Privacy Machiavellis

Chris Jay Hoofnagle has a piece up at SFGate.com on what he calls the "privacy Machiavellis," which are exemplified by Google and Facebook. (The article is adapted from a longer treatment published last year, called "Beyond Google and Evil.") Hoofnagle heads the privacy foundation set up with money collected from settlements of privacy lawsuits against Facebook. From SFGate: "... you have no way to ask Google to stop this tracking. Instead, you can merely opt out of the targeted advertising — the product recommendations. Exercising your privacy options creates a worst-case-scenario outcome: If you opt out, you are still tracked, but you do not receive the putative benefit of targeted ads. An illusory opt-out system is just one of the increasingly sophisticated sleights of hand in the privacy world. Consider Facebook's privacy options. ... Facebook can proudly proclaim that it offers ... more than 100 [choices]. Therein lies the trick; by offering too many choices, individuals are likely to choose poorly, or not at all. Facebook benefits because poor choices or paralysis leads consumers to reveal more personal information. In any case, the fault is the consumer's, because, after all, they were given a choice. Reader Kilrah_il sends word that Google has just released a tool that could alleviate some of the above worries: it stops tracking by Google Analytics for users of IE7+, Firefox 3.5+, and Chrome 4+. Perhaps Hoofnagle will comment on it here or elsewhere.

Comments

Machiavellis indeed

[homer_s]

An illusory opt-out system ... Therein lies the trick; by offering too many choices,

Of course, you can exercise the one opt-out system that works - don't use their services. Nobody is holding a gun to your head. It is like buying a car, but not wanting to pay the price. The price of working with Google and Facebook is not dollars, but your data.

Google's price/benefit is right for me, so I use it. Facebook's is not, so I don't.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[postbigbang]

Nicely stated.

Yet civilians still need protection from things they don't understand. We do have a choice. We can and do opt out. But even black-belt geeks that desire privacy have a hard time figuring this stuff out. It's like the 32 page credit card agreement conundrum. Simple protection of the innocent demands safety for them. We're supposed to be the 'good guys'. Good guys help protect those that can't protect themselves, not leave them to the wolves. There is evil in such trickery.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[John Hasler]

> We can and do opt out. But even black-belt geeks that desire privacy have a
> hard time figuring this stuff out.

Why is it so hard to figure out that if you can't figure it out you shouldn't agree to it?

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[Miros]

It's not always that transparent. If you consider the network advertising initiative for example, you can quickly see a large number of advertising networks that track behavioral patterns based simply on embedded advertisements on pages that don't necessarily carry any obvious information about what types of behavioral tracking the user is being subjected to. Furthermore, you can't easily tell if a site employs these features before actually going to it. Sure, you can opt-out but that just sets a cookie. Clear your cookies, and you're opted back in.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[Miros]

That makes sense in an opt-in framework, but not in an opt-out framework.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[dcollins]

"Of course, you can exercise the one opt-out system that works - don't use their services. Nobody is holding a gun to your head. It is like buying a car, but not wanting to pay the price. The price of working with Google and Facebook is not dollars, but your data... Google's price/benefit is right for me, so I use it. Facebook's is not, so I don't."

So, basically a free-market argument. However, the free market only works based on an assumption of full information on behalf of all parties. So inasmuch as companies such as these withhold information, or obscure what they're doing, or drown the client in a deluge of fine print, many people will be kept ignorant of the true cost (whether in dollars or data or anything else).

This is enormously similar to how credit-card companies, EULA writers, shady mortgage lenders, etc., all operate. When free-market assumptions break down, the only remaining solution is organized political action.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[hsmith]

Free market works great without all the information as well, it is not a requirement for participation or for even the free market to work well - you simply don't do business with them if you don't have all the information or aren't comfortable with the transaction. *THAT* is the free market solution.

There is no need to create "political" action in the case of EULAs, Google, etc - you simply don't use their service - seeing as they "play games" with their terms as you describe it as.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[Miros]

There is no "Lemons" problem for online privacy and websites. Why do you suppose that is? Is it that most consumers just don't value their online privacy?

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[__aasqbs9791]

But then you tend to end up with the opposite problem: the nanny state. While I agree we can't go back to an Wild West society, we are pretty far to the opposite extreme now: Paralysis because there's so much regulation over everything. From patent minefields to government 'oversight' (that often doesn't work anyway, I'm looking at you Enron, AIG, and now BP) I'm not sure it's actually worth it anymore.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[__aasqbs9791]

You have a good point, but Facebook is opt-in, really. You don't have to use them. Google on the other hand is by default opt-out, since the site you go to may use it, and noscript and ghoster-type things aren't default controls yet.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[ceejayoz]

Of course, you can exercise the one opt-out system that works - don't use their services.

So... how am I going to find out if a site uses Google Analytics without going to it and checking the source?

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[TerranFury]

Why is it so hard to figure out that if you can't figure it out you shouldn't agree to it?

The same could be said of software EULAS, mobile phone contracts, or half a dozen other things...

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[JoshuaZ]

If you aren't on Facebook you can't keep track of friends putting up junk involving you. It is possible on Facebook to tag or make comments about people who are not members. Thus for example, say a friend takes a picture of a few people drunk and you are one of the people in the picture. The next day, if they put the picture up and tag people in it, you can untag yourself and drop them a note. If you aren't on Facebook, they could include your name and you won't know. This risk is especially severe for people around college age. And there are enough people around that one can't simply trust all of them not to be inconsiderate idiots. Thus, as long as lots of people are on Facebook, one has a direct incentive to stay there.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[postbigbang]

You're talking extremes instead of dimensions. Life is complicated, without a doubt. Diligence and tenacity are required, because we're really inventive. That inventiveness is the natural byproduct of curiosity. Consider that the Nobel prize is the guilt-gift of the man that invented dynamite.

Almost every day, new and sometimes onerous/insidious ways of manipulating information are conjured up. Some are really cool, and others are the death-by-a-thousand-cuts that privacy invasion has become. I'd err on the side of educating civilians, but also thwarting dominant 'players' ability to do evil things. It doesn't create a "nanny-state", rather, helps people understand, express, and have their boundaries abided by.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[dubbreak]

Yet civilians still need protection from things they don't understand.

So we should protect ICP from magnets?

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

To the people who mod this insightful. Go fuck yourself.

Are you saying that because I'm not a lawyer...because I was *only* reading at a 12th grade level at age 8...that I should:

    - not be able to purchase a car?
    - not be able to buy internet service?
    - never own a home?
    - have to spend days researching my new apartment complex to see which terms of the lease count, and which are merely unenforceable?
    - not even be able to *use* the average operating system, save a BSD licensed one? I'm sorry--The GPL contains terms of the art that require a subtle and nuanced understanding to even start to comprehend. Don't get me started on windows licensing agreements...
    - not be able to own phone service
    - not be able to participate meaningfully in social life because many services are only available with a credit card or bank account, each coming with their own 10-20 pages of small print which make liberal use of terms of the art.

No. That's a load of shit. In point of fact, 99% of the world probably outright *IGNORES* the legalese that occurs in day to day life. And if there was any justice--juries and judges would throw it out for exactly that reason. The reasonable, ethical, responsible expectation is the doctrine of first sale and nothing more. No loss of rights, no restrictions on what you can do with it, how or when.

And the same goes for marketers. Privacy information is provided in a complicated, convoluted manner to hide the plain and simple fact that their agreements amount to "once you give us the data, we can do what we damned well please with it, as long as it isn't illegal (and if the law changes, we will do it)"

Participating in society in a routine and typical basis should require no more legal comprehension than is typical. And if that means that I "have to understand" my cellphone agreement--it should be nullified and unenforceable.

The ridiculous attitude that "You don't have to do X, so I can ask for anything I damned well please for it, collude with others to ask for it, and no, you aren't free to compete because I have a revolving door patent agreement updated every year, but never filed--and I enjoy my monopoly agreements on service with local governments" needs to be set on fire and shot at a social level.

Not . It's not over till it's burned alive.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[blair1q]

It's not opt-in for those who were using it before the system was changed to collect their information without giving them the option to opt-out.

Facebook is a bunch of unthinking script-kiddies who implement feature requests without considering how the new feature affects anyone other than the requester.

I suspect this has cost Zuckerberg about $2 or $3 billion in marketable value for his website. He'll wipe the snot away and claim he doesn't care, but if losing $3 billion doesn't make him shit his pants, he's got a lot more to lose.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you don't need to use FB, but the problem is, you're arguing that "normal" folks, like my 72 year old father, should somehow understand that they don't understand Facebook and that that could somehow be bad for him. He doesn't really understand the workings of his modern car or his air conditioner; there's no reason to suspect these things of malfeasance and not use them. Arguing that the uninformed somehow be informed enough to know they are uninformed is actually Machiavellian, is it not?

It's like those schmucks who think you should be bound to any contract no matter how bad the terms, just because you signed it. Of course they are right on the face of it, but they are wrong in that something you signed as some dumb, 19 year old kid could be horribly bad for you by the time you're a bit older, to the point where it's nearly criminal and sometimes even disallowed by law (e.g. a lot of contracts you sign to enter the military are this abusive).

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Of course, you can exercise the one opt-out system that works - don't use their services.

Then you might as well not use most of the web. Do you know how many websites embed the google-analytics code? Hundreds of thousands of them. Basically any website that can't afford to role their own or contract out for a paid service will use google-analytics for user-traffic tracking.

So your answer is completely unfeasible in the real world.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[Jafafa Hots]

Exactly. We're in a nanny state, paralyzed with regulations. We need to get rid of useless regulations that help nobody and I know just the place to start.

Offshore oil rigs.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[TheStatsMan]

In other words, if you don't have a degree in corporate law, don't use a computer. Because no one understands the ramifications of EULAs, not even most lawyers I bet.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[__aasqbs9791]

It's not opt-in for those who were using it before the system was changed to collect their information without giving them the option to opt-out.

Okay, you got me there. When I managed a self storage location we could tell who the lawyers were. They were the only ones (well, high 90's%) who read the contracts we had people sign. That might seem odd, considering it was only 1 page of relatively fine print (it wasn't like signing a mortgage or anything) but most people assume that they wouldn't understand it even if they did read it. Many people fear (rightly IMHO) that legalese too often has specific meanings that you have to be a lawyer to actually understand the implications; that it doesn't mean what you'd think it means.

As far as what it's cost Zuckerberg, you'd have to balance the bad will generated (which is far worse among us geeks than 'normal' folk, and they greatly outnumber us on FB these days, I'm willing to bet) with what he can do with the additional data. I'd bet the balance is, or will be, quite a bit less than $2B in the end. I think it should be much more, but I don't think it will actually work out that way.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[blair1q]

What he was going to do with the additional data was also worth a lot more before he pissed off his users by selling their privacy without permission.

If he'd done it right, that's another couple $billion on top.

