Devil's advocate question: do you (should you) have to agree to be video-taped before entering a store on security cameras? What if you had to do that for every single store?
> In short: fuck you and your advertising.
Nah, I don't want to pay for every single site I visit. Content is not just given out for free. Are there limits to what counts as too much? Sure, and that's the type of discussion we should be having.
> You should be punished for selling them to someone else.
That's not how online advertising works. Rather, it's would be the equivalent of someone on your block knowing that your house is a 3-bedroom 1-bath, but know nothing about the people that live inside.
Here's what the Canadian government[1] says about the use of surveillance cameras and notice to the public:
> Q. Should we post signs that there are cameras in operation?
> A. Yes. Most privacy laws require the organization conducting video surveillance to post a clear and understandable notice about the use of cameras on its premises to individuals whose images might be captured by them, before these individuals enter the premises. This gives people the option of not entering the premises if they object to the surveillance. Signs should include a contact in case individuals have questions or if they want access to images related to them.
This is a stronger requirement than the "we may use your personal information to improve our services" language in the EULAs for almost any of these apps.
So, ironically, I think you just helped prove the point you were replying to. Hoovering up ALL the usage information without specific notice or consent is not ok.
Plus, spy-vertising and creepily recording users' mouse movements is 100% not required for Web advertising to be A Thing that Pays For Lots of Stuff. The notion that if we kill the moats that Google and friends have with their vast troves of user data and various spying methods it'll be anything more than a speedbump to the Web generally is ridiculous. Bad for Google and Facebook and so on, yeah. But so what.
Since not every user will pay or can afford to pay, and presumably heavier users are worth more, you might have to pay thousands, or tens of thousands (in case you bought a house or something based on targeted ads).
You can sort of simulate this today: imagine if you were to bid past all other ads shown to you for every ad slot on every site, then you could replace them with an empty picture. That might get expensive.
Stores don't actively use or sell my habits in security camera footage to advertisers however. If stores started selling footage of me in security cameras to companies I would want new legislation to require permission before filming. Furthermore, a store is a public place, and I don't expect privacy in the same way that I expect privacy in my own home while on my phone.
I don't think that content should be produced for free, but I argue that advertising-by-invasion-by-default is only acceptable now because not enough people called it out early enough, because they didn't realise the cost.
'It's always worked this way' is not a valid defence. Building a business on something should not later affect the legality of that thing.
In other words, start looking for another way for things to work instead of trying to claim that the status quo is the only way things can work.
Yes, I'm aware that this probably will feel like a step or two backward. Leaving a local maximum always feels like that.
[edit] I forgot to address the security camera issue. That's an awkward conflation of 'physically walking into a store where you can physically pick up and leave with an item which cost physical resources to produce' with 'asking if the person standing outside can let you look at a menu'.
> In short: fuck you and your advertising.
Nah, I don't want to pay for every single site I visit. Content is not just given out for free. Are there limits to what counts as too much? Sure, and that's the type of discussion we should be having.
> You should be punished for selling them to someone else.
That's not how online advertising works. Rather, it's would be the equivalent of someone on your block knowing that your house is a 3-bedroom 1-bath, but know nothing about the people that live inside.