Google Buys Mastercard Data to Link Targeted Ads to Online and Physical Sales

cageymaru

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
22,080
Google allegedly purchases data from Mastercard pertaining to the purchase history of its 2 billion cardholders. They then cross-referenced it with Google's own online advertising tracking to learn how Mastercard cardholders viewed and reacted to, online advertising from Google in relation to physical store sales. Google boasts of its "Store Sales Measurement," and access to "approximately 70 percent" of U.S. credit and debit cards through partners.

Through this test program, Google can anonymously match these existing user profiles to purchases made in physical stores. The result is powerful: Google knows that people clicked on ads and can now tell advertisers that this activity led to actual store sales. Since 2014, Google has flagged for advertisers when someone who clicked an ad visits a physical store, using the Location History feature in Google Maps.
 
shpankey said:
Google = Evil

You've been warned
Click to expand...

The really frustrating thing is they don't HAVE to be evil. Some tech companies like Facebook have been evil since the beginning and it seems coded into their DNA and how they view the world. Google on the other hand does not have to be evil - they could do very, very well offering high quality products that also respect privacy and stand next to a user-focused ethos. Yes, it may occasionally mean making less money, but I cannot feel one iota of sadness or respect for those who could have so very much even ethically, yet decide there's still more they could have being bastards instead!

Google could literally reshape what is permissible in online advertising, and data privacy if they made certain changes. However all across their products they could do better - for instance, they started off well with Android thanks to the Android Open Source Project. However, over time they've drifted to where Google related apps from Gmail and Maps to things like all of the specific "Pixel" type stuff etc... are proprietary. They could instead release all of it under AOSP - if they needed to keep anything proprietary it could be on the server end , but the clients could all be open source. There are so many other places that they could improve things - I've long said that I'd pay a reasonable amount per month or year to have full access to Google services with NO ads/profiling. I won't even start about partnering with either foreign (ie China) or local (US) govts and kowtowing to their warrantless surveillance needs. It goes on and on...

Google could survive and thrive without depending on "evil" - its a pity that so many elements of our society push them towards continued justifications of it on behalf of ever-expanding profit
 
RanceJustice said:
The really frustrating thing is they don't HAVE to be evil. Some tech companies like Facebook have been evil since the beginning and it seems coded into their DNA and how they view the world. Google on the other hand does not have to be evil - they could do very, very well offering high quality products that also respect privacy and stand next to a user-focused ethos. Yes, it may occasionally mean making less money, but I cannot feel one iota of sadness or respect for those who could have so very much even ethically, yet decide there's still more they could have being bastards instead!

Google could literally reshape what is permissible in online advertising, and data privacy if they made certain changes. However all across their products they could do better - for instance, they started off well with Android thanks to the Android Open Source Project. However, over time they've drifted to where Google related apps from Gmail and Maps to things like all of the specific "Pixel" type stuff etc... are proprietary. They could instead release all of it under AOSP - if they needed to keep anything proprietary it could be on the server end , but the clients could all be open source. There are so many other places that they could improve things - I've long said that I'd pay a reasonable amount per month or year to have full access to Google services with NO ads/profiling. I won't even start about partnering with either foreign (ie China) or local (US) govts and kowtowing to their warrantless surveillance needs. It goes on and on...

Google could survive and thrive without depending on "evil" - its a pity that so many elements of our society push them towards continued justifications of it on behalf of ever-expanding profit
Click to expand...

Look into the history of Google. Theres a lot of speculation going around that they were heavily assisted by the CIA and NSA from the start, for the purpose of information gathering.
 
That's why you should use cash when you're buying women's underwear and pony tail butt plugs.


P.S. Not that I have ever done that.

P.P.S. Sometimes I use my Chevron card.
 
cageymaru said:
Since 2014, Google has flagged for advertisers when someone who clicked an ad visits a physical store, using the Location History feature in Google Maps.
Click to expand...

Which is why I disable the location services on my computer. They have no need to see where I'm searching from.