Again, if this stuff doesn't make him crap his pants, he never knew what he was doing in the first place, and will be easy to rape in a business deal.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[__aasqbs9791]

Well, the regulations sure didn't help much, did they? LOL

That's my point. Regulations don't seem to work against the big guys (due to corruption, enforcement difficulty, etc) and they keep the smaller guys from being able to even get started.

I'm definitely not one for saying we need to get rid of all regulation, but this idea that the government can possible protect us from everything just doesn't work. Even without considering the downsides (1984 scenarios for example) the simple fact is it can't succeed much of the time. Where's the sweet spot? If I knew, I sure wouldn't be posting here; I'd be trying to do something about it.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[John Hasler]

> The same could be said of software EULAS, mobile phone contracts, or half a
> dozen other things...

Yes. So what is your answer?

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[John Hasler]

> So... how am I going to find out if a site uses Google Analytics without
> going to it and checking the source?

Why would you need to when you have told NoScript to block Google?

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[Stan92057]

If i had friends that i had to worry about what they are posting junk about me,then they wouldn't be my friends for very long.Life's too short to waste it on morons

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[John Hasler]

> Do you know how many websites embed the google-analytics code?

I don't care. NoScript blocks Google Analytics for me.

> So your answer is completely unfeasible in the real world.

Works in the one I live in.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

So your answer is completely unfeasible in the real world.

Works in the one I live in.

Dude, why did you even respond? Your "works for me" has nothing to do with the "do not use their services" doctrine.
You are still using the services, you are just trying to block part of it that you don't like.

The thing about noscript, it doesn't block everything. Not even close. Nor does adblock or ghostery. Adblock blocks ads, not trackers. I wish someone would maintain a list of trackers for adblock, but AFAIK nobody does. I routinely see trackers (1x1 images, invisible gifs, embedded frames, etc) from facebook, twitter, paypal and hundreds of others that adblock does not block by default.

So congrats on blocking google-analytics, enjoy that false sense of security you've got going on, because that's all you've got.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[maxume]

You can buy a car on a handshake.

As for the rest of it, you are setting an awful high bar for 'understand'. Knowing the payment schedule for a mortgage is a big piece of that, knowing the expenses you will face if the bank forecloses is less important. And so on.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[Imrik]

If you can't understand the contract, you shouldn't be signing it. Either talk to someone who understands it and is on your side until you understand it, or don't sign it. If people stuck to that, you would be able to do all those things (without needing legal advice) because the sellers would have to simplify their contracts.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[maxume]

A fun way to look at it is that regulation created the monster that drilled the hole.

It's absolutely insane that people talk about freeing massive limited liability capital structures from government regulation. They owe their existence to government.

And I don't mean that as some sort of blanket anti-corporate screed, I just think that if government is going to relieve investors of liability, it needs to make sure that it is also simultaneously protecting the commons.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a nice platitude, but it doesn't address the problem.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[Stiletto]

Since we're talking about hypothetical "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts", let me throw one out:

Companies SHOULDN'T be writing contracts that they know their customers won't understand.

The street goes two ways.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[quickOnTheUptake]

This isn't a problem with facebook. This is a problem with digital cameras. If you don't want incriminating pictures of yourself on the internet don't do incriminating things, at least not in front of people with cameras whom you don't trust.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it so hard to figure out that if you can't figure it out you should opt-out of it?

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[JoshuaZ]

You don't always know when someone happens to have a camera and you don't realize it. The problem is that even if one wouldn't mind having a picture of one in that situation, the easy access of Facebook makes the situation much worse, especially when people who would be moral enough not to blackmail (i.e. most humans) are still inconsiderate enough to not realize that you don't want the picture of you up on their bloody public profile. It is thus easier to have fun and have the Facebook profile than have less fun and still incur some risk. Having the profile solves this much better than not having it.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[Requiem18th]

Sir you have reinstated my faith in humanity, I'm really appalled of the egoist, survivalist attitude of many posters as of late.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[kmoser]

Another option: cross out the fine print that you don't understand, or which is not in your favor. The seller can either accept your alterations, negotiate them on a case-by-case basis, or reject them entirely. But either way, you had more than a simple choice to "take it or leave it".

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[kheldan]

Bravo, sir, well put indeed, and I 100% agree. Too bad that those of us who really understand what's at stake, and what we can do about it, are a tiny minority amidst an ocean of empty-headed consumers parroting over and over again "I have nothing to hide, if you have something to hide then maybe you should stop doing it". It seems evident that the Internet will be remembered as something that was cool for about 5 minutes, before corporate America scooped it up and turned into more monetized worthless bullshit, like they do everything else. Good thing I have other hobbies now.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[advocate_one]

also helps to ensure that you get emailed every time you get tagged or whatever...

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[serviscope_minor]

- not even be able to *use* the average operating system, save a BSD licensed one? I'm sorry--The GPL contains terms of the art that require a subtle and nuanced understanding to even start to comprehend. Don't get me started on windows licensing agreements...

You don't have to agree to the GPL just to use the software, only if you want to distribute it.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

No script?

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Civilians do need protection; problem is we, as good guys, can't really force companies like face-book and goggle to give us our privacy standards - and the old mantra of "its your responsibility to manage your own privacy" while absolutely true and to be encouraged, tends to fall on deaf ears. But can we not play by their rules?

e.g. use the spyware model of small tools that add some value for the user to make them install, then silently disable tracking cookies / JavaScript in the background? (privacyWare?)

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[internewt]

Many people fear (rightly IMHO) that legalese too often has specific meanings that you have to be a lawyer to actually understand the implications; that it doesn't mean what you'd think it means.

And the customers are probably right. The company will have hired a lawyer to write the contract, and the contract will be designed to make sure that the writer's side will win in every possible situation.

I just go the other way, and as I won't read the contract, I know the staff won't check my signature either. So I write "duress", "do not agree", or "do not understand" in the signature box. It has never been noticed, and good luck if they want to hold me to that contract!

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[postbigbang]

It's an interesting thought. Firewall, privacy prophylactic, etc.

Or an anonymizer that doesn't improve the position of bad guys, child pornographers, etc.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the way you have to go back to age 8 to find an achievement worthy of mention.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[internewt]

NoScript blocks Google Analytics for me.

Only after you manually removed it from the whitelist, where it is by default, along with a bunch of other advertising domains!

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[Jedi Alec]

In the US you pretty much have to have a creditcard to build up credit rating in case you want a mortgage/car loan further down the road. Getting a CC means getting a 32 page legal document detailing every possible way the bank is going to assrape you.

Some products go beyond the free market because you *have* to get them. Food. Shelter. TV/internet. That's where regulation comes in.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[yyxx]

Well, so you sign up and don't put up any personal information other than your name and E-mail. What's the big deal?

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[r_jensen11]

If you aren't on Facebook you can't keep track of friends putting up junk involving you. It is possible on Facebook to tag or make comments about people who are not members.

And if you're on Facebook, there's nothing stopping somebody from tagging you in a picture, but just not linking that tag to your profile or posting incriminating things on their/other peoples' walls.

Of course, there's also nothing stopping people from doing the exact same things on their own websites/blogs/books/magazines/any other type of media.

However, by not joining Facebook, you are not providing that company with information in an organizable fashion. Sure, somebody can post your email address or phone number on a wall, but unless I'm mistaken (which is entirely possible given FB's policies) that data in the wall posting won't be translated to FB's phone number or email address data tables (which then are easily sold to marketers or anyone else wanting that information.)

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[AmiMoJo]

Try opting out of Google and all other search engines which collect your personal data. Try opting out of all the free privacy invading email providers (including your ISP, mine uses gMail anyway now). Try being out of the social loop by refusing to ever use Facebook. Try not having a mobile phone or land line (they collect the numbers you dial, length of call etc.)

It's not impossible but it's hard. That is why the EU considers internet access as a basic requirement in the same way as water and electricity. Sure, you could try to live without those things but your life would be miserable. Like it or not internet to an important part of modern life so just saying "don't use it" is not really an option for most people.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, let's throw some shouldn't and shouldn'ts into the mix, but then let's look at the consequences of people doing or failing to do what they should.

You shouldn't sign a contract you don't understand. If you do what you should, you don't sign the contract, and then nothing bad happens. If you don't do what you should, something bad may happen to you. Do what you should: you win. Do what you shouldn't: you lose.

Self-enforcing. Feeds back. Only requires ethics.

You shouldn't write contracts that the other person won't understand. If you do what you should, the other person understands and signs the contract. If you do what you shouldn't, the other person doesn't understand but signs the contract anyway. Do what you should: you win. Do what you shouldn't: you win.

Not self-enforcing, and doesn't feed back. Ethics isn't enough. Requires morality.

See why your hypothetical "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" isn't in the same league as the guy's whom you replied to?

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[mcgrew]

you don't want incriminating pictures of yourself on the internet don't do incriminating things, at least not in front of people with cameras whom you don't trust.

There's a camera in almost every phone. So in other words, stay in your basement? Sorry, I like to drink and I like to socialize, that means bars -- and everybody there has a phone.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

So... how am I going to find out if a site uses Google Analytics without going to it and checking the source?

That question doesn't even make sense, because sites don't use Google Analytics; user-agents do. The decision is made when a web page contains a purely advisory script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js", and the user-agent decides to download that script, and also to execute it. (And that's a pretty radical thing now that you think of it, isn't it? Users are bending over backwards to opt-in to Google.)

How do you decide whether or not to do that, without checking the "source?" You've already decided: either you have whitelisted google-analytics.com or not. Or you've told your user-agent to execute scripts stored on servers other than where the page is hosted, or you've told it not to.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[quickOnTheUptake]

That's fine. But the point is that if you wander out of your basement and get trashed, you have to be ready to accept the possibility that on Monday morning all of your coworkers are going to have a picture of you dancing in your underwear in their inbox.
This isn't a problem with FB per se; the problem is that, as you pointed out, everyone has a camera phone, and with the internet as it is, there are a million free and easy ways to make those pictures available to anyone who knows how to use google. In this respect FB is no worse (in fact it is in some ways better) than a blog or photobucket.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[naplam33]

He isn't talking about you, clever guy. It's a fact that the average user will be tricked into choosing poorly or not at all, and that's their intention. The thing is they're not playing fair. The price tag is not hanging there for you to see, rather, it's concealed and kept away from you so you can't really know what you're actually giving up in payment.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[cayenne8]

"Well, so you sign up and don't put up any personal information other than your name and E-mail. What's the big deal?"

Is there a good way to sign up to be pretty much completely untraceable?

Been a long time since I tried setting up an anonymous 'nym' email account...guess I could figure how to do that again, and then use it to register, but use a public wifi or library computer so that the IP address wouldn't be traceable?

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[BranMan]

- not even be able to *use* the average operating system, save a BSD licensed one? I'm sorry--The GPL contains terms of the art that require a subtle and nuanced understanding to even start to comprehend. Don't get me started on windows licensing agreements...

You don't have to agree to the GPL just to use the software, only if you want to distribute it.

