The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)(elnion.com)
elnion.com
The problem of creeping commercial surveillance (2022)
https://elnion.com/2022/02/07/the-problem-of-creeping-commercial-surveillance/
16 comments
>That being said, I am now running into what I call the "Non-App Tax". The most prominent example I can think of in my own experience is my towns local parking payment system. You actually don't need to use the app to find parking or pay. You can scan a QR code and pay via text. Then I looked at the prices on the app vs prices via text and the prices were a decent amount higher ($1-2 more) and less flexible than if I had just used the app. Kinda shitty and I can absolutely see this becoming the norm.
Or a "discount" for using the app. /s
Or a "discount" for using the app. /s
I've run into several parking places recently where you had to pay using the app, but where there was no mobile signal on any of the networks. Cue a lot of annoyed motorists.
On the other hand we (from London) were visiting Santa Barbara and had to use an app to park, and I was amazed that the app (ISTR it was PayByPhone) let me use the rental car with my UK login and billed me the right amount with no hassle.
On the other hand we (from London) were visiting Santa Barbara and had to use an app to park, and I was amazed that the app (ISTR it was PayByPhone) let me use the rental car with my UK login and billed me the right amount with no hassle.
Eventually, when the app reaches a certain amount of downloads, do you believe they will eventually regulate the prices as the one you have to pay for physically?
It says “this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private” on every dollar bill.
I wish that was actually enforced.
I wish that was actually enforced.
AFAIK the concept of legal tender doesn't mean that you can use the law to force a business to accept dollar bills. If you want to trade your black lotus for my foil charizard, I can't refuse to trade and then sue you to pay you in cash instead. Rather, AIUI, the "debt" referred to there refers to legal debts, so e.g. if my dog gets into your chicken coop and you sue me for damages, you can only ask for an amount in dollars rather than forcing me to provide you with replacement chickens.
IANAL, and I don't think the GP's argument is valid, but his goal is valid: retail businesses should not discriminate against people without phones or credit cards. There are lots of them, and it could be you at some point. There are lots of good articles about accessibility and how we all get old, etc. That same argument applies here: you may be well off, consider having a smartphone and several credit cards "normal", but you may fall, financially, and you will lose those things. I would call this "financial accessibility". The argument is NOT for the business to address more market (there is that though) but rather to avoid making life even harder for people who's lives are already quite hard.
Retail businesses that don't accept cash are also reducing their risk of being robbed. Prominently placed signs informing customers and criminals to the lack of cash on site means most criminals will go to the next place. It also helps keep the employees' sticky fingers from skimming the till.
I can see why some might be enticed.
I can see why some might be enticed.
Yeah, I have been on both sides of this issue. I really want cash to work anywhere, but I have also worked retail and seen that cash is a giant pain in the ass for businesses. It has to be secured, transported, the employees steal it, and it means more accounting headaches. Whereas if all your payments are done through Square, this all goes away. It's not surprising to me an increasing number of businesses— especially really small ones like food trucks— are just doing away with it. I'm not sure what the solution is.
Also, making change for cash transactions is also not trivial. I've been on both sides as a vendor and a buyer where this has been an issue. As a vendor, i've tried rounding down to be advantageous for the buyer for the inconvenience, but it's annoying. as a seller, if it's a craft fair or some sort of thing with small artisans, i've rounded up for a tip. either way, it's a painful part of a business that going cashless avoids altogether.
It's also expensive to have handicapped parking spots and ramps. You do it because it's right, not because it's convenient or cheap.
Not many retail places are building their own locations any more. Normally, they are just renting space. The things you mention are the landlord's problem
Edit: also, landlords are not doing these things because they are "right", they are doing them because they are regulated to do so
Edit: also, landlords are not doing these things because they are "right", they are doing them because they are regulated to do so
The only reason things are legal or illegal, allowed or disallowed, is because the majority of the voting public deems it to be so. There is no possible set of rules that can reflect every individuals sense of right and wrong, since we disagree strongly and in good faith about those matters.
Building codes exist because people died in fires. Limits on working age exists because there would be child labor without it. Limits on working agreements exist because there would be indentured servitude without it. Limits on government power, exemplified by the first 10 amendments to the US constitution, exist because without them the government would do anything to you that it wanted. And even then there are those who find those regulations limited, who want government with unlimited power over them, thinking that would make them safer, or that it's coercive to government workers to abide by them. Society is not a game of absolutes - it's a game of compromises that can only function if people are generally acting in good faith.
Building codes exist because people died in fires. Limits on working age exists because there would be child labor without it. Limits on working agreements exist because there would be indentured servitude without it. Limits on government power, exemplified by the first 10 amendments to the US constitution, exist because without them the government would do anything to you that it wanted. And even then there are those who find those regulations limited, who want government with unlimited power over them, thinking that would make them safer, or that it's coercive to government workers to abide by them. Society is not a game of absolutes - it's a game of compromises that can only function if people are generally acting in good faith.
I think you've strayed from the herd a bit too far here. We're talking about a retail establishment accepting cash payments or not.
You're trying to make moral comments on labor laws or something. I'm not really sure the point. Regulations to run a business can be deemed as protecting what's "right". While we can commonly agree that it's "right" to provide accessibility access to your establishment, we can hopefully also agree that if it wasn't legislated to be, then more than a few retailers would not provide them.
However, none of this has anything to do with a retailer's decision to accept cash and all of the risks associated with that.
You're trying to make moral comments on labor laws or something. I'm not really sure the point. Regulations to run a business can be deemed as protecting what's "right". While we can commonly agree that it's "right" to provide accessibility access to your establishment, we can hopefully also agree that if it wasn't legislated to be, then more than a few retailers would not provide them.
However, none of this has anything to do with a retailer's decision to accept cash and all of the risks associated with that.
Landlords don’t provide parking ‘because it’s right’. A more accurate statement would be ‘because it is required by the Americans with Disabilities Act and you won’t receive a building occupancy permit unless you provide handicap parking’.
That Act was passed by legislators who were elected by the general public to represent what is "right" to them.
The issue is that there is no debt if you haven't yet transacted. And you can't steal the item and then claim to be in debt and force the person to take your money.
Supermarkets used to have coupons that you had to cut out of the paper to get discounts on certain items. That was already bullshit -- if you can sell it at that price, please sell it at that price! Why the extra hoop of cutting up a magazine first?