As for using my phone, if I'm searching, it's usually because I'm trying to find a nearby restaurant or gas station, so they would need my location.
 
Back in the day they split up Standard oil,,,,,,, i am wondering why that dont happen for a range of monopolies in the tech industry.

Most hated item on my Android phone, the unremovable google search box, i have and never will search for anything on my damn phone, at least not outside of maps.
Sure i can remove it by going to extremes, but that should not be needed if google wasent evil and the world wasent sick.
 
Oldmodder said:
Back in the day they split up Standard oil,,,,,,, i am wondering why that dont happen for a range of monopolies in the tech industry.

Most hated item on my Android phone, the unremovable google search box, i have and never will search for anything on my damn phone, at least not outside of maps.
Sure i can remove it by going to extremes, but that should not be needed if google wasent evil and the world wasent sick.
Click to expand...

If anti-trust meant anything anymore, the GFC would not have happened and healthcare wouldn't be 20% of GDP.
 
Oldmodder said:
Back in the day they split up Standard oil,,,,,,, i am wondering why that dont happen for a range of monopolies in the tech industry.

Most hated item on my Android phone, the unremovable google search box, i have and never will search for anything on my damn phone, at least not outside of maps.
Sure i can remove it by going to extremes, but that should not be needed if google wasent evil and the world wasent sick.
Click to expand...

My most hated thing is that when I'm on my desktop I click on a map in search results and get a map, but when on the phone, I click on the map, do I get the map? No, I get a thing saying to install google maps app from the store. RRRRRRAAAAAAAAGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!! JUST SHOW THE FUCKING MAP! IT'S RIGHT THERE AS A THUMB NAIL LINK LIKE THE DESKTOP VERSION SEARCH RESULTS!
 
shpankey said:
Google = Evil

You've been warned
Click to expand...
There is nothing evil about it.

They're going for profits. As long as the world is driven by money, you can't reasonably expect people and corporations to not go after the money unless a law explicitly forbids it.
 
One of the bigger banks in the Netherlands suggested doing something similar, they rather quickly put that plan in the freezer. It seems that banks are rather sensitive to bank run democracy.
 
M76 said:
There is nothing evil about it.

They're going for profits. As long as the world is driven by money, you can't reasonably expect people and corporations to not go after the money unless a law explicitly forbids it.
Click to expand...

No, you don't derail it. Ok, let's put this aside right now, the #1 goal for a business is to make profit. That's not being debated. It's how they go about it that is. You can be "good" and still turn a profit, or you can be "evil" and still turn a profit, but how long will you last being "evil" when you burn all your bridges?
 
MV75 said:
No, you don't derail it. Ok, let's put this aside right now, the #1 goal for a business is to make profit. That's not being debated. It's how they go about it that is. You can be "good" and still turn a profit, or you can be "evil" and still turn a profit, but how long will you last being "evil" when you burn all your bridges?
Click to expand...

So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.

You can survive very long being evil, and probably longer than not being evil. Evil is the easy path to fame and fortune. Being good is a tedious, long, and perilous path.
 
MV75 said:
No, you don't derail it. Ok, let's put this aside right now, the #1 goal for a business is to make profit. That's not being debated. It's how they go about it that is. You can be "good" and still turn a profit, or you can be "evil" and still turn a profit, but how long will you last being "evil" when you burn all your bridges?
Click to expand...
Derail what?
When do you think apple will fail due to being 'evil' ? How much evil is too much? They should've been at the least dethroned years ago, if being evil wasn't beneficial.

Yes you can be relatively good and still turn a profit, that doesn't mean being ruthless won't yield you even more profits.
 
RanceJustice said:
The really frustrating thing is they don't HAVE to be evil. Some tech companies like Facebook have been evil since the beginning and it seems coded into their DNA and how they view the world.
Click to expand...

One thought: Their push or Google+ was to make sure their brand stayed dominant in the internet landscape, and to ensure they kept a direct line to user data. They did not want Facebook to get as big as it has gotten. When Google+ failed, the market share envy grew to new heights to the point that Google is now willing to sever ties to old values in the name of remaining competitive with Facebook. The logic of this thought is that it's a race to the bottom.

