FTC Wants Browsers To Block Online Tracking
storagedude writes "The FTC wants a do-not-track mechanism that would allow Web users to opt out of online behavioral tracking, similar to the national do-not-call registry. The agency's preferred method for accomplishing this would be a browser-based tool that would give users the option of blocking data collection across the Web. The only problem is that the agency may not have the authority to require this, thanks to concerted lobbying efforts by the advertising industry. The first step may just be voluntary measures, to be released this fall."
I thought this was called disable cookies, and delete all browsing data upon exit? This isn't even an issue. Do that, and they can track you about as well as what phone prompts you chose when you call support.
There must be a FF extension that can do just that by now. I can't imagine that there are no paranoid nerds that haven't thought of this.
And if there is no FF extension then the required functionality is probably impossible to do browser-side.
Actually I am wondering how they track behaviour, and what a browser can do to prevent it. I can think of a few bits:
- Cookies. The obvious one. Third-party cookies especially. Can be blocked in FF and other browsers for more than a decade already.
- Referrer tags in URLs. Sometimes useful - especially for sites to see where visitors originate - but also for the end user. E.g. after a Google search you go to some web page that then highlights your search terms. Seems trivial to block in your browser as your browser puts the referrer tag in the http request.
- IP address. Naturally public information. Can not be blocked, ever. Merely obfuscated by using tor or so.
- Browser ID. Can easily be faked. But is usually constant for a user, allowing them to be traced anyway using this and the IP address. Also between cooperating web sites. And of course third-party ad providers who in turn can follow IP addresses over their customer's web sites. Those third parties can be (partly) blocked by e.g. AdBlock Plus, only partly as the visited web site can still give your info (IP address, page visited) to the ad company, even when the actual ads are blocked.
That's all that I can think of at the moment, there may be more ways to follow a user. But I don't see much that can be done on the browser-side to stop more tracking.
Why are our elected officials spending any time on this? Is there *any* evidence that the data collected has ever been misused in any way? The online advertising industry is based on selectively targetting users with advertisements, and so far I see no compelling reasons for the government to interfere. Before the government starts regulating an industry, shouldn't there be evidence that the industry is in fact in need of regulating? Disclaimer: I work in an advertising company developing the conversion rate models
and assorted free market fundamentalists:
you need government regulations. you want to pay taxes for the legions of government bureaucrats toiling away somewhere interfering with business
because without such regulation business will trample your rights
you heard me correctly: the government protects your rights and corporations trample them. i'm sorry of this idea contrasts with certain brands of low brain wattage propaganda about the government trampling your rights: if the paranoid schizophrenic fantasies of certain right wing zealots ever come to fruition, those abuses will not happen at the hands of washington dc, they will happen at the hands of large corporate entities
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
separate form their constituents interests?
because of infection of the government by corporate money
read the first sentence:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
We. The. People.
to the extent that the interests of the corporations are more important to the politicians than the interests of we the people, is the extent to which that government MUST BE CLEANED UP, not destroyed
your position is this: you see a sick person in front of you (the government). your solution is to condemn the sick person, rather than treat him for the disease
"At least a "greedy" corporation is putting people to work"
additionally, you completely absolve the disease of any wrongdoing for the fact that the patient is sick
it just blows my fucking mind, its fucking incredible: that some people should see the corporate infection of our government and conclude the only solution is to destroy the government!
the only thing standing between us and the infection that is the real source of the abuse of our rights is the government. it needs to be CLEANED UP, not DESTROYED, or then all of the abuses you see GET WORSE. that really is the truth. wake the fuck up
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Tracking isn't studying data from your website accesses, it's forming profiles of a specific user over multiple websites, by "planting" a cookie or other means of identification.
The analogy would be the advertisements companies putting a RFID tag in your car, that would be detected by each billboard you happened to pass by. Would you be OK with that level of location tracking? I wouldn't.
Dilbert RSS feed
then there is a power vacuum
that power vacuum will be filled by corporations, who will employ blackwater private security forces against individual liberty
am i talking science fiction?
no, i'm talking HISTORICAL AMERICAN FACT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_National_Detective_Agency
why is it that so many free market fundamentalists forget about the banking panics in the 1800s (no regulations=bubbles and pops... hello 2008)? why do so many libertarians ignore the abuses of individual liberties by corporations in the gilded age (corporations, not governments, remove your liberties)? why do so many right wing small government zealots completely ignore the hard fought and hard won protections for workers in the 1800s? (40 hour work week, minimum wage, etc... you think these ideas were not developed in an atmosphere of constant abuse of the individual by corporations?)
fact, solid motherfucking fact: corporations will abuse your individual liberties as much as they can in the pursuit of the buck. they ARE NOT BEHOLDEN TO YOU. you NEED the government as your protector with all those regulations and enforcement, or YOU WILL BE ABUSED. to the extent that the government has been coopted by corporate interests and infected from the inside is the extent YOU NEED TO CLEAN UP YOUR GOVERNMENT OF CORPORATE INFECTION...not destroy the only entity which keeps the REAL abusers from defiling your rights!
corporations are the single greatest abusers of individual liberties. government is your only source of protection from those abuses. you NEED a strong central government, or every abuse you detest will be visited upon you MORE
so stop working to DESTROY government, start working to CLEAN UP government
if you argue for smaller government, in the name of individual liberties, the real world effect of your efforts is increased abuses of individual liberties, because you do not understand who the real abusers are
if the patient is sick, don't kill the patient and let the disease spread, treat the patient of the disease and stop the spread of the disease. fight the disease, not the patient. the patient is YOUR government, the disease is corporate dollars
read the first fucking sentence:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
WE. THE. PEOPLE. to the extent that the government is not we the people is the extent to which it has been corrupted by corporate dollars. so get rid of the corporate dollars, not the government!
reclaim YOUR government from corporate infection and make it a more effective tool in protecting your rights and freedoms from the real abusers: corporations who would destroy your rights and freedoms, and have done so in the past, and will happily do so again in the pursuit of more profit, if there is only a weak ineffective government between them and more profit
CLEAN UP GOVERNMENT. DON'T DESTROY THE ONLY THING THAT PROTECTS YOU FROM THE REAL ABUSERS OF YOUR RIGHTS
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The reality that only government holds the special right to employ coercion against you, while the rest of us (including corporations) do not.
Sure they do, it's just a different form of coercion, namely economic coercion.
For instance, let's say you're living in a mining town. You can just about make ends meet by working in the mines, but haven't been able to squirrel away significant savings (your job gives you enough to keep a roof over your head, food on your plate, clothes on your back, and not much else). There aren't any other companies in the area hiring because it's an economic recession. Now, your boss tells you that you need to work an extra 10 hours a week without reporting it in order to keep your job. Your options are: (a) work the extra 10 hours effectively as slave labor, (b) move out of town, (c) unemployment, or (d) report the crime to somebody. Option b is more than you can afford. Option c leaves you homeless and starving. Option d means that your employer will retaliate by firing you (along with anyone else they think was involved) so it's equivalent to option d. So that leaves you with no choice but option a.
That exact scenario is a reality for millions of Americans (as well as workers in other countries) - read up on wage theft. And think about the fact that the only recourse someone in that situation potentially has is government regulation.
I am officially gone from