Not for attribution. It’s for exposure. If Pepsi buys $1M in ads on NBC, it only knows the DMA and time slot/programs it bought the ads on. It doesn’t know the households it bought the ads on. With ACR data, it will know that you were exposed. From there, they can do a few different things. Audience studies (like they reached 2000 households with a certain income etc). Or they can run attribution studies. A company called Data+Math looks at exposure of these kinds of ads, understands which households weren’t exposed (as a control) and gives statistically significance calculations on linear TV ads to understand lift of sales (one example).
Inscape, an ACR company, have this revealing paragraph on their blog. Note the "following your IP from the exposure to the ad, to the sales funnel" part:
"Advertisers like ACR data because it provides second-by-second feedback on how their ads are performing. Nielsen provides its data in 15-minute blocks, so if viewers tuned out after the first ad in a pod, the advertiser has no way of knowing. And since IP addresses are included, companies like iSpot.tv and Data + Math are able to use that information to create multi-touch attribution ratings that help advertisers understand how certain ads and placements helped move viewers through the sales funnel, from seeing the ad, to googling the product to actually buying it. It’s a lengthy process that requires a lot of data and a lot of rigor, but it’s an excellent way to prove to marketers that TV advertising actually works."
"""
What's funny about this is that I think this is a legitimate and relatively non-evil use case.
"""
- parent is saying that fingerprinting so the advertisers know who saw the ads is legitimate and relatively non-evil.
It all comes down to lack of transparency/oversight and the option to exercise control as an individual.
"""
- parent acknowledges that not telling the user and not making it configurable can be problematic.
If you consider tracking an anonymous identifier for the purposes of better marketing "spying" then I think that's a stretch. Calling out TV in particular for it is a bit silly - it's simply everywhere.
"...without their consent and without telling them about it."
Yes they are. You opt in or out when you buy the TV. They tell you about it then. You can be like most people and not read the fine print, but then don't be all surprised when someone's pulling the wool over your eyes.
I can't fathom the math and scale involved here making sense in the long term.
Eventually the marginal increase in profit is less than the marginal increase in adtech cost. I wouldn't be surprised if many industries passed that point years ago. There's probably a lot of hype and hubris disguising that fact, but someone's going to make a successful business case out of cheap, low-creepiness spray-and-pray advertising.
It’s called ACR data and it’s very common. And yes, TVs are phoning home with it.
And GDPR only requires that you opt in. So when you sign into the TV for the first time, it gives you an opt in choice and many do it. The States is less regulated but will be soon.
These are of course just guidelines, but if you don't explicitly inform your users that you will be sending images of what's on the screen over the Internet, you are likely to get in trouble. (And no, a giant EULA-type wall of text probably wouldn't be sufficient)
It isn't nearly as easy as you're suggesting to escape the scope of GDPR protections. There could be sensitive personal data or data about children involved. Even if it's just some identifiable individual in the screenshot, you still can't just rely on some sneaky "consent" as a blank cheque - that is merely a possible lawful basis for processing, and all the other provisions of the GDPR still apply.
Edit: Also, on your first point, ACR is generally a variation of fingerprinting technology. It wouldn't be sending entire screenshots of whatever is being displayed even if it's not broadcast content, at least not in any variation I've heard of. It was the idea of uploading the entire image that I was questioning before.
Fair point on the screenshot. Yea I dont think any TV is phoning home with screenshots. Rather it's phoning home with a processed signal of the A/V in order to ID that A/V. If there is A/V that cannot be recognized, it may phone home a screenshot of that.
And I also don't think it's easy to escape the scope of GDPR. I'm just saying companies come up with ways of being "GDPR compliant" and they've done so.
It tickles me that photography is noted as a worthwhile skill. I don’t disagree. Photography to me is meditation. I get to wander around and find things pleasing to the eye. Nothing could be better.
I find it funnier the outrage of those who can’t bear to think of their dog’s love as contingent upon food. “But I need unconditional love from my pet!”
You've got to be more specific. I've lived in NYC for almost a decade and I think the power went out 3 times and that's always been due to a hurricane. Power cuts are not something I've had to deal with in any significant manner in anyplace I've lived in the USA (and I've lived all over).
NYC, have also done road trips up and down east and west coast. Never been to the middle. I think I've experienced 3 power cuts in the UK in my entire life.
The more interesting fact is that if Tim Cook were to pay more taxes, he'd be fired by his shareholders. CEO's of public companies are supposed to increase profitability, not decrease it.
What I find most fascinating is that we look to others to change principally before ourselves. Invariably when there is terrible news such as this, people will discuss the 'deniers' etc.
But the deniers aren't the most pernicious. Those who know perfectly well what they are doing is hurting the planet but do nothing about it are the most pernicious (aka - me). I know what I do is bad, but how do I not do it?
I live in New York City. Take public transportation everyday and probably consume less plastic goods than the average (my household is about 1000 sq. ft and therefore requires less chemicals to clean, less furniture to fill with etc).
A friend from San Francisco said to me "I view NYC as a giant pile of trash." And I can see her point, it's out on the street and in clear daylight. She's right. But just because San Francisco hides its trash better doesn't mean it doesn't make any.
So though I can argue that I pollute less on a per capita basis, I still do. What should I do?
I don't understand how this is relevant - it's a technology people use to stay connected, share photos, and communicate. Is there some issue you have with this? The article wasn't commenting on the moral implications of facebook or even the beat-to-death privacy issues.
Please explain how it is irrelevant. If you cease paying attention to FB, then your deceased loved ones no longer continue this "digital life" as the article puts it.
