The Woman Who's Making Your Privacy Her Business

davecb writes "The woman who faced down Facebook and was dissed by Silicon Valley business boys as 'an old-fashioned scold' is really one of the early advocates for using the internet for access to information, and to open up government. The Globe and Mail has an interview with Jennifer Stoddart, the privacy commissioner of Canada, who went up against Facebook for all of us, and made them back down."

Comments

"The Woman Who's Making Your Privacy Her Business"

[Anonymous Coward]

My mom?

For all of us?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, even those of us who don't use Facebook and block its little widgets?

Re:For all of us?

[d6]

All of us in Canada at least. She seems to take her mandate seriously.

Re:For all of us?

[Mashiki]

Honestly? For a privacy commissioner she's done a hell of a job. Taking her mandate seriously? I'd say so. Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Green, Bloc, small business, big business, internet related. NGO's, and so on. If you break the privacy act, you'll have her breathing down your neck fast. She's about as non-partisan, and pro-privacy as you can get.

Re:For all of us?

[ArcadeNut]

If you don't use Facebook, why do you need to block it's widgets? ::confused::

Re:For all of us?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't use Facebook, why do you need to block it's widgets? ::confused::

For the same reason you block Doubleclick and Google Analytics traffic, even though these sites don't (necessarily) know your real-world name either.

Re:For all of us?

[markzip]

You need to block Facebook widgets because they track even without your being signed in (or even a member):
Facebook's 'Like This' button is tracking you (Whether you click it or not)
which is derived from this paper:
Facebook Tracks and Traces Everyone: Like This! (Social Science Research Network)
Assuming you are not a member of facebook and have no need of the "Share" and "Like" buttons, the hosts file is your friend. Just enter 127.0.0.1 for facebook.net, facebook.com, facebookcdn.com (there may be others but I can't be bothered to look for them right now)

Re:For all of us?

[Cruciform]

With companies maintaining and sharing huge databases they can build a profile of you quite easily.

Consider the following situation, which parallels in in a way.

A friend's girlfriend loved to hang out in an IRC channel. She thought she was "stranger proof" because she limited the amount of information she shared in any one conversation. Some of the items she revealed were public, while others were revealed in "private" conversations. She (erroneously) assumed that some of the private conversations were with individuals sharing no connection with each other.
After hanging out in the channel for a couple of weeks she got a phone call -- from Australia. One of the channel members created profiles of other users and data mined their conversations in order to identify them. Coupled with the ability to search the net for the consistent use of handles that many become attached to, he was able to track down people rather easily.

For him it was a game. For others it's business.

We don't always know who owns the services we use, and rarely have any idea of who the data is shared with. If company A owns sites B and C, they have the data on you that both sites generate.

While he was working with a small group of people who were likely to share information with people they interacted with regularly, having a huge dataset encompassing thousands of your interactions with other sites is just as useful to a company with the means to examine the data.

And privacy policies don't mean squat without someone keeping them honest. Imagine how many sites out there use them as honey traps.

Re:For all of us?

[shoehornjob]

Sounds like someone who really knows her stuff. Can we get one of those here in the USA? That'll never happen. I'd move to Canada but I hate the cold.

Re:For all of us?

[codegen]

You first have to pass some privacy laws with teeth before someone like Ms. Stoddart can do her job.

Re:For all of us?

[BenoitRen]

Looks like there's no problem if you don't allow cookies from them in the first place, as the tracking system is based on them.

Re:For all of us?

[__aatirs3925]

Too bad, I really love using analytics. It lets me know where people are going on my site and for how long so I know what they like and don't like. This method is more accurate and less time consuming than bothering people about what they want to see next... I don't see IP addresses inside analytics so there is absolutely no personal information relating to this data. Has she ever used this app before? My ToS discusses about usage of anonymous data with Google Analytics so if someone didn't like it, they could not use the service. Additionally, analytic information provides good scoops on how to advertise to your visitors and if you can't find out information about your visitors in some way, then the age of "free internet" will be gone. I wouldn't mind if websites captured data about my gender, age, and even my favorite food so long as I can keep browsing websites for free. *puts on tinfoil hat* These suggestions about blocking Doubleclick, Analytics and so forth sounds more like people are trying to build a tiered internet system. What a shame.

Re:For all of us?

[davecb]

Darn right all of us!

An older example of transitive trust causing problems to innocent bystanders was a library system and a drugstore system running on the same time-shared mainframe.

The drugstore system had security up the wazoo, the library did not.

An evil operator did the equivalent of a join on names between the two systems, and selected female persons with prescriptions for birth control pills from one and for addresses from the other, then started stalking.

Neither system alone would have yielded the information, but the combination of the two did, and the results were as startling then as the first cross-site scripting attacks were more recently.

So she's looking out for all of us, even those that don't know the degree to which they're vulnerable.

--dave (I'm genuinely impressed by her) c-b

Re:For all of us?

[MatthewCCNA]

I here Vancouver is very nice.

Re:For all of us?

[Anonymous Coward]

We have this place up here called southern coastal BC .... kind warm for Canada but it rains a lot in winter.

Re:For all of us?

[ArcadeNut]

Sure, if you USE Facebook. If you never go there (i.e. you don't USE it), then there is nothing to block... No?

Re:For all of us?

[markzip]

Nope, according to the paper, even if you don't USE Facebook, even if you have never visited Facebook, the like button appearing on other sites can gather data about your visit.

Re:For all of us?

[h4rm0ny]

Really, even those of us who don't use Facebook and block its little widgets?

