I gave it a thought and decided that I'm not afraid about the data that I know that others know (or may know) about me.

Well, based on the fact seeing any actually helpful advertisement is an extremely rare occasion (just my experience), which usually requires explicit training of a suggestion engine with multiple rephrased queries explaining what I want to see, I'd say either they don't know any much, or the association part is not yet here. Not that it matters, though - that could change in future.

What I'm actually afraid is that there is some data I'm not even aware others know about me. Or, more specifically, data I don't want others to know about me, that could've somehow leaked despite lack of my consent or even me being informed.

E.g. I know that my phone sends various data to the third parties, that I've authorized it to send. I've evaluated it and had actually decided that I'm OK with the pros/cons. However, if, for example, that phone somehow eavesdrops and sends an audio stream that I've never consented to share - that would be scary.

I like using the example of your healthcare premium rising ever-so-slightly when you make questionable decisions like buying a 6-pack of beer. All the data has been collected, it's now just a matter of legislatures/corporate lobbyists passing the right laws.

If advertisers have so much data, are able to know you so intimately and manipulate every step of your life then how come the vast majority of online advertising has such mediocre results?

Not trying to be snarky, it's just to me something doesn't quite add up in this picture.

I am honestly surprised there is not more ultra-targeted advertising to either ultra-high-net-worth individuals, or to individuals in key positions within large institutions.

E.g., there are ads all over the DC Metro for huge defense-sector projects, like a particular company's bid for fighter-jet engines. They're spending huge sums on these ad buys, which presumably are aimed at only a handful of people who actually have influence over the procurement process. Similarly, there are lots of ads in trade publications aimed at buyers, of whom there might only be a few dozen in a particular niche industry. It only follows that this is, the ad-buyers believe, the best they can do.

But consider what they could do if they really drilled down and tried to target the specific individuals with control over the money: instead of a shotgun ad buy in the subway or in a magazine, they could build a model of that person's life -- where they go, what they buy, what makes them happy (at least, happy enough to be externally perceptible), what pisses them off enough to complain about it, etc. And then you could Skinner-box the living shit out of them.

In the limiting case -- I'm thinking here of someone who works in government procurement; maybe not even the person who makes the ultimate decision, but the person who builds the briefing slide deck for the person who makes the decision, or the advisor, or the advisor's assistants -- for the price of a big ad buy, you could probably hire up a bunch of unemployed acting students and follow them around for a few months. Every time something good happens to the contract or in negotiations, make sure they have a really, really good day. Someone offers them a seat on the train, or lets them into traffic, anonymously buys them coffee, randomly compliments their shoes, pulls out of a parking space just as they're looking for one... every little thing just goes right. And every time the negotiations aren't going well, make sure they have a really shit day. They get cut off in traffic, get coffee spilled on them, yelling everywhere, can't even get the machine they want at the gym, takeout place is closed for a special event, rental house down the street is having a loud all-night party again... Pretty soon you'd condition them that when things go right for your company, and when things move fractionally closer to the outcome you want, they have a good day. And when they don't, they don't. It's advertising by gaslighting, basically.

AFAICT the only reason this isn't done is because nobody's really tried it yet, perhaps out of some remaining shred of propriety. I'm not even sure it would be illegal, necessarily (you'd have to get some lawyers to work around anti-stalking laws, I suppose, but they are pretty weak in a lot of states). While there's nothing that would have prevented you from doing this 50 years ago with an army of P.I.s to gather the information, now you could build up all the dossiers in advance and have them ready to go, pretty much turnkey, on anyone you thought you might want to influence. Or, more likely, a company could set all of that up and then offer it as an arms-length service to other companies looking to achieve a particular outcome.

No reason, I suppose, why it might not be going on right now.

Interesting premise. Could even be the plot of a present day sci-fi novel (an executive goes about their day of seemingly random inconveniences amidst a high-stakes battle between advertising firms directing the exec towards their clients). Almost reminds me of The Game, which was the greatest film ever made and I will hear NO argument.

That being said, most of the wealthy people I know personally tend not to use computers when they can call up concierge services to handle complex tasks for them. That most wealthy people I know happen to be older and not as used to using computers for every problem may just be more of an age rather than economic dissonance.

Why do you think there isn't such advertising? For example, in B2B sales, you can and do show specific targeted ads to the IP ranges belonging to particular companies or social media accounts identified as their employees (to which you want to sell your product), you also do social media profiling of particular people before you're going to visit them, so that you can tailor sales pitches to their personalities.

It's just that this isn't done in a scalable way, but as a part of high-touch sales activity involving human salespeople.

There is I think, they just use lobbyists and direct personal influence instead.

But what have you done about it?

Well it definitely put the nail in the coffin of social media (except HN) for me. I was already creeped out after the Snowden revelations but hearing Schneier in person was like a smack to the face.

I use DuckDuckGo instead of Google in most cases, and I avoid Facebook (and particularly Messenger) unless absolutely necessary, and I have become much more conscious of my online activity.

Why particularly Messenger?

Facebook is a glorified address book. Messenger is a convenient way to get in touch with friends from outside the United States, because we aren't always on Skype and regular cell/SMS costs money.

But nowadays Messenger is more of a way to start by saying "let's Skype"

But what can you do as an individual? I think that's what we're all struggling with.

There is no single good answer; that's why people struggle with it. The solutions are disparate, and vary depending on your threat model. Answers to these problems aren't available and packaged in a one-size-fits-all solution that your average middle-class family has the time or ambition to take advantage of. Some solutions exist, however--and more are being developed.

In a lot of ways, I see the issue boiling down to how much you're willing to be inconvenienced.