There's really only one way around this. People have to stop using Google & Facebook. And that simply isn't going to happen. These companies are so ingrained in what we do. I could even throw Amazon in on that. But here I am about to submit another order on my prime account.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DocNo
like this
Don't worry. Everyone will be identified and marketed as they walk the streets, just like in Minority Report. It's closer than you think.
 
...just another example of why there are world-scale efforts in play right now to ban cash.
 
RanceJustice said:
The really frustrating thing is they don't HAVE to be evil. Some tech companies like Facebook have been evil since the beginning and it seems coded into their DNA and how they view the world. Google on the other hand does not have to be evil - they could do very, very well offering high quality products that also respect privacy and stand next to a user-focused ethos. Yes, it may occasionally mean making less money, but I cannot feel one iota of sadness or respect for those who could have so very much even ethically, yet decide there's still more they could have being bastards instead!

Google could literally reshape what is permissible in online advertising, and data privacy if they made certain changes. However all across their products they could do better - for instance, they started off well with Android thanks to the Android Open Source Project. However, over time they've drifted to where Google related apps from Gmail and Maps to things like all of the specific "Pixel" type stuff etc... are proprietary. They could instead release all of it under AOSP - if they needed to keep anything proprietary it could be on the server end , but the clients could all be open source. There are so many other places that they could improve things - I've long said that I'd pay a reasonable amount per month or year to have full access to Google services with NO ads/profiling. I won't even start about partnering with either foreign (ie China) or local (US) govts and kowtowing to their warrantless surveillance needs. It goes on and on...

Google could survive and thrive without depending on "evil" - its a pity that so many elements of our society push them towards continued justifications of it on behalf of ever-expanding profit
Click to expand...


No one pushed google to be evil. Google was evil from the beginning. Its people like you that bought into their slogan of 'do no evil' it was bullshit from day 1.
 
Google is evil. ... Oooh, another new Android phone. Instant buy. Look at all the new features that iPhones don't have. Can't believe what isheeps are wasting their money on.
 
M76 said:
When do you think apple will fail due to being 'evil' ?
Click to expand...

Not any time soon. They have a different business model - one where I am the customer and not the product to be sold. They are actively incentivized to "not be those guys"; it's a market differentiator.

And that's the best way to handle the Facebook's, Google's, etc. - by either coming up with alternatives or simply not using them. I don't think it's inevitable for Google to stay on top forever. Just ask CompuServe, AOL, Myspace, Altavista, etc. For all the talk of Android and their other initiatives, Google is still by far and away a one trick pony: they sell ads to make the vast majority of their profit. I actually hope they are successful in transitioning away from relying on ads for the bulk of their money since maybe then they will stop being assholes.

Then again their willingness to bend to the will of the Chinese and other governments is beyond disturbing. And they want to act like they wouldn't think of gaming search results here either? Ha!
 
DocNo said:
Not any time soon. They have a different business model - one where I am the customer and not the product to be sold. They are actively incentivized to "not be those guys"; it's a market differentiator.

And that's the best way to handle the Facebook's, Google's, etc. - by either coming up with alternatives or simply not using them. I don't think it's inevitable for Google to stay on top forever. Just ask CompuServe, AOL, Myspace, Altavista, etc. For all the talk of Android and their other initiatives, Google is still by far and away a one trick pony: they sell ads to make the vast majority of their profit. I actually hope they are successful in transitioning away from relying on ads for the bulk of their money since maybe then they will stop being assholes.

Then again their willingness to bend to the will of the Chinese and other governments is beyond disturbing. And they want to act like they wouldn't think of gaming search results here either? Ha!
Click to expand...

But its an algorithm, no way can that be biased. Wait didn't thereimage search for black peoples faces returned monkeys because of how they programed the algorithm? that should not be possible because algorithm.
 
opfreak said:
No one pushed google to be evil. Google was evil from the beginning. Its people like you that bought into their slogan of 'do no evil' it was bullshit from day 1.
Click to expand...

