Ask Slashdot: Can Creating New Online Accounts Reduce Privacy Risks?

rjnagle writes "I'm concerned about the implications of storing personal data on Gmail, Facebook, and other social media sites. I'm less worried about individual data than the accumulating mass of data which potentially be used against me (for targeted marketing, credit reporting and who knows what else?) One solution I'm considering is just to abandon individual accounts and start clean and new gmail/facebook accounts. So while Google/Doubleclick might possess lots of data about me from 2001-2012, from this point on, they only have a clean slate. Would this kind of solution address my privacy concerns? (assuming I remove cookies, change IP address before doing so etc). Or are an individual's profile by now so unique that simply creating a new gmail or Facebook account would fail to prevent these data collection agencies from figuring out who I am? Insights and tips are appreciated."

Comments

Solution?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Would this kind of solution address my privacy concerns?"

No.

That's cute, kid.

[Overzeetop]

If the data mining companies already fill in your profile and preferences by scouring multiple resources and linking multiple accounts to get the best picture they can, why would you think that starting a new account would be anything other than a temporary break in their data which they would fill in as soon as they correlate the new account with your old ones?

Re:That's cute, kid.

[Anonymous Coward]

There will always be some level of uncertainty in the link between the two records. Perhaps they can correlate them with 99.99% confidence, but they will never achieve 100% confidence. The more uncertainty you can inject, the less they can predict about you with certainty. (I teach data mining.)

Re:That's cute, kid.

[Anonymous Coward]

(I teach data mining.)

I am also a member of the GNAA and frosty piss clubs. My Slashdot post scores range from +5 to -1, and my submissions far outnumber any other pathetic commenter on this site,. My UID is null, my shopping habits vary widely, and there is a vast amount of knowledge about me available to the marketing bots searching slashdot.

And submitter, maybe this saga of anonymous coward will teach you something! After all, I have posted at least one or two other useful comments and a whole fuckton of insults on this exact topic.

And yet, subgrouping the ACs on here really isn't all that difficult. Data Mining is one thing; Data Application something else again. Newsflash: 100% confidence is never achieved, and rarely needed. When you're dealing with large groups of people, you rarely are looking for an individual -- the individuals get flagged up at the end of the sifting process.

What do 'they' care if they can only be 99% sure that you are the same rjnagle? If the correlation fits, you get stuck with it. You'll get the customized ads, be linked in the NSA metaweb, and your credit rating will be affected. Even search results won't be affected all that much. (I DO data mining)

Re:That's cute, kid.

[gl4ss]

the data is shit anyways. that's why facebook is a big deal, since they're the only one's who have enough somewhat reliable data to actually sell adverts targeted at 20-35 year old people living in country X.

if you want some crap data for them, visit sites you wouldn't normally. that doesn't stop them from selling targeted ads though, they'll just be poorly targeted.. not that they care too much.

oh and changing your gmail address wont help one bit, clearing your cookies does a lot more(if you're worried about doubleclick etc..). or heck, just use the apk hosts file method. doubleclick doesn't have your email but they have your browsing history.

Re:That's cute, kid.

[Anonymous Coward]

If two or more different accounts have same (or super set of) contacts (e.g. email address book) or "network", what are the chances that they are not the same person?

Re: That's cute, kid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi Paul, hope your rash is better today!

Re:That's cute, kid.

[Anonymous Coward]

or heck, just use the apk hosts file method

hahahaha

But seriously, for most people that's overkill. I'd just advise using a script and site blocking plugin, I'm not going to mention names because I'm not a shill or a pants-jizzing fanboy.

Re:That's cute, kid.

[dgatwood]

And yet, their data is mostly worthless. By the time I post about something on Facebook, 99% of the time, it is no longer actionable. For example, I'm seeing ads for hot water heaters because mine sprung a leak. That's not the sort of thing you put off fixing, so by the time I saw the first water heater ad on Facebook, the new water heater was already ordered and installed.