Then supermarkets discovered bar codes. If you can convince people to carry around a barcode, suddenly you can track their usage patterns in exchange for a small discount.
Okay fine, but at least it's anonymous, right?
Then supermarkets realized they could get you to "activate" your barcode by going to a website. Hey, this way not only do we get their usage patterns, but we get data about them too! Demographics, etc. And people do it! Because of discounts.
Sure, some of us give fake info, but plenty of people just give their real names, addresses, and emails. Fantastic.
Well, lately I accidentally broke my barcode keychain thingy while locking up my bike (don't ask) and so next time I was in the supermarket I picked up a new one. Tried to activate it on my phone at the automatic cash but couldn't figure out how to log in to the site. Saw a link to the app but figured I'd look more into it later.
So later, I did that.. and discovered you can't log in to the site, because you can only activate the barcode by installing the app!
So, anyway, that's the story about when I gave up getting discounts at the supermarket.
Then supermarkets discovered bar codes. If you can convince people to carry around a barcode, suddenly you can track their usage patterns in exchange for a small discount.
Okay fine, but at least it's anonymous, right?
Then supermarkets realized they could get you to "activate" your barcode by going to a website. Hey, this way not only do we get their usage patterns, but we get data about them too! Demographics, etc. And people do it! Because of discounts.
Sure, some of us give fake info, but plenty of people just give their real names, addresses, and emails. Fantastic.
Well, lately I accidentally broke my barcode keychain thingy while locking up my bike (don't ask) and so next time I was in the supermarket I picked up a new one. Tried to activate it on my phone at the automatic cash but couldn't figure out how to log in to the site. Saw a link to the app but figured I'd look more into it later.
So later, I did that.. and discovered you can't log in to the site, because you can only activate the barcode by installing the app!
So, anyway, that's the story about when I gave up getting discounts at the supermarket.
Consider asking a cashier for a new membership card and take the membership form home but never fill it out. Why give a fake name when you can give no name at all? The loyalty card still works, and a usage pattern is tracked, even if not necessarilly tied to an identity.
One of my favorite “hacks” is to use the phone number option and put in your local area code + 867-5309 (a number from a famous 80s pop song). You lose out on “savings points” or whatever, but if discounts are offered to card holders you get that discount.
> The loyalty card still works
huh? at least in my supermarket it doesn't work, unless you activate it, the new thing being that you can't do that anymore without installing the app. Not sure if that was unclear in my story.
huh? at least in my supermarket it doesn't work, unless you activate it, the new thing being that you can't do that anymore without installing the app. Not sure if that was unclear in my story.
> Then I looked at the prices on the app vs prices via text and the prices were a decent amount higher ($1-2 more) and less flexible than if I had just used the app. Kinda shitty and I can absolutely see this becoming the norm.
I’m surprised this is legal for a municipality. There are people with cars but no smartphone (elderly folks). It seems ageist.
I’m surprised this is legal for a municipality. There are people with cars but no smartphone (elderly folks). It seems ageist.
You write "town", so I'll suggest that if indeed there's an elected city council, and you're willing to be a bit militant, you can put pressure on the situation.
Put together an oral argument and rehearse it to fit whatever is the time limit for speakers from the public, and sign up to speak at the next meeting. Angles to consider: ageism, economic justice, equal protection under the law, identity theft, vetting of software vendors.
For added force, get in touch with neighbors, try to stir up a bit of indignation from them as well, and channel it into showing up at the meeting with you for visible support. Better yet, urge them to take a speaking slot themselves. Coordinate content of your respective presentations, and help tune each others, at least at the level of reviewing speaking notes, ideally with a standup practice run-through.
If there's a local paper that covers council meetings, write a "letter to the editor". And try to get their attention onto your talk with a heads-up to them just before the meeting at which you will speak.
Put together an oral argument and rehearse it to fit whatever is the time limit for speakers from the public, and sign up to speak at the next meeting. Angles to consider: ageism, economic justice, equal protection under the law, identity theft, vetting of software vendors.
For added force, get in touch with neighbors, try to stir up a bit of indignation from them as well, and channel it into showing up at the meeting with you for visible support. Better yet, urge them to take a speaking slot themselves. Coordinate content of your respective presentations, and help tune each others, at least at the level of reviewing speaking notes, ideally with a standup practice run-through.
If there's a local paper that covers council meetings, write a "letter to the editor". And try to get their attention onto your talk with a heads-up to them just before the meeting at which you will speak.
They give you an option to pay more and not install anything? I'm jealous, most of what I've seen is "install the app or you are SOL".
The store where we buy groceries (A Kroger owned company) has begun to offer “digital” coupons that are available through its app with a login. They are substantial savings and in many cases something I’d take advantage of. I’m bothered by it and we’re fortunately able to afford not to buy with those coupons. But there are undoubtedly a lot of people who don’t realistically have that choice.
I've been this way since the first murmurings about Angry Birds. That was the first time the concept of apps doing things other than the obvious was brought to my mind. After that, some researching shows that this behavior was the norm and not the exception. So, my phone is pretty much boring, and also helps justify why I'm not a continual device upgrader.
You and I seem to be in a very small minority though
You and I seem to be in a very small minority though
I avoid phone-based apps for that purely for security...
I've witnessed a general convergence towards monetization of user data over time. I'm bothered that the technical talent of our time is increasingly focused on this.
No one seems to like it or want it, but every company engages in it, because it's lucrative. Companies that don't do it are missing out on financial opportunity, and we know what happens to such companies in our market system...
I'm of the opinion that only policy/regulation can fix this issue (the playing field needs to be leveled across the board). I'm not sure what that looks like. Does anyone know of proposals/individuals that are being made in this area?
No one seems to like it or want it, but every company engages in it, because it's lucrative. Companies that don't do it are missing out on financial opportunity, and we know what happens to such companies in our market system...
I'm of the opinion that only policy/regulation can fix this issue (the playing field needs to be leveled across the board). I'm not sure what that looks like. Does anyone know of proposals/individuals that are being made in this area?
Been using DuckDuckGo's app privacy protection, some of the requests are just crazy, and from applications I haven't opened in months.
What does that do that using uBlock with a decent block list doesn't?
Not trying to be contrarian here, genuinely curious and wondering if I should install it on my phone.
Not trying to be contrarian here, genuinely curious and wondering if I should install it on my phone.
It blocks trackers in other apps, not just in its own browser.
It does this by acting as a VPN last I checked, so it wasn't useful in my case because it couldn't run at the same time as my other VPN.
