore my point I brought in the original, aged-parchment paperwork I signed over two decades ago to open the account. That was only 5 pages long by comparison.
I also brought in a screenshot from Facebook that proved the bank uploaded some information about me to them in a Custom Audience customer list (a tool offered to advertisers that perversely deputizes them in Meta's quest to ingest all of our personal information). They have no business telling Meta or other third parties who I bank with (which is what the hashed uploaded lists are used to match & confirm).
The manager was quite understanding of my concerns and agreed none of what I objected to is legitimately needed to provide me with banking. I politely explained if they expected me to agree to this garbage I would take my personal and business deposits elsewhere.
I was pragmatic, and realize they're not going to reprogram their whole web portal just for me, but told them if they were going to go ahead and embed web beacons and the like in pages served up to me, or engage in more aggressive privacy violations, then they're doing so without my consent (an important distinction if I suffer damages down the line). In the end, my redlined version of their policy was affixed to my file to document that I do not in fact accept their terms, and they got to keep me as a customer. Not as good as a countersigned revised agreement, but enough to indicate my intent should consensus ad idem come into question.
I realize this was a lot of time and effort (and some risk of further nuisance if it failed and my accounts had to be closed), expended for something most people don't seem to care about. But the growing trend of companies outside tech adopting all our worst dark patterns really gets my gears grinding.
The story goes to show that if you choose to push back, sometimes you can win.
Good job Europe, keep blazing a trail which I hope my country eventually decides to follow.
>>Good job Europe, keep blazing a trail which I hope my country eventually decides to follow.
While GDPR had some good intentions the way it implemented in practice just makes things more difficult for consumers and changes little.
For example in Poland one of the major banks still forces you to accept them sharing your information with advertising partners.
The main effect of the regulation is that you waste 30 seconds on every call to a business you make for listening about stuff about their privacy policy and the on every form you have to consent to something or be denied service.
The footballification of everything. Most important is to score a point against "the other team", nevermind the world going to shit in the process.
And that is 90% of the issue US culture has at the moment. You are not thinking about topics and how they impact your lifes, you're thinking about whose team that topic is on and how you can show them.
Only issue is that voting politicians whose topics negatively impact your life out of office is your only agency within a democracy. Giving it up while thinking "my tribe strong" is the ultimate ideocracy.
That's the typical German/Oswald Spengler cynical view of things with inevitable decline being the conclusion.
You have to look elsewhere for more hope - probably from the Brits (who have great experience with highs and lows) - Toynbee perhaps whose work shows a different cycle - Challenge arises (ecological, military, social) - creative minority responds with new vision/structure - the majority follows - if response fails or becomes rigid - civilization ossifies.
These tracking "pixels" are used across the entire ad tech industry. It is very pervasive. Amazon, Twitter / X, Facebook / Meta, Pinterest, Snap, TikTok...
It's not just pixels. They strongly encourage site owners to send (normalised and hashed) personal data from every interaction to them, with the promise of better targeting for the site's ads. You cannot block this or opt out because it's server-side.
> You cannot block this or opt out because it's server-side.
Facebook’s latest approach is to give people instructions on setting up a relay server in their own infrastructure so that privacy software that blocks third-party tracking still works, even when it looks at IP addresses to detect things like CNAME cloaking.
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/marketing-api/conversio...
1 reply →
Another reason not to deal with any company that has any kind of Facebook focus at all
Yep, and it doesn't make it right.
I recently told my bank I don't agree to their new privacy terms. I sent them all 26 pages, marked up with various red lines crossing out the objectionable clauses. One was about tracking pixels, web beacons and the like.
There was also much worse stuff contained like behavioral profiling and sharing my data with outside advertising conglomerates.
After-the-fact opt out mechanisms were described for a lot of it, but I explained very clearly that I am not consenting in the first place. The fact they provide an opt out for some of the most shameful portions reinforces that they don't need consent in the first place to provide me with banking services. I don't know who in their right mind would accept such terms. Unfortunately most individuals I know wouldn't have a clue what the jargon means or how it affects them.
A meeting was set up with my bank manager, and to underscore my point I brought in the original, aged-parchment paperwork I signed over two decades ago to open the account. That was only 5 pages long by comparison.
I also brought in a screenshot from Facebook that proved the bank uploaded some information about me to them in a Custom Audience customer list (a tool offered to advertisers that perversely deputizes them in Meta's quest to ingest all of our personal information). They have no business telling Meta or other third parties who I bank with (which is what the hashed uploaded lists are used to match & confirm).
The manager was quite understanding of my concerns and agreed none of what I objected to is legitimately needed to provide me with banking. I politely explained if they expected me to agree to this garbage I would take my personal and business deposits elsewhere.
I was pragmatic, and realize they're not going to reprogram their whole web portal just for me, but told them if they were going to go ahead and embed web beacons and the like in pages served up to me, or engage in more aggressive privacy violations, then they're doing so without my consent (an important distinction if I suffer damages down the line). In the end, my redlined version of their policy was affixed to my file to document that I do not in fact accept their terms, and they got to keep me as a customer. Not as good as a countersigned revised agreement, but enough to indicate my intent should consensus ad idem come into question.
I realize this was a lot of time and effort (and some risk of further nuisance if it failed and my accounts had to be closed), expended for something most people don't seem to care about. But the growing trend of companies outside tech adopting all our worst dark patterns really gets my gears grinding.
The story goes to show that if you choose to push back, sometimes you can win.
Good job Europe, keep blazing a trail which I hope my country eventually decides to follow.
So you're still tracked the same way as everyone else and they didn't sign any of your changes, so how are you protected?
4 replies →
>>Good job Europe, keep blazing a trail which I hope my country eventually decides to follow.
While GDPR had some good intentions the way it implemented in practice just makes things more difficult for consumers and changes little. For example in Poland one of the major banks still forces you to accept them sharing your information with advertising partners.
The main effect of the regulation is that you waste 30 seconds on every call to a business you make for listening about stuff about their privacy policy and the on every form you have to consent to something or be denied service.
8 replies →
[flagged]
The footballification of everything. Most important is to score a point against "the other team", nevermind the world going to shit in the process.
And that is 90% of the issue US culture has at the moment. You are not thinking about topics and how they impact your lifes, you're thinking about whose team that topic is on and how you can show them.
Only issue is that voting politicians whose topics negatively impact your life out of office is your only agency within a democracy. Giving it up while thinking "my tribe strong" is the ultimate ideocracy.
That's the typical German/Oswald Spengler cynical view of things with inevitable decline being the conclusion.
You have to look elsewhere for more hope - probably from the Brits (who have great experience with highs and lows) - Toynbee perhaps whose work shows a different cycle - Challenge arises (ecological, military, social) - creative minority responds with new vision/structure - the majority follows - if response fails or becomes rigid - civilization ossifies.
1 reply →