And if you want to give a friend a copy, and just hand yours to him and say "here you go" - you're fine too. I've read the GPL and (latest versions possibly exempted) there isn't a drop of legalese in it.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

That would only be viable in a non-free market. Since the market is free, each company can operate how it chooses. You also have the choice to not do business with that company. Just because this stuff is "on the computer" doesn't make it any different than it was before computers. Oh, and the free market does offer you a solution, but you were too busy whinning and complaining to notice.

Re:Machiavellis indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

"Of course, you can exercise the one opt-out system that works - don't use their services."

The notion of market self-regulation is an illusion in a globalist monopoly capitalism.

Google Analytics

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a reason I have NoScript blocking Google Analytics.

Noscript

[Anonymous Coward]

Noscript stopped Google Analytics a long time ago!

Re:Noscript

[Hurricane78]

AdBlock plus too. But it is no either/or switch. It just filters out the crap.

Re:Noscript

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it doesn't stop it 100% (I don't think). I've been using RequestPolicy in conjunction with NoScript, and it seems to add a finer filter against the scripts. You might be amazed/discouraged to see what RequestPolicy catches that NoScript doesn't.

Re:Noscript

[r_jensen11]

Um, no it doesn't. The links you click through can still carry information which uniquely identify your session. This information is captured by the servers, processed, and provided back to Google.

Privacy paranoia

[mangu]

Paranoids are people who think they are much more important than they really are.

I have no fear of my privacy being violated by Google because I don't see any reason why someone should be particularly interested about me. In Google's eyes I'm just a statistic. My personal data is no more important to anyone than the data about millions of other consumers.

I'm safe in the numbers, just like I'm anonymous when walking down a busy street. everyone can see me, but nobody cares.

Re:Privacy paranoia

[gurps_npc]

People are not filming and recording you walk down the street (at least not all controlled by a single company, not in america). All the information in one place makes it easy to abuse. If you do a search you can easily find tales of IRS agents abusing their authority to look up info on celebrities, political candidates, and even their ex-wives. When you record, then people can use it later and yes they can eliminate the anonymousity later. But there are already addons like Noscript and Ghostery to stop Google from getting quite so thorough a record of you. Of course, chances are your ISP will still have a good record, but at least it is not one single company controlling all that privacy for everyone. Which severely limits the abuse potential

Re:Privacy paranoia

[Knara]

There's some truth to this.

Re:Privacy paranoia

[Miros]

But with sites like Facebook it's a little bit different. If someone out there is looking for information about you, and facebook is happy to provide it to them through some new privacy option that you didn't change the default on, then you're not really protected by a veil of obscurity.

Re:Privacy paranoia

[kent_eh]

While I was de-lousing a computer for a friend, he said he didn't need a firewall " 'cause there isn't anything on his computer worth a hacker taking the effort to steal."
Then I went into my long winded explanation about botnets, spammers and other internet headaches.
He still didn't think that his 'lil ol' computer was important enough to anyone else to be at risk.
At which point my consulting fees increased by many more beers.

Re:Privacy paranoia

[Gorkamecha]

Then maybe you shouldn't have given that information to Facebook.

I don't understand why people trust things that are important to them to total strangers, and then freak out when the stranger does something they didn't see coming. Would you hand your wallet to a stranger, while you ran into the bathroom?

Re:Privacy paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

Paranoids are people who think they are much more important than they really are.

And idiots are people who think "paranoid" means "more concerned about privacy than I am".

Re:Privacy paranoia

[Spad]

It's not so true any more; technology is making it increasingly easy to access all of this information and make use of it without human intervention. It used to be that most people didn't have to worry about being targeted by a phishing attack or tailored malware for exactly the reasons you state, but these days it can all be automated; I get targeted email scams directed at my domain on a regular basis and there's nothing overtly of value to be had from it (that they couldn't obtain just as easily from any other random person, I mean).

You may not think that anyone cares about you in particular, but they don't really need to if they can get their software to do all the legwork and flag up anything about you that's of interest to them.

Re:Privacy paranoia

[clarkkent09]

I'm safe in the numbers, just like I'm anonymous when walking down a busy street. everyone can see me, but nobody cares.

Nobody cares until somebody has a reason to care. Say your future employer, or your insurance company, or your opponent's lawyers in a future lawsuit, or your spouse in divorce proceedings, or any malicious person who is trying to find any damaging information about you etc etc. To take it to the extreme, are you really comfortable with the idea of every detail of your life being recorded and permanently stored and made accessible to anybody who wants it, for any purpose, just because nobody has any interest to look at it right now?

Re:Privacy paranoia

[Miros]

Oh, agreed completely. I don't know why people provide so much potentially damaging personal information to social networking sites myself. My point was focused exclusively at the hiding in the crowd argument provided by the parent.

Re:Privacy paranoia

[e9th]

Unless you consider "the government" to be a single company.

Re:Privacy paranoia

[Miros]

Fortunately they are poorly organized

Re:Privacy paranoia

[mangu]

If you do a search you can easily find tales of IRS agents abusing their authority to look up info on celebrities, political candidates, and even their ex-wives

Abuse of authority is wrong, no matter which method is used, but if the data is obtained legally I have nothing against that. If the IRS agents are doing their job, good for them! The more cheaters they catch, the less taxes we will have to pay.

I have nothing against law enforcement using technology, what I don't like are absurd regulations. It's OK to have traffic cameras, and if those cameras are used to catch stolen cars then it's even better. What I don't approve is using unreasonable speed limits, unnecessary stop signs, and short yellow light times to issue more traffic tickets. But then it's the regulation that's unfair, not the method used to catch the violators, it would be the same thing if no camera is used and a cop is waiting behind a bush.

One should realize that there's no reason to expect privacy when you are in public. There was a famous case years ago when a National Enquirer journalist carried Henry Kissinger's trash away and published what he found there. According to the State Department, Kissinger was "really revolted". But why should he expect privacy about something he left on the sidewalk for other people to carry away?

The big difference between me and Kissinger is that the contents of my trash will not help the National Enquirer to sell more papers, but I'm aware that everything I throw away could be used against me. That's why I shred all my bank and credit card receipts and other financial documents before throwing them away. But I don't care if Google collects data about my searches, I feel it's like someone going through my garbage to see what kind of food I eat.

Now, if someone is stalking me, let's say an IRS agent has a personal reason to incriminate me, then that's illegal, period, no matter how he does it. He could go through my Google searches looking for the Ferrari dealers I searched, or he could go through my trash can looking for the $4500 wine bottle I threw away.

It's like the gun nuts say, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Websites don't spy on people, people spy on people.

Re:Privacy paranoia

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

If the IRS agents are doing their job, good for them! The more cheaters they catch, the less taxes we will have to pay.

Do you honestly believe this?

Re:Privacy paranoia

[mangu]

I was really thinking about Google, not Facebook. I opted out of Facebook from the beginning.

Re:Privacy paranoia

[kindbud]

All the information in one place makes it easy to abuse.

All the information in one place also makes it easier for me to use, no matter where I am or what device I have. So there.

If you do a search you can easily find tales of IRS agents abusing their authority to look up info on celebrities, political candidates, and even their ex-wives.

I do it, too. You can as well. You don't need an IRS agent's authority, either. That info is already out there, whether you're on FB or Google or not, and it's way more personal than anything Google collects.

Re:Privacy paranoia

[paulgrant]

Your stupidity doesn't excuse the practice.

Re:Privacy paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

Paranoids are people who think they are much more important than they really are.

I have no fear of my privacy being violated by Google because I don't see any reason why someone should be particularly interested about me. In Google's eyes I'm just a statistic.

I have no problem with Google or Facebook. It's when they start sharing things that I previously marked "between me, my friends, and Facebook (only for targeted ads)" that there is a problem. Other people that don't matter who do think that _I_ matter (too much) could find out bad things about me. Remember, Navin Johnson thought it was great that he was "Somebody Now!" I'll bet Sarah Conner started requesting an unlisted number too.

Re:Privacy paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't consider it paranoia, I consider it self respect.

I know I have nothing to fear from giving up my privacy to Google and Facebook and all the little spam-pushing, fly-by-night companies that put cookies and hidden pixels and scripts onto the pages I randomly wander into. All they're trying to do is gain a slight edge in the advertising biz.

But I don't see why I should help them. And if websites can't afford to keep going without helping these companies study my behaviour like some lab rat, then they should shut down because I'm old enough to remember what the Internet was like before the ad men took over and I'm not about to put up with that kind of crap.

Re:Privacy paranoia

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Fortunately they are poorly organized.

Poor organization has been the one effective deterrent against wholesale invasion of privacy by the government and corporate america.

Now that computers are making organization so much easier and, in many cases, automatic we need something more formal. I vote for enforced disorganization. That's kind of what much of the EU has - highly restricting the creation and maintenance of databases of personal information even giving right to informational self-determinism the force of law.

Re:Privacy paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

Today you do not have to be important. You just have to be an legal entity, someone I can use as an ID. Tie enough of those pieces of information you do not think are important and your password reset questions are easy to answer. You also don't have to be important in a global sense, just important enough to one person. You are also thinking of yourself today, the problem is the web does not have a delete button, a statute of limitations. How will that picture, posting, video, purchase, search term you use today look tomorrow, next week, year, or decade?

We have all done something stupid at some point in our lives, that we would rather forget about, or have long ago been forgiven for, that in the past would have been known by a few associates, the immediate witnesses but now that one event can be index, cross referenced and cataloged.

The other issue with the way a lot of this information is tracked is there is no context. For example you do a term paper on racism, you fire off terms like eno-Nazi, fascism, white supremacy, KKK into a google search, repeatedly over a period of weeks, you have no control of the interpretation of this information or when it is going to be used.

You are not really that private in that large mass as you may think, each piece of information there is helps narrow the size of the group, be gender, zipcode, IP address etc......

Re:Privacy paranoia

[Stan92057]

Well just because you don't take your privacy seriously,don't expect everyone else not to,or expect them to think like you. There are billion who do care about our privacy no matter how trivial it might be to others.

Re:Privacy paranoia

[_Sprocket_]

I have no fear of my privacy being violated by Google because I don't see any reason why someone should be particularly interested about me. In Google's eyes I'm just a statistic. My personal data is no more important to anyone than the data about millions of other consumers.

If your information has no value - why is it being stored?

I'm safe in the numbers, just like I'm anonymous when walking down a busy street. everyone can see me, but nobody cares.

At one point, storage was expensive so one had to be somewhat selective in what information is kept; the vast majority was discarded. But we are now getting to a point that storage is so cheap that the threshold of value for any given piece of information is likely low enough to warrent saving anything that can be collected. But collecting information is only part of it. At one point, massive amounts of information would pose it's own problem - how to process it. There was safety in numbers - numerical anonymity. However, we are also at a point where processing power is so cheap that we can effectively chew through massive amounts of information and pull out interesting information that was either recorded or gleaned from patterns in what was recorded. In fact, in many cases, the more information you have to work with, the better. You may not be very interesting to anyone right now. But that doesn't mean you'll never be interesting to anyone ever. At that point, your recorded history will rise above the level of background noise and present itself as part of a valuable service.