It does this by acting as a VPN last I checked, so it wasn't useful in my case because it couldn't run at the same time as my other VPN.
A handy alternative, is to temporarily utilize the app over a week or two to see what's making requests and then go into app permissions on that app and prevent it from using mobile data in the background and running in the background.
Is there a good reason to ever allow any app to do these things?
Yes and yes: I use syncthing, and I just want it to make the changes in the background. My best case scenario is never opening the Syncthing app again, because it's quietly doing it's thing in the background, sometimes on data.
Otherwise, my girlfriend, parents, and likely 90% of the people you know all use photo backup. Whether it's iCloud, Google Photos, or a NAS, we all want the option to use mobile data, and likely want it to simply run in the background.
Otherwise, my girlfriend, parents, and likely 90% of the people you know all use photo backup. Whether it's iCloud, Google Photos, or a NAS, we all want the option to use mobile data, and likely want it to simply run in the background.
I use a similar one called TrackerControl (from fdroid) it is just incredible the number of trackers inside a single app. Some have over a dozen, this is getting out of hand.
I'd never heard of this and went to go try it. I very disappointed to find it required me to turn off my existing VPN and wanted me to disable DoH :(
It's probably using the VPN mechanism to grab traffic for inspection and can't do what it does without that.
> Don’t get hung-up on consent folks, it’s not needed if a business has what’s called a ‘legitimate interest’ – which can be a rather stretchy, elastic term when in the hands of less reputable businesses
Less reputable businesses will simply do whatever they like, but claiming “legitimate interest” means something specific: <https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-re...>
Less reputable businesses will simply do whatever they like, but claiming “legitimate interest” means something specific: <https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-re...>
> “legitimate interest” means something specific
“We see your preference, but fuck you and your preference we want to anyway.”
“We see your preference, but fuck you and your preference we want to anyway.”
It seems every website thinks they need your PII for legitimate interests though, i wonder how many have actually been taken to court, and actually lost. I bet close to zero, and zero.
There is no will to actually enforce the GDPR even across the EU.
Much stronger cases than auditing vague “legitimate interest” have been stuck in legal limbo for years.
UK since Brexit is outright hostile to GDPR - not that they’ve enforced it in the past, but now they want to (and maybe already did) relax their regulation even further.
Much stronger cases than auditing vague “legitimate interest” have been stuck in legal limbo for years.
UK since Brexit is outright hostile to GDPR - not that they’ve enforced it in the past, but now they want to (and maybe already did) relax their regulation even further.
Sure, but those guidelines are still "rather stretchy [and] elastic".
That doc starts with the line "Legitimate interests is the most flexible lawful basis for processing" and that's the truth.
That doc starts with the line "Legitimate interests is the most flexible lawful basis for processing" and that's the truth.
What do they even do with this information? The ads they feed me haven’t become more relevant.
I think we're all misunderstanding ad relevance. An ad that trick you into buying what you were not intending to is more effective than otherwise. An ad for a MacBook shown to someone dead set on buying one soon, is not effective, and only relevant in end-user perception, not in actuality. Many "irrelevant" ads are probably relevant from that perspective, just we all are not comfortable with the concept of an ad in entirety anyway.
We should not be looking at this from the user's perspective. Relevance isn't meaning relevant to the user. They are relevant to the ads company.
Yes and no. Technically any given advertising campaign doesn't need to be effective, only convince the buyer that it is effective (without engaging in fraud). But relevance is important to the ad companies because they aren't going to pay for you to advertise towards markets they aren't even operating in or planning to. To go reducto ad absurdum, you wouldn't get any ads contracts if you were to start advertising towards inaccessible alternative universes and alien planets when they cannot even buy the products. Even if it gives trillions or quadrillions of ad impressions that could not be any less relevant towards them.
Again, you're looking at this from the person with an ad. That's not who I'm saying they are relevant. The relevancy is solely on the ad companies, the Googs, Meta, etc of the world.
lots of datapoints for model training?
Insurance companies are very interested by your workout routine and how you drive your car, so they can adjust their offering specially for you…
We can’t get laws banning this soon enough.
We can’t get laws banning this soon enough.
Insurance companies get these information from more direct sources. For example how you drive your car is sourced straight from the car manufacturers. And they pay big time for it. I can confirm this at least for one large automotive company that I cannot mention because of legal reasons, but they were founded by one infamous failed artist.
>For example how you drive your car is sourced straight from the car manufacturers.
This is why I do not, and never will, own a car with telemetry capabilities. I'm happy with my old dumb car. No smart crap for me.
This is why I do not, and never will, own a car with telemetry capabilities. I'm happy with my old dumb car. No smart crap for me.
That type of car in 20 years will become as rare as one without OBD, sadly
Doesn't mean they should be allowed to. Or that your car should even be sending that data without your explicit consent.
The upcoming Euro 6 standard requires the car manufacturer to collect all data related to emissions. The current wording is so wide that it could also include things like if you have a heater on or how loud is your music because all of those systems consume energy and contribute to the emissions.
One can only imagine what is hiding behind these regulations.
One can only imagine what is hiding behind these regulations.
Also, I'm aware that some car manufacturers are planning to pay users for their consent to collect more data about them from the car. However it's supposed to be a one time payment not worth more than a full tank.
Bad drivers should pay more for car insurance.
True. The problem is that telematics can’t tell you who is a bad driver and who isn’t. Instead they approximate bad driving by rate of acceleration, brake pressure, and speed. To these systems anyone who drives the way you are taught to drive in any serious course outside high school would be flagged as a bad driver, despite statistically have lower accident rates.
The things that actually make people bad drivers are things like driving unpredictability, failing to signal, driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and not paying attention / distracted driving. These are the things that cause most crashes. They also can’t be directly measured with telematics and none of the measurements we have is a good proxy.
So most folks would agree that bad drivers should pay more for insurance, but it doesn’t follow that sending telematics to insurance companies is a useful or accurate way to do that. It’s certainly not worth the privacy trade off.
The things that actually make people bad drivers are things like driving unpredictability, failing to signal, driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and not paying attention / distracted driving. These are the things that cause most crashes. They also can’t be directly measured with telematics and none of the measurements we have is a good proxy.
So most folks would agree that bad drivers should pay more for insurance, but it doesn’t follow that sending telematics to insurance companies is a useful or accurate way to do that. It’s certainly not worth the privacy trade off.
