Google Bought Mastercard Data To Link Online Ads To Store Purchases, Says Report (bloomberg.com) 137
According to Bloomberg, citing people with knowledge of the deal, Google purchased "a stockpile of Mastercard transactions" that allowed Google advertisers to see whether the ads they ran online led to a sale at a physical store in the U.S. This arrangement was never shared with the public. From the report: Alphabet's Google and Mastercard brokered a business partnership during about four years of negotiations. The alliance gave Google an unprecedented asset for measuring retail spending, part of the search giant's strategy to fortify its primary business against onslaughts from Amazon and others. But the deal, which has not been previously reported, could raise broader privacy concerns about how much consumer data technology companies like Google quietly absorb.
Google paid Mastercard millions of dollars for the data [...] and the companies discussed sharing a portion of the ad revenue. A spokeswoman for Google said there is no revenue sharing agreement with its partners. A Google spokeswoman declined to comment on the partnership with Mastercard, but addressed the ads tool. "Before we launched this beta product last year, we built a new, double-blind encryption technology that prevents both Google and our partners from viewing our respective users' personally identifiable information," the company said in a statement. "We do not have access to any personal information from our partners' credit and debit cards, nor do we share any personal information with our partners." The company said people can opt out of ad tracking using Google's "Web and App Activity" online console. Inside Google, multiple people raised objections that the service did not have a more obvious way for cardholders to opt out of the tracking.
Google paid Mastercard millions of dollars for the data [...] and the companies discussed sharing a portion of the ad revenue. A spokeswoman for Google said there is no revenue sharing agreement with its partners. A Google spokeswoman declined to comment on the partnership with Mastercard, but addressed the ads tool. "Before we launched this beta product last year, we built a new, double-blind encryption technology that prevents both Google and our partners from viewing our respective users' personally identifiable information," the company said in a statement. "We do not have access to any personal information from our partners' credit and debit cards, nor do we share any personal information with our partners." The company said people can opt out of ad tracking using Google's "Web and App Activity" online console. Inside Google, multiple people raised objections that the service did not have a more obvious way for cardholders to opt out of the tracking.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Buy your mom a pressure cooker and (Score:2, Interesting)
get a SWAT team storming into your living room.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/01/new-york-police-terrorism-pressure-cooker
Re: (Score:3)
And this just goes to show. Cash is king.
For everything else, there's mastercard!
Re: (Score:2)
In this case not just your data but specifically tracking you purchases as related to the advertising you viewed in order to analyse the most effective advertising methods in order to more effectively manipulate your choice, regardless of how poorly that purchase served you needs. Basically a big ole fuck you transaction, tied to which lies are the most effective when it comes to sucking you in. Corporate level, AI, major douche baggery, how to be more of a cunt con person selling you over priced shit , tha
Re: (Score:2)
Buy your mom a pressure cooker, your dad a box of nails and a few boxes of fertilizer for your garden and if you're lucky, you won't get shot during the raid...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Wasn't there an outcry, not long ago, over iOS location services still recording your location even when disabled?
No, not recently. There was a big bug 7 years ago that led to that, and it was fixed by Apple in the next point release. I think that was iOS 4.0 (we're currently about to get 12).
Also, you must be completely blind to Apple's underhanded practices. The stories abound, so you have to be actively trying to avoid them.
No company is perfect, but Apple is light years better than Google in personal privacy and security. Probably because Apple makes money by selling you secure personal devices, and makes more money the more secure and personal they are. Google gives that part away, and makes more money the better they can track you and sell your in
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the best mobile device in the world, give us money. Here's the best wireless headphones in the world, give us money. Here's the best tablet in the world, give us money. Here's a service that integrates it all, give us money.
Only one of those is true. Nobody has the iPad beat, simply because Android only makes a halfassed attempt at being a tablet OS. The market agrees and it outsells every other tablet combined.
Best mobile device is entirely subjective and will be based on needs. For well more than half the market, it's clearly not good enough so, clearly, not the best.