You believe you are anonymous as you walk down the crowded street. But that is simply because most of us lack the resources to make use of what you're presenting to the public. A trained professional can determine various things based on your appearance. An informed individual can identify you by your face. A well-placed observer can track your behavior and piece together additional information on those patterns. Your anonymous persona slowly unravels and we have the beginnings of a movie script.

Of course, the physical world is (currently) hard to work with in this context. Yet it is often given this sort of treatment. Look up the US military's concept of Essential Elements of Friendly Information (and bask in the Cold War aura). Meanwhile, the digital world we interact with is created on information systems designed to do these very things with the data that we present to it.

Re:Privacy paranoia

[Hurricane78]

What an idiotic logic. There in so “why you?”. It’s completely irrelevant. They don’t think why you. They simply index and analyze EVERYTHING. And yes, your personal life is important, since that is what marketing is interested in.

It’s not that your personal data is more interesting. It is that ALL personal data is more interesting. From everyone. At the same time!

You are not safe in numbers, since this is software that does not have to choose one fish in the swarm. It chooses them ALL.
Nobody on the street cares, because there is only so much a human can care about at the same time.
But a program can care about everything and everyone. At. the. same. time.

Re:Privacy paranoia

[mrsurb]

Just today in Australia it has been reported that a bank's staff has been spying on its customers through a fake Facebook profile.

Re:Privacy paranoia

[internewt]

Paranoids are people who think they are much more important than they really are.

There is a phrase along the lines of "never argue with an idiot, because they will drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience".

I shall not take you up on your assertion about paranoia, because it is impossible to argue against that accusation: If someone denies they are paranoid, that just proves to you that they are paranoid. Or they agree with your accusation, and due to how paranoia accusations are phrased, it will mean agreeing with the rest of the accuser's point of view.

I have no fear of my privacy being violated by Google because I don't see any reason why someone should be particularly interested about me.

My fear of Google is that other people who don't care about, or don't get, privacy will give away my privacy with theirs.

Google are particularly interested in you because you have money, and they want it. That is the reason they are interested in you.

In Google's eyes I'm just a statistic. My personal data is no more important to anyone than the data about millions of other consumers.

Yes you are just a statistic, and no more important to Google than the rest of the stats. But those stats are what underpins their business, so they are massively important to Google.

They use data on you, and others, to drive adverts that are designed using the teachings of psychologists to manipulate your thought processes without you noticing what they are doing.

And it works, as you seem to think Google's activities are benign.

I'm safe in the numbers, just like I'm anonymous when walking down a busy street. everyone can see me, but nobody cares.

Ahh, you actually don't get it. You have come up with an analogy (which you do comprehend), think it matches the complex and abstract world of computing, and assume you understand.

Google's tracking is like you are walking down a busy street, it's just that 80% of the slabs on the ground can uniquely identify you, and will log your footsteps to the second. And so do most premesis you enter. And if you speak to anyone else on that street, there's a good chance Google will know about it.

If you haven't realised, what makes computers (and machines) so damn useful is that they are able to do jobs too tedious and repetitive for a human being to be able to do, and do reliably. Anonymity, as a person in a crowd, is possible from a human observer. But when it is your machine in a crowd of machines, being watched by machines, things are different.

And us "paranoid" privacy bores don't appreciate it when people fail to understand, and give away their privacy. It puts expectations on all others to give up privacy, and you are giving away everyone's bargaining chip with businesses.

It's like doing overtime at work for nothing. Your peers will soon come to resent you if you do that too much, or too frequently, because it raises the expectations of the employer.

Re:Privacy paranoia

[yyxx]

Nobody cares until somebody has a reason to care. Say your future employer, or your insurance company, or your opponent's lawyers in a future lawsuit, or your spouse in divorce proceedings, or any malicious person who is trying to find any damaging information about you etc etc

And they get Google's data... how? Where is the web page where people can buy Google data on other people?

Google can collect this data, they can use it for marketing, but they can't sell most of it. If there is anything they can sell, we can make that illegal too.

And they can't and don't retain the data forever either unless you ask them to.

Objective?

[WrongSizeGlass]

Hoofnagle heads the privacy foundation set up with money collected from settlements of privacy lawsuits against Facebook.

Hoofnagle is clearly objective /sarcasm ... not that Facebook isn't evil, or that Google isn't building up one of the biggest data collections humankind will ever encounter ... but he is employed by a company that pays it's bills because of suing Facebook.

Too Many? Seriously?

[eldavojohn]

Facebook can proudly proclaim that it offers ... more than 100 [choices]. Therein lies the trick; by offering too many choices, individuals are likely to choose poorly, or not at all.

First it's not enough privacy options. Now it's too many privacy options. Tomorrow when they get the unspoken mythical number correct, we'll bitch about the default settings. Then someone will come on Slashdot and say that his Linux servers were rooted and we'll say that it's because all the idiots of the world use out of the box settings and don't change the default passwords. Granted, your average facebooker shouldn't have to have the wherewithal to set up a Linux server but I think this Google/Facebook privacy complaining thing is getting a little old. Especially when both named parties are suddenly doing quite a bit to make users happy now that it's becoming important to consumers. To complain that they give us too many options now is just ... just ...

Sherry Bobbins: Would you like some pepper on your food, Bart?
Bart Simpson: Sure ... little more ... little more ... little more ... too much, take it back.

Sounds familiar...

[Nematode]

An illusory opt-out system . . . Therein lies the trick; by offering too many choices, individuals are likely to choose poorly, or not at all.

So....is Facebook a better metaphor for capitalism or democracy?

Re:Sounds familiar...

[bsDaemon]

In corporate America, democracy means capitalism?

Re:Sounds familiar...

[Bill Dog]

In corporate America, democracy capitalizes YOU!

(Had to do it. :)

Stop tracking by Google Analytics!

[Anonymous Coward]

Install our addon that tracks your browsing habits instead!

Re:Stop tracking by Google Analytics!

[Bill Dog]

Exactly. Nothing says "logical" like trusting a company to protect you from a company you don't trust, when it's the same company!

Re:Stop tracking by Google Analytics!

[yuhong]

Evidence, please!

What's wrong with NoScript ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't RTFA but what does this addon do that blocking Google Analytics with NoScript doesn't ?

Behind the curve

[T Murphy]

Google has just released a tool that could alleviate some of the above worries: it stops tracking by Google Analytics

Sounds great, I've always wanted a way to block that "google-analytics" I keep seeing on my NoScript blocked list.

I can't complain much though- there's an important difference between going to a third party (NoScript) to block Google, and Google offering a solution themselves.

Re:Behind the curve

[John Hasler]

> I can't complain much though- there's an important difference between going
> to a third party (NoScript) to block Google, and Google offering a solution
> themselves.

Yes. You can rely on NoScript.

Re:Behind the curve

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds great, I've always wanted a way to block that "google-analytics" I keep seeing on my NoScript blocked list.

For those that don't use NoScript (and didn't get the lame humor), how about putting google-analytics.com in your hosts file?

Machiavellian == unjust slander

[handy_vandal]

The term "machiavellian" is a cruel and unjust slander.

Niccolò Machiavelli was a profoundly moral man, well acquainted with -- and appalled by -- the amoral power politics of his age. When he wrote that a Prince should prefer to be feared, rather than loved, Machiavelli was not advancing a personal ideal: he was simply reporting how Princes actually behave in the real world.

Re:Machiavellian == unjust slander

[bsDaemon]

The Prince is great satire. The problem with Machiavelli, however, is that he was somewhat less subtle with his intentions than Johnathan Swift was in 'A Modest Proposal'. No one thinks that Swift was true advocating cannibalism and murder as a 'solution' to the Irish question, yet Machiavelli seems to have accidentally become more closely tied to the concepts of Fascism than Mussolini or Giovanni Gentile (the co-author of The Doctrine of Fascism which laid out the principles of the Italian variety). Poor guy.... its not fair people are too stupid to get things.

Re:Machiavellian == unjust slander

[phantomfive]

Let this be a lesson to all those who fear the opinion of history: don't write a book advocating a position that is not yours if you don't want to be remembered for holding that position.

Re:Machiavellian == unjust slander

[fang2415]

Then he would no doubt be proud that simply mentioning his name now makes so clear the moral violations to which he wanted to draw attention.

Re:Machiavellian == unjust slander

[handy_vandal]

Maybe so.

He paid a high price for his legacy: when he fell from favor, he was tortured and then spent years imprisoned in a dungeon.

Re:Machiavellian == unjust slander

[Anonymous Coward]

This seems like I'm being picky, but there's an important difference. Slander is spoken. Since this was an written article, the word you need to use is libel.

Ghostery

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox add on's, search for Ghostery.

If you don't like it...

[WillyWanker]

If you don't like the way Google handles privacy DON'T USE IT.

If you don't like the way Facebook handles privacy DON'T USE IT.

These companies provide valuable services for free, in exchange for tracking data that allows them to make money. There is no free ride. If you don't like the terms, don't use the service. It's that simple.

Re:If you don't like it...

[Miros]

Simple perhaps, but is it actually a practical suggestion? Do you have a list of every website that partners with any behavioral tracking / targeted advertising providers? That could be a handy list for some kind of a browser extension that would say "Woah there! You're about to opt-in to web based behavioral tracking! Would you like to continue?" Of course, as an alternative, someone could just use something like NoScript or AdBlock, but then you would probably object to that as "stealing." Suggestions?

Re:If you don't like it...

[Anonymous Coward]

When Google literally drives down private streets to photograph people's houses -- how do you hide from them?

Ted Kaczynski may have been a murderous thug, but maybe he wasn't crazy.

Re:If you don't like it...

[WillyWanker]

If you're someone who is so paranoid about your privacy I'm betting your going to do your homework. Me, I don't care in the least. If someone really wants to snoop around in my browsing habits they're not going to find anything of value.

Let's face, 99.9% of us simply aren't that interesting.

Re:If you don't like it...

[Miros]

So you're admitting that it's impractical and suggesting apathy as a solution?

Re:If you don't like it...

[Miros]

Ski-masks, but you have to be careful, people may assume that you're up to no good protecting your identity like that.

If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

-- Eric Schmidt. CEO, Google Inc.

Re:If you don't like it...

[WillyWanker]

Not at all. I'm just saying this is the way these companies make money. They have a right to do that, and if you don't like the "invasion of your privacy" then you shouldn't use them. It would be like complaining about how TV wastes your valuable time and ruins the viewing experience by showing advertising.

Use a proxy so your IP address can't be traced. Run your browser in a sandbox or some other "privacy" mode. I dunno, I'm certainly no expert because I don't care. It's not apathy. It's a lack of concern.

