>>4158684>could be>probablyignorance is bliss. besides, jobs are really competitive and all, but how close does a race have to be that this will be a determining factor? you really think an employer is going to turn people down from interviews for these sorts of things?
>>4158714basically cheating
>>4158772does anyone actually care about targeted advertisements aside from the implication that they're being watched? i get the bigger perspective that some people don't want their data collected, but you make it sound like the advertisement itself is a problem here
there's laws now saying that you can't down employees for certain reasons (such as potential pregnancy), and companies can get sued for asking about it in interviews if they aren't able to cite other reasons pretty clearly. why would you assume that the same logic wouldn't be applicable to this sort of data?
>someone ended up suddenly getting a lot of baby related ads pushed on them only to suddenly find out they were pregnantmy understanding is that this is an urban myth. the woman knew she was pregnant and her family found out because of targeted advertising on a shared computer