And they keep doing that over and over. I'll order something, and the next day they'll show me ads for similar products. Helpful hint: I just bought a cornet. I'm not likely to be interested in buying a second one. At least "You just bought [X], so you might like [accessories for X]" ads would be useful, but the "You just bought [X] so you might be interested in [slight variant of X]" ads are pretty much useless. Thus far, I've seen exactly one such ad that was even marginally plausible—an ad for camera lenses from some vintage products website after I bought a vintage lens on eBay. However, even that is not the sort of thing you buy every day. Show me that ad again in a year or two.

What makes the ads even more useless is that they're for the same type of product from companies that I already do business with. They aren't introducing me to new businesses. They aren't introducing me to new products that I'm not already aware of, having just studied that business's offerings in that area. So what exactly is the purpose of showing me this ad?

But the best part is that they keep showing me ads for products made by my employer's biggest competitor. They know who my employer is.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure their data mining strategy involves a drunken monkey flinging crap against the wall.

Re:That's cute, kid.

[UnknowingFool]

So my company wanted me to either create a FB account or link to my existing FB account for some social media activity. I created a new FB account with just my name and the barest of details. Within a week, FB was suggesting friends from old account.

Re:That's cute, kid.

[Anonymous Coward]

I designed and developed such a system. The relationships are typically scored by some weight, or at least some form of network distance. If you break the connections enough, it will ultimately distance the overall relationship beyond the level that they are willing to target. We go after low hanging fruit first, and throw out nearly all of the data we even manage to get, through great difficulty, just because it is commercially useless beyond a few months.

Remember, we targeting groups, not individuals. Groups mean scale. Individuals mean work and difficulty. The low hanging fruit is what bumps up the margin. The commercial use of meta data is very different from government use of meta data. Commercial use is about groups, and an industry where people view PII as a potential liability. Government use is about PII itself, buddy favors, and corruption.

For example, the governments already know who associates with terrorists, and have been able to figure that out for decades with people on the ground, hovering around terrorists. The information they are gathering now is all about individual data. It can serve no other purpose. That is what is scary! I am not paranoid about my information being in these commercial systems, because I have seen how difficult it is to even do anything with it other than to sell some product a little bit better. Even blackmailing would be extremely difficult with commercial data. Even if I decided to try to target a single person, I would have a hell of a time doing it. The systems are not designed for that. However, the government access with no accountability, and no legitimate purpose, with data organized to target individuals, and systems developed for correlating massive amounts of historical information... commercially useless old data... old data that has no reason to be there except to harass and intimidate. That is scary.

My advice is to keep accounts fresh, delete cookies regularly, and change your IP. And, importantly, do the changes all at once so that there is no overlap that can be used to glue the new with the old. That alone will make you meaningless to any commercial system I am aware of. Government systems? I am not an expert there.

Re:That's cute, kid.

[mlts]

Even with clearing cookies, there is still plenty of identifiable stuff in a browser, such as order of plugins, order of the font list, etc. The EFF has their Panopticlick which pretty much shows that almost every browser is unique.

If one wants to keep two accounts completely separate, I'd go to the length of having the second account in a completely different VM.

Re:That's cute, kid.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Perhaps they can correlate them with 99.99% confidence, but they will never achieve 100% confidence."

They're happy with 51%.

Re:That's cute, kid.

[guevera]

Did you create the new profile under the same name?

Re:That's cute, kid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Brace yourself for a flood of drunken crap-flinging monkey ads.

Re:That's cute, kid.

[ArcadeMan]

They're happy with 51%.

My teachers were not.

Re:That's cute, kid.

[dgatwood]

And by that, of course, you mean "Reporting pirated software saves IT jobs" ads from the BSA.

Re:That's cute, kid.

[zenjah]

Or use an email address that any of these suggested friends might have in their address books?

Re:That's cute, kid.

[pla]

that's why facebook is a big deal, since they're the only one's who have enough somewhat reliable data to actually sell adverts targeted at 20-35 year old people living in country X

My pet iguana's profile would like to disagree with you. Sure, "they" know they have a 20-35YO (in people years) male that studies insects, likes warm weather, and dislikes Tennessee Williams... But I'd like to see them sell something to him.

Re:That's cute, kid.