Re:If you don't like it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but the "if you don't like it don't use it" idea is just ignorant of reality.

A huge share (if not 100%) of the websites you visit embed Google Analytics or some other tracker, and they don't notify you much less ask for your permission. You never even get to make the choice not to be tracked. And technical jiujitsu like this FF addon only half-@ss solves the problem some of the time.

Oh, and the "I don't care if I'm tracked so you shouldn't care either" argument is even sadder.

Re:If you don't like it...

[Miros]

I don't care. It's not apathy. It's a lack of concern.

That is apathy last time I checked. ;) But no, more seriously, I agree with you but you're making a flippant suggestion as though it is a decision that people could make freely and easily. That just may not be the case! It's like suggesting that you don't have to be recorded on surveillance cameras if you simply avoid places where the cameras are installed. It makes sense, but only on the surface. When you dig deeper you quickly realize that you don't know where the cameras are to avoid them, and can't easily discover them without exposing yourself.

Re:If you don't like it...

[WillyWanker]

Yet what else is one to do? You either accept the reality that your usage will be tracked in one form or another or you spend a lot of time and energy fighting a losing battle to prevent it. What other options are there?

And about your surveillance cameras analogy. It's very accurate. So what's the answer? The cameras aren't going away. Their use as a measure of public safety greatly outweighs any minor invasion of privacy they might pose. So what is a tinfoil hat wearing, batshit crazy loon supposed to do when they don't want to be seen entering the local WalMart? It's a pickle, I'll give you that.

Re:If you don't like it...

[Anonymous Coward]

that is the very definition of apathy, though. You don't care until something happens to you, and then no one else cares

Re:If you don't like it...

[snowwrestler]

Google drives down public streets to photograph people's houses. I'm all for privacy protection, but what Google does is what any stranger has been able to do for about a hundred years: take a picture of the street. The alternative is to give police the power to accost anyone with a camera on a public street. Personally I would prefer a world in which I have freedom to take pictures in public places.

Protect your privacy

[tpstigers]

If you really want to protect your privacy, there's only one way to achieve it. Don't type anything into a computer (or a smart phone). Ever. Especially a computer that's connected.

Otherwise, just give up on this mythical creature called 'Privacy'.

Re:Protect your privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

If you really want to protect your privacy, there's only one way to achieve it. Don't type anything into a computer (or a smart phone). Ever. Especially a computer that's connected.

Otherwise, just give up on this mythical creature called 'Privacy'.

Fuck you very much.

Re:Protect your privacy

[OrwellianLurker]

IS THAT YOU ZUCK?

Re:Protect your privacy

[tpstigers]

I know - you're the kind of douchebag that thinks someone else should protect your privacy for you. God forbid you should have to put any effort into your own protection. In fact, you can walk through the mall bare-ass naked, and we'll all promise to turn around and look away - just to protect your privacy. We wouldn't want you to have to wear clothes or anything.

Re:Protect your privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

I do if they said they would protect my privacy. Or unilaterally change the terms of the agreement retroactively. Allowing an opt out does not fix it. "Yes those changing room videos are now public. But you can opt out! Simply send us a notarized letter with the a copy of your birth certificate, the signatures of your mother, father and attending doctor and we will promptly re-hide it. Hurry before one of our partners decides they could make money with a 'Best of' anthology."

Given Zuck's previous business decisions I have my doubts if they even respect your attempts to protect yourself by deleting items when you ask - or simply hide it in their databases for their own potential personal use later. Thats certainly the methodology of a 'normal' account closure.

Re:Protect your privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

If you really want to protect your privacy, there's only one way to achieve it. Don't type anything into a computer (or a smart phone). Ever. Especially a computer that's connected.

Otherwise, just give up on this mythical creature called 'Privacy'.

False dichotomies are lies.

Google and Facebook -- I cancelled one of them

[Anonymous Coward]

http://wards-online.com/deleting-my-fb-account/
http://wards-online.com/apple-versus-google-megaliths-and-meagerliths/

But how do I get rid of the other. It is tracking my every move :-(

Better Solution

[Shadowhawk]

Use the NoScript add-on and mark google-analytics.com as Untrusted. Simple and done. Also works for any other tracking system that uses JavaScript.

Re:Better Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Some sites, like Slashdot, also track using an image in a noscript tag. See "scorecardresearch.com" in the source of this page.

Re:Better Solution

[al0ha]

Not quite a complete solution, NoScript in itself is incapable of blocking sites you desire blocked 100% of the time.

You also need the RequestPolicy add-on. Give it a try on /. and you will see what I mean.

Re:Better Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless of course you are being tracked by your browsers fingerprint. Which can contain all sorts of information, like your screen res, os, fonts installed, browser version, addons installed, etc. This information can often be enough to fingerprint individuals regardless of javascript or cookie settings.

Instead of Privacy Machiavellis...

[N0Man74]

Instead of Privacy Machiavellis, we should have Privacy Goldilocks instead.

"This privacy options set is too big! This privacy options set is too small! This privacy options set is juuuuust right!"

Nothing to protect - move along

[abbynormal brain]

Why not just post what you don't care about loosing and lie about everything else? On many social sites, I'm 60, 70, or more years old; I live in different cities, and ... yes ... I even lie about the music I like and why I'm on the site. I could give two shits about loosing my Facebook, MySpace, HI5, etc. My friends know it's all BS - but the main purpose is served - we communicate and share.

It's like what I learned about lending money: Only lend out as much as you can afford never to get back.

I don't know - maybe I'm missing the point (and I think I'm lucky that I'm not in a position to care)

host blocking

[ya really]

I've been adding the following to my desktop computer host files for over a year to block google's tracking:

127.0.0.1 partner.googleadservices.com
127.0.0.1 google-analytics.com
127.0.0.1 ssl.google-analytics.com
127.0.0.1 googleadservices.com
127.0.0.1 googlesyndication.com
127.0.0.1 pagead2.googlesyndication.com
127.0.0.1 www.google-analytics.com
127.0.0.1 video-stats.video.google.com
127.0.0.1 wintricksbanner.googlepages.com
127.0.0.1 www-google-analytics.l.google.com

I trust that solution more than I do google's opt-out bs. If you want to get fancy, you can direct a lightweight web server like lighttpd to 404 the adservers to load your pages a bit faster (instead of letting them time out) and to keep logs of what adservers are trying to load.

Re:host blocking

[Ross Finlayson]

Don't just stop at Google. Add the following to your hosts (e.g., /etc/hosts) file to stymie all sorts of mysterious 3rd-party tracking and advertising services:

127.0.0.1 207.net
127.0.0.1 2o7.net
127.0.0.1 247realmedia.com
127.0.0.1 33across.com
127.0.0.1 3dstats.com
127.0.0.1 abmr.net
127.0.0.1 adbrite.com
127.0.0.1 adbuyer.com
127.0.0.1 ads.addesktop.com
127.0.0.1 addthis.com
127.0.0.1 adn.fusionads.net
127.0.0.1 adnxs.com
127.0.0.1 adparlor.com
127.0.0.1 adrevolver.com
127.0.0.1 media.adrevolver.com
127.0.0.1 adsonar.com
127.0.0.1 atdmt.com
127.0.0.1 amgdgt.com
127.0.0.1 adserver.adtechus.com
127.0.0.1 advertising.com
127.0.0.1 uac.advertising.com
127.0.0.1 afy11.net
127.0.0.1 aggregateknowledge.com
127.0.0.1 bluelithium.com
127.0.0.1 ads.bluelithium.com
127.0.0.1 bluekai.com
127.0.0.1 burstnet.com
127.0.0.1 casalemedia.com
127.0.0.1 ping.chartbeat.net
127.0.0.1 clearspring.com
127.0.0.1 a.clickclicknetwork.com
127.0.0.1 a.collective-media.net
127.0.0.1 collective-media.net
127.0.0.1 contextweb.com
127.0.0.1 data.coremetrics.com
127.0.0.1 crwdcntrl.net
127.0.0.1 doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 n4403ad.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 pubads.g.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 dotomi.com
127.0.0.1 eyewonder.com
127.0.0.1 fastclick.net
127.0.0.1 www-google-analytics.l.google.com
127.0.0.1 video-stats.video.google.com
127.0.0.1 google-analytics.com
127.0.0.1 ssl.google-analytics.com
127.0.0.1 www.google-analytics.com
127.0.0.1 googleadservices.com
127.0.0.1 partner.googleadservices.com
127.0.0.1 wintricksbanner.googlepages.com
127.0.0.1 googlesyndication.com
127.0.0.1 pagead2.googlesyndication.com

Re:host blocking

[Ross Finlayson]

Here's more:
127.0.0.1 hitbox.com
127.0.0.1 imiclk.com
127.0.0.1 imrworldwide.com
127.0.0.1 optimize.indieclick.com
127.0.0.1 insightexpressai.com
127.0.0.1 invitemedia.com
127.0.0.1 i.ixnp.com
127.0.0.1 kona.kontera.com
127.0.0.1 media6degrees.com
127.0.0.1 mediaplex.com
127.0.0.1 a.netmng.com
127.0.0.1 overture.com
127.0.0.1 pointroll.com
127.0.0.1 pubmatic.com
127.0.0.1 questionmarket.com
127.0.0.1 quantserv.com
127.0.0.1 edge.quantserv.com
127.0.0.1 pixel.quantserv.com
127.0.0.1 revsci.net
127.0.0.1 tap-cdn.rubiconproject.com
127.0.0.1 rubiconproject.com
127.0.0.1 b.scorecardresearch.com
127.0.0.1 scorecardresearch.com
127.0.0.1 serving-sys.com
127.0.0.1 sitemeter.com
127.0.0.1 specificclick.net
127.0.0.1 specificmedia.com
127.0.0.1 statcounter.com
127.0.0.1 tacoda.net
127.0.0.1 trafficmp.com
127.0.0.1 tribalfusion.com
127.0.0.1 w1.tcr62.tynt.com
127.0.0.1 w1.tcr70.tynt.com
127.0.0.1 w1.tcr112.tynt.com
127.0.0.1 undertone.com
127.0.0.1 ads.undertone.com
127.0.0.1 voicefive.com
127.0.0.1 ox-ads.widgetbucks.com
127.0.0.1 wa.marketingsolutions.yahoo.com
127.0.0.1 yieldbuild.com
127.0.0.1 open.ad.yieldmanager.net
127.0.0.1 ad.yieldmanager.com
127.0.0.1 e.yieldmanager.net
127.0.0.1 zedo.com

Re:host blocking

[m85476585]

There's an Easy Privacy list for Adblock Plus that works well in addition to Easylist for ads. I also added facebook.com^$third-party and fbcdn.net^$third-party (with appropriate exceptions so facebook still works). In addition, I blocked a lot of other web 2.0 stuff that was making the internet load slow over my slow connection.

Re:host blocking

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't it be better to use 0.0.0.0 instead of 127.0.0.1?

Re:Too Many? Seriously?

