Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Google Video Runs In Times Square
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that Consumer Watchdog is running a 540-square-foot video billboard advertisement in Times Square, New York that shows Google CEO Eric Schmidt as an ingratiating ice cream truck driver who knows everything about everyone and happily offers free ice cream in exchange for full body scans. The group says its goal is to push Congress and the Federal Trade Commission to create a Do Not Track Me list, similar to the Do Not Call list developed to prevent telemarketers from aggressively calling consumers. 'Do you want Google or any other online company looking over your shoulder and tracking your every move online just so it can increase its profits?' writes the group's president, Jamie Curtis, at the group's web site. 'Consumers have a right to privacy. They should control how their information is gathered and what it is used for.' The FTC's consumer affairs group had no comment on whether the agency is considering creating a Do Not Track Me list."
I'd take free ice cream in exhange for a full body scan.
GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
They'll have to be sure to remember who I am wherever I go, right? That way they can be sure they aren't, for example, mistaking me for J. Random Trackable guy?
while i've set up a Gmail account, i've never actually used it. partly because of all the other ways that Google has of data mining their users, the Gmail account would like icing on the cake to them. they'd have access to all of the people you associate with, on top of your interests and usual WWW practices. the latter is enough info already.
"To stop the terrorists."
I'm allergic to dairy, you insensitive clod!
Nevermind Google. Howabout a "do not track me" list for local governments and law enforcement that want to place tracking devices on me and my car?
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Why don't we have this option with credit companies? I don't care for them to make money off of my personal information either. I'm certainly not getting any dividend from it.
Coming up next, our most recent study showing that Linux is more expensive than Windows.
For most businesses, Linux is more expensive than windows. Anyone who can tie their own shoes can set up a Windows server. Linux, on the other hand, requires someone who at least kind of knows what they're doing, and that commands more money. Not to mention the cost of training the Luddite employees on a new operating system, when it took them 10 years to get used to the last one.
We should all be happy that we're being tracked and monitored and body scanned and probed and the government doesn't even need a warrant for anything anymore and my rights are on hold for the next 20 years and we attacked Iraq and murdered its leader and Afghanistan is the new war on terror, and my mother makes awesome apple pies and we all live in a great country you can tell (please don't burn the flags), and we all like the same things including guns and there's a revolution coming, and you need to be a maverick and unseat popular Alaskans and corporations can now donate to politicians yes of course that makes sense and for heaven's sake it's all in the name of Free Things so be proud!
American life so Unbelievably Spectacular Awesome. Those other countries have no idea what freedom is!
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
How is the federal government supposed to enforce this? It's a nightmare in the making. Once permission is given, and the feds get their talons into your servers, it's only a matter of time before they're monitoring that data 24/7.
If "consumers have a right to privacy", this same Do Not Track Me list would have to apply to credit card transactions and every retail website on the internet. They have been collecting and using similar information longer than Google. Right now, the only way to guarantee privacy is to always use cash and never give any identifying information on the internet. I'm all for privacy, but it is meaningless if the rules don't apply to everyone who currently collects individual consumer behavior data.
TANSTAAFL
This post may or may not contain cancer causing materials.
... after the horses have bolted.
The data's already out there; now, it's a matter of the controls on who can use it and how, and what controls can be put on access to said data.
Check your premises.
Does Google 'track you' any more than a telco does? My phone company has a list of every call I make, and where I made it from. This applies to landlines, mobile phones (though exact location is tricky), and VoIP. If I start using a different company, then I might be able to 'cover my tracks', as it were. But one could do the same thing by getting a new ISP and creating a different Google account.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
Anyone who can tie their own shoes and really understands why a knot stays tied can set up a Windows server.
FTFY
Seriously, though I COMPLETELY AGREE that this is one of the easiest things to setup in the modern world, I can think off the top of my head of 20 people I know in the "IT Industry" that can't perform this basic task.
it's funny what passes for a "tech" these days.
Isn't keeping a list of who not to track a form of tracking?
I had a flame... but she had a fire.
It's like putting your email on a do not spam list and giving it to all the spammers.
Tracking activity must be prohibited unless a someone opts-in.
This "watch dog" group is disingenuous. Laws are already being violated.
This group wants to make this OK.
Seriously, everyone keeps shouting and yelling about all these "free" online services tracking their users but nobody ever mentions the ISP. Your ISP really does track your every move, they can see every site you visit, etc, etc... much worse that google, or anyone else. All that data is available for sale, they won't admit it if you ask them... because it is "collected anonymously" but really, it boggles my mind that they get a free pass in all of this mess.
just stop using the free services provided on the internet, and nobody will want your data anyways. how is it news to people that somebody want's something in exchange for what they give away?
Google Analytics means that you can be visiting any of an ever increasing range of sites with no visible affiliation to Google, but still be being tracked by them.
So for this list to work, you'd have to have a database of people on the list. That defeats the purpose right there. On top of that, you'd have to have some way to mark yourself as a person on that list, while you're browsing. That mark would then have to alert the web servers and whatnot, which would create log entries, which would have to include a unique identifier of that flag. Again, defeating the point. So by putting yourself on the list, you just let Google and everyone else track you better. How about you do what people already do: Incognito/Private Browsing, wipe cookies/cache, and wear tinfoil hats.
In public you have no expectation of privacy as far as the law is concerned,at least as far as I understand it.Although I am not a fan of invading anyones privacy without there permission.
For most businesses, Linux is more expensive than windows. Anyone who can tie their own shoes can set up a Windows server. Linux, on the other hand, requires someone who at least kind of knows what they're doing, and that commands more money. Not to mention the cost of training the Luddite employees on a new operating system, when it took them 10 years to get used to the last one.
Linux config can be pretty fire-and-forget these days. But even so - it's a dangerous thing to bet your business on an IT infrastructure set up by someone who's qualification is the ability to tie their shoes. It can be done. But it's going to cost you eventually. As for the Luddite employees - no IT environment is without change.
I bet putting up "a 540-square-foot video billboard advertisement in Times Square, New York" costs a small fortune. So, where did a consumer group get that kind of money?
No doubt, from a hostile company. But who? Microsoft? Apple? Viacom?
Google is far move invasive than Microsoft, which /. always puts the Gates Borg King visage on the articles for.
I think the image of Schmidt at the end of the video would be perfect.