[causality]

They aren't introducing me

Is that how you describe the spying, manipulation, and dehumanization in which they engage? You rate them on how effectively they do so and express your disappointment that their art has not yet been perfected as a science?

Sometimes I suspect that this civilization is lost.

Re:That's cute, kid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hint: you can do a lot better if you fake your user browser string to be more general. It's stupid that we get stuff like "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:21.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/21.0" when Mozilla/5.0 Firefox/21 oughtta be enough.

Take off build numbers, OS, language substrings etc. it feels good to go from 1 in 2 million to 1 in 100,000 with some tweaks ( last tried this game like 2 years ago)
I have no idea who is out there doing the same as me, and the numbers are from smart geeks intentionally gaming the system to beat Panopticlic, so even turning off features won't help out much in the real world if you keep cookies, flash and javascript on out there. And if you think about it, it just means that 10 other geeks found the same tweaks, but you won't have those same geeks in your flock all the time. The second you visit amazon, then you're conspicuous again

Re:That's cute, kid.

[ShoulderOfOrion]

In general, I want to be marketed to, with a caveat. That caveat is that I want companies who sell the things I'm interested in marketing to me. I'm not interested in the new iShiny. I don't want to hear about or see your toothpaste, your beer, or your crap toilet paper. On the other hand, I'm very interested in your new gizmo with the open-source Linux drivers. Tell me about your new oscilloscope. Tease me with new stuff for my 3-D printer. I'm constantly searching the web, and spending big, on tools and materials for my experimental aircraft hobby. I never see any pertinent ads for any of that.

The reality is, they actually don't care at all about 99% of the data they gather from you, or how accurate it is. It's useless. I can post the above interests all day long under my actual slashdot account name and it just doesn't matter. What they're mining is the 1% of what you're interested in that matches up with some advertiser who will actually pay them money. Buy toothpaste off Amazon, and now you're targeted. Follow that up with a spirited debate on waveform crest factor on your favorite google electronics group, and Proctor and Gamble will follow you around for months. That monkey you see waving its arms around is actually quite sober; it's grabbing up cash from all the advertisers who care to fling money at it. What's producing the data-mining results you're complaining about is the simple fact that you're standing on the wrong end of the monkey. That monkey ain't even looking at you.

The average code-hacking basement-dwelling conspiracy-theorist slashdot reader who is most concerned with electronic breadcrumb trails is actually of no interest whatsoever to the Marketing Department at Big Corp. It's your Grandma upstairs they're after.

Re:That's cute, kid.

[zazzel]

...or log in to both accounts from the same IP or browser?

Re:That's cute, kid.

[Dr Max]

Well if you have gmail then doubleclick does have your emails, as they are both part of google.

Re:That's cute, kid.

[Anonymous Coward]

I love this new fad of beginning a conversation with the word "so", as if the person had been talking to me all along, and this is merely the continuation of the conversation.

Next time, try beginning a conversation with the word "therefore" instead of "so". This should be a perfect alternative, considering that they are synonyms.

Re:That's cute, kid.

[sh00z]

Thus far, I've seen exactly one such ad that was even marginally plausible—an ad for camera lenses from some vintage products website after I bought a vintage lens on eBay. However, even that is not the sort of thing you buy every day. Show me that ad again in a year or two.

This is interesting--I had no idea that such linking goes on. It makes me much happier that over a decade ago, I segregated my online presence into three identities--one for family and friends, one for general interest/discussion groups and "signups," and a third for companies that know my credit card number(s). The only ads I see on Facebook are for products related to my Facebook "likes." And contrary to what posters above have posited, in four years, Facebook has not been able to "find" or correlate my other identities, because they never send me ads related to my actual online shopping profile.

Re:That's cute, kid.

[Andrewkov]

Or give them your cell phone number when prompted?

Re:That's cute, kid.

[singingjim1]

I'm glad you brought this up because I've been laughing at exactly the same thing. I don't give two craps about privacy, but if you're going to use my information for your purposes at least do a good job of it. I laugh hysterically every time I see all the ads for something I just purchased showing up over and over on every Web page for days after I already made the purchase. It's not a very smart system of snooping. Show me something meaningful if you're going to go to all this trouble to try to figure out who I am and what I'm into. So far you're just not doing a very good job. And the people who pay the ad rates to these geniuses should be aware of this.