Good fucking luck. Even if you don't have a Facebook account, you'll find your friends uploading your photo to their accounts to cover every party or night out you all share and tagging your image in there. I've always avoided Facebook, only to find that friends have taken pity on me and created a profile for me so that I can log in and check out photos of who they're dating, etc. You can't even buy a modern smartphone without finding Facebook as an uninstallable app built into it (at least the HTC Desire which I bought SIM free, and all the WP7 phones I checked out seen to have it integrated in a non-removable way with access rights given to all your contacts, txts, etc. You'd think that MS at least would make a business-market targeted phone).

Staying off Facebook is a full time job.

Re:For all of us?

[DarthVain]

Pro-PERSONAL-privacy.

As someone that deals with this sort of stuff it can be confusing how much power the Freedom of Information Act has. Ya personal privacy is a given, but there are plenty of other things that are sensitive that are not only not protected, but are now being challenged. Which one way or another would be fine, I don't care, its the ambiguity that sucks. I got some requirements for a software system, and they had a line that basically said that the information would only be accessed by those that have been given permission, and would be kept confidential. However in practice any jerkwad with an FOI request it going to get at it anyway (unless it is personal), so what bother? In addition why pay for government licensed or copyrighted material, when you can just demand it VIA FOI. Why try and protect sensitive areas and locations of habitat when again, just demand to see it, and go hunt/kill/destroy it up.

Anyway I am not debating its usefulness, however it needs serious work in clarity, and so far it seems to be all ad hoc interpretation and individual decisions. Makes trying to get real work done... difficult.

Re:For all of us?

[IronWilliamCash]

A friend's girlfriend loved to hang out in an IRC channel. She thought she was "stranger proof" because she limited the amount of information she shared in any one conversation. Some of the items she revealed were public, while others were revealed in "private" conversations. She (erroneously) assumed that some of the private conversations were with individuals sharing no connection with each other. After hanging out in the channel for a couple of weeks she got a phone call -- from Australia. One of the channel members created profiles of other users and data mined their conversations in order to identify them. Coupled with the ability to search the net for the consistent use of handles that many become attached to, he was able to track down people rather easily.

For him it was a game. For others it's business.

I did exactly this a few years back just for fun. I used to host a server for an old client/server sharing network called Hotline. People would upload stuff to my server so they could download the rest of what was on there. There were a few regulars and there was a chat system included in the software. At one point this girl thought she was completely anonymous, I proved her wrong. Just with info on which state she was in and her nickname, I used google to find out her other nicknames, real name, email address, which school she went to, physical address, parents names and jobs and I even sent here a map directly to her house... She was a bit upset about this but it was all for fun. Nobody is really anonymous unless you go through hell using proxy's and stuff like Tor and being completely paranoid.

Re:For all of us?

[Deadplant]

Now if only we could get someone of her caliber to be our Public Service Integrity Commissioner!

Also, our Auditor General Sheila Fraser basically rocks. ...good government... not yet completely dismantled by the conservatives.

Re:For all of us?

[anyGould]

Don't forget our Elections folks, who are currently putting the screws to the Conservatives over bogus accounting during the election.

Re:For all of us?

[anyGould]

Nope, according to the paper, even if you don't USE Facebook, even if you have never visited Facebook, the like button appearing on other sites can gather data about your visit.

I'm probably getting the exact technical details wrong, but if Facebook can't find a match for you, it creates a "temporary account" for you and tracks you using that number. (So while it might not know your exact details, it can track which sites you've been to.) The punchline is that if you ever create a Facebook account, the system automatically merges your temporary account into your Facebook account (retroactively adding all your previously anonymous details).

It's a pretty interesting system, in a privacy-stomping sort of way.

Re:First? fifth?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry Dave, can't let you do that. This is the fifth post.

Idealist

[The Living Fractal]

In TFA she is quoted as saying,

“Governments shouldn’t hoard information. The information is there and it belongs to the people,” she says. “Information and the manipulation of information is the key to power. Those who can control the information can influence society enormously. The more accurate the flow of information the more productive we can be.”

By her own logic, governments should hoard information, at least in the traditional sense, to keep it hidden from other national governments. Unless you think every nation in the word should have the same information as every other, then you agree with the general concept here.

And how exactly are governments supposed to not hoard information, keeping it hidden from even their own citizens, if they expect to be able to keep it hidden from other governments as well? I don't see how it's possible. Either the government hoards information and by necessity keeps some hidden from its people, or the government is completely transparent and every country in the world knows everything.

She's advocating an idealist point of view, one that is not tenable, at least not in terms of national security.

Re:Idealist

[twidarkling]

Except she doesn't want the government to have the power, she wants the people to have the power, since the government is supposed to receive power from the people. And this is Canada, we go for security through co-operation and support, rather than intimidation and manipulation.

Re:Idealist

[SIR_Taco]

Eh-men my fellow Canadian!

(couldn't resist)

Re:Idealist

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoken like a true victim. Do you work for the government or does the government work for you?

Land of the free indeed. More like the land of the frightened and unwilling.

Re:Idealist

[TubeSteak]

By her own logic, governments should hoard information, at least in the traditional sense, to keep it hidden from other national governments. Unless you think every nation in the word should have the same information as every other, then you agree with the general concept here.

You seem to have misunderstood what she was saying.
Try reading it this way: "Those who can control the [flow of] information can influence society enormously."

If everyone has access to the same information, no one [entity] can use it to manipulate the public.
Like how frequently [government agency] will prepare a report that gets buried because it conflicts with [other entity]'s agenda.

Re:Idealist

[c6gunner]

And this is Canada, we go for security through co-operation and support, rather than intimidation and manipulation.