If I get a cut.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
then these people have nothing to worry about privacy. The internet will be carved up into a unusable CompuServe like mess with nickel and dime plans similar to the crap cable tv bundle plans by the telecoms.
For most businesses, Linux is more expensive than windows. Anyone who can tie their own shoes can set up a Windows server. Linux, on the other hand, requires someone who at least kind of knows what they're doing, and that commands more money. Not to mention the cost of training the Luddite employees on a new operating system, when it took them 10 years to get used to the last one.
Linux config can be pretty fire-and-forget these days. But even so - it's a dangerous thing to bet your business on an IT infrastructure set up by someone who's qualification is the ability to tie their shoes. It can be done. But it's going to cost you eventually. As for the Luddite employees - no IT environment is without change.
My point though is that it's not just about the IT. Most slashdotters' lives center around IT in one way or another, so we have a strong bias toward keeping up with current technology. Most normal people, OTOH, couldn't give a crap about the computer except in so far as it allows them to enter basic info into some random app and lets them look youtube when the boss isn't around. These people will resist change with every fiber of their being, and you need to pick your battles with them.
Google Analytics means that you can be visiting any of an ever increasing range of sites with no visible affiliation to Google, but still be being tracked by them.
So? Can I demand that the shopkeeper turn off the CCTV before I enter the store? Try buying gas without ending up being recorded on tape somehow.
If someone is that paranoid about being tracked, turn off the damned cookies in your browser. If you're super-duper paranoid, get off the internet - no-one is forcing you to browse.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
just stop using the free services provided on the internet
And if you quit using Google's free services, they still have other methods of tracking you. Namely, by offering Google Analytics to sites for "free" to help monitor their traffic. So, despite you telling Google "no thanks, I'll find an alternative to your services," they still track you. Or, instead of Analytics, by loading jQuery libraries? Or perhaps you e-mailed someone with a GMail account?
I think the real issue isn't making money. It's Google's omnipresence on the web, and their primary method of profit is tracking, collecting, profiling marketing information about users.
... or they got indirectly sponsored by Bing, Do Evil(TM), We are OK with China Laws (c)
What about the credit ratings agencies? Why do they have the right to record information about you without your consent? And to share this with random third parties who want to know something about you - again without your consent?
This would be illegal in most (if not all) other Western countries.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Anyone who can tie their own shoes can set up a Windows server.
Finally, an explanation for the size of my spam folder!
... is the basic task setting up a Windows server, or tying a shoe? It's not clear from your post.
I'm not sure if any reputable TCO studies have actually shown that, at least over any decent length of time.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Guess it's time to bring this post out, and update it:
Dear Consumer Watchdog
Your post advocates a
( ) technical ( X) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting invasions of privacy. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( X) Those invading privacy can easily use it to target people who want to hide their info
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
(X ) Google will not put up with it
(X ) The police will not put up with it
(X ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(X ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for data collection
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
(X ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(X ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, jerk! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
Sure I understand that you have a right to privacy, but if you aren't doing anything wrong, why do you care?
So you keep your house unlocked all the time so people can freely enter and leave all they want? You make sure that every all your windows are uncovered and you have no fences around your property so everyone can see in, right? You have all your phones tapped for any police organization who would want them? You make sure to forward all copies of your snail mail, emails, IMs, texts, etc to all relevant police organizations?
If you don't, why don't you? It's not like you have anything to hide, right?
Wait, point of order... shouldn't that be TINSTAAFL?
Or TANSTAFL (There are no such things as free lunches)? I question the subject-verb agreement of TANSTAAFL.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
... tracking you too. And that with Google Analytics. What a bunch of hypocrits.
I'm not sure if any reputable TCO studies have actually shown that, at least over any decent length of time.
And how many of these managers really care about the cost over a 2+ year period? They care about their quarterly bonus, and that's usually all they care about.
Consumer Watchdog = troll sponsored by Microsoft. More here: http://techrights.org/2009/05/04/consumer-watchdog-exposed/
Anyone who can tie their own shoes can set up a Windows server
... which is practically guaranteed to be taken over by botnets.
You get what you pay for.
And what users do you have to pay to use a Linux server? How lazy can you be? At least spend the ten seconds it takes to pick the right FUD for the occasion.
Just use adblock and block the tracking pixel. Its fucking trivial.
Average users aren't going to be that confused much more than a transition to a newer version of Windows, and they can generally do less damage in Ubuntu.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Did Microsoft Hire Consumer Watchdog to Attack Google?
That is a year old story. According to it, "consumer watchdog" is a hired gun.
On the internet run Tor with on a browser with ad block and no-script and turn off cookies. Don't use free products like Gmail. Modify this configuration for how much of a crippled internet you can stand.
Don't use a credit card. Credit card companies maintain profiles on your purchases.
Only user a prepaid phone that you paid for in cash. Phone companies know every person you've called and who's called you.
Stop using ATM's. They have cameras and your banking activity is logged.
Those Loyalty cards supermarkets and chain stored give you has the potential for abuse. Pay more for your food.
Local and Federal government agencies share personal information about you for administrative purposes. Perhaps you should consider which non compulsory entities (other than the IRS, etc) you interact with.
It's "ain't"" not "are"...
Though it SHOULD be. TANSTAAFI. Ice Cream. Not Lunch.
If your management can't plan long term, there's a good chance your company won't exist long term.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
The company that ran this promotion (Consumer Watchdog) has been using Google Analytics. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/09/03/businessinsider-anti-google-privacy-group-consumer-watchdog-is-tracking-your-clicks-with-google-analytics-2010-9.DTL Hypocrite, much?
Anyone who can tie their own shoes can set up a Windows server
... which is practically guaranteed to be taken over by botnets.
You get what you pay for.
And what users do you have to pay to use a Linux server? How lazy can you be? At least spend the ten seconds it takes to pick the right FUD for the occasion.
There's two arguments in here.. One for the back end, which is the one you addressed. The other is for the desktop, which you seem confused on.
Think like a businessman. What happens if you switch from Windows to Linux? Suddenly mission-critical app X no longer works (or only half works in Wine), you have to hire a full time sysadmin, and half the users' productivity drops to nothing because they spend all their time bitching about how they can't install iTunes. Now imagine you really don't care about FOSS ideology, or even technical superiority, but only net profit, and then only net profit over a 3 month cycle. Really, what would you do?