Whether due to someone being distracted, under the influence, a crappy driver, or a spirited, trained driver, I'd say someone driving fast and accelerating/decelerating hard is inappropriate behaviour on shared transportation infrastructure, and don't have a problem with the net being cast wide enough to discourage the practice.
It's too clumsy of a cudgel.
The sensors themselves are imperfect, the thing you actually measure is probably the thing easiest to measure rather than actually pushing the tire grip toward its limits, even if you actually measure the right thing (hard acceleration/deceleration) you miss the fact that even an ordinary trip around town is often safer with more acceleration than a naive model would predict (e.g., short on ramps, or just that your speed when close to merging should probably be a bit higher than your intended merge speed in most cars), and actions like hard braking can rightly indicate appropriately slowing down for unexpected construction.
Misaligned incentives aren't something to be trifled with (something something Goodhart's Law). Maybe cutting all the hard-braking at every stop sign would be worth it, but if even a few people chose to merge more slowly onto the freeway that would greatly increase accidents and have ripple effects in rush hours and traffic patterns.
The sensors themselves are imperfect, the thing you actually measure is probably the thing easiest to measure rather than actually pushing the tire grip toward its limits, even if you actually measure the right thing (hard acceleration/deceleration) you miss the fact that even an ordinary trip around town is often safer with more acceleration than a naive model would predict (e.g., short on ramps, or just that your speed when close to merging should probably be a bit higher than your intended merge speed in most cars), and actions like hard braking can rightly indicate appropriately slowing down for unexpected construction.
Misaligned incentives aren't something to be trifled with (something something Goodhart's Law). Maybe cutting all the hard-braking at every stop sign would be worth it, but if even a few people chose to merge more slowly onto the freeway that would greatly increase accidents and have ripple effects in rush hours and traffic patterns.
> I'd say someone driving fast and accelerating/decelerating hard is inappropriate behaviour
On what basis? You probably have something different in your mind than what I am actually referring to. I'm not talking about people skidding to a stop or laying a stripe of rubber when they take off, and short of that, there is basically no increase in risk from accelerating or decelerating more rapidly than a grandmother hypermiling a prius, which is how the insurance companies want you to drive.
Regarding speeding, in most cases speeding is required to /not/ cause accidents. The correct and safest behavior is to observe the road conditions and your surroundings and drive predictably within the limits of those conditions. That means driving the speed of traffic, not what it says on the sign. Sometimes that speed is lower, sometimes that speed is higher. Sometimes the speed is different in different parts of the country or city. What's most important is that other drivers can understand and predict your behavior on the roadway, and that you can do the same for others. It's /far/ more dangerous to do 65 in a 65 when the prevailing speed is 80 than it is to do 80, but combining speed data with GPS data will still get you penalized by the insurance company for doing 80.
On what basis? You probably have something different in your mind than what I am actually referring to. I'm not talking about people skidding to a stop or laying a stripe of rubber when they take off, and short of that, there is basically no increase in risk from accelerating or decelerating more rapidly than a grandmother hypermiling a prius, which is how the insurance companies want you to drive.
Regarding speeding, in most cases speeding is required to /not/ cause accidents. The correct and safest behavior is to observe the road conditions and your surroundings and drive predictably within the limits of those conditions. That means driving the speed of traffic, not what it says on the sign. Sometimes that speed is lower, sometimes that speed is higher. Sometimes the speed is different in different parts of the country or city. What's most important is that other drivers can understand and predict your behavior on the roadway, and that you can do the same for others. It's /far/ more dangerous to do 65 in a 65 when the prevailing speed is 80 than it is to do 80, but combining speed data with GPS data will still get you penalized by the insurance company for doing 80.
That's bullshit.
Higher speed generally means less margin for error in unexpected circumstances and more serious consequences when an accident does happen.
And if you frequently have to brake hard that's a pretty good indication that you're driving recklessly - following too close, driving too fast, not being ready for predictable events such as a pedestrian crossing the road etc.
Some times it's necessary. But if it's necessary every time you get in your car you're not a safe driver - practically every one of those hard decelerations occur because you are trying to avoid an accident. It follows that if you were to have a small lapse of attention or judgement, you wouldn't have been able to avoid the accident.
If you give yourself more margin for error you rarely have to brake hard. Keep a good distance to cars in front, slow down in unpredictable situations, respect the speed limit because it was set for a reason.
https://www.iihs.org/topics/speed
Higher speed generally means less margin for error in unexpected circumstances and more serious consequences when an accident does happen.
And if you frequently have to brake hard that's a pretty good indication that you're driving recklessly - following too close, driving too fast, not being ready for predictable events such as a pedestrian crossing the road etc.
Some times it's necessary. But if it's necessary every time you get in your car you're not a safe driver - practically every one of those hard decelerations occur because you are trying to avoid an accident. It follows that if you were to have a small lapse of attention or judgement, you wouldn't have been able to avoid the accident.
If you give yourself more margin for error you rarely have to brake hard. Keep a good distance to cars in front, slow down in unpredictable situations, respect the speed limit because it was set for a reason.
https://www.iihs.org/topics/speed
> That's bullshit.
This could only be said by someone that isn’t experienced driving on US Interstates.
If what you say is true, why don’t we do 20mph everywhere? Could it be that the safe speed to drive is conditional, like I stated? Could it be that what I wrote is no bullshit after all?
This could only be said by someone that isn’t experienced driving on US Interstates.
If what you say is true, why don’t we do 20mph everywhere? Could it be that the safe speed to drive is conditional, like I stated? Could it be that what I wrote is no bullshit after all?
We don't do 20mph everywhere because interstates etc exist. In some places the roads are really good and straight and they have separators between oncoming traffic and it makes sense to go 80mph or whatever.
Here in Norway most roads are max 80 kph which I think is roughly 45mph. Many roads have been downgraded from 80kph to 70kph because accidents at 70kph are significantly less fatal than at 80. They have also added separators between oncoming lanes in highways to minimize head on collisions.
Some year recently we had 0 fatalities in children. This is because we have improved problematic road segments and improved road safety.
I have had some discussions with US citizens presenting the same viewpoints you are. Generally on videos on Reddit showing exactly why they are wrong. My experience watching a lot of traffic accidents in reddit subs like r/idiotsincars is that the vast majority of accidents are because both parties made a mistake. One party may have been more at fault, but both were indisputably at fault.