No. What you're describing isn't security. Sure, you can feel "secure" by being Little Miss Popular, liked and admired by everyone. You won't have to worry about random bullies stuffing you in a locker, or stealing your lunch. But when the players on the football team say "bend over", there's dick all you can do to stop them. That's why here in Canada - much like they do in the US - we take the two-prong approach. Use cooperation and support when possible, while not hesitating to use force and manipulation when needed.

Re:Idealist

[davecb]

No, by her logic we all should have the same information, and have the same ability to manipulate and resist manipulation.

I'd class it along with normal business assumption of "a level playing field", rather than an idealist assumption.

To be fair, it can be arbitrarily hard to level a playing field, especially when one side owns a bulldozer, but one does try.

--dave

Re:Idealist

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck "National Security".
The US doesn't seem to have had much benefit from it.
North Korea hasn't either, it's most certainly secure, but not exactly good in any other respect.

Re:Idealist

[Shark]

As a Canadian, I have to say I can only agree on the surface. Our underbelly is just as dark if not darker than that of the US. We just seem to have better PR and a population so hooked on government-provided goodies that its general view of the government is that of benevolent (if childish) provider.

Re:Idealist

[The Living Fractal]

The benefit of national security is a null hypothesis. If it's working you won't 'see' it, because the result is zero action. What you do see, in effect, could have been a result of lack of security, but that is the juxtapose of the original hypothesis and is therefore irrelevant.

Re:Idealist

[The Living Fractal]

For certain kinds of information, perhaps mostly of the civil kind, I would agree wholeheartedly. But we cannot simply say "information" like we intend to mean all information. We must qualify the statement, define the scope, or we're simply being too ambiguous...

Four-Star General John Example has just learned of some vital strategic or tactical information in an ongoing conflict. He has two obvious choices: He can keep this information secure and not tell everyone, for however long it takes, or, he can tell everyone and render his information useless.

Which one do you expect him to choose?

Re:Idealist

[fyoder]

And this is Canada, we go for security through co-operation and support, rather than intimidation and manipulation.

I would have agreed with you prior to the G20 in Toronto in June. But Canada is becoming just as fascist as any other western state, maybe more so, complete with intimidation, beatings, and groundless mass arrest. You may be thinking of the old Canada, where if they wanted to abrogate rights, they had to do so legally through an act like the War Measures Act. Now they don't even bother with the legal niceties.

How I Got Arrested and Abused at the G20 in Toronto, Canada

Re:Idealist

[angus77]

Most of the information the government hoards has nothing to do with national security. Most of the information the Canadian government has would be pretty boring stuff to anyone who's not Canadian.

Re:Idealist

[Anonymous Coward]

When he writes this information down and sends it to HQ it'd start a clock ticking on the classification, based on the need to release documents and the fact that it's not guaranteed to stay secret anyways.

Anything else is wishful thinking. As shown, millions of people had access to that 'secret' information when common sense shows no more than two can keep a secret in real life. All the leaking does is make everything a matter of public record.

Re:Idealist

[whereiswaldo]

Yes, I agree. I like our happy, maple-syrup-loving face but there's plenty of back-room politics going on here, too. Our current government has plenty of problems. Canadian border security can be pretty arsey, too.

Re:Idealist

[JonySuede]

It is probably darker because it is less exposed to light than the US underbelly.

Re:Idealist

[Em Adespoton]

s/Canada/Ontario

Re:Idealist

[fyoder]

I don't think it would have been different in any other Canadian city. Say Calgary, for example. They sent their cops to the G20 in Toronto to help out:

The officers, who are from the Calgary police public safety unit, said the Toronto event was a chance for them to practise their crowd-control training.

"We just never have had to use those tactics to that degree in Calgary. It was a fantastic opportunity for us to test them out and show that yeah they really do work," said Pecksen.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/06/28/g20-calgary-g8-police-security-protest.html

I think it would have played out pretty much the same in any Canadian city. The times they are a-changin'.

Re:Idealist

[anyGould]

Now they don't even bother with the legal niceties.

On the upside, it looks like we might see some change come from it - it didn't take long for the police to give up the "mystery cop" who beat up Adam Nobody, for instance.

Sadly, Harper's Conservatives do like stealing the worst pages of the Republican playbook. And until Alberta stops being their bitch-monkeys we won't be rid of them...

Stoddart is right on Utopian Solutions

[BoRegardless]

They start out looking good, until some entity comes along and starts wringing profit or control (one & the same?) out of a new 'utopian innovation'.

That is what happened for a long time with Windows where Microsoft essentially dictated a lot of what and how things were done in personal computing or how FAST they progressed.

Level playing fields are hard to maintain in anarchistic society. The same can be said for all powerful central government or dictators.

Competition on a 'level playing field' seems to be one of the best antidotes to monopolies. But is isn't easy to decide what is fair. Luckily we have some solid heads in government that realize they have the responsibility to do the right thing for the average citizen rather than the labor unions and powerful corp. lobbies.

really? for ALL of us?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or just for those who voluntarily gave their information to facebook in the first place?

Facebook knows nothing about me. I don't have an account and I blackwhole their domains. It isn't that hard. I still seem perfectly able to communicate with all my friends without using some proprietary service to do so that will sell all my personal info.

I'm not sure this culture of having to save people from themselves is a wise one. It breeds a society of people who are helpless on their own.