Ah. That explains it... thanks for clearing that up.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
If your management can't plan long term, there's a good chance your company won't exist long term.
Most don't. Even more reason not to sink heavy costs into something that won't pay off for years, especially in the current economy.
everybody knows that a mission critical app for an enterprise is going to be written in Java Also, not being able to install iTunes will probably raise productivity.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
You need to work in a small business to understand this.. Often time users will simply boycott and refuse to do anything because they "don't understand the new system". Also, almost nothing mission-critical for small businesses is written in Java.
Even at her advanced age, Jamie Curtis is still a damned sight more attractive than Consumer Watchdog's president Jamie Court. How addled does a mind have to be to confuse the two?
I found this (http://diagonalslash.blogspot.com/2010/08/google-must-respond-and-plug-this-leak.html) of privacy on part of Google quite astonishing. For some reason very few people seem to care about Google's continued "unusual and unexpected" usage of data provided by its users. The trade-offs you are making as you share each bit of information with Google are not at all obvious and easy to understand.
The issue I have raised continues to exist (though it was much worse earlier) in Gmail.
"but if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines including Google do retain this information for some time, and it’s important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities."
Which is basically the most direct way of saying "the NSA has a gun to my head" that that is available to him. Honestly, I'm not all that worried about Google in and of itself. They seem to be fairly transparent about what they do and why they collect that information in the first place, and they are staffed by a lot people with similar views to the prevailing opinion on Slashdot (though these views are necessarily going to be much more moderate than a lot of the views expressed here, or they wouldn't be working for Google in the first place).
No, the fact that Google is a treasure trove of personal information for the United States' various three-letter agencies is far more worrying to me than any ill will on the part of Google, particularly given the US' eagerness to conduct national and corporate espionage to secure themselves any economic advantage for the United States. Or to scour the world for all the entities that they might consider to be a threat, real or imagined. Naturally I'm just another unimportant geek and not a visionary engineer or a trade negotiator, so I shouldn't have anything to fear personally from this system (yet, anyway), but nonetheless I still find this unbridled use of dirty tactics to be morally repugnant. /That/ is the real message we should be hearing about Google, but I doubt that it lines up with the interests of whoever is controlling this particular drawerful of sock puppets.
You want to opt-out of being tracked by Google? Simple:
http://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout
You change your mind about using Google and want to export all your data? Simple:
http://www.dataliberation.org/
The website/organization behind this ad doesn't even mention those links.
You think MS gives you options like this? Facebook?
I'm a big supporter of legit consumer organizations, like the BBB, but this one is clearly bogus. By supporting and giving attention to an organization like this we undermine the legit ones.
The best action for management to take for a company that's doomed is embezzlement (which is even better than you bonus), so your argument is flawed. You are saying that it's a better plan for idiots who are incapable of long term planning, but nobody wants to be an idiot incapable of long term planning
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Yea because you know, security systems designed to protect a business are the exact same thing as using Google Analytics to track people.
Moron.
Can anyone tell me why 99% of
Meh, privacy is a red herring. As he says, nothing you do will remain private. More information leads to more transparency... there's not really any escaping it, whether that information is collected by computers or mailmen or word-of-mouth. The trick is just to have the transparency work both ways.
The real deal is the war for mindshare.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/01/opinion/01gibson.html
You missed the first part of my post, where I said I understand the right to privacy. Obviously you've taken it to the extreme, active privacy invasion vs passive privacy invasion, which is pretty much what I would expect from a flamebaiter. Google does not peer in your windows or tap your phones. They house data that you WILLINGLY give them. What do I mean? You use their free email service (gmail), their free browser (chrome), their free search engine (well, google), and any other of the myriad of products they offer to you FOR FREE. of course they're going to keep user data. so does yahoo, microsoft, or any other free service that you use. don't like it? stay in your locked house with all the windows covered and your huge fence and off the internet, because every little thing you do is tracked somehow somewhere. it doesn't mean the cyburrpoleece are listening in right now waiting to nab you if you say something wrong in an email. but if you think that, yeah you don't belong on the internet.
It's absurd this notion that tracking a user only benefits business doing the tracking. I don't mind getting junk mail if it germaine to my interests. Similarly, I don't mind being tracked if it means that the ads in my browser/internet broadcast/streamed media are more relevent to my proximity. I'm getting something that may be useful to me, and they're not wasting their advertising money trying to sell me something I don't want in a place that I'll never go. Google has been particularly useful in this manner because searches for businesses take in to account location making them even more accurate than previously. For instance, I searched for a restaurant called "Friar Tucks", and the first one on the list was the restaurant in my town, despite there being a restaurant called "Friar Tucks" in just about every major metropolitan area in the US. Potential for abuse != abuse.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
Much of the online-privacy debate is about online advertisement. I agree there's many reasons for concern regarding privacy issues, but targeted advertisement?
If anything, I consider targeted advertisement the only acceptable form of advertisement, as opposed to regular "blanket" advertising where you bomb anyone and everyone with your message hoping to get .01% hit-rate. I strongly dislike websites spamming the me blindly with messages I really don't care about, but I have nothing against the sometimes helpful contextual "links" that GMail "offers". Especially, they're not designed to steal attention, as opposed to many "message bombing" forms of advertisement.
I guess the two extremes on the scale would be spam "do you want a guaranteed 35% penis enlargment?" vs. targeted job offerings "did you know at is available, and you qualify for the position?".
On the one hand you pound your brain to exhaustion with messages you hate and do not care about, and on the other hand you have a site with ONLY information that interests you (even if it DOES have as a goal to sell you something).
Luddite
I don't think that word means what you think it does. Same shit with the Office ribbon. Change for the sake of change, and if I complain that you are raping my productivity in the ass for no valid reason, or maybe, just maybe, your "solution" isn't really the best for someone who isn't you, I get insulted. Fuck you, shitbag IT geek. Now go watch some hentai and pretend some more that "nerds took over the world" or some other delusion you pasty, fat, pencil necked dogfuckers piss on about.
Who pissed in your cheerios?
While Consumer Watchdog hyperventilates about The Great Satan Google, they conveniently neglect to mention that their website tracks user behavior with...Google Analytics.
