You can either have targeted ads, semi-targeted ads, or generic ads.
Nobody uses generic ads, since they're useless. There's really not even an offline equivalent. You always know something about your audience, even if it's as little as where they are when they see the ad.
Semi-targeted ads are like a billboard, when you know the location it's being seen, or a TV spot where you have a good idea about the demographics of the viewing audience.
Targeted ads are usually thought of as online, but any mailers you get from retailers you frequent are basically the same thing. Or coupons that print on your receipt at checkout. They know what you bought previously and will push similar products.
Injecting identifiers, for the purpose of delivering advertising, is INHERENTLY targeting. Any attempt to claim it's not is a flat-out lie. And not even a good one. It's a three-year-old with ice cream all over his face telling you the dog did it.
Both companies proclaimed that the characters in their headers are rotated on a weekly and daily basis to protect user information.
W. T. F.
If a profile expired every day, or even every week, it would be WORTHLESS. The entire point of doing this is that it's trackable.
Claiming otherwise doesn't take big brass balls, it takes a small withered brain.
Making everybody look like a suspect isn't about being able to pull people out of line based on those criteria, it's about being able to use OTHER evidence (possibly illegally collected, or at least the type you wouldn't want to have to defend in court) such as phone records, racial profiling, etc.
That way you can use all the tools at your disposal, then just say, "well, he looked suspicious, and we were right to be suspicious, so you can't really argue it was unreasonable to be suspicious."
This is just another brick in the Parallel Construction wall.
This isn't just a matter of broken policies, this is a systemic flaw.
A new Director, or a new President could come in and put a stop to the illegal spying on the SIC. But as long as the capability remains, it's always going to be a threat to happen again. In other words, all the laws, and all the policy changes in the world won't be able to fully rebuild trust in the system.
Then again, that's exactly the same relationship the NSA has with the public at large, and the Senate seems to have no desire to change anything about that, so maybe this is really a self-awareness problem.
Oops, left off my closing argument: http://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/Tearsheets/Summary?s=IB.1:IEU (May have to change view to 3 or 5 days to see the recent trend) There is no spike in the price at the time of the tweet, and the only rise for the first part of the day was correcting for the previous day's downturn at the end. Once again, no story.
"Front-month Brent crude prices rallied from $110.40 a barrel at 10:20 a.m. EDT -- just before the Tweet -- to as high as $111.50 just after 11 a.m., as trading volumes rose. By 1 p.m. oil was up $2.68 a barrel to $111.74, its highest in a month."
If at one point was up 2.68 to 111.74, then it opened at 109.06. Further, if trading opens at 9am, then in the first hour - BEFORE THE TWEET - it was up 1.23%. In the hour after the tweet, it went up almost exactly 1%. In other words, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the tweet had any effect on the prices.
This seems like a 'blame the scary technology' article more than any real story. See also
Agree with this.
I'm certainly no fan of trademark bullies, but this is almost EXACTLY the sort of case trademark law is actually useful for.
Similar name, chosen specifically to evoke the good reputation of the larger company.
If somebody were to have a bad experience, or get sick from poor quality control (expired goods), it poses a risk of coming back on TJs.
Obviously the venue is a problem, and this could be handled more simply by refusing to sell to the guy, but brand confusion is the whole point of TM.
...in this day and age when you need a team of lawyers and judges to determine what the meaning if 'is' is. The greatest tragedy in all this, to me, is that a handful of old guys can sit around and pat themselves on the back for coming up with a legal parsing of 'Expectation of Privacy.'
If anything, the reaction to all this has shown that the people - drum roll please - expect privacy.
Consent of the Governed my ass.
lest they show themselves to be hypocrites for not being upset about the exact same abuses that have been perpetrated against the rest of us for the last 12 years.
The calls for him to get fired are coming from the people who bought overvalued Facebook stock. Those people are now, essentially, Ebersman's bosses.
To continue your analogy above, selling the painting for $10 billion to somebody who can only get $5 billion on resale seems like a great idea until you realize that not only did you sell a painting, you took the job to act as the agent promising to resell it later for more.
He should take his (considerable) payday, and move on.
On the post: Verizon May Soon Get to Enjoy a Lawsuit Over Its Sneaky Use of Perma-Cookies
Uhh...