[Spad]

Facebook's problem is that its "lots of options" are spread over about 5 different sections of your profile in various sub-categories and with a wide variety of titles ranging from obvious to cryptic - choice is no good if you can't figure out what you're choosing from.

Re:Too Many? Seriously?

[DragonWriter]

First it's not enough privacy options. Now it's too many privacy options.

I don't remember any substantial number of complaints about Facebook not having enough privacy options. I do remember complaints about them repeatedly changing settings related to privacy to expose more information more widely without advance notice and the opportunity to opt-out (or, better, the option to opt-in to the change) of the change in defaults for existing users.

Adding more settings after the fact does nothing to address the problem, and, insofar as it increases confusion and reduces the ability of the average users to understand and effectively manage how their information is exposed, is part of the same problem.

"targeted advertising" is NOT a benefit to ME

[fotbr]

I don't care if the advertisers think it's a benefit. It doesn't benefit me, so why shouldn't I "opt out" of it? To help their system better target others? Sorry, how well their advertising reaches their intended markets isn't my problem, and I feel no obligation to help.

Re:"targeted advertising" is NOT a benefit to ME

[vlm]

I don't care if the advertisers think it's a benefit. It doesn't benefit me

If it'd FUD scare tactics, or lifestyle promotion trash, sure. If its informational, thats a whole nother matter.

I'm in the market for a vacuum cleaner. I'm pretty hot to get a Dyson at this time. The commercials suck. Mostly I want high suction and I am so thru with buying bags and filters.

I wouldn't mind some "targeted ads" on this topic.

Given the enormous amount of advertising money spent to reach people whom don't give a $#*!, you'd think amazon or something would set up a service where companies pay me money to examine their marketing crud, paid to me at time of sale on amazon. I'd sit there and watch an "electrolux" or whatever commercial for $1. And they'd probably pay me $1 since I'm hot to buy a vacuum cleaner, and amazon would only clear the money to me if I actually bought someones vacuum cleaner (not necessarily theirs). Essentially a reverse ebay auction, where the companies bid on me to get me to watch their ads, and I prove I'm serious by purchasing "someones" product.

Re:"targeted advertising" is NOT a benefit to ME

[Mandrel]

A system like you suggest is already operating: just browse the websites of vacuum makers.

However both these sites and advertising provide far from objective information. Wouldn't you rather read some well-researched editorial, and use a question-based recommendation system?

Yes you may say, but how should we compensate these helpers? At the moment it's mainly via ads that many block because of the original problem with non-objective information. The affiliate link alternative turns helpers into salespeople, and doesn't reward them if you buy your vacuum offline.

Re:"targeted advertising" is NOT a benefit to ME

[Anonymous Coward]

That idea is pretty money. Of course, Amazon already does that, only they would pocket the $1 in the above example. Marketing is not mostly about informing customers and all that blah blah blah forward-facing ethics crap that Marketers use as justifications to pacify the weaker minded among us.

Originally, advertising was practiced for the purpose of informing the consumer, but as soon as that began to be used as an ethical defense, the nascent field of Marketing began its unholy incubation. The art of Marketing is thought control of populations, a.k.a. social engineering. The goal of modern advertising is to worm thoughts and images into your subconscious through repetitive exposure and association. They are custom designed, according to your demographic, to slip past your psychological defenses and appeal to your weaknesses.

Re:"targeted advertising" is NOT a benefit to ME

[retchdog]

consumer reports has its information online for subscribers. subscription is a small monthly fee.

there are similar services for specialty interests, for example Cooks Illustrated has a simply amazing amount of in-depth and pretty objective information about utensils and food available again for a small monthly fee. for example, they found that real vanilla extract isn't any better in baked goods, than the 20 times cheaper synthetic vanillin (it is however a lot better in custards and ice cream and that sort of thing).

the only question is doing it for "free". for most general consumer items, amazon works. for specialist items, I'd be surprised if there wasn't a periodical with web access, like Cooks Illustrated.

finally i know some smart people from various backgrounds who are working on micropayment systems. it's hard for me to imagine that taking off, but then again there's a certain charm in the idea of paying like $0.05 to read a vetted review about an item on a smartphone while I'm shopping.

Re:"targeted advertising" is NOT a benefit to ME

[Mandrel]

consumer reports has its information online for subscribers. subscription is a small monthly fee.

there are similar services for specialty interests, for example Cooks Illustrated has a simply amazing amount of in-depth and pretty objective information about utensils and food available again for a small monthly fee. for example, they found that real vanilla extract isn't any better in baked goods, than the 20 times cheaper synthetic vanillin (it is however a lot better in custards and ice cream and that sort of thing).

the only question is doing it for "free". for most general consumer items, amazon works. for specialist items, I'd be surprised if there wasn't a periodical with web access, like Cooks Illustrated.

Because they only use it occasionally, it's hard to get people to subscribe to product review information. A publication like Consumer Reports is most attractive because it looks at commonly-bought products, but conversely is not a total solution because, as you say, it only covers a small fraction of products.

It's also hard to get people to pay upfront for individual sources of information when they can't be confident that it's going to help them.

The Amazon situation has several problems:

It's too much work to wade though many reviews to get a fair assessment, and so far Amazon hasn't found it worthwhile to summarize the range of opinion in any more detail than an average rating. And while end-user feedback is very valuable, so is the testing, comparison, and advice that professionals do best.

Second, Amazon (and the reviewers themselves) don't get rewarded for the help they provide when someone uses that information to make a purchase elsewhere.

Third, Amazon, as a vendor, isn't exactly an unbiased party -- they want you to buy one of the things they sell, preferably the most expensive. (But sure, not as bad as getting car advice from a dealer for a particular make.)

Finally, a helper (like Slashdot!) who makes some of their income from Amazon affiliate payments isn't giving their users an easy choice of vendors, and also doesn't get paid for their help if the user does indeed decide to buy elsewhere.

finally i know some smart people from various backgrounds who are working on micropayment systems. it's hard for me to imagine that taking off, but then again there's a certain charm in the idea of paying like $0.05 to read a vetted review about an item on a smartphone while I'm shopping.

"vetted review", is that reviews of reviews?

I'm involved with an alternative solution where consumer helpers are instead paid out of both manufacturer cashback payments and incentives that manufacturers offer those who provide pre-sales help to their customers and prospects. This reduces the need for both pay-walls and pan-handling. It also works for purchases at both online and bricks & mortar stores.

Re:"targeted advertising" is NOT a benefit to ME

[Stan92057]

Your not going to get the proper information from ads,since when have ads told the whole truth? Use a buyers guide,they don't get payed by the manufacturer.

Re:"targeted advertising" is NOT a benefit to ME

[vlm]

it's hard to get people to subscribe to product review information. A publication like Consumer Reports

Third, Amazon, as a vendor, isn't exactly an unbiased party

Which brings up the other problem, that Consumer Reports is by no means unbiased either. They used to be absolutely famous for being total fanboys for certain car manufacturers and hating certain car manufacturers, apparently completely disregarding the cars themselves. Some of it may have been target market, in that a coastie liberal journalist fighting the good fight against corporate interests is probably going to end up with wildly different opinions about the facts of a truck when compared to a midwestern ranch hand.

Also with intense astroturfing its hard to find unbiased information. For a good time, look at some reviews on amazon for certain children's leapfrog products, and notice how the same cut and paste is seen on multiple products from a person self described in the review as the ideal target market of their product. Did a genuine end user do the cut and paste, or a marketing firm, or the companies CEO? Who knows, but I have my suspicions.

You can cut all that out by just giving me cash directly to watch their ads. Some cable channels cost money per hour (per month anyway). I don't see why some couldn't pay you. Same concept with micropayments, all this focus on me sending big corporation a few pennies, but I don't see why it couldn't work in reverse.

Re:"targeted advertising" is NOT a benefit to ME

[Mandrel]

You can cut all that out by just giving me cash directly to watch their ads. Some cable channels cost money per hour (per month anyway). I don't see why some couldn't pay you. Same concept with micropayments, all this focus on me sending big corporation a few pennies, but I don't see why it couldn't work in reverse.

Most ads already effectively pay you by providing some discount or other offer.

Re:"targeted advertising" is NOT a benefit to ME

[retchdog]

I (think that I) can usually detect the 'turfing on Amazon. Usually, anyway, I evaluate products by going for the most negative review (that isn't totally crazy) and checking how bad it is.

Do you have a cite on Consumer Reports? I didn't like it, because their reviews were far too shallow for my purposes, and the dot ratings did seem sort of arbitrary. Yes, I think their model depends on a sort of assumption of "average consumer" which may have worked in the 70s but doesn't work now.

You have a good point about micropayments, but the (hopeful) idea is that a company or two will make enough by receiving micropayments, so as to preserve the value of its word. I point again to Cooks Illustrated as a functioning prototype. If micropayments take off, the categories of products for which this works should grow. I don't see why there couldn't be (Whatever) Illustrated, at the very least for "prosumer" type stuff if not regular consumer-level.

marketing data to you

[nimbius]

only works if youre actively seeking to consume. before freaking out over the various ads that might come across facebook or google ask yourself

do i need to buy?

what does it do?

how well does it do it?

google and facebook may "know" your personal preferences and interests, but in the end only you know whether you will buy something or not, and if you choose not to buy then the collected data amounts to wasted time.

another fact to take into consideration is the prevalence of noscript, which may prevent or restrict the pay-per-click functionality of some advertising. in other words: Tracking IE is fairly mundane; tracking a user concerned about their privacy proves rather difficult at the end of the day and is something these companies are constantly working to achieve.

how do you take a gun from a grammaton cleric?

you ask him for it.

Pretty Simple to Me

[eldavojohn]

Facebook's problem is that its "lots of options" are spread over about 5 different sections of your profile in various sub-categories and with a wide variety of titles ranging from obvious to cryptic - choice is no good if you can't figure out what you're choosing from.

Alright well, I actually have a Facebook account and I've actually set the privacy settings. They promise to make it simpler (how, I'll never know) but the way it currently works is that you have a menu of six categories. They are:

• Personal Information and Posts
  Control who can see your photos and videos, and who can post to your wall
• Contact Information
  Control who can contact you on Facebook and see your contact information and email
• Friends, Tags and Connections
  Control whether your friends, tags and connections display on your profile
• Search
  Control who can see your search result on Facebook and in search engines
• Applications and Websites
  Control what information is available to Facebook-enhanced applications and websites
• Block List
  Control who can interact with you on Facebook

Now, if you click on any of them it breaks each of those down into sub categories. This is all explained fairly well, by the way. And on each of these sub categories they have drop downs to let you see who sees that sub category of items on your Facebook page:

• Everyone
• Friends of Friends
• Only Friends
• Customize

Pretty straight forward but that last one lets you get into lists and some more complicated stuff.

So please tell me what is confusing about that, how it could be better and how that's "spread out"?

Re:Pretty Simple to Me

[Culture20]

So simple, but so few people know that if you set "connections" to "friends only", they're still Public.