The best action for management to take for a company that's doomed is embezzlement (which is even better than you bonus), so your argument is flawed.
Embezzlement requires risk though, which managers are notoriously afraid of. And unless switching to Linux aids in embezzlement in the first place, I'm going to have to call that a red herring.
You are saying that it's a better plan for idiots who are incapable of long term planning, but nobody wants to be an idiot incapable of long term planning
And that's a straw man. I never called managers incapable of long term planning. I pointed out that long term planning is not in their personal best interests.
If your employees refuse to do the work, I'm sure in this economy you can find more than enough people willing to. Yes, transitioning between any systems is going to have a learning curve for employees, but that can't be the only reason not to do it.
It costs money to transition to new employees though. Not to mention it's hard to get rid of someone who's been there 20 years.. It's really bad for morale. This is exactly why programmer/engineers/IT workers make horrible managers -- we think of systems in simplistic terms, when any system involving humans is really very complex.
Ice cream? Really? That's more than TSA gives me for a body scan.
Reply to That ||
Windows still requires someone with knowledge to setup the systems correctly, or you get all sorts of problems. Yes, for a small business, you can hire a newbie to do most of it, but as you grow you'll quickly realize you have to spend a lot of time / effort / downtime redoing things.
The separation of the two is in the enterprise space -- think midsize businesses and larger -- and as your enterprise grows larger, Linux is easier to maintain and implement.
Personally, I maintain 10 Linux servers / VM's, a half-dozen SQL Server servers with 30 or so SQL Server DB's (the largest is just under a TB), 4 MySQL servers, and I find time to do enterprise application development, enterprise reporting, and some web development (I consider myself poor at that). I also serve as 3rd tier network and OS support for 300+ employees.
If you know what you're doing, it's not difficult... and I'm paid fairly given my experience and years in the business.
Just because you can get someone for $20K a year to be a server intern doesn't mean they will be the one planning the network or making large decisions. A good seasoned admin keeps things running in a predictable way, allowing the business to focus on its core functionality and NOT on system limitations or integration issues.
My point though is that it's not just about the IT. Most slashdotters' lives center around IT in one way or another, so we have a strong bias toward keeping up with current technology. Most normal people, OTOH, couldn't give a crap about the computer except in so far as it allows them to enter basic info into some random app and lets them look youtube when the boss isn't around. These people will resist change with every fiber of their being, and you need to pick your battles with them.
The point is moot. IT environments are not static. And while it is true that people resist change, they still have to cope with it. IT is not a static world. It doesn't matter what platform you're on - or whether you shift platforms. Change is going to happen one way or another. Therefore, change itself is not enough of a justification.
As for fearing change, it applies to IT folks as well. A lot of the criticisms I see from Windows-centric IT folks is really a fear of change. Nobody likes being the expert and then dropped in to an environment where their knowledge base is mostly moot. As someone who went from Windows to Unix / Linux - been there, done that.
Move along.
Seriously, Google provides "free" services at the expense of providing them with information about where you go, what you're interested in, etc, so that they can turn a profit and keep their services "free." You don't like it? Don't have a Google account. Don't want site-to-site tracking? Use NoScript et al, a proxy, Tor, whatever you want to keep yourself anonymous.
I completely agree that privacy is an issue that most people could use more education on, but this isn't an area for the gov't to step in to - it's an area for consumers to better educate themselves about how their online actions correlate to a company's using of that information and how to mitigate that data consumption. If I didn't want Google in my e-mail, I wouldn't have it with GMail - simple as that. If I didn't want them knowing that I enjoy Chinese food, I'd use the yellow pages. If I don't want Google knowing what I'm searching for, I'll use Bing! (/sarcasm, I'd never ever ever use Bing).
The choice is yours, the choice should always be yours, and the government should not be involved.
So? Can I demand that the shopkeeper turn off the CCTV before I enter the store? Try buying gas without ending up being recorded on tape somehow.
Don't know where you live, but round here they don't feed it back to a central location monitored by a private company, so they can inspect the footage to see what you bought. It's purely a crime-prevention mechanism.
If someone is that paranoid about being tracked, turn off the damned cookies in your browser. If you're super-duper paranoid, get off the internet - no-one is forcing you to browse.
I've been using the internet longer than google - why should I go?
Anyway, I'm just pointing out the fact that you don't need to be using google services to be tracked by them - some people may not be aware of this fact. I personally think the ever-more-pervasive nature of it is slightly worrying, not for what they currently do with the data (targetted advertising) but what they could do with this or similar data in the future.
More FUD. Yawn.
Assuming you only care about a 3 month profit cycle, you'd never do any kind of investment or significant change to your business, including upgrading your Windows , not that that would guarantee support of your mission-critical system either. Plus that's a hidden premise that a businesses necessarily has one of those and that it's both not portable and so convoluted Wine won't work today. Big stretch there, cowboy.
Your premise that Linux systems actually require a full time sysadmin is patently false. I have several friends who run contracting businesses (doing both Windows and Linux) for a living and they've got many clients each. The complain about how much time the Windows work takes.
Your other premises are similarly anti-Linux adoption, assuming it's inferior for unreasonable reasons. Good luck getting me into an actual discussion with those assumptions.
And I want talking about, nor care about desktops. There's little difference between Ubuntu and Windows, and no compelling reason to change an existing deployment. The cost to change is too great once you bury yourself in that hole, but Windows fanboys assume we're making that silly argument. And yes, if I were starting a new business, I'd never start off wasting money on Windows desktops.
Moron.
Is that your real name? Your parents must have really hated you.
"Consumer Watchdog" appears to be an astroturfing organization, financed by Microsoft.
http://techrights.org/2009/05/04/consumer-watchdog-exposed/
I talked to them, and their arguments don't make much sense; they can't come up with a coherent argument why they are focusing on Google so much.
Indeed, they already do have that right, by not using Google's free services they ensure Google can't use any personal information.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
Just use adblock and block the tracking pixel. Its fucking trivial.
To you and me, possibly. Not to the vast majority of the internet-using populace who aren't even aware of it. I assume they were the targets of the ad in Times Square, not us.
If they refuse to work, they probably weren't that great of employees to begin with and are probably affecting the morale of your other employees negatively.
I'm not saying that employee retraining shouldn't be considered as part of the transition costs at all. That'd just be insane.