In these comment threads I've seen a lot of comments presenting that American viewpoint that you have to break the law to be safe. I just don't buy it. I've driven for a lot of years, following the law and driving defensively has kept me safe.
Here in Norway most roads are max 80 kph which I think is roughly 45mph. Many roads have been downgraded from 80kph to 70kph because accidents at 70kph are significantly less fatal than at 80. They have also added separators between oncoming lanes in highways to minimize head on collisions.
Some year recently we had 0 fatalities in children. This is because we have improved problematic road segments and improved road safety.
I have had some discussions with US citizens presenting the same viewpoints you are. Generally on videos on Reddit showing exactly why they are wrong. My experience watching a lot of traffic accidents in reddit subs like r/idiotsincars is that the vast majority of accidents are because both parties made a mistake. One party may have been more at fault, but both were indisputably at fault.
In these comment threads I've seen a lot of comments presenting that American viewpoint that you have to break the law to be safe. I just don't buy it. I've driven for a lot of years, following the law and driving defensively has kept me safe.
This argument assumes that insurance companies can't do math and/or don't care that they're losing money on this.
I'm 100% convinced they have both the math skills and the greed to know this is profitable for them.
I'm less sure it's actually happening. Only proof I've seen is the internet comment a few levels up claiming it.
I'm 100% convinced they have both the math skills and the greed to know this is profitable for them.
I'm less sure it's actually happening. Only proof I've seen is the internet comment a few levels up claiming it.
I never said it wasn't profitable. I said it wasn't accurate. Insurance companies aren't concerned with the accuracy, they are concerned with the profit. It effectively provides some "data" to give them license to increase rates, whether its accurate or not. As long as their rates outpace their claim payouts, they'll be profitable.
It's also definitely happening, not only do insurance companies buy telematics data from automotive companies, they also provide discounts (sometimes) for customers that voluntarily provide telematics data using devices which connect to the vehicle OBD2 port. One example: https://www.progressive.com/auto/discounts/snapshot/
It's also definitely happening, not only do insurance companies buy telematics data from automotive companies, they also provide discounts (sometimes) for customers that voluntarily provide telematics data using devices which connect to the vehicle OBD2 port. One example: https://www.progressive.com/auto/discounts/snapshot/
So you think it's accurate in predicting which customers will generate bigger or smaller claims, but not in who is a bad or good driver?
To me those are functionally the same thing.
To me those are functionally the same thing.
No, I think it gives a veneer of data to the insurance company demanding more money, irrespective of any correlation to claims rates.
Seems simpler to just raise the rates.
What’s a bad driver?
This stuff isn’t exactly peer reviewed data, and insurance companies don’t publish the telematics data they produce or how they make decisions.
They are funny with how they evaluate certain things. If you have 3 accidents in a certain period, they’ll drop you regardless of fault because you’re unlucky. But they’ll also penalize you if brake heavily and avoid accidents.
This stuff isn’t exactly peer reviewed data, and insurance companies don’t publish the telematics data they produce or how they make decisions.
They are funny with how they evaluate certain things. If you have 3 accidents in a certain period, they’ll drop you regardless of fault because you’re unlucky. But they’ll also penalize you if brake heavily and avoid accidents.
Well, statistics matter here and one thing insurance companies know about is statistics. If you brake hard once or twice, no biggie.
But, for sure, my prior is that someone who frequently brakes hard on the road is someone who gets themselves into jams they shouldn't have been in in the first place. Maybe it's a matter of failing to anticipate what's coming up ahead. Maybe it's a matter of where, when, and how often they drive.
Both indicate risk that, arguably, should be priced appropriately. Same for health behaviors.
Dropping you is a thing that happens when the expected value of your insurance payouts exceed the expected value of the premiums collected. With granular data from telematics, an insurer [*] could notify you to change your game long before they end up concluding, "Well, none of the data we have on this person differentiates them from the last 3 guys to cost us a million plus in settlements and claims, so sayonara"
[*] thinking of TFA here I mean a suitably regulated insurer, not one that is somehow sneakily accessing telematics data without any transparency
But, for sure, my prior is that someone who frequently brakes hard on the road is someone who gets themselves into jams they shouldn't have been in in the first place. Maybe it's a matter of failing to anticipate what's coming up ahead. Maybe it's a matter of where, when, and how often they drive.
Both indicate risk that, arguably, should be priced appropriately. Same for health behaviors.
Dropping you is a thing that happens when the expected value of your insurance payouts exceed the expected value of the premiums collected. With granular data from telematics, an insurer [*] could notify you to change your game long before they end up concluding, "Well, none of the data we have on this person differentiates them from the last 3 guys to cost us a million plus in settlements and claims, so sayonara"
[*] thinking of TFA here I mean a suitably regulated insurer, not one that is somehow sneakily accessing telematics data without any transparency
Insurance companies know stats. But I don’t think regulators effectively regulate use of these new statistics, which is essential to an business like car insurance.
The only winning move is not to play ;)
I'm half serious. All else equal, if you drive less you'll have fewer problems that lead to insurance penalties.
I'm half serious. All else equal, if you drive less you'll have fewer problems that lead to insurance penalties.
Honestly, don’t be a dope is the optimal move. I’ve driven for 25+ years, and barring some stupid teenage male stuff and a few deer, have done so without incident.
So, a bit worse than the average driver? Surely there's some better evidence you can throw at us ;)
I'm kind of on your side. Not being a dope decreases the crash rate by 90% or so per mile last I checked ("crashes caused by driver error"). Drive enough and you'll still become a statistic though.
I'm kind of on your side. Not being a dope decreases the crash rate by 90% or so per mile last I checked ("crashes caused by driver error"). Drive enough and you'll still become a statistic though.
A big input for what defines "bad" is excessive speeding. Going 75 in a 45 is excessive speeding.
But what happens when your daily commute takes you through a former construction where the computer thinks the speed limit is still 45?
But what happens when your daily commute takes you through a former construction where the computer thinks the speed limit is still 45?
We all have our moments, and we have the right that it’s forgotten when it happens. Data collectes is forever.
They do this without the help of third parties - by offering a hundred+ dollars off your policy every 6 months (or over 6 months) for having their driving habit tracking app enabled at all, more if you actually drive like they want you to.
Even straight up first party information is an accurate.
Amazon thinks I’m a woman despite buying men’s products.
Google is convinced I’m a fan of a rival sports team despite obvious information otherwise. I have even told them I don’t want stories about the other team, but they keep popping up.
