Slashdot Mirror

Only ten items? I'm blocking these items on the current page: (and that's not to mention what Ghostery blocks)

##.adwrap, ##.comment_share, ##.nav-social, https://a.fsdn.com/sd/js/scrip..., https://ads.pro-market.net/ads..., https://s.ntv.io/serve/load.js, https://www.gstatic.com/images..., https://a.fsdn.com/sd/all-mini..., https://a.fsdn.com/sd/classic....
https://a.fsdn.com/sd/classic/...
https://a.fsdn.com/sd/css/app....
https://a.fsdn.com/sd/font/sdi...
https://a.fsdn.com/sd/font/sdi...
https://a.fsdn.com/sd/sdlogo.s...
https://analytics.slashdotmedi...
https://cdn-social.janrain.com...
https://cdn.taboola.com/libtrc...
https://consent-st.truste.com/...
https://d3ezl4ajpp2zy8.cloudfr...
https://images.slashdot.org/hc...
https://images.slashdot.org/hc...
https://news.slashdot.org/favi...
https://rpxnow.com/js/lib/logi...
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws...
https://slashdot.org/images/js...
https://tag.crsspxl.com/s1.js?...
https://www.googletagservices....

Here's what Adblock shows me for this page. Yeah, some of it is totally innocent, but the rest of it? Why do all of these things need to be loading? (I removed a lot of extra crap that seemed benign to get by the "you need more characters in your message" filter.)

And who thinks that gstatic.com isn't using their Google Plus icone (gplus-16.png) as a beacon?

https://a.fsdn.com/sd/js/scrip...
https://ads.pro-market.net/ads...
https://s.ntv.io/serve/load.js
https://sourceforgemedia-compu...
https://analytics.slashdotmedi...
https://api.stacksocial.com/v0...
https://ask.slashdot.org/ajax....
https://ask.slashdot.org/favic...
https://cdn-social.janrain.com...
https://cdn.taboola.com/libtrc...
https://consent-st.truste.com/...
https://d3ezl4ajpp2zy8.cloudfr...
https://rpxnow.com/js/lib/logi...
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws...
https://slashdot.org/images/js...
https://tag.crsspxl.com/s1.js?...
https://www.googletagservices....
https://www.gstatic.com/images...

Here's the TRUSTe info:

http://privacy.truste.com/privacy-seal/NQ-Mobile-US-Inc-/validation?rid=e0f97027-af9a-4b8a-91b5-2a33c58a520a

It only seems to cover security/privacy of their ecommerce site. So, their shopping cart may be secure, but it says nothing about app security as they seem to imply in their press releases, etc.

Google search of
"CTIA nq vault" no relevant result
"PC magazine nq vault" => 4/5 by junior software analyst Sara Yin
"TRUSTe nq vault" => indeed
"Global Mobile Internet Conference App Space" => ???

so we've learn also not to trust TrustE

No more TrustE certified software for me

Woops, sorry about all the mistakes.

I meant this link: Why I don't use Facebook. I was going to link to that actual link, as well about general privacy.

If you don't take privacy into your own hands, don't expect web browsers to. Especially given that they are owned by either businesses who love marketing, Google, Apple, Microsoft. Don't expect governments to protect you.

I filed a TRUST complaint with Facebook. I urge you to do the same. Not that they will do anything though unless they reach a criticial mass. It shocks me so many people have endorsed the seal.

Facebook TRUSTe

And they're getting worse. TrustE's latest product: "certified" adware and spyware. This is another "buy your way around the filters" scheme.

TrustE's Watchdog Reports invariably results in a decision of "Issue Handled with no changes necessary to the Privacy Statement nor the Site". They get about a hundred complaints per month, but don't do anything. The last time TrustE made a site change anything was in 2002.

In the early days of TrustE, their seal actually meant something. But they've totally sold out.

There's also the Commerce Department's "Safe Harbor" list. No enforcement action has ever been taken under that.

So don't believe any "privacy certifications" associated with RFID tag use. They're meaningless.

A: In the unlikely event that a site fails a compliance review or
TRUSTe has reason to believe that a site is in non-compliance with
its stated privacy practices, we will conduct an escalating
investigation. Depending on the severity of the breach, the
investigation could result in an on-site compliance review by a CPA
firm, or revocation of the site's trustmark license. After TRUSTe has
exhausted all escalation efforts, extreme violations are referred to
the appropriate law authority, which in the U.S. may include the
appropriate attorney general's office, the Federal Trade
Commission, or the Consumer Protection Agency. TRUSTe may
pursue breach of contract or trademark infringement litigation
against the site.

I never said they'd take the seal away, but they will hold off on giving it out the first time until the site modifies its practice, as the CEO mentioned in the article. I'd wager this happens /after/ payment, but I can't say for sure. Did you respond to the right post, btw?

In general, I trust no-one, but it is part of Truste's 'deal' that the privacy policy must be easily viewable. Says so on their website as well as in the Salon article.

There's a reason I have many random hotmail accounts that I use to receive activation passwords and nothing else.

And somewhat more off-topic, from the reputation manager link he gave - "If a few Belgians become sick from drinking a soft drink, then the manufacturer may lose billions on Wall Street five minutes later. Another reason reputation managers will contribute to highly improved product quality and customer service."

Am I the only one who thinks this sounds like a frighteningly easy way to use rumours to manipulate stock prices?

Reputation managers only work so long as you trust the managers themselves, and that only works if you can find out the context of the comments.

This I why I think it would be better to have a number of smaller, focused reputation managers than something like, oh, TrustE.

I am more likely to remember or check out something that I see posted on Slashdot because I know that I have interests and viewpoints that are shared by the story posters and replies here.

To me, Slashdot works well because:

1) A story gets posted.
2) People post their comments about the story, both for and against.
3) People's comments can be replied to, validating or challenging their assertions.
4) ALL OF THE COMMENTS can be moderated, moderators being drawn from the body of Slashdot readers themselves. Obvious trolls and irrelevant postings can be weeded out, while the better replies are hopefully moderated up.
5) More importantly, MODERATIONS CAN BE META-MODERATED by anybody. So (theoretically) incompetant moderators can be weeded out.
6) And most importantly, readers can select the level of scoring themselves, choosing which level of "moderation" they want to browse at. Even though I browse at 1, I frequently drop to -1 in case there's a good re-parented comment and I want to see what spawned it.

(And for people who want to be able to moderate the stories themselves, you can always get the code and make a better Slashdot. If you build it, they will come...)

Jay (=