...but the internet ceased a looooong time ago to be the wild and secretive jungle that we all remember and loved, and it's now a commercial enterprise. Period. I don't understand how people can get so outraged over Google's data-mining without starting long before that. Google, as evil as people think they might be, track *who you say you are*. Of a handful of Gmail accounts that I have, exactly one of them has any information at all that could be traced directly to me. The rest are throwaway accounts, as are my six or seven yahoo accounts, and I don't think I have a single other account anywhere in my own name other than Facebook. When my identity got stolen, computers had nothing to do with it. They either stole my mail or my trash, not my Gmail password. Why do people freak out so much about Google using keyword-targeted advertising that's completely run by a machine that cares not a whit who you are and spends its day searching for "hdtv" or "tentacle porn", but these same people have no problem whatsoever giving their name, address, phone number, credit card number, bank routing information, and direct access to every single byte that comes out of their computer to the phone companies that have proved over and over and *%&$ing over again that they simply DO NOT CARE about their customers and look at them as nothing more than money troughs? (Seriously? $.30 for a text message, but a 650K jpg is free? *^&$ you.) Where's the similar outrage at the telcos, who are less progressive than the MPAA and will roll over for a warrantless wiretap like a wiener dog with an itchy belly? Seriously. Did I miss something?
> The group says its goal is to push Congress and the Federal Trade Commission to create a Do Not Track Me list
Good, now we can finally keep track of the people who don't want to be kept track of.
I'm pretty anti-government but I'd sure support a "Do Not Track Me" law. I've had more than enough of google and their "Don't Be Evil" hypocrisy. A central question the Founders never could have contemplated is how technology could completely destroy privacy. Do I own my own privacy, or is it google's to take without permission and pimp out for money? I'd say that, ultimately, if you don't own your privacy than you own nothing -- not even your own life. I'm sure Schmidt would counter that "If I have something to hide, perhaps I shouldn't be doing it" but obviously if we could track Schmidt, Page, and Brin well enough we'd catch them all lying, cheating, stealing, screwing, and defecating. I bet we could sell that footage for good money, too. Google makes the Microsoft of old look saintly.
You've got quite a few assumptions of your own. I've never worked somewhere that didn't have at least one heavily entrenched legacy app. And it doesn't take much to crash Wine... I've never seen anything work *quite right* on it.
I find it annoying that any argument against using FOSS for everything is considered FUD. I've fought for years in past jobs to adopt FOSS, including Linux. I run Linux at home, and I prefer it as an operating system to Windows. I'm pointing out the problems with trying to switch a business over to Linux based off of first-hand experience.
> but if you aren't doing anything wrong, why do you care?
Because none of us have any idea how any of this crap can later be used against us. No different than why you won't let your 9 year-old daughter have free reign on what she posts on facebook - she's too stupid to know what risks she's taking, and we're too stupid to know what risks will emerge from the aggregation of all our details.
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
Google's Evil? I'll believe that when I see a "We detected a cookie from MSN and/or Bing! Your browser may be infected by MSN specific viruses and trojans! Please download and run this Google Chrome + security scan now!" on random webpages with Google AdSense, a-la the Dr. DOS screwjob.
There are evil tech companies out there. Google's not even in the top 10.
And why should ads without tracking not work? They seem to work quite well on about every other medium.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
So? Can I demand that the shopkeeper turn off the CCTV before I enter the store? Try buying gas without ending up being recorded on tape somehow.
Those tapes sit in the store for X weeks/months before getting recycled.
No one looks at them unless a crime gets committed.
Internet cookies are pretty much forever. And when flash is involved, they can rise from the dead.
If someone is that paranoid about being tracked, turn off the damned cookies in your browser. If you're super-duper paranoid, get off the internet - no-one is forcing you to browse.
"Get off the internet" is based on a mentality that died out long ago.
The average person shouldn't need any technical knowledge in order to avoid being tracked on the internet.
American society has slowly become less tolerant of accepting opt-out as a default.
It started with junk faxes, then phone calls, then abusive creditcard/bank behavior, and now it is progressing to the internet.
We allow corporations enormous power, but have spent the last 100 years balancing that out with consumer protections.
Your point of view lost the debate before your father was born, the only question since then has been "to what degree."
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
*looks in pocket for mod points*
:(
*empty hand*
Sorry.
Reply to That ||
"Don't track me, Bro."
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Wow. That ad is really the opposite of charisma. And I don't mean their version of Eric Schmidt, I mean the ad itself. That thing is so creepy it makes me want to stay away from Consumer Watchdog.
Also, is it me or is there a bad jump cut when the one girl throws away her ice cream? One ball falls off and then the other suddenly disappears. You even see how she moved a bit between the frames. Are they trying to be endearing by looking like a bady-made live action ad?
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
The fact that a call was placed, it's time, duration, and connected parties are all part of the _content_ of your communication. As such, drawing attention to this "difference" is erroneous. Google uses MORE content, but the telco uses content as well.
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer." -Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
similar to the Do Not Call list developed to prevent telemarketers from aggressively calling consumers.
I almost never used to get soliciting calls on my cell. Then I foolishly put my number on this "do not call" list that the article compares this to. Lo and behold, I got a call a few times a week telling me my car warranty is about to expire. Good list analogy guys - if I don't want to be tracked then I'm expected to submit some information (name, ip address, whatever) to some site that the government / public has access to? I'll get right on it!
Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
What's wrong? You have a problem with what you call "assumptions" which are based on my experience but your anecdotes are the limit of possibility? Nice argument.
Obviously you've been in several less businesses than I, and run less applications on Wine than me. I play several very complex games in Wine, without any crashes post configuration. It's perfectly fine, even if than means paying a couple hundred bucks to fix whatever strange anomaly your legacy application may contain. Giving up because it doesn't run out-of-the-box means not using many application you do in Windows as well. It's a one-time expense and no excuse for ignoring as a possible solution.
Any argument? No. Just the standard myths, many of which you've brought up. Don't use those, you won't hear "FUD" in responses. I don't care how much you claim to understand Linux, that's irrelevant, because a bad premise is still just a bad premise. At least bother to name something I said was, which isn't FUD if you want to be taken seriously. Or are you so special that we're supposed to take you at your word? (hint: nobody here is, including both of us)
I see you've never used Linux, nor configured a Windows server. Anyone can NOT set up a Windows server without training; at least, not a robust, secure one. It's no harder to set up an Apache server on Linux. And Linux with KDE is as easy to use as Windows (actually it's easier).