I feel like most places are gathering information enough to somewhat fulfill their goal of getting a profile for advertising or something like that. But it doesn’t seem to be very accurate.
Amazon thinks I’m a woman despite buying men’s products.
Google is convinced I’m a fan of a rival sports team despite obvious information otherwise. I have even told them I don’t want stories about the other team, but they keep popping up.
I feel like most places are gathering information enough to somewhat fulfill their goal of getting a profile for advertising or something like that. But it doesn’t seem to be very accurate.
Profiling is not about filtering what you see but about ranking viewership from an advertiser's standpoint.
For an ad campaign to succeed, it's allocated budget _has_ to be spent. Targeted advertising gives a higher value to certain eyeballs but if the selected set isn't big enough to spend all the money on, other people will see the ad whether it concerns them or not. And that's actually what happens most of the time.
For an ad campaign to succeed, it's allocated budget _has_ to be spent. Targeted advertising gives a higher value to certain eyeballs but if the selected set isn't big enough to spend all the money on, other people will see the ad whether it concerns them or not. And that's actually what happens most of the time.
I swear the people who works on those algorithms must be sabotaging it - Facebook had decided that I must like clothes and makeup because a significant fraction of my friends group did.
Apparently they don't have women as friends.
Of course the real issue is that everything sold via ads must be crap, or overpriced. Frequently both.
Apparently they don't have women as friends.
Of course the real issue is that everything sold via ads must be crap, or overpriced. Frequently both.
Auditing a representative sample of their profiles for accuracy would be trivial, and the obvious check. They pointedly choose not to.
Wow. Amazon has always been pretty inept at advertising (most often trying to sell durable goods that I literally just purchased) but that is taking it to a whole other level.
Collecting and processing this information provides paychecks and careers for many people - they aren’t particularly interested in making the tracking actually beneficial to the business, what matters is merely the illusion of it being beneficial so they keep their paycheck.
User data (and the resultant behavioral prediction) is the new gold rush. Even if the data is not immediately useful, it can be stored and used later.
There's the (now) old saying, "if the product is free, then you are the product" but that's not entirely accurate. You are the source of raw materials. These materials can then be fed into a model which will predict your behavior. Right now this can be seen simply in the space of funneling content to you, in order to get you to buy things. But companies are not governments and can sell their product to anybody (including governments) in order to predict or direct your behavior.
There's the (now) old saying, "if the product is free, then you are the product" but that's not entirely accurate. You are the source of raw materials. These materials can then be fed into a model which will predict your behavior. Right now this can be seen simply in the space of funneling content to you, in order to get you to buy things. But companies are not governments and can sell their product to anybody (including governments) in order to predict or direct your behavior.
> "if the product is free, then you are the product" but that's not entirely accurate. You are the source of raw materials.
Yup. You're one of suppliers, $freemiumco are middle men, and consumer product companies are consumers. Which means you can raise prices and dilute contents, currently without even issuing a Product Change Notification. That isn't a bad position other than there are quite a few alternative suppliers, only slightly less than everyone thinks there are.
Yup. You're one of suppliers, $freemiumco are middle men, and consumer product companies are consumers. Which means you can raise prices and dilute contents, currently without even issuing a Product Change Notification. That isn't a bad position other than there are quite a few alternative suppliers, only slightly less than everyone thinks there are.
If you have the means, install a pihole on your home network and you can reduce some of the tracking that goes on inside your own walls.
I did an experiment: I deleted all the cookies using privacy settings of my browser then I avoid to click anything about cookies' authorisation, i.e. if a page present that kind of requests I immediately close the page itself. At the and, I verified that cookies are presente on browser's storage despite my absence of authorisation, even third parties cookies. So, yes, I agree: commercial surveillance is creepy and I guess is some organisation do effective control to avoid abuse from those actors.
Only tracking cookies require consent. Cookies could be about the last time you saw the website's weather content, in which case it's purely functional and need no consent.
Not all places in the world share the same set of laws or jurisprudence. What's allowed or required and what isn't is entirely dependent on the jurisdiction(s) the website operators are beholden to.
Are you sure of that ? I knew that the competent jurisprudence or "forum" is that of the user, or everyone could circumvent the law using "offshore" companies to track people in regulated countries (i.e. EU). I was reading here on HN that , for that reason ( avoid EU Regulation ) sites like New York Times, blocked the availability of their contents in whole EU.
I was checking, see here, for example:
https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news/many-eu-visi...
Insofar as what the jurisdictions the website operators are beholden to or perhaps care about have to say about it, but otherwise I (not a laywer) share your perspective.
Third party cookies are usually for tracking though.
No. Unless you have other lawful grounds of processing, all functional cookies still have to be session scoped at worst
Strictly necessary cookies do not have to be session cookies. If you read https://gdpr.eu/cookies/ it says they generally will be session cookies, not that they must be. If you think it is appropriate for your users to be already logged in the next time they run their web browser, using a persistent cookie for that is permitted.
> I avoid to click anything about cookies' authorisation, i.e. if a page present that kind of requests I immediately close the page itself. At the and, I verified that cookies are presente on browser's storage
I have recently had to implement some of these banners. Here’s what I learned: click reject.
The way America’s version of the cookie banner law (not sure about EU) works is that cookies are default allowed. They are set before the banner even shows. Rejecting the cookies then sets a cookie that you’d like cookies rejected. The cookies remain, but the banner’s scripts block tracking requests based on those cookies on subsequent requests.
So if a site uses GA and you reject cookies, you still get and keep a GA cookie. But the cookie banner later turns GA’s javascript into “text/plain” so your browser doesn’t execute it. This is what [at least some of] the banners mean by “reject cookies”.
Yes it’s stupid and confusing. Possibly on purpose.
I have recently had to implement some of these banners. Here’s what I learned: click reject.
The way America’s version of the cookie banner law (not sure about EU) works is that cookies are default allowed. They are set before the banner even shows. Rejecting the cookies then sets a cookie that you’d like cookies rejected. The cookies remain, but the banner’s scripts block tracking requests based on those cookies on subsequent requests.
So if a site uses GA and you reject cookies, you still get and keep a GA cookie. But the cookie banner later turns GA’s javascript into “text/plain” so your browser doesn’t execute it. This is what [at least some of] the banners mean by “reject cookies”.
Yes it’s stupid and confusing. Possibly on purpose.