Re:That's cute, kid.

[UnknowingFool]

Same name, different email. Didn't list a city, birthdate, etc. My name is unisex and I don't remember specifying gender.

Re:That's cute, kid.

[Anonymous Coward]

i have actual multiple logins on my computer, with associated multiple email addresses for each login and they all have individual pgp keys...my PC looks like there are 4 users...dunno if this works or not....

All your data are

[Anonymous Coward]

belong to us!

Note that it's against the rules

[ZorinLynx]

Notice that a lot of these services, particularly Facebook and Google+, specifically say it's against the rules to have more than one account.

It shows precisely their intent: To gather as much information about you and your habits as possible. They can't do it as effectively if people have multiple accounts.

This, along with not allowing pseudonyms is one of the worst things that has happened to the Internet in the past decade or so. It used to be you could have as many different accounts on different sites as you wanted. Now everything is being condensed into a small handful of services, all of which have gestapo-like policies requiring your real information and name. It's just sad.

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[c0d3g33k]

What part of "abandon the old accounts" and start new ones did you miss? The day when you are prohibited from closing/disabling/abandoning an online account will be a sadder day than the one you're lamenting about.

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[schneidafunk]

I tried signing up for a new youtube account today and was REQUIRED to give them my phone number in order for them to send me a text message to 'verify my account'. I was unable to upload a video without doing so. I ended up signing up to vimeo instead.

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

What they really don't want(though people screwing up on cookies and IPs and such reduces the risk a bit) is effective segregation of different parts of your life at the same time.

If somebody merely tries to 'start clean' every year/2years/5years/whatever, either he also gives up all his friends/family/contacts, or he might as well not bother, his new account will slot neatly back into his old networks and habits, and it just won't do much.

If somebody has a strictly segregated set of accounts for different purposes, it makes each individual account less valuable(because the 'being a social dickhead' account now has no attached consumer preferences or professional income data) and it isn't necessarily the case that the accounts tie back together, barring mistakes on the user's part.

Of course, with many of them enforcing 'real name' policies, and using facial recognition such that anybody posting a picture of you can rat you out, it isn't clear that you can win.

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[Meostro]

Notice that a lot of these services, particularly Facebook and Google+, specifically say it's against the rules to have more than one account.

This could work out well - create a second account and hope they both get deleted, then you can be 100% sure you're starting from bare-metal / scorched-earth.

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[Anonymous Coward]

You cannot close accounts, you merely remove your ability to access them, they are there forever. All the data remains intact by law, and given to anyone with access to it, such as law enforcement, home security agencies, ad agencies, marketing services, and credit rating agencies.

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[CanHasDIY]

What part of "abandon the old accounts" and start new ones did you miss?

The part where it's Google/Facebook/Whomever that decides whether an account is your and open, not the user.

Case in point: Facebook won't let users close accounts, only "disable" them. They still retain all your shit.

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[CanHasDIY]

That's assuming they actually delete the content, as opposed to taking complete ownership of it and blocking your access.

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[timeOday]

Nobody even questions, why should you need an account to share a video in the first place? Slashdot is practically the only place left on the web where you can do anything (such as posting a comment) without an account. I really do think buying anything with cash may become highly suspect within the next 20 years.

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that mean you can't get an account unless you have a mobile phone to receive the text message? What if you don't, or it is broken, etc?

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[Anonymous Coward]

So stop lapping up the free shit that they're grunting out in your face.

Demand paid services that will guarantee you some privacy, and pay for it. Stop expecting Google to run Gmail for free.

Time was, you'd make a product, and charge a reasonable fee for it, and have a happy customer.

Now, you make a product, give it away, and make money by doing things that harm your customers - like selling their personal data for a quick buck.

Thanks Google.

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[Anonymous Coward]

I won't be surprised if their services become "optional" like car insurance is. For example, some places use FB as their primary means of authentication (plus they get to install an app to get a piece of the data mining action.)