I'm starting to hate the internet

[Ozlanthos]

I'm starting to hate the internet. More and more it seems like the internet is turning into one big bug in the ass. I have to specifically opt out of fucking invasive bullshit toolbars that I didn't ask for, had no interest in, and no desire to have corrupting my machine. I got an idea for all you assholes who think that is the way to make money....HOWS ABOUT YOU WORK ON PROJECTS THAT MAKE US FREER RATHER THAN FURTHER CONFINE OR TRACK US??? Is it really so much to ask to be able to scan, upload, download, chat, skype, mud, "be on the web" without fear of being constantly surveiled? I'm not a tree. My psychological profile, shopping habits, surfing habits, political interests, are not "fruit" to be picked and sold on the market, and as such ARE NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS!!! If I want your shit, I will use the most powerful investigatory tool humankind has ever invented, find it myself, and possibly even buy it! If what you had to offer was worth having I might even buy it again. But, until that point, LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE!

-Oz

Re:I'm starting to hate the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

"I have to specifically opt out of fucking invasive bullshit toolbars that I didn't ask for,"

You do? Toolbars? I've been using the internet since the fall of 1984 - over 26 years now - and I've never once that that happen. Not one single time. And I use computers and the internet a LOT.

What are you doing wrong? How is that you seem to get these things all the time, while I've never had this experience?

Re:I'm starting to hate the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE!
-Oz

Wow. Hand this fellow a weapon and point 'im at the post office.

Feeling a little irritated are we?

Re:I'm starting to hate the internet

[whitehaint]

I would think he is referring to installing some programs that by default want to install X brand toolbar. It's small, but irritating as heck when I just want ONE thing that I downloaded, not X Y and Z products too.

Re:I'm starting to hate the internet

[GameboyRMH]

Yeah I think for the Average Joe, using something running iOS or a barely-maintained copy of Windows instead of a tightly secured OS and browser, the negatives of using the Internet at all will soon only be slightly overshadowed by the positives, enough to keep them surfing and buying.

It's what happens in any oligopolistic industry, and look at what's happened in the affected areas - there are one or two big players and a bunch of little also-rans. Google for search and advertising, Facebook for social networking, Hulu and Google for online video, Apple and Google for mobile media consumption.

Re:I'm starting to hate the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm starting to hate the internet. More and more it seems like the internet is turning into one big bug in the ass. I have to specifically opt out of fucking invasive bullshit toolbars that I didn't ask for, had no interest in, and no desire to have corrupting my machine. I got an idea for all you assholes who think that is the way to make money....HOWS ABOUT YOU WORK ON PROJECTS THAT MAKE US FREER RATHER THAN FURTHER CONFINE OR TRACK US??? Is it really so much to ask to be able to scan, upload, download, chat, skype, mud, "be on the web" without fear of being constantly surveiled? I'm not a tree. My psychological profile, shopping habits, surfing habits, political interests, are not "fruit" to be picked and sold on the market, and as such ARE NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS!!! If I want your shit, I will use the most powerful investigatory tool humankind has ever invented, find it myself, and possibly even buy it! If what you had to offer was worth having I might even buy it again. But, until that point, LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE!

-Oz

I deeply sympathize. For now, at least we can try to use Linux, which aside from Ubuntu (to some extent) is highly customizable, and fairly secure. If were not for Linux, I would also be disgusted with the internet. I think there is still some hope. But I do concur.

Re:I'm starting to hate the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Oz, if you haven't completed your holiday shopping yet, you're in luck! Working with a patented system of custom personality analysis, our shopping experts have found a perfect gift item just for people like you.

Re:I'm starting to hate the internet

[shadowofwind]

I think the problem is a lot bigger than the internet. It looks to me that the whole cultural vision that started with the European enlightenment has largely run its course, at least in North America. I can't comment on Europe, since I haven't been there recently. Its not that we don't have freedom - in many ways we have more now than ever. Its that the fire has gone out somehow, and its just momentum that's carrying us forward. The ideal of freedom was always pretty corrupt, a matter of freedom to enslave other people or steal their land. Now that corruption has overtaken it.

Not to be all gloom and doom: there will be another enlightenment. But I don't see it happening immediately. In America, the most ambitious and talented people seem to be recent immigrants from Asia and Eastern Europe. And it doesn't seem that most of the Asians think or care very much about freedom, at least not yet.

Re:I'm starting to hate the internet

[icebraining]

Ubuntu is as customizable as any other distro, it just isn't designed with it in mind, like eg. Arch is.

Re:I'm starting to hate the internet

[rekees]

Right on, baby, that's the spirit. And I doubt we'll be starving without the big mama internet 'freeing' all about infinite growth Amazon-Google-Facebook trilogy.

Re:I'm starting to hate the internet

[Ozlanthos]

I got 4 words for you, "ha ha.....suck it!"

-Oz

Re:I'm starting to hate the internet

[Andtalath]

So then you would like to pay for the free services you use instead?
You know, people need money to survive.

Re:I'm starting to hate the internet

[Ihmhi]

Hows about you work on projects that make use freer rather than further confine or track us???

There's not as much easy money in our freedom and privacy.

(Decapitalized to get around the stupid filter...)

Re:I'm starting to hate the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

While I may not agree with the whole internet being a pain in the ass, I see what you mean. I also would like to add how much I ABHOR social networking sites which automatically sign you up just by visiting a website. (Cough, cough FANBOX and FANIQ!!!)

Re:I'm starting to hate the internet

[Nyder]

I'm starting to hate the internet. More and more it seems like the internet is turning into one big bug in the ass. I have to specifically opt out of fucking invasive bullshit toolbars that I didn't ask for, had no interest in, and no desire to have corrupting my machine. I got an idea for all you assholes who think that is the way to make money....HOWS ABOUT YOU WORK ON PROJECTS THAT MAKE US FREER RATHER THAN FURTHER CONFINE OR TRACK US??? Is it really so much to ask to be able to scan, upload, download, chat, skype, mud, "be on the web" without fear of being constantly surveiled? I'm not a tree. My psychological profile, shopping habits, surfing habits, political interests, are not "fruit" to be picked and sold on the market, and as such ARE NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS!!! If I want your shit, I will use the most powerful investigatory tool humankind has ever invented, find it myself, and possibly even buy it! If what you had to offer was worth having I might even buy it again. But, until that point, LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE!
-Oz

Wow.