As for the wireless headphones, well... that's entirely objective. They're easy to lose, which makes them not the best if you want to keep them; but, ignori
Re: (Score:2)
And I know when both of these phones came out, because I bought both of them on day one. Not because I had to, but because a priomary feature of my phones is the camera and the camera on the S8 was that much better than the S7; rep
Mastercard story or Google story? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is the story here that *MASTERCARD* sells all your financial transaction data around the world to lots of companies (think Cambridge Analytics etc.), or that Google buys them?
It seems to be a Mastercard story dressed up as a Google one.
Financial transactions should be covered by the same level of privacy as banking transactions, which would make this illegal to sell that data in EU, and it use to be USA had similar laws.
But given that they're selling the data, can we buy Trump/Trump family/Trump company/ card data? If he has nothing to hide, and I'm sure that's true because he keeps saying it on twitter, then he has nothing to fear.
Re: Mastercard story or Google story? (Score:5, Insightful)
If we buy Trump data can we also buy and post Clinton data?
I want to know how much she paid the DNC who paid the company who paid the law firm who paid the sleazy British spy who paid the Russians for the fake material she had released through her minions at the corrupted FBI, DoJ, and the major media outlets.
Why stop there? All senators and congress critters, state legislators and senators and governors. Go for it. These are the guys pressing forward on their surveillance society under the "If you have nothing to hide why do you oppose losing your privacy?" banner.
?
But maybe first go for the boards of directors for Master Card and Google.
Re: (Score:2)
I like your train of thought on this one. The government and their actions should be 100% viewable by the people. I understand some things they can't share because it may effect something they're working on. But after the mission is over...
Re: (Score:1)
Well they claim if you have nothing to hide you don't need privacy so they should be leading us in surrendering theirs instead of doing the opposite. You know like Trump showing his tax returns.
I would add in Churches, Church leaders and the leaders of any organization claiming great moral standing as they obviously as great moral leaders have nothing to hide too. Right? Judges and Lawyers as well just to prove that they aren't taking bribes as of course they aren't.
Re: (Score:2)
This - a thousand times this
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have created a sad, fearful reality for yourself to live in.
Re: (Score:1)
If we buy Trump data can we also buy and post Clinton data?
I want to know how much she paid the DNC who paid the company who paid the law firm who paid the sleazy British spy who paid the Russians for the fake material she had released through her minions at the corrupted FBI, DoJ, and the major media outlets.
She put it on the amex!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
thanks
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
fire google CEO (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
I'd rather see the fucker get terminal cancer then* be fired.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Why? He does exactly what board and shareholders want, and he needn't give a fuck about anyone else's opinion.
Welcome to corporate rule!
Re: fire google CEO (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's that "Long term" you keep mentioning? On another note, where is your quarter report?
Re: fire google CEO (Score:2)
Google have been doing it for years (Score:5, Interesting)
It should always be assumed that Google is spying on anything they can, that they will lie about it when feasible, and that they have no shame in doing so. This is not new. It's up to you to protect yourself.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
https://web.archive.org/web/20... [archive.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Par for the course... (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't some new behavior for Google - just an expansion of an already existing program. Google has been collecting your off-line purchases for years now. They're
boasting [googleblog.com] about it, too.
Here's a relevant quote: ...even if your business doesn't have a large loyalty program, you can still measure store sales by taking advantage of Google's third-party partnerships, which capture approximately 70% of credit and debit card transactions in the United States. So, more than two thirds of your non on-line purchases are tracked by Google and sold to all and sundry.
Of course, as a simple citizen, you get no option or recourse. Even if you haven't ever signed on with Google, even if aren't using any of their properties, or if you tried to opt out of everything, you' still can't escape their stalking. Every breath you take, every move you make, they'll be watching you.
Re: (Score:3)
"Google's third-party partnerships" surely means that Google themselves aren't tracking it directly, but rather get their data from the likes of Neilson and IRI, the same as everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Google themselves aren't tracking it directly, but rather get their data from the likes of Neilson and IRI, the same as everyone else.
