Netflix silent about ridicule as it discusses punters' viewing habits A tweet sent in jest from Netflix's official Twitter account on Sunday evening has called the company's data practices into question. "To the 53 people who've watched A Christmas Prince every day for the past 18 days: Who hurt you?" a company representative said, via the social media and election-swaying service. To the …
This post has been deleted by its author
Sadly, your stance means nothing because you are in the minority. (As I am.)
Services that abuse our data are more popular than ever and show no sign of slowing. Services and products previous available for purchase and consumption anonymously are fast moving into 'connected' and 'cloud-based' systems and the options available to those few objectors are drying up.
Even where products are available 'offline', you can sometimes need to give up your privacy. Look at video games on PC. Yes, you can still go and buy a game off the shelf using a stack of crumpled notes but, when you go to install it, you need to go and sign up for Steam (or an equivalent service) anyway.
How long before movies bought from the local store need your player to connect to the Internet to register the movie to your account before you can watch it?
There's nothing inherently wrong with being connected but the all-you-can-slurp buffet that lobbying has created puts everyone at risk.
It's difficult to explain this to ordinary people who love Netflix and Facebook and their smart phones and Uber trips and, even if they understood, they wouldn't care because they like the convenience and features and don't feel they will ever actually be impacted by any of the negatives.
People need to consider what would happen if, 5 years from now, every bit of information collected on them by these services was broadcast. Every movie and TV show they ever watched and from where. Every trip they took. Every post and tweet and snap. Every game they played, when and for how long. Even vast portions of their browser and search history and, better still, their every move, tracked by the undefeatable GPS service reporting back to Apple or Google.
Everything time-stamped and geo-tagged.
It is all there - collected, stored, exchanged and collated. And it's just waiting to be abused, leaked and stolen.
Well said, Dan. I find it appalling what personal information people will give up for something free, low cost, and/or transitory. I believe this is the tip of a very big iceberg that's going to hit hard in future. Be it private companies collecting the data or the government. Someone, somewhere will decide that this data can be used in a not pleasant way to further their own interests.
"Even where products are available 'offline', you can sometimes need to give up your privacy."
I recently bought a Stanley cordless drill. It came with a 12 month warranty - but also offered a 3 year warranty if you registered online. I read the privacy T&Cs on the web site and decided it was saying they could do whatever they liked with my personal data and email address.
I'll take my chances that it will fail in years 2 or 3. Even then UK consumer protection could cover an expectation of a 3 year life for the product.
providing false data
What's false about a one-shot email address ?
In my case I own my domain firstnamelastname.com. So whatever@firstnamelastname.com will always be received ... (if not read).
I can highly recommend setting up your own email server ... because then you can track where email addresses you generate get used.
I look forward to being able to monetarise this information come GDPR. Because right now, it seems no one is playing fair ....
"It just makes you sound like a smug twat."
Which is exactly why they should use it. It helps other readers get a better understanding of the person using it, and a better idea of whether everything they say should be ignored.
There's a whole host of popular, supposed to be witty, tired, words used in online forums that immediately flags an opinion as best ignored. You can probably think of a few yourself. They're very helpful, save time, and should be encouraged.
"Will GDPR prevent invasive novelty slurp like this?"
Nope GDPR won't make any difference to this. They didn't identify anyone in particular with their statement. Also the viewing data can easily be held on a separate database from any private user data, which from a corporate perspective means the viewing data by itself is then pretty anonymous and can be played with freely (especially in aggregate).
"No only didn't they identify anyone the chances are it's not even real data and is part of the 73.6% of statistics made up on the spot."
If not that, then it's equally possible that it's simply usage statistics/logs from the film itself, rather than based on an analysis of logs of subscriber accounts. (And that would be far easier that trawling individual account data in order to compile the information.)
In much the same way anyone with a web server might observe (and is free to comment) that 53 people had looked at or downloaded the same web page every day over the last 18 days, without going further into the logs and attempting to trace it back to individuals.
If so, storm in a teacup.
Of course, the other extreme - that they have based the data on subscriber account logs - is also a possibility. But personally, I think it's a lot less likely. I think either the above or what AC suggested is more likely.
To all who are commenting that this figure is likely either made up or gathered from anonymised data or general logs, that's missing the point.
First, Netflix absolutely does log everything you watch, when you watch it and from which device. So that data is there whether it was used for this particular stunt or not.
Second, how they came by the data is less relevant than how they treat it. It is clear that, like Uber, they do not treat this data as private and sensitive and something they should be serious about protecting. It's the way it was used that is indicative of their (Netflix's) attitude - for an 'amusing' advertisement for themselves.
It's not just saying: these were the most watched movies this week or some other broad statistic, it's specifically talking about habits of particular subscribers.
Whether it was in jest or not or using personally-identifiable logging or not is not the issue - it's that they treat the personal viewing habits of individuals as just so much data to exploit.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not surprised in the slightest, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't concern people. The public is all too ready to normalise this type of attitude towards our data and I fear that we are already too far gone down that road to ever return to a place where our sensitive, personally-identifiable information is respected by default.
You really think the tweet was about "53 people"? It was a (very successful) netflix promotion. Netflixnetflixnetflixnetflixnetflix is mentioned, discussed, sneered at, condemned, disavowed, commented on at various media, all free of charge, at a price of - nil. Great job!
"It was a (very successful) netflix promotion"
Well, it was a very successful motion, certainly. The "pro" bit is open to dispute :
"Hi! Are you the type of person who comes home and cries after bad shit happens, and you watch a favourite something that makes you feel like maybe the world *isn't* full of complete cocks and arseholes? Well come to us, so we can go through your stuff and laugh at you! We will treat you and your precious things with disrespect and scorn, in a way that can't be proved, just like every good psychological tormentor does! And remember, if you leave us, we keep your stuff."