You do understand, the cat is out of the bag, so to speak. Pandora's box was opened. There is no going back.

You don't have privacy online. Stop treating the internet like you do.

You can guard yourself against stuff, using ad blockers, etc. But that won't give you privacy back.

Why? Because it's gone. Online privacy said "so long, thanks for all the fish".

I supposed before the internet, you thought you had privacy when you used your credit card? guess what, you didn't. While your actions aren't as easy to record then as it is now, they still knew your shopping habits, where you liked to shop, what you like to do. And yes, they sold that info. they still do.

You want your privacy back? Don't use the internet.

Re:I'm starting to hate the internet

[anyGould]

So then you would like to pay for the free services you use instead? You know, people need money to survive.

The sad thing is, it's not that expensive to get the "free" services these days. If you're online, your ISP probably already provides you with email accounts. I spend ~10 a month for external hosting, and that gives me all the email addresses, webspace, and other net-goodies I'll ever need.

Re:really? for ALL of us?

[twidarkling]

She's done more than just the Facebook thing. That's really just the most prominent example. And yes, for all of us. She's not concerned with just protecting a certain segment of the population, or even "just Canadians." If she sees an issue that she can try and do something about, she actually tries to do something, and that something is usually in the interests of "the little guy," rather than corporations.

Not private enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always thought that our privacy commisioner's identity should be unknown. Maybe he/she could appear on TV in a hood, speaking through a voice scrambler.

security through co-operation and support

[RichMan]

rather than intimidation and manipulation.

But how do the big multinational arms conglomerates make money off co-operation? Where are the backscatter-xray machine sales in that?

Get a custom HOSTS file, it helps... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm starting to hate the internet. More and more it seems like the internet is turning into one big bug in the ass. I have to specifically opt out of fucking invasive bullshit toolbars that I didn't ask for, had no interest in, and no desire to have corrupting my machine. I got an idea for all you assholes who think that is the way to make money....HOWS ABOUT YOU WORK ON PROJECTS THAT MAKE US FREER RATHER THAN FURTHER CONFINE OR TRACK US??? Is it really so much to ask to be able to scan, upload, download, chat, skype, mud, "be on the web" without fear of being constantly surveiled? I'm not a tree. My psychological profile, shopping habits, surfing habits, political interests, are not "fruit" to be picked and sold on the market, and as such ARE NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS!!! If I want your shit, I will use the most powerful investigatory tool humankind has ever invented, find it myself, and possibly even buy it! If what you had to offer was worth having I might even buy it again. But, until that point, LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE!

-Oz" -

Ok, then YOU of all people, want to read this (not selling anything here, HOSTS files free & you already have one (you just have to fill your OS' copy of your HOSTS file w/ the right data to stop a lot of the problems you complain of online, & reputable + reliable sources for currently updated HOSTS files are below)):

16++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:

1.) Adblock blocks ads in only 1 browser family (Disclaimer: Opera now has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc.).

2.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions via PINGS &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

6.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders

7.) AdBlock doesn't let you block out known bad sites or servers that are known to be maliciously scripted, hosts can and many reputable lists for this exist:

GOOD INFORMATION ON MALWARE BEHAVIOR LISTING BOTNET C&C SERVERS + MORE (AS WELL AS REMOVAL LISTS FOR HOSTS):

http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/
http://www.malware.com.br/lists.shtml
http://www.stopbadware.org/
http://blog.fireeye.com/

Re:Get a custom HOSTS file, it helps... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

tl;dr

i sell my penis for loose change

Re:Get a custom HOSTS file, it helps... apk

[dogsbreath]

... and of course, one good rant deserves another.

Albeit an interesting and informative rant.

And long. With emphasis.

Good-o!

Re:Get a custom HOSTS file, it helps... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

you see this time your host file trick was posted at the right place and it got modded up. There is no conspirator against you, you just suck at choosing the right post to reply to

Re:Get a custom HOSTS file, it helps... apk

[Tacvek]

12.) You don't have the sourcecode to Adblock.

That's absurd. If you are running Adblock, then you do have the source to Adblock. The by design the XPI format is just a form of a zip file (specifically it is based on the jar specification, in that it has a META-INF folder with metadata, much like the ODF format).

Inside an XPI file is almost always[1] a collection of HTML, XML, and JavaScript files, along with a few images, and maybe a DTD or two. That is the source code of the extension[2]. Adblock is no exception to that.

Footnotes:
[1] It is possible to have compiled files in an xpi file, but it not common, and Adblock does not utilize that.
[2] Of course the JavaScript could be obfuscated or minified, such that it could no longer be considered the actual source, but once again adblock does not do that.

Re:Get a custom HOSTS file, it helps... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG- just install something based on a mostly free software already or completely free software. You won't have this problem. Seriously. I have never been asked to install a toolbar. You can buy computers with a mostly free OS like Ubuntu or OpenSUSE.

http://www.open-pc.com/
http://thinkpenguin.com/

and I forget.. another company is coming out with laptops with GNewSense supposedly although I'm doubtful about it. If it were feasible ThinkPenguin would be doing it. ThinkPenguin already designs systems based on free drivers/firmware so is thus compatible with GNewSense. GNewSense's kernel/drivers are all very old so the hardware is not supported with most if any new computers shipping though. If GNewSense were able to quickly remove non-free components faster then new computers could be shipped with a truly free OS.