Nobody uses generic ads, since they're useless. There's really not even an offline equivalent. You always know something about your audience, even if it's as little as where they are when they see the ad.
Semi-targeted ads are like a billboard, when you know the location it's being seen, or a TV spot where you have a good idea about the demographics of the viewing audience.
Targeted ads are usually thought of as online, but any mailers you get from retailers you frequent are basically the same thing. Or coupons that print on your receipt at checkout. They know what you bought previously and will push similar products.
Injecting identifiers, for the purpose of delivering advertising, is INHERENTLY targeting. Any attempt to claim it's not is a flat-out lie. And not even a good one. It's a three-year-old with ice cream all over his face telling you the dog did it.
W. T. F.
If a profile expired every day, or even every week, it would be WORTHLESS. The entire point of doing this is that it's trackable.
Claiming otherwise doesn't take big brass balls, it takes a small withered brain.
On the post: Attention Kim Kardashian: You Can't Sue Another Woman For Having A Big Ass And An Instagram Account
Re: So now SWAT teams are going to bust ass?
On the post: Guidelines On Who Might Be Suspicious: Too Nervous? Too Calm? Blending In? Standing Out? It's All Suspicious
Ex Post Facto justification
That way you can use all the tools at your disposal, then just say, "well, he looked suspicious, and we were right to be suspicious, so you can't really argue it was unreasonable to be suspicious."
This is just another brick in the Parallel Construction wall.
On the post: Roca Labs Story Gets More Bizarre: Senator Threatens Bogus Defamation Lawsuit, While Nevada Quickly Rejects Bogus Bribery Charge
Who lost the SLAPP-bet?
On the post: CIA Spying On The Senate Went Much Further Than Originally Reported
Why is the Senate surprised?
A new Director, or a new President could come in and put a stop to the illegal spying on the SIC. But as long as the capability remains, it's always going to be a threat to happen again. In other words, all the laws, and all the policy changes in the world won't be able to fully rebuild trust in the system.
Then again, that's exactly the same relationship the NSA has with the public at large, and the Senate seems to have no desire to change anything about that, so maybe this is really a self-awareness problem.
The government has become too big to succeed.
On the post: Oil Traders Misread Tweet, Make Oil Prices Shoot Up
Re: Try again Reuters
http://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/Tearsheets/Summary?s=IB.1:IEU
(May have to change view to 3 or 5 days to see the recent trend)
There is no spike in the price at the time of the tweet, and the only rise for the first part of the day was correcting for the previous day's downturn at the end. Once again, no story.
On the post: Oil Traders Misread Tweet, Make Oil Prices Shoot Up
Try again Reuters
If at one point was up 2.68 to 111.74, then it opened at 109.06. Further, if trading opens at 9am, then in the first hour - BEFORE THE TWEET - it was up 1.23%. In the hour after the tweet, it went up almost exactly 1%. In other words, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the tweet had any effect on the prices.
This seems like a 'blame the scary technology' article more than any real story.
See also
On the post: Why Trader Joe's Suing Pirate Joe's May Be Bad News For Ownership
Re: It's about consumer confusion
I'm certainly no fan of trademark bullies, but this is almost EXACTLY the sort of case trademark law is actually useful for.
Similar name, chosen specifically to evoke the good reputation of the larger company.
If somebody were to have a bad experience, or get sick from poor quality control (expired goods), it poses a risk of coming back on TJs.
Obviously the venue is a problem, and this could be handled more simply by refusing to sell to the guy, but brand confusion is the whole point of TM.
On the post: DOJ: There's No Expectation Of Privacy In Your Phone Records Because People Don't Like Terrorists
I suppose it shouldn't come as a surprise...
If anything, the reaction to all this has shown that the people - drum roll please - expect privacy.
Consent of the Governed my ass.
On the post: DOJ Unconcerned About The Constitution, Obtained AP Reporters' Phone Records
And the AP can't even complain about it
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Facebook's CFO Should Be Fired For Getting An Awesome Deal?
Simple
To continue your analogy above, selling the painting for $10 billion to somebody who can only get $5 billion on resale seems like a great idea until you realize that not only did you sell a painting, you took the job to act as the agent promising to resell it later for more.
He should take his (considerable) payday, and move on.
Next >>