I think the marketing department may have been spending too much time "winning" on Internet forums to remember the point of their department. A sizeable demographic of teenage girls (and anyone who used to be one) will not have appreciated the above subtext or the inevitable follow-on sorry-not-sorry.
I've supported a few YouTube channels in the past by clicking on the affiliate links and bought things I was going to buy anyway. Recently I've seen a few channels do "The weird things people bought with my affiliate link". Only then did I realise that these channels could get a hold of a list of all the things that were bought via the affiliate link, anonymised, but still a comprehensive list. Somehow this just all felt a little too creepy and I stopped clicking on affiliate links altogether.
Yeah, specifically the Matt and Tom 2nd channel. Though I do thoroughly recommend Tom Scott's channel and especially their QI a like called "Citation Needed" which takes a Wikipedia article that hopefully the panel (same panel everytime) don't know about and ask them questions on it. It's QI without the star egos spoiling things.
Though I do thoroughly recommend Tom Scott's channel and especially their QI a like called "Citation Needed" which takes a Wikipedia article that hopefully the panel (same panel everytime) don't know about and ask them questions on it. It's QI without the star egos spoiling things
Sounds good I will take a look. I like his "Things you may not know" and "Amazing places" series although at 3 or 4 mins they are a bit bitesize, but they are very moorish :)
Also - his "Try to get on tv as many times as you can in one day in London" video is great.
Yeah, that bit Tom Scott did with the affiliate link purchases opened my eyes, too, and now I no longer click affiliate links for anybody.
It was also pretty much the video that got me to stop watching Tom Scott. Not that it was that big of a deal all by itself, but that, combined with his painful insistence on pronouncing "gif" as "jife", was a bridge too far.
, combined with his painful insistence on pronouncing "gif" as "jife", was a bridge too far.
So, how do you pronounce "Giraffe", "Gibberish", "Gin", "Giant", "Ginger"... ?
A 'g' before an 'i' is a soft-g is the general rule in English (though of course there are exceptions)
The argument that it's "GGraphic, not jraffic" doesn't make sense either - many other acronyms don't fall into that scheme.
Even Steve Wilnite, the person who created and named GIF, correctly pronounces it with a soft 'g', http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBtKxsuGvko&t=0m45s, so what's your beef with Tom again? :-)
"A 'g' before an 'i' is a soft-g is the general rule in English (though of course there are exceptions)"
Really?! Gimbal, gimlet, gibbon, give, gild, gift (one letter more than gif) and of course git. It doesn't seem like there is much of a general rule there.
If gif is "jif" then what am I supposed to put on my pancakes,Gamie Gones?
Really?! Gimbal, gimlet, gibbon, give, gild, gift (one letter more than gif) and of course git. It doesn't seem like there is much of a general rule there.
As I said, there are exceptions.
When I wrote "the general rule" I didn't mean "my general rule" or "what bob down the pub says." - I even linked to an article by an expert who mentioned it.
Look it up in any English book, it is the defined general rule for words beginning "gi" . I suggest doing research before posting - it would save you from looking silly!
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=soft+or+hard+g+general+rule
If gif is "jif" then what am I supposed to put on my pancakes,Gamie Gones?
The rule is abour an 'i' following a 'g' is generally soft. It has nothing to do with how a 'j' is pronounced.
@Jamie ,
Let me try a few . girlfriend . give . gift . gingerbread (ooh theres one!) . gist . gibbon. gibson . giddy gideon . giggle . gilt . I'm up to gi"L" and we found 2.
That general rule you quoted applies to a G anywhere in the word . I suspect in general its different when its the first letter
" so what's your beef with Tom again?"
My beef has nothing to do with a soft or hard 'g' -- I'm equally good with either. My problem is that he pronounces it with a long 'i'. He's the only one I've ever heard do that, and it's like nails on a chalkboard to me. Petty, I know, particularly considering that his actual content tends to be great, but it's so hard for me to listen to.
My beef has nothing to do with a soft or hard 'g' -- I'm equally good with either. My problem is that he pronounces it with a long 'i'. He's the only one I've ever heard do that, and it's like nails on a chalkboard to me.
Oh.. .I see.. .Really? I haven't heard that, but in that case, I'm in full agreement with you! *shudder*
"I don't see any reason they need a list of the random selection of music and books I buy from Amazon."
No but they do need funds - if unfortunately the funds come along with a fun list of how they were raised , thats just a cross theyll have to bear . They could always "not read it" and / or promise the public not to read it.
Let me rephrase: "You are deliberately denying your own child's school funding because you don't want them to get an anonymised list of what a random cross section people bought?"
"You are deliberately denying your own child's school funding because you don't want them to get an anonymised list of what a random cross section people bought?"
Nothing prevents you from just donating money straight to the school. That's what I always did -- I never bought any of the fundraising products because I didn't feel the need to subsidize both the school and whatever business the products are connected with. I'd rather have all the money go to the school.
Coming soon (pun intended) to consumers of such material in the UK* soon.
As govt want their mandatory age check on such sites accessed from UK, and you can bet it will require huge amounts of personal data
* I assume it will be geofenced, so just means a surge in VPN** use by those who want to avoid it
** Where VPN gives IP address not associated with UK IP bands
The tips and corrections link doesn't work for me at work.
No one uses that, its more fun alert the author via the comments section - keeps 'em on their toes.
Its not like discovering a zero day security bug and responsibly giving the owners a reasonable time to fix it before going public.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