The problem is that Google collects all the disparate pieces of info from lots of individual third parties (each of them having only small and mostly separate chunklets of data), then centralizes and correlates them into a big data iceberg. This is something other parties can't do, even if they wanted.
Google has to be able to identify you personally, if they can match the ads they have shown you to the purchases you made, and extract the ad performance information they say they provide. Nobody else can do t
Re: (Score:2)
It would be idiotic of them not to if they can profit from it. It would be more idiotic of them to claim they don't and risk getting caught committing fraud when it's found out that they do. So, which is it? Are they idiots, or are the even bigger idiots? And I mean that question seriously as can be.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
For now. The facial recognition cameras on damned near every cash register in five or ten years say hello.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Here's a relevant quote: ...even if your business doesn't have a large loyalty program, you can still measure store sales by taking advantage of Google's third-party partnerships, which capture approximately 70% of credit and debit card transactions in the United States. So, more than two thirds of your non on-line purchases are tracked by Google and sold to all and sundry.
Not mine. I pay cash.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not "as a citizen" (Score:1)
Of course, as a simple citizen, you get no option or recourse.
This has nothing to do with being a citizen but 100% with being a consumer. Stop mixing unmixable things.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is... we as consumers want it both ways. We want free content on the web, but somebody has to pay the bills to keep the servers running and the programmers programming. So if we won't pay for the content, advertisers foot the bill. Yet we look for every possible way to disable ad content on the "free" pages we consume, fight against any kind of tracking metrics that tell the advertisers their money is well spent, and then get outraged when formerly free sites put up paywalls because th
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't some new behavior for Google - just an expansion of an already existing program. Google has been collecting your off-line purchases for years now.
Allowing third parties to view my financial transactions feels to me as violating as putting a camera in my home. Even if a trusted friend or relative were the only viewer of the camera footage, that would be extremely creepy. If a for-profit corporation controlled the camera, that would be an outrage. Why is the viewing of non-anonymized financial transactions legal and ostensibly tolerable? Because politicians are easy to bribe (excuse me, educate via legal financial expenditures). Because we are imp
Re: (Score:2)
Why is the viewing of non-anonymized financial transactions legal and ostensibly tolerable? Because politicians are easy to bribe (excuse me, educate via legal financial expenditures).
Ah, I'm sure the fact that Google is the biggest [washingtonpost.com] spender on lobbying in the USA is completely unrelated. Because that would be evil!
it should be clear that "do no evil" is only possible when the meaning of evil is re-engineered.
Oh...
TL;DR Everything is tracked (Score:1)
I work for a company that links up similar data. Y'all have no idea.
Re: TL;DR Everything is tracked (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually we do have an idea. That is why we hate you and google and Facebook and every other shitty people tracking data wh0ring tech company.
Anyone who works in any capacity for any of those and other well known evil companies that comes on here to whine about Trump or anyone elseâ(TM)s evil is a hypocrite and needs to choke to death on a heaping pile of dog shit. Trump has at most 8 years in office. Google Facebook etc will keep your personal information forever.
Re: TL;DR Everything is tracked (Score:1)
You realize that it is your civic duty to sabotage and destroy this crap right? Do what is right for humanity.
Casus belli (Score:1)
Google is waging war on our psyche. This here is intelligence gathering, to better identify weak spots in our defenses, in preparation for an escalation of their assault.
Will we ever fight back?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Casus belli (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. Poison their data.
As a statistician, I can tell you that there is something way, way worse you can do than not provide me with data. Provide me with false data that I cannot tell from genuine data. Because that devalues my whole data set. If enough poison is added, all of my data is worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Casus belli (Score:4, Informative)
Here it is: TrackMeNot [mozilla.org].
Re: (Score:1)
Unless that involves tons of false purchases which you return, it's not likely to matter
Re: (Score:2)
Provide me with false data that I cannot tell from genuine data. Because that devalues my whole data set. If enough poison is added, all of my data is worthless.