Re:Pretty Simple to Me

[maxume]

It would make more sense to me to start with

Everyone
Friends of Friends
Only Friends

and show the user exactly what each group can see, and offer options to enable/disable each type of item, under each group.

So I could click on "Everyone" and be able to notice that I am currently allowing them to look at my porn, and then disable that.

That way, on the "Everyone" screen, it is blatantly obvious, in one place, what you are sharing with everyone. There could even be a nice button labeled "block everything", or whatever.

Anyway, my point is that arranging things by access group seems like it would be a lot clearer than arbitrarily sorting them into sort of relatively associated groups of functionality.

Google Analytics Opt-Out Hurts Site Owners, Helps

[Anonymous Coward]

Google Analytics opt-out hurts site owners, they can't see what content is helping or hurting visitors in reaching their goals (let alone helping the site owner profit).

Google still gets the benefit of Search data. Thus, site owners information is weaker while Google's position as information owner becomes stronger.

Another illusory opt-out.

Your ignorance was bliss

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately ignorance like that works in the favor of companies like Facebook. No, it's not enough to not put your own information into Facebook. You may choose not to use it, but others will, and they'll fill it up with your information that you don't want on there.

I am even more Machiavellian than either one

[kindbud]

Because I use both, and do not care if I am tracked or targeted. Nor do I feel that being tracked and targeted is a serious violation of my privacy. So there.

memorize a fake person

[circletimessquare]

there is a fake me out there, with a fake name, a fake birthday, a fake home address, a fake mother's maiden name, a fake birth city, fake likes and dislikes, etc. every time i am asked for this info online, i consistently and continually use the fake alter ego

this is the future of privacy: aliases

Re:memorize a fake person

[Kittenman]

But .... isn't this like saying that the "Iliad" wasn't written by Homer, but another Greek of the same name?

If the fake-you does the stuff you do and you get targeted for it, then the fake-you is you. You just appear to be someone differently named on the internet.

Re:memorize a fake person

[Anonymous Coward]

Until you apply for a job that requires you to disclose this alias, and if you don't and they find out, you're fired.

Re:memorize a fake person

[Hurricane78]

I tried that. The more you are fake, the less it is of any use. A fake Facebook account with only fake data, is nor going to work with your friends there, and is removing the point of having that profile in the first place.

Oh, and why use it anyway? There is an “outside” that is great. There is a phone and an instant messenger (with OTR). Etc.

Re:memorize a fake person

[Eil]

Rusty Shackleford, is that you?

Re:memorize a fake person

[fullfactorial]

there is a fake me out there...

What are you so afraid of? (Completely sincere question--not trolling in the least.)

I understand using a fake persona if you're afraid of some company knowing information about you. However, with a fake name you're still going to see targeted advertising, and if you're doing anything illegal you're probably not obfuscating enough to hide your true identity.

I guess I just don't understand what privacy consequences you're actually avoiding.

Re:memorize a fake person

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, except his credit card name is different, his home address is different and he can change aliases as often as is convenient. My real issue is the money trail. In Sweden (where I live), it is impossible (short of advanced fraud, which is hard and illegal) to get a credit/debit card without giving up your address and social security number as well as real name. This means that every buy that I make can be put into my real profile, my only protection is going by cash, and that is a hassle. And when buying in the internet I can't even use cash many times, and unless it's a service (like renting a game from steam) I still need to provide a shipping address.

I think society has too many laws already, but I don't see a reasonable way of retaining my privacy without the law forcing all companies to offer their services without selling/giving my information to other companies.

Re:memorize a fake person

[killmenow]

I'm not in Sweden, but the shipping address is the one thing I've not found a way to get around. You can get pre-paid credit/debit cards and link them to a paypal account even so buying stuff online can still be done somewhat anonymously. But if you need something shipped to you, you kind of have to give them your address. There are dropbox sites that will accept shipments for you but you have to give them your info. No getting around that...that I've found anyway.

Re:memorize a fake person

[ediron2]

there is a fake me out there, with a fake name, a fake birthday, a fake home address, a fake mother's maiden name, a fake birth city, fake likes and dislikes, etc. every time i am asked for this info online, i consistently and continually use the fake alter ego

this is the future of privacy: aliases

FakeYou and You link together seamlessly within doubleclick and other usage-tracking data, unless other always isolated in every way (IP, userspace data and cache, accounts and sites visited, fingerprinting based on anything from hours of use to packet and request strings). We're accomplishing almost nothing.

OTOH, if aliases are shared (this happens accidentally via bugmenot's accounts), the usage data consolidated becomes a view of several users. FakeYou gets smushed with 50 other fakeSomeones or more, making the job of following circletimesquare inordinately harder (the Lost In A Crowd trope). It'll still be extractible for valuable cases (surveillance, espionage, high profile targets), but the cost/benefit would give most of us back some reasonable amount of anonymity.

If I really needed to hide my acts, I'd use a dedicated machine/VM and someone else's compromised wifi as my point of origin, and then I'd resort to all the above steps (yours AND mine).

The pessimist in me fears this (the near impossibility of anonymity) WILL come around to bite us on the ass. Someone will find ways to abuse this information.

Wait a second

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy who's in charge of money collected from a bunch of class-action suits is talking about Machiavelli?

Note to self, patent that business model.

I think getting served ads

[Stan92057]

I think getting served ads for a search term is a fair exchange. But anything else google does beyond the ad served is not. I mean, how do i benefit from having everything i do online collected by google? I don't go online just to look at ads. Everyone got to pay to get on the Internet,then we pay even more by loosing our privacy to do a search term,or go to web sites that also spy on us, but they don't need to save that information,it will have no bearing on what i will type in the search box the next time. I'm just saying that they are taking data mining just too far and not making it easy for anyone not to be spied apon. Oh i have had that google addon and download program installed for a while and my malware program is still removing googles doubleclick advertising cookies. so it doesnt work,Have screen shots as proof :}

Re:Too Many? Seriously?

[citylivin]

"Tomorrow when they get the unspoken mythical number correct"

How obtuse you are. I have tried to trick out my girlfriends facebook privacy settings, but it seems there is always another page somewhere that you have to hunt for. Also, there is no quick and easy way to opt out of everything. You have to go to every app, every website that has a facebook tie in, every picture gallery, etc and change them ALL manually to opt out of "sharing my information with anyone who asks" mode.

Its complete bullshit. sure, you can go into your filesystem ACLs and hand edit every file to have the correct permissions. No one does this however, and thats why you can apply permissions/acls RECURSIVELY from parent. What I would want for her is a big button that opts out of EVERYTHING. Add to that a nice concise privacy page. Note how i said PAGE, not pageS spread across the entirety on the site. Then I would say, add as many fiddily little options as you want. So long as the giant opt out button still works for them all, and when they add new features, they don't opt you in automatically, as is currently the case.

I have always hated facebook, but I didnt know the true hate till i went to ehow.com - or any number of a growing pool of "facebook connect" sites, and saw a picture of my girlfriend on there with the option to leave a comment about the site.
What the fucking fuck! i still havent been able to turn that "feature" off yet, because i cant find the damn option! Aparently, if you have logged onto facebook (that day?), you are automatically "connected" to a host of other sites. So now i have to go to facebook and make sure my gf is logged out, every time i use the computer.

Perhaps you could think of it as akin to a program which has zillions of undocumented commands. Amazingly powerful and yet completely useless at the same time. Sure some people have cracked the correct syntax to get facebook to perform the stop-auto-tie-in-to-all-garbage-sites option, but why the fuck should it be so hard?

There is only one answer and one alone - deliberate obscurification and mis direction. It is the same answer as to why everything is opt OUT instead of opt IN on facebook. They rely on people being too lazy, confused and stupid to care.

So stop apologizing for what is at best bad UI design, and at worst willful obscurification that leads too (surprise!), expanded profits for facebook.

I only wish I'd caught onto this sooner.

[Vekseid]

I've been doing it for several years now, and it's invaluable. Something to keep in mind is that there is software that validates and cross-references zip codes, addresses, and phone numbers, which is intensely frustration. So, likewise, I've done a bit of research on my fake selves to fool that crap.

The clues are always visible to those who look

[Whuffo]

Supplying useful web services to a large number of people costs real money; it's not free. And there are no successful companies or corporations that give these services away for free - they get paid for them, and they're paid very well.

So when you see a great new free web service you need to stop and think - it's not free, someone is paying for it and that someone is almost always the users. If you don't see the price tag then you don't want to play their game. In most cases, this benevolent company giving you a free service is building up user profiles that they sell to marketing companies. If you're big like Facebook or Google, you've got millions of those profiles and they're very detailed and also very valuable. But nobody ever thinks about this when they happily give up all kinds of personal info as they register for their free account.

Google is pretty transparent about this stuff: they use the profile data to serve targeted ads and advertisers pay them a premium price for those ads. This wouldn't work without the information about you that Google has amassed but it's the source of all of their financial might. Who do you think pays Facebook's bills? That's right, and that's why their privacy options don't include any that would prevent them - and their "affiliates" - from collecting your personal data.

That personal information is valuable and it's yours - and you give it away. Those corporations thank you for your generosity! Here's a tip for further study: view the mandatory privacy policy at any major web site; they'll tell you (sort of) what kind of data they collect - then promise to keep it safe and only give it to the government upon request and to their affiliates and/or third parties that supply some kind of service to the company. So what is an affiliate? Could one of them be the marketing clearinghouse that buys your personal profile? Could one be an Indian call center that will resell the data to anyone with the price? Could one of them be the guy with the CC skimmer? You'll never know; you'll just look at the privacy policy and say "that's cool" and click OK.

You may have noticed that when ad blocking software is discussed it's the small websites that whine and cry about the loss of revenue. The big corporate sites only report what the small sites say because it serves to preserve the legend. Banner adds are small beans - but live and verified profiles are big money.

Re:The clues are always visible to those who look

[John Hasler]

> This wouldn't work without the information about you...

Well, no. It works fine without any information about me at all. Your information suffices.

> You'll never know; you'll just look at the privacy policy and say "that's
> cool" and click OK.

Speak for yourself.

Re:The clues are always visible to those who look

[Anonymous Coward]

My personal information is valuable, yes, but so is the service I receive in exchange for giving it away. On the other hand, my information has no value to me personally due to the lack of scarcity. So from my point of view I am giving away something of little to no value for a service which has value to me. From the service provider's point of view they are giving away something of value (bandwidth, R&D costs, hosting space) in exchange for something that, for them, has greater value, my personal information. From my point of view I come out ahead in this deal, given that the law prevents them from doing anything seriously harmful (fraud, impersonation, etc)

The Prince

[handy_vandal]

Some consider The Prince a political satire, although Wikipedia calls it a "political treatise"; my own feeling is that it is a serious study of power politics. Even as a satire, it's a very subtle satire when compared with Swift's Modest Proposal.

