Sgt_Kickaxe - 6:08 am on Oct 26, 2011 (gmt 0)
Their plans, if implemented, would represent not only a technological feat—tying people's Internet lives with shopping activities—but also an erosion of the idea of anonymity on the Web.
What a bunch of rubbish, anonymity on the WEB isn't the issue, it's the WATCHING PEOPLE in real life to USE THE WEB to separate them from their money that's sickening (e.g. unhealthy).
The problem isn't the internet, it's the clandestine data gathering outside the web. The internet is just another place they know your eyes are and they want your eyes on them.
Where do I sign up to say H*** NO ?
(to be very clear - I hate flyers that come to my door already but this is more like cameras in my house to see what I eat so that the flyers are about what I'm out of, just no.)
According to ad executives briefed on some of the ideas, a holy grail would be to show, for instance, a weight-loss ad to a person who just swiped their card at a fast-food chain—then track whether that person bought the advertised products.
They have NO RIGHT to see what I buy for the purpose of enriching themselves, it's beyond insulting. I wish I could stick the ad execs in the hamster cage and see which treaty they run for. The "holy grail" would be to be respected, if I say "don't spam me" it should be honored, we're not livestock nor do we need our weaknesses prayed upon. The line is, and must remain, solidly drawn when privacy is ignored imo, the breach is offline in this case - the recording of your purchases with intent to use them against you just to see how much more money they can shake out of you.