In Europe at least, the law doesn't forbid cookies or mandate banners. It's about tracking and informed consent. It turns out companies love tracking, massively use cookies for this, and chose obnoxious cookie banner dark patterns to request consent.
But there is not such thing as a "cookie banner law".
But there is not such thing as a "cookie banner law".
> But there is not such thing as a "cookie banner law"
A law that leads to cookie banners -> cookie banner law. We all know exactly what I meant.
But yes on my personal site I solved the problem by not tracking visitors because there’s no need. General traffic numbers are good enough for me.
A law that leads to cookie banners -> cookie banner law. We all know exactly what I meant.
But yes on my personal site I solved the problem by not tracking visitors because there’s no need. General traffic numbers are good enough for me.
More importantly, use a malware blocker like ublock origin.
This could easily be automated and the results published.
Even better, there could be a list of garbage cookies that this experiment produces.
As an anti-tracking measure, Firefox could put them into a global pool (shared with all other users), then randomly sample from the pool whenever making a request to the offending site.
The effect would be severe breakage for any sites that set unauthorized cookies.
As an anti-tracking measure, Firefox could put them into a global pool (shared with all other users), then randomly sample from the pool whenever making a request to the offending site.
The effect would be severe breakage for any sites that set unauthorized cookies.
Where would one publish such an experiment?
>I verified that cookies are presente on browser's storage despite my absence of authorisation
That doesn't say much. Even the GDPR allows for some cookies to be stored without consent.
>Strictly necessary cookies — These cookies are essential for you to browse the website and use its features, such as accessing secure areas of the site. Cookies that allow web shops to hold your items in your cart while you are shopping online are an example of strictly necessary cookies. These cookies will generally be first-party session cookies. While it is not required to obtain consent for these cookies, what they do and why they are necessary should be explained to the user.
https://gdpr.eu/cookies/
That doesn't say much. Even the GDPR allows for some cookies to be stored without consent.
>Strictly necessary cookies — These cookies are essential for you to browse the website and use its features, such as accessing secure areas of the site. Cookies that allow web shops to hold your items in your cart while you are shopping online are an example of strictly necessary cookies. These cookies will generally be first-party session cookies. While it is not required to obtain consent for these cookies, what they do and why they are necessary should be explained to the user.
https://gdpr.eu/cookies/
They're not just storing and using this data for their own private/commercial purposes.
They're also licensing it and selling it to third parties, which in turn will sell it to government(s) or other third-parties; the data ramifies and spreads throughout the digital panopticon.
There is very little you can do as an individual to escape this. The privacy settings on your phone, in your apps, on your laptop, your router – they are the illusion of control. Heavy top-down regulation won't work, never has.
All you can do is attempt to limit what you share. The work required to do it well is astronomical, high-friction, and essentially can exclude you from much of society and the economy.
They're also licensing it and selling it to third parties, which in turn will sell it to government(s) or other third-parties; the data ramifies and spreads throughout the digital panopticon.
There is very little you can do as an individual to escape this. The privacy settings on your phone, in your apps, on your laptop, your router – they are the illusion of control. Heavy top-down regulation won't work, never has.
All you can do is attempt to limit what you share. The work required to do it well is astronomical, high-friction, and essentially can exclude you from much of society and the economy.
It's also worth mentioning that "they" includes entities that you have never heard of and have never had a business relationship with.
Basically nothing can be done other than strict legislation. Claiming that top down regulation won't work is not based on evidence and is needlessly fatalistic. If anything, history shows that the thing big corporations fear most is having their profits regulated away. Of course they like regulation when it allows them to build a "regulatory moat" around their business, but when the regulations actually come for their own profit margins, they comply.
Basically nothing can be done other than strict legislation. Claiming that top down regulation won't work is not based on evidence and is needlessly fatalistic. If anything, history shows that the thing big corporations fear most is having their profits regulated away. Of course they like regulation when it allows them to build a "regulatory moat" around their business, but when the regulations actually come for their own profit margins, they comply.
I look at the modern privacy environment as behaving the same way rumor does on the internet. Once it's out there, it's out there, and there's no telling who is using it and for what purpose.
The "Copy-paste panopticon"
The "Copy-paste panopticon"
>Heavy top-down regulation won't work, never has.
That's utter nonsense. There will never be perfect compliance, but regulations absolutely can curb undesired behavior.
That's utter nonsense. There will never be perfect compliance, but regulations absolutely can curb undesired behavior.
I wish you were right, but unfortunately 'regulations' always have carve-outs for the government itself, and they're one of the largest consumers of this data.
I work in medical software and I can tell you from first hand experience that regulations absolutely affect how companies gather and handle data. That regulations don't constrain what they don't regulate is sort of tautological. That's an argument against specific regulations, not against regulation. At any rate, it simply isn't true that all regulations have special carveouts for government.
i think the idea is less that the regulations aren’t followed, but more that the companies are maliciously compliant.
GDPR and the cookie banners are the perfect example. GDPR never says you need the gigantic banner, just that you cannot track without consent and it must be as easy to retract consent as it is to give it. somehow, this devolved into the cookie banners/walls, which are not required and in fact likely not compliant as very often there is no way to reject everything. i travel a lot in europe and asia and google is a clear example of a sort of malicious compliance. some countries in eu they show the reject all option easily. for others you have to log in and go through many settings pages. most other big companies are not much better or even worse.
that is the issue in my opinion. the goal of the privacy laws is very clear but the companies just do not care usually. i am very happy when a site truly respects my choice on their cookie/tracking consent banner, and even more so if they just don’t collect anything in the first place or ask for telemetry data instead of assuming it’s their right.
that is why i personally am not happy with the regulations from the US so far as they’re anaemic; the companies still treat your privacy and personal life’s details as if it’s their right to mine for data. until there is effectual law stopping all this and making such broad data collection something extremely rare and limited, nothing will change. and with how much of this data governments are buying, i’m not holding my breath that it’s going to get better.
until then i guess we need to continue to teach people that the technology they buy and use often is actively hostile towards the users in favor of giving the companies more personal data.
