Most active commenters
  • otterley(3)

←back to thread

Everyone knows your location: tracking myself down through in-app ads

(timsh.org)
1957 points apokryptein | 12 comments | 02 Feb 25 17:07 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
inahga ◴[02 Feb 25 17:31 UTC] No.42910118[source]▶
There are quite a few interesting tracking flows out there.

My rent is paid through a company called Bilt.

I discovered that when I shop at Walgreens now, Bilt sends me an email containing the full receipt of what I bought like so:

    > Hey [inahga],
    >
    > You shopped at Walgreens on 12/1/24 and earned Bilt Points with your
    > Neighborhood Pharmacy benefit.
    >
    > Items eligible for rewards
    > TOSTITOS HINT OF LIME RSTC 11OZ
    > $3.50
    > 
    > +3 pts
    > TOSTITOS RSTC 12OZ
    > $3.50
    >
    > +3 pts
    > Other items*
    > EXCLUDED ITEMS
    > $0.07
    >
    > *May include rewards-ineligible items and/or prescriptions.
Ostensibly (hopefully) it would exclude sensitive items, plan B, condoms, etc...

I'm curious how this data flows from Walgreens to my rent company, but maybe I'd rather not know and just use cash/certified check from now on.

replies(19): >>42910141 #>>42910150 #>>42910255 #>>42910258 #>>42910275 #>>42910307 #>>42910604 #>>42911346 #>>42911365 #>>42911455 #>>42911597 #>>42911711 #>>42911897 #>>42911933 #>>42913328 #>>42914952 #>>42915737 #>>42922787 #>>42928562 #
curiousthought ◴[02 Feb 25 17:48 UTC] No.42910258[source]▶
This is called Level 3 data, and any merchant can choose to provide it for a reduction in the transaction fees they pay.

Here's a small comment thread from a few months back: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41213632

replies(5): >>42910579 #>>42910666 #>>42910909 #>>42910955 #>>42911765 #
baxtr ◴[02 Feb 25 19:17 UTC] No.42910955[source]▶
So in essence the merchant pays with my data?
replies(3): >>42911159 #>>42912874 #>>42915695 #
bredren ◴[02 Feb 25 19:45 UTC] No.42911159[source]▶
Yes, though people also welcome the extra cash back or other card benefits.

Apple Card does not sell this data, IIRC. But offers a lower cash back than many other cards.

replies(1): >>42911317 #
Terretta ◴[02 Feb 25 20:07 UTC] No.42911317[source]▶
True, while Google sees roughly 85% of all American cardholder swipes and doesn't need to sell it since they're making the ad market...
replies(2): >>42911749 #>>42912229 #
1. andrepd ◴[02 Feb 25 21:54 UTC] No.42912229[source]▶
How on earth is this legal
replies(2): >>42912295 #>>42915793 #
2. actionfromafar ◴[02 Feb 25 22:02 UTC] No.42912295[source]▶
Corporations are people, too.
replies(2): >>42912426 #>>42917646 #
3. gruez ◴[02 Feb 25 22:16 UTC] No.42912426[source]▶
Or phrased less inflammatory manner: "Corporations can enter into contracts and engage in legal action just like people can". Even the much maligned Citizens United v. FEC basically boils down to "groups of people (corporations or labor unions) don't lose first amendment protections just because they decided to group up".
replies(1): >>42913060 #
4. thatsbogus ◴[02 Feb 25 23:38 UTC] No.42913060{3}[source]▶
Except not everyone in a corporation has the right to speech. I'm prohibited by my employer to say anything on the company's behalf, but the C-suite and board are able to speak on my behalf. So, the company's leadership has a right to free speech, I don't.
replies(3): >>42913195 #>>42913200 #>>42915828 #
5. gruez ◴[03 Feb 25 00:00 UTC] No.42913195{4}[source]▶
>Except not everyone in a corporation has the right to speech. I'm prohibited by my employer to say anything on the company's behalf,

Yeah, that's how organizations typically work? You might have "freedom of movement", but that doesn't mean you can work in your CEO's office. Organizations also limit who has access to its bank accounts, but that doesn't mean it's suddenly illegitimate for companies to engage in transactions.

6. idle_zealot ◴[03 Feb 25 07:20 UTC] No.42915793[source]▶
Things that aren't explicitly made illegal are legal. Who would invest the resources necessary to get a law banning this passed?
7. otterley ◴[03 Feb 25 07:29 UTC] No.42915828{4}[source]▶
You still have that right; you simply entered into a voluntary agreement with your employer not to exercise it in exchange for money. Happens all the time.
replies(2): >>42916896 #>>42925333 #
8. andrepd ◴[03 Feb 25 10:39 UTC] No.42916896{5}[source]▶
Let's bring back indentured servitude, you have a right to not be a slave but you should still be able to enter into a voluntary agreement not to exercise that right.
replies(1): >>42919285 #
9. sgammon ◴[03 Feb 25 12:45 UTC] No.42917646[source]▶
This comment is quoting Mitt Romney
10. otterley ◴[03 Feb 25 15:41 UTC] No.42919285{6}[source]▶
That’s a facetious reply and you know it. Agreeing not to say certain things is practically a universal requirement of employment, for example, to preserve trade secrets. And indentured servitude is illegal.

Cut it out.

11. inetknght ◴[04 Feb 25 00:12 UTC] No.42925333{5}[source]▶
> you simply entered into a voluntary agreement with

Let's stop you right there.

Having a job is rarely truly voluntary. It's almost always obligatory instead.

replies(1): >>42943971 #
12. otterley ◴[05 Feb 25 04:53 UTC] No.42943971{6}[source]▶
That's just life. Modern society obligates us to do things like feed, clothe, and house ourselves; they aren't just going to result because you exist. Getting a job is an sacrifice we make to fulfill those other basic obligations.

To discuss further would require us to go into the rabbit hole to debate whether capitalism is the right structure for society, but so far, everything else that's been tried has been worse.