It is tempting to create a new account, but all it takes is one goof of using the same browser (with the same meta-cookies) or using the same IP address, and then both accounts will be linked together somehow, resulting in a possible ban of both, or in an extreme case, allow for an arrest for a CFAA violation. So, if one creates a new account, run it in a completely separate VM on a VPN so it never sees the same traffic that one's other account is on.

Of course, most services (FB, Yahoo) demand a phone number, so be prepared to buy a burner phone and set the ringer on silent with no vibrate because usually the number ranges on some MVNOs are plagued by robocallers. I prefer using a GSM provider because I can just keep the phone and replace the SIM card for less waste.

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried signing up for a new youtube account today and was REQUIRED to give them my phone number in order for them to send me a text message to 'verify my account'. I was unable to upload a video without doing so. I ended up signing up to vimeo instead.

You only have to provide a phone number if you check the box to skip the captcha.

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[Anonymous Coward]

You are aware that there are entire boards more or less dedicated to anonymous posting, right? /. is far from the only place where you can post anonymously, and those other places even encourage it. They are mostly shit holes, but that is beyond the point.

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[Anonymous Coward]

How can I delete my account?
You can't. But don't sweat it; the unused accounts don't hurt anything.

Unlike slashdot at least facebook and google allow users to delete their account.

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[xystren]

And they also want you to include your mobile number - nothing better than being able to link separate data pieces from multiple sources with a phone number. Might as well call that a unique numeric identifier for yourself.

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[Anonymous Coward]

And that is why I will never sign up for an facebook account !

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[RoknrolZombie]

Either that or they'd just merge the accounts...I've had this happen before I *think* with Google, but not certain. Regardless, they are under no obligation to remove your content...really the only decision that YOU get to make is whether or not you log in.

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[RoknrolZombie]

While I agree with the sentiment, I'm really glad that the Internet didn't go in this direction to begin with. Why? Well, it doesn't matter how much I'm paying for security if the NSA (or whoever else in the Government feels like taking a peek) can still read all of my shit.

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[quacking duck]

/. can get away with that because it has a proven and AFAIK unique moderation system which prevents anonymous troll and spam comments from having much impact.

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[Anonymous Coward]

I ended up signing up to vimeo instead.

And much wailing and gnashing of teeth was heard from the offices of Youtube.

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[pla]

The part where it's Google/Facebook/Whomever that decides whether an account is your and open, not the user.

And the part where this entire discussion relates to people who take positive action to protect their privacy?

How do you propose Google/Facebook/Whomever recognize that "zork98' has the same owner as "bin55go"? Will they go by my fake DOB? As much of my fake mailing address as they require to make an account? My throwaway email address I used to sign up? My randomized user agent? Hell, if you read a few of my posts closely, ignoring the actual content, you'll notice I even affect a fake writing style for accounts to which I actually post often (such as Slashdot).

Okay, technically they have my IP address - Which (in the case of accounts I access from work) could include "only" a few hundred people. And ones I access from the free WiFi at Starbucks in the morning... Well that narrows it down to one of millions.

And therein we have the ultimate irony of policies designed to make you easier to track - Most of them only apply to those dumb enough to make themselves easy to track in the first place.

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[sublayer]

Slashdot is practically the only place left on the web where you can do anything (such as posting a comment) without an account.

Wikipedia allows editing of most articles without requiring an account.

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[Eyeball97]

Succinctly, because I just woke up, BULLSHIT.

To be clear, I refer to "REQUIRED to give them my phone number"

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[oag2]

Only in theory. In practice, they'll reverse your edits if you're anonymous.

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[Anonymous Coward]

On hotmail, you must provide a phone number to sign up for your first email address, if you lack a secondary email address.
Funny, because back in the day, there were still ways to do a reset. I get the feeling that if the web had started out as a subscription only place where you'd not trust anything and anyone to begin with, the privacy and law enforcement would never have gotten this loose. Countries would have been suing one another if the NSA spying could be tied to hard monetary values (say, 50 cents per email per day sent by non-us citizen times 500,000 Europeans citizens per month, 30 dollars worth of browse time to FB times per month per user times 1 billion sans the population of the USA, VPN charges, torrent charges, etc)

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[sublayer]

Only in theory. In practice, they'll reverse your edits if you're anonymous.