Not to mention the cost of training the Luddite employees on a new operating system, when it took them 10 years to get used to the last one.
XP wasn't out for ten years. Vista was only around a year or two, Seven is still shiny-new, and moving from one version of Windows to another is no different than moving from Mac or Windows to Linux. I've been computing for 30 years and it took me a month or so to get used to my new netbook and Win 7. OTOH it took all of maybe two days to get comfortable moving from Win 98 to Mandrake.
Free Martian Whores!
just stop using the free services provided on the internet, and nobody will want your data anyways.
how is it news to people that somebody want's something in exchange for what they give away?
By definition, when you give something away, you aren't asking for something in exchange.
Ignoring that for a moment, just because it's reasonable for Google to ask for something when they provide a service, that doesn't mean people can't criticize what they are asking for. This is made even worse by the way the thing Google is asking (really, just taking) is difficult to realize up front. Most people don't realize the privacy implications of using something like Gmail, or even just visiting a site that uses Google Analytics.
Maybe they'd still use those services if they fully understood the implications. Maybe they'd not if they had a choice, but living as an Internet hermit isn't exactly a fair choice. Google is gathering a lot of information on every single one of us.
Right now it's a fact of life. You can't avoid Google. But if you don't like the way things are heading, you fucking speak up. What you don't do is just say, "well, they do deserve something in return!"
"Do not call" lists and "Do not track" lists are like International Law: They only work when everyone willingly agrees to play by the same rules. "Do not call" lists, for telemarketers who don't care about the rules, are just a nice, free, verified list of numbers that they know will answer when they call to peddle their junk. A "Do not track" list is just going to end up being a "Persons of interest" list to any government agency (or any other entity) looking for people with something to hide.
Keep you lists, I'll keep on protecting my own anonymity like I've been doing for decades now, thank you very much.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Indeed - the whole video stank, it wasn't pro-consumer, just blatantly anti-Google to the point of absurdity, so I assumed something was up. It took me about 3 minutes to find precisely the same research. Why this article wasn't titled "Microsoft begins a fourth front against Google using yet another proxy" is beyond me. Google angered Ballmer, and now they must reap the chairstorm. The mind boggles as to just how above the legal system Microsoft is.
Was how unprofessional the animation was and how I'd like to get some ice cream.
Hope the grocery store has Irish Mudslide.
Just for kicks I went to consumerwatchdog.org and used their search engine to search on microsoft . Top 20 header results :
1. There's no privacy in third world America - (anti-google article, no mention of bing)
2. Top trustbuster says DOJ watching search industry
3. Advocacy Groups Ask Facebook for More Privacy Changes
4. Critics Call on Feds to Squelch a Google Monopoly
5. Data Show Google Abuses Search Role, Group Contends
6. Watchdog Backs Google Antitrust Complaint with (More) Data
7. Google's Wi-Fi Data Harvest Facing More Probes, Lawsuits
8. Google Using Search Engine To Muscle Into Internet Businesses, Study Finds
9. Google Worth $1 Billion to Pa. Commerce
10. Google Raises Its Game In Washington
11. Google shows the way on search engine encryption; others must follow
12. FTC Clears Google Purchase of Mobile Ad Service
13. White House Reprimands Ex-Googler After Consumer Watchdog FOIA Request
14. Few Hardballs from Shareholders at Google's Annual Meeting
15. Google's Growth Markets Include Lobbying
16. Consumer Watchdog Targets Google
17. Privacy Groups, Business Firms Firing Warning Shots on New Online Ad Privacy Bill
18. Boucher's Privacy Bill Scolded by Consumer Groups
19. Google Spent $1.3 Million on Lobbying, What Are They Buying?
20. Consumer Group to Call for Google Break up
Damn, that's a lot of google mention for a search on microsoft. Hell, even on a search on facebookhas "google" in 6 of the top 10 results returned! Facebook doesn't appear until the 11th result, and is in 5 of the headers. What a joke, this site makes fox news looks fair and balanced.
Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
Without getting into the argument of whether or not targeted advertising works better (IMHO, it does) ... the answer is "Because that's the price they are putting on the use of their service"
You don't get to dictate the price of a service - the company/person providing it does. If you don't like behavioral tracking, you can avoid it by not using their "free" service. Google isn't forcing anyone to use gmail.
If someone says they'll clean your house for $50, you don't have the option of telling them to clean it for $30. Or telling them how to do their job, and that they don't really need to use a certain method of cleaning (Well, you do ... they just will tell you to go stuff yourself, which what the original point of my post, though I was really just kinda going for sarcasm.)
It is in their best interests because having a job in five years is important. If the stockholders will kick out management because of a minor dip for one quarter, the company is doomed for failure because you can't sustain a business long term on short term planning.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
You need to keep your story straight. Small businesses are generally not publicly traded, so they aren't subject to the whims of stockholders trying to get a quick buck. They tend to actually care about long term investments because these are important to them. Depending on the size and nature of the business, there might be only a few employees that even use computers.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
You must be new to Web 2.0? Slashdot has been using Google Analytics for years... I started using it myself after coming to this realisation. My ISP-business has a now a dedicated Beowulf Cluster of virtual servers running optimized Google Analytics Javascripts monitoring the living shit out of all our clients. We will shortly expand our services with installation of the NoScript-plugin to Firefox...
It is monitored by a private company, and outside of perhaps restrooms, there probably aren't many legal limitations of what they can do with it, at least internally.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Are you human...?
No, I am a meat Popsicle.
You always could have opted out via disabling cookies, but now they even have a plugin if cookie management isn't your thing.
http://analytics.blogspot.com/2010/05/greater-choice-and-transparency-for.html
Some of the comments on that blog post that think privacy is a horrible thing are kind of scary.
http://notanumber.net/
But how about then Facebook what knows exactly who are your friends, with who you chat and meet. Where you go, what music you listen, what movies you like, your ex's situations, your holidays places, your addresses, your workplace, even many gives their social security numbers and so on.
When it comes to Google, they can see everything what you ISP (= Government and the ISP as a company) can see, as well what you are doing in facebook.