It is up for debate if no one "pushed" Google to be evil ; its possible that (at least at some time, there is little effort it came about from the beginning) government interest and/or (most certainly) the system of American style capitalism which exalts corporate greed in the market with few real cost could have both contributed to their "evilness". However, this was not a foregone conclusion from the very start. All legit evidence we have shows they were not designed as a sinister government-backed front for info gathering , nor were their technological or business developments predicated upon unethical practices. Facebook is an example of the opposite, where there entire business model was reliant on the kind of tracking, advertising, and other privacy invasions. Not to mention of course Zuckerberg's famous thievery of student information in order to seed Facebook or calling those that trusted him or his platform "dumbasses", just one of many confirmations that it was rotten to the core. Google on the other hand has offered a wide variety of quality, successful services from Gmail to Maps, to Android, YouTube and Google Search itself. Earlier phases of all these products and even their advertising side of things itself did not gather or utilize nearly as much personal data - there was a time when Gmail's only ads were text-based adwords that pulled keywords out of what you were reading at that moment instead of building up a tracking profile or dumping cookies and other trackers all over everything. Same with most of their other services - the kind of data gathered, the analysis and use of it, tracking/profiling for other than user benefits etc... started out somewhere different and just progressively got worse and worse.

I'm not saying Google was ever perfect but the fact they had a viable alternative is what makes things so frustrating. They offered quality software that they COULD have monetized successfully without resorting to the kind of big data privacy invasion bonanza they helped to bring forth. Through their successes there was potential to really guide the industry but because they took the dark path, they pulled along so many others and normalized it behind tons of TOS and cheery Silicon Valley facade. However, it didn't have to be this way and there was a time earlier on when it appeared another path could be possible - its very frustrating they didn't take it.
 
AllyourbaseFinal.jpg
 
I figured they were already buying this data from the federal government, namely the consumer financial protection bureau (CFPB). They've been tracking American's credit card purchases for 4+ years now.
 
RanceJustice said:
It is up for debate if no one "pushed" Google to be evil ; its possible that (at least at some time, there is little effort it came about from the beginning) government interest and/or (most certainly) the system of American style capitalism which exalts corporate greed in the market with few real cost could have both contributed to their "evilness". However, this was not a foregone conclusion from the very start. All legit evidence we have shows they were not designed as a sinister government-backed front for info gathering , nor were their technological or business developments predicated upon unethical practices. Facebook is an example of the opposite, where there entire business model was reliant on the kind of tracking, advertising, and other privacy invasions. Not to mention of course Zuckerberg's famous thievery of student information in order to seed Facebook or calling those that trusted him or his platform "dumbasses", just one of many confirmations that it was rotten to the core. Google on the other hand has offered a wide variety of quality, successful services from Gmail to Maps, to Android, YouTube and Google Search itself. Earlier phases of all these products and even their advertising side of things itself did not gather or utilize nearly as much personal data - there was a time when Gmail's only ads were text-based adwords that pulled keywords out of what you were reading at that moment instead of building up a tracking profile or dumping cookies and other trackers all over everything. Same with most of their other services - the kind of data gathered, the analysis and use of it, tracking/profiling for other than user benefits etc... started out somewhere different and just progressively got worse and worse.

I'm not saying Google was ever perfect but the fact they had a viable alternative is what makes things so frustrating. They offered quality software that they COULD have monetized successfully without resorting to the kind of big data privacy invasion bonanza they helped to bring forth. Through their successes there was potential to really guide the industry but because they took the dark path, they pulled along so many others and normalized it behind tons of TOS and cheery Silicon Valley facade. However, it didn't have to be this way and there was a time earlier on when it appeared another path could be possible - its very frustrating they didn't take it.
Click to expand...

They could have they didn't. They played people with their don't be evil sloganeering while working towards total data control. You for some reason would rather blame capitalism and everyone else rather then google themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top