Re:Get a custom HOSTS file, it helps... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

I use Unix, you insensitive CLOD!

Re:I, deal list

[VortexCortex]

governments should hoard information, at least in the traditional sense, to keep it hidden from other national governments. Unless you think every nation in the word should have the same information as every other

Nah, Governments shouldn't hoard information at all.

They should only keep "vital" information under wraps for at most 2 years, then make it all public (not hording, hording = "never gonna give you up")

The only exception I can see is for long term military planning. Do we really need to use deceit in our diplomatic affairs? What's wrong with stating our goals and working to those ends? (It's not like we're really confounding our "enemies" by keeping diplomatic secrets).

Unfortunately, under such an "idealist" information policy, everything will just get categorized as "military planning."

You know... Just like nearly everything currently finds its way under the "national security" umbrella, even though most info is not. Hint: ACTA was held under the "national security" umbrella, now it's not; Guess it wasn't a matter of "national security" was it?

Corrupt governments will always hide under the "national security" blanket, even if you rename it to "military planning" or "diplomatic privacy".

can we drop the misandry, and gender commentary?

[SuperBanana]

The woman who faced down Facebook and was dissed by Silicon Valley business boys as 'an old-fashioned scold'

What's with the cheap ad hominem that wasn't in the original article? Unless they were under 18, they're not boys, just like she's not a "girl".

Also, why does it matter that she's a woman, and they're men? Again, it wasn't in the article.

Re:really? for ALL of us?

[bfree]

Facebook knows nothing about me.

Are you that sure that nobody you know has given them your email address or in any other way shared information about you with them? Tagging photos of you seems to be the next most popular way to give them information about you but there may be more.

Re:can we drop the misandry, and gender commentary

[garcia]

Unless they were under 18, they're not boys, just like she's not a "girl".

Regardless of the coaching Zuck has received recently on how to act in an interview, based on his actions in public he is most definitely a "boy" even if his age is over 18.

"went up against Facebook for all of us"

[John Hasler]

No. Not for all of us.

Re:"went up against Facebook for all of us"

[Anonymous Coward]

^ This. She went up against Facebook for *those who voluntarily gave their personal data to Facebook*.

Re:"went up against Facebook for all of us"

[davecb]

Actually for anyone who's friends gave up personal data on facebook, and thereby exposed them to snooping. See "transitive trust" (;-))

--dave

Re:really? for ALL of us?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Are you that sure that nobody you know has given them your email address...

Of course. My friends are not idiots!

Re:Toolbars

[TaoPhoenix]

They're in all the Java update wizards for one.

Re:can we drop the misandry, and gender commentary

[multipartmixed]

What's with the poor reading comprehension?

Paragraph 9, words 20 through 23.

Re:can we drop the misandry, and gender commentary

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you read the summary?

Re:really? for ALL of us?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tagging photos of you seems to be the next most popular way to give them information about you

I was assured by an idiot that there is no way to tag a photo of me if I don't have an account already.. truth?

Re:can we drop the misandry, and gender commentary

[davecb]

"biz boy" is an derogatory term for MBA students, who are roughly 50% female these days. I typo'd and wrote "business boy", and inadvertently insulted fellow members of my sex instead of the people I meant to insult (;-)) --dave

Re:fawning article

[davecb]

Fair criticism, and it's unusual for the business section, which normally fawns over characters like Lord Black... --dave

you people

[formfeed]

fellow Canadian!

Looks like you outed yourself.
I just watched "How I met your mother" and they had a long section about canadian sexacts.

You people are sick!
I admit, I love toolgirl. But maple syrup? come on!

Re:really? for ALL of us?

[icebraining]

No, according to a eHow guide. They let you enter any text as your friend's name, and even ask you his/her email address: http://i.ehow.com/images/a05/l6/7p/add-tags-facebook-photos-1.5-800X800.jpg

Re:I, deal list

[The Living Fractal]

From Dictionary.com:
"hoard"
–verb (used without object)
3.
to accumulate money, food, or the like, in a hidden or carefully guarded place for preservation, future use, etc.

To hoard does not imply to never use.

And of course there are exceptions. This is the reason I called her an idealist in the first place. Idealists see no room for exceptions. They don't live in the real world where perfection is defined not as something with no flaws but as something with as few flaws as we can practicably achieve.

Re:"The Woman Who's Making Your Privacy Her Busine

[Anonymous Coward]

If you put a lock on the basement door, she wouldn't be able to go through your things. That, or, y'know, get a place of your own.

because she had support

[chronoss2010]

FROM the fact some of the largest groups on facebook WERE populated by canadians

Re:can we drop the misandry, and gender commentary

[DNS-and-BIND]

Funny how our cultural blinders obscure facts from us. Such as, only in America is a woman considered such when she attains the age of 18. Hint: different countries have different standards. But go ahead and say that 18 is a "universal" standard, because God forbid anyone think differently from us, the good people.

So, is she married to the reporter or what?

[russotto]

This isn't an interview, it's a publicity piece for Ms. Stoddart. Ick.

Re:So, is she married to the reporter or what?

[Anonymous Coward]

While same-sex marriages are legal is Canada, they're not married. The interview you're reading is in The Lunch, a Globe section specifically meant to be people pieces.

For a little more background, the Globe is "Toronto's national newspaper", a business rag primarily aimed at our version of Wall Street, hence a specific connotation on Lunch here.

Re:So, is she married to the reporter or what?

[anyGould]

For a little more background, the Globe is "Toronto's national newspaper", a business rag primarily aimed at our version of Wall Street, hence a specific connotation on Lunch here.