But when it comes to real privacy, Facebook is bigger threat than Google. As Google does not know for who are your friends unless you use Google email services and you use them to contact your friends.
With all the social semantiks what facebook has, you can build so awesome anti-terrorists filtering and security system as you can just find everything from every facebook person.
Rhe specific apps are all custom apps from devs that have long since moved on (one of which includes over 1 million lines of VB code). These things aren't easily replaced, and they rarely work without a hich in Wine. I'd go on, but you're obviosly a zealot who doesn't understand the realities of the business world. Linux is great for server, embedded systems, and as a hobby. But there's no reason to force it into situations where it just doesn't make sense.
1) Google has trucks where they give out free ice cream in your favorite flavors.
2) Eric Schmidt is either a Terminator or Robocop.
3) Apparently someone was bored one day and did a 3D rendering of the suburb in Paperboy.
went to consumerwatchdog.org and used their search engine
We know consumerwatchdog is astroturfing for Microsoft, but where's the harm in that (as long as we know whose paying for it)? Considering Google subcontracts to at least as many astroturfing PR firms, many of whom are less transparent than consumerwatchdog, there's nothing to stop them from making the same criticisms of Bing, Hotmail, Windows...
In both of these cases the criticisms are valid and pro-consumer. Isn't that what competition is about? I mean come on, we're not talking rhetoric here.
Everyone is forgetting Google already has an established method to opt-out: http://www.theonion.com/video/google-opt-out-feature-lets-users-protect-privacy,14358/ The opt out village!
I've specifically said that I wasn't talking about desktops, yet you continue to be obstinate, making your stupid strawman. You're obviously ignoring the point that I have no wish to use Linux into places it doesn't belong, and someone who doesn't understand the first thing about technology. "Custom app", "replacing" and "BAZILLIONS!!!! of lines of hardcorez 1334 VB code!!!!1" are irrelevant, the number of different API functions called is. You'd know that if you weren't just a hobbyist MBA who parrots the FUD "hobby" nonsense.
You also don't need your stupid developers even if you stupidly let them keep your code; all you need is Wine developers. That and getting over your superiority complex about being so "business savvy" that you can't imagine you could possibly be wrong. When it comes to technology, you're clearly the equivalent of a retarded child. Get someone who knows what they're talking about to do the real work. It doesn't require a very smart MBA to understand that if it makes sense to move, AND FOR THE THIRD FUCKING TIME, I NEVER SUGGESTED IT ALWAYS DOES, then you let the smart people figure it out. And you get out of our way.
I don't think you can pay that much attention to "normal"users. There are people I know who are confused by the interface differences between Firefox and IE (and I'm talking about for very basic browsing tasks, not for advanced preferences, privacy settings, or anything like that). You can't (or at least shouldn't, IMHO) hold your organization back because an employee's Windows 2000 desktop is just the way he likes it and he doesn't want to be bothered with change. That leaves the organization vulnerable for no good reason.
For anyone other than someone who has the ability to fire you, the answer should be, "This is what we'll be using. These are the advantages (x, y, z). If you don't like it, go find yourself another position in some other company."
Clearly, you have to have a justification for a major change, but resistance to change itself shouldn't be a reason to avoid it.
http://www.google.com/ads/preferences/
Average users aren't going to be that confused much more than a transition to a newer version of Windows, and they can generally do less damage in Ubuntu.
it really depends on the configuration. You can get a KDE interface that looks reasonably familiar to Windows users (at least as far as the menuing system goes), and if that's all they need, that's great. But if you've got an environment where users are used to installing their own applications, you'll likely have a lot more trouble. Suddenly, things they download just won't install.
If you don't have users who install their own programs, you won't have to deal with that issue, but there will be lots of people just confused by the differences between OpenOffice Writer and Microsoft Word.
If you upgrade the average user from, say, Windows XP to Windows 7, there won't be nearly as many issues with the learning curve. That doesn't make it better, but it is easier.
If it took my employees 10 years to learn how to do their job, well, let's just say they would never see year 2.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Google is handing out ice cream and requesting full body scans in return? What Google provides isn't akin to fucking buying ice cream, those stupid S.O.B.s seem to feel like just because they can make an analogy it's correct.
Warning: logic up ahead!
Ice cream cannot be compared to the search capabilities and other apps Google provides. Unless you are in the business of dealing with ice cream (whether selling, re-selling, or providing them to a game show so they can dump it on a contestant's head) ice cream will never be a vital component. What Google provides are search, analytic, and collaboration tools (among others) that are the lifeblood for some companies (who provide support) and the backbone of others (even the U.S. government).
By comparing that to ice cream they make themselves look like silly little shits. I apologize for my rudeness but this pisses me off.
I completely understand and agree that tracking is invasive by nature. I want you to understand that I'm not simply backing Google because I'm in love with them or getting paid off; IANAL, but the manner in which this advert portrays Google is unfair and will not hold up should it be presented to a court.
I personally don't think that a "Don't Track Me" list will work. How many people have heard, been witness to, or a victim of unsolicited phone calls after putting themselves on a "Do Not Call" list? I'm not going to argue much about that, though. My real beef is with the advert.
Life. Is. Good.
Though it SHOULD be. TANSTAAFI. Ice Cream. Not Lunch.
Wouldn't that be TANSTAAFIC?
Having the retailers tracking us, tailoring their products to our interests, it is part of our dream. We want robots to fetch us beer from the fridge and chairs that adjust to our bodies. How is retailers only showing stuff we're interested in any different? The chances of me clicking on an ad for tampons is vanishingly low, so why waste my time and their money to show me a tampon ad? Heck, I'd love for bricks-and-mortar stores to work like this. It seems like every time I go to buy new clothes, I have to walk through a mile of women's clothes. Do they really buy that much more clothing?
I admit, the tracking sometimes can be a disadvantage. I looked at some socks online, about a week ago, and that is all my ads are since. All showing different types of socks.
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
Actually I've been using it for about 15 years, and have written some pretty interesting software for it. The problem is that most people have not used it, do not want to use it, and put up a fight when forced to use it. Also, it's not nearly as easy to set up a server in Linux unless you know your way around bash. If your Linux server has a GUI interface, you're doing it wrong.