Speaking of satirical modest proposals, Joe Haldeman wrote a nice little short story in a somewhat Swiftian vein: To Howard Hughes: a Modest Proposal. I'll spare you the spoilers, other than to say it's a tongue-in-cheek solution to the threat of nuclear war.

Re:The Prince

[bsDaemon]

Good satire often lampoons its target by making the argument it's against, and taking it ad absurdum, in order to do show how stupid it is. So, it needs to be based in fact to succeed, otherwise its not really satire, just jack-assery. The Prince can therefor serve the other roll.

But, if we really want to talk about subtle -- did you know the scene in Gulliver where he pisses on the fire in the Lilliputian castle is a treatment of the War of Spanish Succession? At least, that's what the annotations in the Norton's anthology we used in my Restoration and 18th Century Literature class back in '05 said.

Re:Too Many? Seriously?

[guyminuslife]

The way that you disable the eHow thing is to disable third-party cookies in your browser.

"beta human" logic:

[Hurricane78]

...you have no way to ask Google to stop this tracking.

Ask? Real men (and women) don’t ask. We announce.
We don’t beg if someone could please stop raping us. We. don’t. let. him!

If you put yourself in the beggar position, you have already lost right from the beginning.

On the topic of the Analytic opt-out

[yuhong]

Opt-out of Analytics using AdBlock was the topic of a Slashdot comment saying "(I work at Google, hence posting as AC.)", which I posted on Reddit, asking if it was really necessary: http://www.reddit.com/r/google/comments/bl2jn/i_work_at_google_hence_posting_as_ac_was_posting/ http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/bk093/i_work_at_google_hence_posting_as_ac_really/

Re:On the topic of the Analytic opt-out

[yuhong]

Two more links:
http://www.reddit.com/r/jobs/comments/c84ip/i_work_at_google_hence_posting_as_ac_was_posting/
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1529202&cid=30948726

Re:On the topic of the Analytic opt-out

[yuhong]

One more link:
http://www.reddit.com/r/slashdot/comments/c84ms/i_work_at_google_hence_posting_as_ac_was_posting/
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1529202&cid=30948726 (the original comment)

Privacy is overrated.

[j0nb0y]

For the past several years Facebook and Google have been consistently criticized for their poor records on privacy. Yet, these sites are still two of the most popular sites on the Internet. Why is that? Are people not aware of the privacy concerns? Or do they just not care?

I think they don't care. I think they know that they're are giving up a measure of their privacy. They think that the services and convenience that they get in return are worth it.

Want to change things? You can criticize Google and Facebook all you want. As long as people are willing to give up privacy to use their services, G and FB aren't going to change. If you want to change things, there are several options. None of them are easy.

1. Convince people that their privacy is worth enough that they shouldn't give it up to use FB/Google.
2. Offer equivalent services with better privacy protection.
3. Convince the government to regulate FB/Google, forcing them to offer better privacy protections.

As a small government conservative, #3 deeply offends me. If people don't value their privacy, then it takes a high level of arrogance to use the machines of government to force private companies to protect privacy anyway.

I don't think people are stupid. They can make rational decisions about their own privacy. They've made those decisions, and that's why Google and Facebook are so popular. Don't like what the people decided? Try to change their minds. But don't use the government to shove something down their throats that they clearly do not want.

Slander verbal, Libel print

[handy_vandal]

Good point, thanks.

Your Rights Online: Privacy Machiavellis

[Anonymous Coward]

"privacy Machiavellis," which are exemplified by Google and Facebook."
Apparently I am unloved by mods :(

Did you not read the art of war, and Machiavelli I thought they were required for any sort of .com/IT in the 90's early 00, contribute nothing or in facebooks case negative and it = profit lie if your big enough your to big to touch, didn't people talk to you in the 80' and 90's art of war, I will say that again art of war that attitude explains the .com it explains the recent crash it explains the market in the 80's with junk bonds it explains all those that seek power without responsibility, if you'll recall he never directly ruled that has not changed now

Just disable Javascript

[Anonymous Coward]

...and any other active content. Of course, cookies too.

Yes, I know that's not all. But the alternatives (tracking images, profiling browsers) are far less palatable for the Machiavelli (no, it's not "Machiavellis", like it's not "espressis", argh)

Re:Too Many? Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

The ehow thing: rendering a pic of her in an iframe based on her facebook cookie doesn't expose your information to anyone.

Is the problem here just that the feature gives the impression of information leakage? (in the same way as contextual ads do)

Google are full of shit

[internewt]

Just like how TFA talks about illusory opt-out system, Google are up to it again:

Those that are concerned about their privacy can install an add-on and permanently disable the script. After installing the add-on, you'll notice that the browser still sends a request for this file: http://www.google-analytics.com/ga.js when visiting a page that uses Google Analytics, but it no longer sends information to Google Analytics.

So Google don't get all the info they want, but they still get a log entry from users of this extension every time their browser requests http://www.google-analytics.com/ga.js (with date/time, and of course the referrer). And if they have a cookie set for google-analytics.com (or accept 3rd party cookies), that'll be logged too. So the users still can potentially be tracked, even when they have taken steps to avoid it.

There isn't a search as effective as Google, so I'm not about to stop using it. It's just they are totally untrustworthy in my opinion, so I use protection when connecting to Google's ports. I use Scroogle SSL via TOR. Yeah, it's a little slow (about dial up speed, 15 years ago), but it is worth it: 100 results by default (without a cookie), no cruft, no corporations getting info that they will only use to try and convince me to give them time/money.

Re:Too Many? Seriously?

[Tim C]

I have always hated facebook, but I didnt know the true hate till i went to ehow.com - or any number of a growing pool of "facebook connect" sites, and saw a picture of my girlfriend on there with the option to leave a comment about the site.
What the fucking fuck! i still havent been able to turn that "feature" off yet, because i cant find the damn option!

Account drop down -> Privacy settings -> "Applications and websites" -> Click the "Edit setting" button for "Instant personalisation pilot programme" -> Uncheck the box.

Note though that the copy lists only three current partner sites, and eHow isn't one of them; of course, the copy may be out of date, or customised for my region (I'm in the UK). Note also the following small print:

Please keep in mind that if you opt out, your friends may still share public Facebook information about you to personalise their experience on these partner sites unless you block the application.

(There's also a link to get more information about that)

nananana nananana nananana na!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrVkICMF7ic

I block Google Analytics

[Anonymous Coward]

I block it because I am a user - and I don't want my occasional hits to my development content showing up in Googles results. It is annoying to see my development system skewing the results of my actual content.

I put an entry for www.google-analytics.com in my hosts file (to 127.0.0.1).

This insures that every browser I use (to validate my pages prior to publishing) ignores the analytics code and I don't need to manage settings on each (browser).

Re:Too Many? Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perception is reality!

So what would you prefer?

[yyxx]

Let's say your ISP offers you search, document storage, E-mail etc. (they do some of that already). Or let's say you go with Mobile.Me. Now, why exactly do you have any more reason to trust them than Google or Yahoo or any of the other services? Do you seriously think Comcast or Apple are any more likely to keep your private data private than other companies?

what's "better"?

[yyxx]

Well, I don't know how to do 1, 2, or 3, even if I had superpowers. What exactly is it you want?

If you don't like the same company doing search, ads, mail, and docs, well, just use Google, Bing, Yahoo, and Zoho as separate services. If you're really concerned, use some of the privacy options or use desktop software.

Data retention is already limited in the EU by law. The US could do the same thing.

What else do you want? What else do you want to be protected from?

Re:what's "better"?

[j0nb0y]

My main point is that people don't want privacy. That's why the most popular services aren't very good at protecting privacy. People want to give it up in return for convenience and better communications platforms. It's true that you could pass a law that requires stronger privacy protections... but why is that desirable? Isn't it clear that most people don't *want* privacy? They want the convenience that Facebook provides, that you only get by giving up a little bit of privacy.

Not so much...

[BenEnglishAtHome]

...you can easily find tales of IRS agents abusing their authority to look up info ...

Sure, that's true. It's happened in the past so there are records of it that are easy to find.

But it's sure not common. The employee who was led out of my office (yes, I work for them ) in handcuffs last week could testify that IRS employees who look up ex-spouses get fired and prosecuted. Every access to the Integrated Data Retrieval System, the front-end to nearly all our master files, is logged and automatically checked against the employees dossier. If you look up a family member or yourself you get fired and prosecuted. If you look up a famous person without cause, same outcome. If you look up someone who just happens to live in your neighborhood (even though you had no idea you did so), an investigation is opened and it's never pleasant.

I firmly believe that of all "large" agencies the IRS is the most trustworthy. The stats on firings for such reasons are available to the public and I'd feel comfortable comparing them to any other agency.

Google is opt-in

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, you can exercise the one opt-out system that works - don't use their services.

Actually, you just explained why getting compromised by Google is opt-IN. By default, Google knows nothing about anyone, unless that person goes out of their way to give the information to Google.

Apathy and misunderstanding.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most Facvebook users (of all ages) fail to understand the consequences of posting their data on Facebook. They are not motivated to find out what privacy means at Facebook so are surprised that their data may have other uses - and more importantly be used - in ways they had not intended. Most people go to Facebook or Google for what those services offer the ones who leave do so because they discover that they are being abused. It is too easy to condemn those who fall into these companies traps as having two stark choices: the service or their privacy.

We desperately need alternatives like that proposed by Diaspora, people need to be shown that Facebook is a business that makes money harvesting their personal, and as they often believe private data. Most people only see social networking and it's fun and benefits, they are not aware that the cost is their privacy.

Re:Too Many? Seriously?

[gclef]

For the external site thing, I strongly recommend adBlock. Here's what I'm blocking:

||facebook.com/*$domain=~facebook.com|~facebook.net|~fbcdn.com|~fbcdn.net
||facebook.net/*$domain=~facebook.com|~facebook.net|~fbcdn.com|~fbcdn.net
||fbcdn.com/*$domain=~facebook.com|~facebook.net|~fbcdn.com|~fbcdn.net
||fbcdn.net/*$domain=~facebook.com|~facebook.net|~fbcdn.com|~fbcdn.net

This removes all the "integration" BS between facebook and all the external sites. Yes, they shouldn't be doing it at all, but in the meantime, you can shut it down.

Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Democracy would be the correct choice, but don't get on your high horse yet because the USA is NOT a democracy. The USA is a republic. There are no similarities.

We need a database of contradictory sites...

[Kazoo the Clown]

I think that would be a great browser feature-- it collects all the google search strings you enter, looks them all up in a "contradictory site" or "contradictory search" database, and when the system is idle, it browses the contradictory sites for equal time. Thus, when you browse that pro-Obama site, the system will automatically browse some anti-Obama site when it's idle. They'll collect all the info on you they want, but it'll all be completely bogus-- they'll average you out to be totally middle-of-the-road.

Or, you could even have a "slanted" database, that would deliberately add searches that would bias you the way you would like to be percieved, regardless of what you actually do on the computer.