GDPR and the cookie banners are the perfect example. GDPR never says you need the gigantic banner, just that you cannot track without consent and it must be as easy to retract consent as it is to give it. somehow, this devolved into the cookie banners/walls, which are not required and in fact likely not compliant as very often there is no way to reject everything. i travel a lot in europe and asia and google is a clear example of a sort of malicious compliance. some countries in eu they show the reject all option easily. for others you have to log in and go through many settings pages. most other big companies are not much better or even worse.
that is the issue in my opinion. the goal of the privacy laws is very clear but the companies just do not care usually. i am very happy when a site truly respects my choice on their cookie/tracking consent banner, and even more so if they just don’t collect anything in the first place or ask for telemetry data instead of assuming it’s their right.
that is why i personally am not happy with the regulations from the US so far as they’re anaemic; the companies still treat your privacy and personal life’s details as if it’s their right to mine for data. until there is effectual law stopping all this and making such broad data collection something extremely rare and limited, nothing will change. and with how much of this data governments are buying, i’m not holding my breath that it’s going to get better.
until then i guess we need to continue to teach people that the technology they buy and use often is actively hostile towards the users in favor of giving the companies more personal data.
The GDPR devolved into (non-compliant) consent popups because it's not being enforced strongly enough. The majority of those consent popups aren't compliant with the regulation.
In a democracy, the government is usually the first to adhere to any regulation and is the most compliant. Mostly because it doesn't have to weight it against a profit.
The fact that intelligence agencies get a carve-out is a distraction from the point, and not a reason not to pursue improvements.
Clearly can't work.
That's totally why the ozone layer is entirely gone now.
Oh wait.
That's totally why the ozone layer is entirely gone now.
Oh wait.
One of the effects of runaway capitalism of that consoles are pressured (either by stock holders or internally) to keep earning, keep growing, keep getting. And for a lot of businesses, they’ve already reached their market equilibrium. They don’t have room for more growth. So they have to start finding other areas to grow and to earn. Even if they have no business being in these areas in the first place.
The promise of data as the next source of easy money is too hard to pass up. And because life is hard enough, a lot of customers are willing to give it up for free to save a few bucks.
The promise of data as the next source of easy money is too hard to pass up. And because life is hard enough, a lot of customers are willing to give it up for free to save a few bucks.
I just assume everyone knows from who I am to how much coffee beans I have left in the jar, and I just try to be a non-factor when I don't need to and other times casually look for ways surveillances could be leveraged to bend things my ways. If you put an intelligent entity in a learning but otherwise nonintelligent feedback loop, the entire loop eventually becomes centered around that entity.
> I just try to be a non-factor
That's the problem though. History on every continent is filled with normal people who were suddenly targeted as the slaves/villains/cause-of-the-recent-issue based on their language/skin/background/etc...
That's the problem though. History on every continent is filled with normal people who were suddenly targeted as the slaves/villains/cause-of-the-recent-issue based on their language/skin/background/etc...
There is an easy way to fix this: make the companies collecting the data be criminally liable for any misuse or leaks of this data. Something with teeth, such x% of total revenue, not our current “sorry, we leaked your data, tough for you”
If this data is so important it should be treated with the same care & auditing that their income stream gets.
If this data is so important it should be treated with the same care & auditing that their income stream gets.
Two other potentially effective punishments:
1. Removal of all crowd-sourced data from their systems. Let's see if users will want to come back if there are zero network effects. Maybe sad for the users, but I'd feel safer if data-leak==data-removal.
2. Forced modification of their trademarked logos for some period of time. This will warn people to stay away from the company and their products. (Trademarks are all about trust, so this seems fair).
1. Removal of all crowd-sourced data from their systems. Let's see if users will want to come back if there are zero network effects. Maybe sad for the users, but I'd feel safer if data-leak==data-removal.
2. Forced modification of their trademarked logos for some period of time. This will warn people to stay away from the company and their products. (Trademarks are all about trust, so this seems fair).
I like #2, that is creative and would really ruffle some feathers (in a good way). Mandate them to change app icons, favicons, etc. everywhere and then include daily fines for any instances of the logo that are non-compliant. One can only dream
That's just beating around the bush hoping some tangential cost might make the fundamental problem moot. What's needed is a comprehensive privacy law that gives individuals legal power to prevent/audit/delete/restore companies' dossiers on us. Critically one that can't just be nullified through more boilerplate legalese "terms" that nobody reads. Something like a US port of the GDPR.
Does nothing to prevent state abuse when the state sets and executes the punishment for it.
Doesn't the state just use commercial sources for their data anyway? Corporations all have far more resources and power, so it's easier to just ask for it.
Indeed, but this post is about commercial surveillance.
Commercial surveillance, by definition, includes the context of a surveillance company's primary customer.
When dealing with the sale of endangered animal furs, you don't just go after the trappers. It's no good to ignore the market effects of an eager customer.
I’m a raging capitalist, but o do think that all forms of surveillance need to be disclosed by regulation. This applies to government surveillance as well as corporate surveillance on customers and employees. Companies should be able to collect data on whatever they want but must disclose it. It must be possible for people to see exactly what is being tracked as well as the aggregations performed on the data.
Obviously, McDonalds is up to something. Whenever you go through the drive thru know they have a person actually harass you about using their app, and it's blatantly spying on you.
[deleted]
Cookies and advertising are, imo, the provided excuse for surveillance by the governance system.
Understandably, people will object to this - after all what have corporations got to do with the governance system?
I would say however, that we already live in a fascist governance system. No democracies exist. At best, we only have 'representative democracy' - not the same thing!
This is as per Mussolini's definition of fascism:
> "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
I argue that corporations and states are 2 wings of the same bird.
Understandably, people will object to this - after all what have corporations got to do with the governance system?
I would say however, that we already live in a fascist governance system. No democracies exist. At best, we only have 'representative democracy' - not the same thing!
This is as per Mussolini's definition of fascism:
> "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
I argue that corporations and states are 2 wings of the same bird.
What I worry about are future malicious actors. These are parties that will use today's harvested data to achieve a malicious agenda in the future.
For example: The Dutch used to collect a church tax that was used to support your church, or temple. When the Nazis invaded, church tax records were used to track down and exterminate Jewish people.
For example: The Dutch used to collect a church tax that was used to support your church, or temple. When the Nazis invaded, church tax records were used to track down and exterminate Jewish people.
That being said, I am now running into what I call the "Non-App Tax". The most prominent example I can think of in my own experience is my towns local parking payment system. You actually don't need to use the app to find parking or pay. You can scan a QR code and pay via text. Then I looked at the prices on the app vs prices via text and the prices were a decent amount higher ($1-2 more) and less flexible than if I had just used the app. Kinda shitty and I can absolutely see this becoming the norm.