"They" will revert vandalism and other inappropriate edits regardless of whether you are logged in or not. Likewise "they" often keep good edits from editors who are not logged in. Feel free to provide links here to reasonable edits (as diffs) that were reverted just because you were "anonymous", and I'll probably be able to tell you exactly why they were reverted. (Disclosure: I am a frequent editor of Wikipedia - registered with a different name there to what I use here.)

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[TheSeatOfMyPants]

Use a free virtual/online sms number, like the ones attached to GoogleVoice accounts. Often as not, Google will let you "verify" your account on their various services using the same account's GoogleVoice number, I've noticed.

Of course, there's a very good chance that it's one of the various Google account pages where they give you the (inaccurate) impression that you absolutely must verify -- often as not, there's a little link below the BS that will let you skip that step.

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[jrumney]

I hope you entered a random 1-900 number first, before abandoning the registration. They need to get feedback that will make them sit up and notice that people are not happy with their non-privacy policies.

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Are there any services that provide a free/online SMS number in the UK?

Perhaps for some purposes an American number would work, if I used a VPN with a US exit would there be any impediment to a foreigner signing up for one?

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[schneidafunk]

Hah! Brilliant idea.

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they are idiots that can't filter out 1-900 numbers before wasting money on them? They may well just assume (rightly or wrongly) that people who are unwilling to provide a real number are those that would abuse the service.

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[CanHasDIY]

The part where it's Google/Facebook/Whomever that decides whether an account is your and open, not the user.

And the part where this entire discussion relates to people who take positive action to protect their privacy?

Uh, I was responding directly to GP; not sure what you mean by this.

How do you propose Google/Facebook/Whomever recognize that "zork98' has the same owner as "bin55go"?

Good question; they probably ask the NSA.

HA!

Okay, technically they have my IP address - Which (in the case of accounts I access from work) could include "only" a few hundred people. And ones I access from the free WiFi at Starbucks in the morning... Well that narrows it down to one of millions.

Aah, therein lies the chink in your armor: how many people who work at the same place you do, also use that same Starbucks WiFi? Also, do you have a decent-length commute, and is the coffee shop closer to your home or workplace? If the answers to those 2 questions are "yes" and "closer to home," then you're probably not quite as obscured as you'd like to be.

And therein we have the ultimate irony of policies designed to make you easier to track - Most of them only apply to those dumb enough to make themselves easy to track in the first place.

Them, and over-confident sorts who allow their hubris to override their (completely justifiable) paranoia.

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[oag2]

(Someone should have modded me "flamebait," I guess!) My experience with trying to make simple typo/grammar fixes on wikipedia and repeatedly getting directed to the sandbox made me give up trying about 5 years ago, so I unfortunately can't find the diffs for you. For what it's worth, I was working as a copyeditor at the time, so it wasn't that I was making nonsensical corrections. But maybe I'll try again someday if the opportunity arises.

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[Anonymous Coward]

But you don't acutally have to login. Many sites have "Comment with Google", "Like on Facebook", "Tweet at us", etc. Those buttons that come from the services are JavaScript and images residing on the services sites. They see your impressions, and how long you spend on those pages. Google, Yahoo!, and the like also have analytics programs, ad programs, host JS (jQuery, jQueryUI, YUI, Prototype, etc.) and useful APIs for developers. Those APIs are JavaScript on their servers.

Unless you block their CDNs, block their domains, reject all cookies, block all ads and execute no JavaScript, you're going to be tracked.

I'm torn. Google has awesome products, and I don't mind targeted advertising. But the relationship they have with the government is completely different story. As is what power a vindictive Google, Amazon, Yahoo! or FB employee has to ruin someones life. In theory they could plant data and turn you over to athorities, or sending real web or search histories to your employer, family and/or placing anonymously online. Moreover, they could blackmail politicians using these servers with the threat of either of those things.

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Google+ does not say it's against the rules to have more than one account. Facebook does.