It's going to vary from place to place. Where I am that means an extra $1000 per PC for MS Windows, God knows how much per server, and you'll still need someone not much cheaper than me to keep those MS Windows machines going, most likely two people.
Stick a nice video card and some scavenged extra memory in a six year old linux box and two widescreen LCDs and the users love you (shameful but true!). Any retired server or cluster node becomes a cold swap spare desktop box available in minutes if you dump it in a $60 case. Most of the time they get to use their original disk as if nothing ever happened. You can't pull those stunts with MS windows machines and need to replace them more frequently. Plus the backend stuff where I am has to run on some sort of *nix anyway simply because the product the clients insist we use has no port to MS Windows and there is no competing product on MS Windows.
So in my case, about an extra $1000 per PC, more frequent hardware replacement and probably an extra employee for low level support if I shifted to MS Windows. Maybe a third person and occasional screams of help to expensive consultants if MS Exchange is involved.
You're right about small businesses and bonuses.. But small business are also the kinds of places where a few loud and important employees cam block something from happening. The only way around it is to convince the owner of the need to switch. But whose side is the owner going to take between you and her friend she hired on 15 years ago when the company first started?
Well, there is one more piece of evidence: Consumer Watchdog's arguments make no sense; they have a single-minded focus on Google and are largely ignoring the privacy violations from lots of other companies.
Answer me these questions: (1) What technical qualifications do the people at "Consumer Watchdog" have with regard to computer privacy? (2) Where does their funding come from? Who has donated to them? (3) Where is their technical analysis of Google privacy practices and in what specific way are they worse than those of other companies?
My reading is that the "Consumer Watchdog" folks are just looking for another hot-button topic to drum up funding and support, and big-scary-Google seems like a good choice. And Microsoft-friendly folks are all too happy to support this. But "Consumer Watchdog" doesn't make any real contribution to improving privacy or policy; that would require an understanding of the issues and technology, which they seem to lack.
Your claim was that the only alternative to tracking ads would be that you have to pay directly. Your answer now is, at best, a straw man.
If I go to Google, I expect Google to get the data of what I do there. That's not the problem, because, as you say, you can opt out of that easily (and indeed, I go not use gmail). The problem is Google tracking me when I go to other sites which happen to use Google ads (or other things like Google Analytics). When I go to another site, I don't have a way to know beforehand if that other site sends my information to Google, therefore I cannot simply avoid pages doing that.
But as I already said, that's not the point of what I said. The point is that the claim that the only viable options are tracking ads or paying is not true. Other media show convincingly that non-tracking ads can work. So your original claim
is wrong: There is absolutely no evidence that no tracking means the end of "free" services. Just look at TV for a counterexample.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
That's a bunch of tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory bullshit. Attaching GUIDs to "every document you send out" and "every online transaction" is demonstrably false - examine your traffic with Wireshark (or a similar app) and your outgoing documents with a hex editor. Search for your GUID, see that it isn't there. Compare results with the same operations done on a Linux PC as a control, see that there's no difference (except maybe in your newline characters in the case of the text file).
IE5's content cache wasn't a conspiracy, it was incompetence. Your history was cleared, the cache remained, but MS thought that was good enough at the time. You couldn't see the history from your browser right? Mission accomplished!
The Windows "super hidden" capability is real, although I don't think the OS actually uses it at all. I've seen a few viruses that exploit this design flaw (I actually ran across that BS while researching it).
Microsoft is abusive in many other ways - their pricing, DRM/copy protection, the way they generally treat customers and PC vendors (like shit), vendor exclusivity agreements, later versions of DirectX artificially made to run only on their latest OSes, etc...but that article is a steaming pile of bullshit.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
With that chime from the Google ice-cream truck I will want to get loads of different flavors. Stop making it appealing plz....
The title includes "Take 2" because it seems that my words offended someone and were forcibly removed from the conversation. Hopefully that was only because of my foul language and not due to foul play by somebody else. I really wanted to see replies to my comment but that can't happen when it outright gets deleted without so much of a notice, can it? I made my post last night, and basically archived it on my blog at the same time last night so thankfully I can repost it (with the expletives edited out).
Consumer Watchdog really dropped the ball on this one. The analogy in their (potentially creepy) advertisement fails on a level that hurts their cause. Supposedly, Google is handing out ice cream and requesting full body scans in return? What Google provides isn’t akin to [expletive] buying ice cream, those [expletive] [expletive] seem to feel like just because they can make an analogy it’s correct.
Warning: logic up ahead!
Ice cream cannot be compared to the search capabilities and other apps Google provides. Unless you are in the business of dealing with ice cream (whether selling, re-selling, or providing them to a game show so they can dump it on a contestant’s head) ice cream will never be a vital component. What Google provides are search, analytic, and collaboration tools (among others) that are the lifeblood for some companies (who provide support) and the backbone of others (even the U.S. government).
By comparing that to ice cream they make themselves look like silly little [expletive]. I apologize for my rudeness but this pisses me off.
I completely understand and agree that tracking is invasive by nature. I want you to understand that I’m not simply backing Google because I’m in love with them or getting paid off; IANAL, but the manner in which this advert portrays Google is unfair and will not hold up should it be presented to a court.
I personally don’t think that a “Don’t Track Me” list will work. How many people have heard, been witness to, or a victim of unsolicited phone calls after putting themselves on a “Do Not Call” list? I’m not going to argue much about that, though. My real beef is with the advert.
Life. Is. Good.
Actually the problem is that most people haven't even heard of Linux. Non-nerds that I talk to are amazed that there are free replacements for Windows and free programs for it and want to know more about it. We're the only ones, it seems, who know about FOSS or the GPL. I've installed Linux on quite a few non-nerds' machines, and they have no problem with it and liked it, and had no trouble learning it; especially when the reason I installed it was their continued virus infestation (Win 7 is a LOT better in this and other respects; I'm actually starting to like it a little).
People are always resistant to change unless they're really unhappy with what they're changing from. My workplace is (finally) fully transitioning from Corel to MS Office, and they're squealing like stuck pigs over it despite the fact that Quattro Pro is a stinking putrid piece of garbage and Excel is (IMO) the best spreadsheet out there, and there's really not a lot of difference between Word and Word Perfect.
And I'd say that if your server, whether Linux or not, has a GUI interface, you're probably doing it wrong.
Free Martian Whores!