Schneier on Security

Clive Robinson • September 4, 2019 9:56 AM

As I don’t read the WashPo or get access to it a little ferkling with DuckDuckGo got the authors name and a similar (may be the same) article from another website.

In that article was the interesting comment by the author of,

Amazon also wouldn’t say exactly what it receives [from Chase]. (Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.)

Two points arise from this,

Firstly did it get in the WashPo version?

Secondly, Amazon at best is a predatory company that pays next to nothing in taxes[1]. Why such an organisation gets access to purchase information where they are not involved is probably a shock to many, especially as they appear to use the information not only in apreditory manner to increase their sales, but also to raise revenue off of the information through fourth parties you have never heard of who are at best “Daya Brokers” who then sell info on again.

As Ross j. Anderson and colleagues at the UK Cambridge Computer labs, proved some years ago, you can not make such information sufficirntly anonymous to maintain privacy without totally destroying it’s usefullness as an income source.

Thus treat any claims data is anonymised as at best wishfull thinking that is in reality a well rehearsed lie.

[1] Pitifully below what it should be Amazon payments to the UK Treasury were anounced today,

https://www.chargedretail.co.uk/2019/09/04/amazon-paying-the-square-root-of-diddly-squat-in-uk-tax-according-to-critics/

Thus significant underpayment means larger proffits for Amazon whilst still significantly under cutting other retailers who not only pay to the UK Treasury but UK local Councils that pays for first responders as well as providing local jobs clearing up the mess Amazon makes.

Clive Robinson • September 4, 2019 2:20 PM

@ Sancho_P,

All this hype will collapse, so will the corresponding businesses (and “jobs”).

And with it certain big Silicon Valley Corps, unless they sufficiently diversify.

But when you look on the flip side, most of those programmers cutting in the privacy invasion in a vast number of websites will find their funding gone, and thus wage deflation in that area is to be expected.

But then there are all those involved woth the scams that are online advertising, who just look the other way whilst effectively stealing the advertisers money by various very questionable if not down right fraudulant tactics. Most people should have got the message by now that online advertising is less successfull than letterbox stuffing and realy does not work. Worse most people resent it, thus it builds up negative publicity for the advertiser.

My personal kick back is to have javascript etc off to stop the more egregious adds appearing, and if I do have to see an add due to some services such as U-Tube, I have a policy of never to use that advertiser (it’s because I regard “in yourface advertising” as been theft, not just of the resources I pay for but my life as well).

It’s said that “Marketing” is the largest industry in the world, even more so than any organised religion. Whilst most of what you might call traditional marketing has not changed much in the last half century, the advent ofvthe Internet has caused a feeding frenzy. And I guess you know there can only be so many sharks sustained in a pond after an initial “all jump in” bubble bursts…

I don’t know if you’ve read it but there is a book called “Burn Rate” about the first Dot Com bubble, and mentioned in there is Rupert “The bear faced liar” Murdoch’s daughter blowing mountains of cash and having to get daddy to buy her out of trouble amongst many other failures. The fact that no major newspaper has managed to go “On-Line” as profitably / user as print kind of tells you how deep the blood bath will be when it happens.