My read of it was that the lunch anecdote was meant to reinforce that she takes the rules seriously (even the minor, easily excusable ones). It's a desirable trait in someone who's job it is to enforce rules. (Contrast with a local story about cops being caught driving in their patrol cars, coffee cup in one hand and cell phone in the other.)

Re:The Book of Eli, from "The Lord of HOSTS", lol!

[dogsbreath]

You certainly have something to say... with all respect, why don't you login? I post AC sometimes when it's best for me but I find its best to attach an account to my statements. IMHO.

the article was about people in AMERICA, dipshit

[SuperBanana]

The term was used to refer to AMERICAN men. Drop the hyper-anti-US bullshit.

Re:"The Woman Who's Making Your Privacy Her Busine

[antdude]

Yes, your mom. :)

Re:can we drop the misandry, and gender commentary

[alvinrod]

I didn't even notice it until someone called attention to it. Even before reading your reply I just figured it for a little alliteration and not some sexist attack. Hell, there are plenty of other colloquialisms such as "boys' night out" or "boy toy" that aren't considered offensive for their use of the word boy. The second might offend a person, but not for the reason's SuperBanana pointed out.

There's malicious intent and there's loose English. Unless there's some reason to suspect that the wording is intentional, let's leave the political correctness in a box.

Re:really? for ALL of us?

[__aatirs3925]

I think "the little guy" would benefit more with keeping the privacy level as it is, unless "the little guy" is willing to spend money each month on current "free to use" websites and services. Granted, I don't agree about spying on what people are talking about unless you could easily opt-in and opt-out but anonymous tracking shouldn't be against the law. There's no harm by it and people get rewarded at the same time by using a website for free like youtube or slashdot.

Re:really? for ALL of us?

[__aatirs3925]

User:
Facebook knows nothing about me.

Advertising Algorythm:
"This user seems to love getting Poked and seems pretty ignorant, let's display advertisements about poking osama bin laden and how many triangle ads"

Re:The Book of Eli, from "The Lord of HOSTS", lol!

[ToasterMonkey]

You certainly have something to say... with all respect, why don't you login? I post AC sometimes when it's best for me but I find its best to attach an account to my statements. IMHO.

What the hell does logging into Slashdot prove? Why don't you tell us your real name an address? Then I guess we'll need to see some financial records, and do a quick background check, you know, to make sure you are legit and not on the take.

Attach your account... now that's some real authenticity. So we can judge based post history whether to label an account "good" or "bad"? Rich.

Because if _anything_ can lend more weight to my words, it's what I wanted you to hear me say yesterday. [voice of Cartman talking to minority students] Theeeeeeeeeeeeeenk.

Re:First? fifth?

[mcneely.mike]

But how about a nice game of Chess?

Re:the article was about people in AMERICA, dipshi

[Anonymous Coward]

the article was about people in AMERICA, dipshit

From TFS:

an interview with Jennifer Stoddart, the privacy commissioner of Canada

So, NOT about people in America, but people in CANADA.

I guess details & facts don't matter to a mighty & righteous gender warrior such as yourself.

Military security

[davecb]

Military information already has a very short lifespan. Famously, "Flash" messages are sent UNCLAS, because it's more important they arrive now than be kept from the enemy.

Field Marshal Example already makes his information known to the enemy the moment he acts on it. That's why it was such a terrible decision for Winston Churchill to (putatively) consider keeping secret the German plans to bomb Coventry.

Unit war diaries are released a few years after the war is over, and even the anal British unclassify the rest of the material after fifty years or so. I can now read all sorts of stuff about the "funnys", which were top secret before the invasion of Europe.

The political equivalent of a flash message may stay secret a bit longer, but they probably only need stay secret until the crisis of the day is over. So give them a week instead of an hour.

The longest one should keep any secret is until all the participants are dead, and can't get in trouble. Which is approximately what the Census does (or did, since my government is in the process of eliminating same)

--dave (from Canada, eh?) c-b

Is she available for a leave of absence

[ridgecritter]

to work here in the US?

We don't feed trolls here, sorry

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't feed trolls here, sorry

You don't need sourcecode for hosts files though

[Anonymous Coward]

Hosts files are just text, and you don't need the ability to code to deal with them. With adblock you do. Decent hosts files out there have documentation with examples (even the stock one Microsoft ships in Windows has some). Hosts files are simple to understand and edit in Windows using notepad. You think everyone knows how to code out there who are users of adblock? No, not everyone codes, much less specifically in javascript either. You're acting as if doing code alterations without a knowledge of coding is easier to do than editing a text file like a hosts file. I'd say it's not easier hacking code versus editing a hosts file personally. That's 1 point of the 16 noted in favor of hosts files over adblock or dns servers alone, only, and there are 15 more that apparently are unassailable if that is all you have.

Re:The Book of Eli, from "The Lord of HOSTS", lol!

[dogsbreath]

Wow. Touchy touchy. I didn't put AC down, or insult AC; I just asked why not login? Easy question. A good answer would be "too lazy", and I would certainly think that was valid. Another great answer would be "I just like posting AC". Of course, frothing and ranting is always an excellent response that is readily accepted for entertainment value if nothing else.

Logging in doesn't prove anything. It's just a community thing and helps to put into context what you say by indexing other comments.

No need for home address, real name, financials etc unless you feel a desire to provide those details.

I wouldn't recommend it though.

Cheers, and have a better day tomorrow!

Do not feed the troll

[Anonymous Coward]

See sign above, and You must be in poverty then.

Re:"The Woman Who's Making Your Privacy Her Busine

[Anonymous Coward]

This is your mother. Stop talking about me in these public chat forums. That girl called again, but the message she left was inappropriate, so I deleted it. I don't want you talking to her any more. I'm making sauerkraut and kidney beans for supper, and I booked an appointment at Stan's for a haircut. Have you found a job yet?