I worry more about inadvertently poisoning the data. When some political extremist (left or right) posts some idiotic paranoid conspiracy trope, the first thing I do before explaining why it is idiotic is go searching for relevant articles with genuine facts.
The result is that my search history is littered with searches for things like child p**n, crime stats among immigrants, rape demographics, the ingredients of homebrewed meth, hate literature, gun ownership, etc. I don't want to think about what that do
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the reason the lady at the grocery store looks strange at me is that I buy condoms and doggy treats together?
Re: (Score:2)
Bonus points if you can name the film in which the preceding words were uttered.
Porklips Now [youtube.com].
Encryption scheme (Score:5, Funny)
we built a new, double-blind encryption technology that prevents both Google and our partners from viewing our respective users' personally identifiable information
For those who are wondering, here's how it works:
Re: (Score:2)
For those who are wondering, here's how it works:
For those who are really wondering how it works, I believe this paper is the relevant one: https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/7... [iacr.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Been suspecting this for a while... here's why... (Score:1)
Should be Opt-In not Opt-Out (Score:2)
Especially so in Europe where the GDPR clearly forbids opt-out.
Bought? (Score:2)
My gf looked at a dress on my computer. She LOOKED at it.
Now I get adverts almost everywhere, and they're trying to sell me... you guessed it... a dress.
Re: (Score:2)
Now I get adverts almost everywhere, and they're trying to sell me... you guessed it... a dress.
and I am sure that you would look very pretty in it :-)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what she tells me.... I'm not convinced.
Re: (Score:2)
On the rare times i see ads, I only get them for things I have already bought on Amazon. Mostly when I am using the phone where there isn't uBlock.
Would I like "this specific camera I already own", or "this specific computer I already own".
I bought one of those titanium backpacking cutlery sets last week, so now I get ads for climbing gear. Yeah, I ain't going to be climbing any fucking rocks any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
I bought one of those titanium backpacking cutlery sets last week, so now I get ads for climbing gear. Yeah, I ain't going to be climbing any fucking rocks any time soon.
Well, at least you've started taking the necessary steps in weight reduction.
Re: (Score:2)
I bought one of those titanium backpacking cutlery sets last week, so now I get ads for climbing gear. Yeah, I ain't going to be climbing any fucking rocks any time soon.
Well, at least you've started taking the necessary steps in weight reduction.
Shit, even if I didn't weigh 250lbs, you won't find me willingly suspended from a cable high off the ground.
Oh, you mean the weight of my gear.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and not just online. I ordered something for my wife from Woman Within once, and ever since then (the past 3+ years) I've gotten a steady stream of catalogs from them in my name. I have gone to their website and submitted an opt-out request; I have been on the phone with them; I have been in chat with them; I have complained in email. I think all it did was increase the rate of deliveries -- sometimes I get two or three in a single week. No wonder our mail carrier gives me a big grin when I see her at
Advertisers have been telling us for years... (Score:2)
that ads lead to sales. Now they are saying that they do not know this to be true?
Re: (Score:3)
that ads lead to sales. Now they are saying that they do not know this to be true?
Remember, a marketing company's first priority isn't to sell your product, it's to sell theirs.
nice (Score:1)
Evil (Score:2)
Block all ads (Score:5, Insightful)
Block all ads, all the time, no exceptions. If you have an ad-supported business that runs ethically, too fucking bad. The 99% of other ads ruined it for you.
What, no apologists whining (in the Jim Sterling triple-hey voice) "but that stealing"?
I am shocked (Score:2)
What is next, Google is going to ask BofA for my bank statements to see how much
Cryptocurrency (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
TFA says "It had two components. The first lets companies with personal information on consumers, like encrypted email addresses, upload those into Google’s system and synchronize ad buys with offline sales. The second injects card data.
It works like this: a person searches for 'red lipstick' on Google, clicks on an ad, surfs the web but doesn’t buy anything. Later, she walks into a store and buys red lipstick with her Mastercard. The advertiser who ran the ad is fed a report from Google, listin