Thank goodness -

[Geminii]

- for Jennifer Government. :)

Re:"The Woman Who's Making Your Privacy Her Busine

[geminidomino]

I'm making sauerkraut and kidney beans for supper

She's trying to get you to gas yourself out of the basement and flee out under the daystar! It's a trap!

HOSTS files work on LINUX too though

[Anonymous Coward]

You merely overwrite your stock-oem HOSTS file using say KDE's command of sudo dolphin (to give that filemgt. tool enough 'rights/priveleges oomph' to do so) & then copy over your new hosts from say here http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm over the stock one in root/etc & you're there.

APK

P.S.=> They also work in UNIX variants like BSD derivatives too (because MS originally even based their IP Stacks off of that for example) & other *NIX variants (AT&T/Bell Labs family etc.), per what I assume is your other reply here -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907266&cid=34533588 ... apk

HOSTS work on BSD/AT&T Bell labs *NIX's

[Anonymous Coward]

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907266&cid=34534698 see there from my other reply to what I assume is you as well (since they're both AC replies).

HOSTS FILES WORK THE SAME ON LINUX, even ANDROID via a mount command set with WRITE privileges & using ADB PUSH/PULL commands... Hosts work fine on them, just AS THEY DO ON BSD or Bell labs/AT&T UNIX VARIANTS!

(The points in my list from my posts here that are in favor of HOSTS files -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907266&cid=34529608 apply to any OS that uses a BSD based IP stack in fact... Linux &/or other *NIX like OS' qualify too!)

APK

P.S.=> PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM THE 1st URL I POSTED ABOVE IN REPLY HERE ABOVE:

"P.S.=> They also work in UNIX variants like BSD derivatives too (because MS originally even based their IP Stacks off of that for example) & other *NIX variants (AT&T/Bell Labs family etc.), per what I assume is your other reply here -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907266&cid=34533588 ... apk" - by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 13, @10:52AM (#34534698)

apk

Re:I, deal list

[plcurechax]

. Just like nearly everything currently finds its way under the "national security" umbrella

National security, in particular how it is viewed in the US (and similarly throughout the "Western" world), economic stability and prosperity plays a key role in the modern definition. That is because money, i.e. economic influence and power is the most global resource, that knows and respects basically no boundaries, whereas a foreign military occupation / control is less tolerated in many countries around the world.

Re:You don't need sourcecode for hosts files thoug

[Tacvek]

I was not trying to dispute your argument, but merely correct that one point. Nothing about the others jumped out at me as being incorrect.

Personally, I'd rather not interfere with the DNS lookups, even for ad hosters, and adblock works just fine for my browsing purposes, but for other people Host files may indeed be a better solution.

Glad you replied

[Anonymous Coward]

"Personally, I'd rather not interfere with the DNS lookups." - by Tacvek (948259) on Wednesday December 15, @07:26PM (#34568682) Journal

You're not really "interfering" with DNS lookups, you're just bypassing having to do them @ all, period, when you do "hardcodes" of your fav. sites in a custom HOSTS file is all.

By the same token? You're also:

1.) "Lightening the load" on DNS servers too, which I am sure is probably actually even appreciated by those that maintain DNS servers!

2.) Avoiding being tracked on DNS request logs by doing "hardcodes" of your favs in a HOSTS file too.

3.) Lastly: You're DEFINTELY going to get to your fav. sites "hardcoded" in a HOSTS file (faster too than DNS lookups allow), AND, even if the DNS server is "down/crashed" OR "redirect DNS poisoned"...

---

"even for ad hosters." - by Tacvek (948259) on Wednesday December 15, @07:26PM (#34568682) Journal

Well, it's your money.

I look at it as saving money I paid out for online time, by NOT downloading and processing adbanner content (especially adbanners that have been "bushwhacked" with malicious script code in them, as these articles below show):

HACKERS USE ADBANNERS ON MAJOR SITES TO HIJACK YOUR SYSTEM: -> http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/11/doubleclick

THE NEXT AD YOU CLICK MAY BE A VIRUS: -> http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/15/2056219/The-Next-Ad-You-Click-May-Be-a-Virus

NY TIMES INFECTED WITH MALWARE ADBANNER: -> http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/09/13/2346229

MICROSOFT HIT BY MALWARES IN ADBANNERS: -> http://apcmag.com/microsoft_apologises_for_serving_malware.htm

ADBANNERS SLOW DOWN THE WEB: -> http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/11/30/166218

2 MAJOR AD NETWORKS FOUND SERVING MALWARE: -> http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/12/13/0128249/Two-Major-Ad-Networks-Found-Serving-Malware

---

"and adblock works just fine for my browsing purposes." - by Tacvek (948259) on Wednesday December 15, @07:26PM (#34568682) Journal

adblock doesn't do as much as a HOSTS file can for you, for speed this is certain (you can't take advantage of HOSTS' files being able to bypass DNS totally for added speed).

You must have also "skimmed over" the fact that adblock can be detected for, and thus, via that technique? You can be BLOCKED OUT OF WEBSITES!

See here, on how ARSTECHNICA did that very thing:

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:

----

An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."

and

"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

This is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!

I.E.-> When adblock fails in those conditions, and it does? HOSTS DO NOT!

---

"but for other people Host files may indeed be a better solution.." - by Tacvek (948259) on Wednesday December 15, @07:26PM (#34568682) Journal

Well, "to each his own". I only pointed out the numerous points in favor of HOSTS files over adblock (especially alone) &/or DNS servers (especiall this alone)... that's all