I don't use Google+ because it's pushy and annoying with all the one-way upgrades, it lacks diversity, and it's ruining the rest of Google which I do use so I hate it, and I can get away with having multiple accounts on Facebook anyway. However this is a very important difference in their rules which I'm really surprised no one else pointed out. Facebook's rule deeply offends me and is a hugely arrogant land-grab.

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Google does warn of this in their privacy policy: "We aim to maintain our services in a manner that protects information from accidental or malicious destruction. Because of this, after you delete information from our services, we may not immediately delete residual copies from our active servers and may not remove information from our backup systems."

However it is certainly untrue that "All the data remains intact by law." They do delete data.

Also "citation needed" on their sharing PII with "home security agencies, ad agencies, marketing services, and credit rating agencies." Facebook has a consent decree:

  http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/11/privacysettlement.shtm

resulting from their 2009 silent-ACL-loosening and some nontransparency on their apps platform that limits exactly some of the information flows you allege.

Re:Note that it's against the rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Google Voice can't send to or receive messages from SMS short code numbers, and it doesn't have any e-mail to SMS gateway (apparently these two services are somehow related).

What the actual fuck, Google?

Depends

[schneidafunk]

Who are you hiding from? If it's simple google searches, sure it'll help. Just doing a quick search on my schneidafunk nick turns up a surprising amount of info. However, the NSA has a wide variety of tools to track down me down, including writing analysis.

I have enough accounts....

[ackthpt]

I need people to just let me get things done as Guest.

Re:I have enough accounts....

[SydShamino]

No shit. I tried to pay online for a medical bill, and they want me to create an account on their site. WTF? Just let me type in a unique pay code or something, give them a credit card number, and tell them how much to deduct. They don't even have to acknowledge that the amount is correct for the bill, if somehow that gives away private information.

Instead, I thought "screw this, I'll just write a check". Which I haven't done yet, now five weeks later, so they're out the money until I feel like finding my old checkbook.

Props to cpllabs.com for having a "guest" pay system as I describe. I pay their bills promptly and in full.

Re:I have enough accounts....

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed 100%. What's bizarre too is how some new bitcoin-based businesses are still following the old model of "user registration", when payment via bitcoin often makes registration totally unnecessary.

Re:I have enough accounts....

[Anonymous Coward]

My power company in New york used to allow one-time paying the accounts without account nonsense, similar to how you can do so with contract-free cellphones. IIRC, this changed a few months ago. This kind of requirement is what keeps my parents from doing anything online, since they've never able to open an account on their own successfully (meaning that they can remember the username, password AND email used to reset the account when they need to pay again a month down the road).

Re:I have enough accounts....

[William Robinson]

That's nothing.

There is web site of Indian Railways. To book a ticket, they need your name, address, telephone number, blood group, blood sample, retina scan, tongue sample, sperm sample and name of your first born son, your great grandparents and names of all teachers who have taught you in past.

I said, no thank you.

Get a bong

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a bong that should help

Advice

[Shagg]

I'm concerned about the implications of storing personal data on Gmail, Facebook, and other social media sites.

Good.

Insights and tips are appreciated.

Don't.

So...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're going to delete your FB and gmail accounts, yet open new ones. That's a good plan, at least until you start communicating and friending the EXACT SAME PEOPLE you did before.Did you actually think this thing through or not?

Yes, separate accounts would be a good solution. But you will need a unique email account for each of your social media accounts, you will need to seperate your shopping into different accounts, and you will sure as shit need to wipe all cookies all the time.

This is an ask slashdot?

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and I forgot to mention. Limit each of your FB, email, etc contacts to one, and only one, social media / email address tandem.

And while I'm waiting for the 120 second countdown, make the tandems unique. No jdoe1, jdoe2,jdoe3.. I realize that is blindingly obvious, but I'm responding to the question asked in a manner the submitter will hopefully understand.

Probably not

[Anonymous Coward]

Germany does that, actually.

(I believe) Since it's unification, a German national ID number changes every time document ID is renewed, which is about every 5 (?) years. This is exactly to make it more complicated to track German nationals. Passports work this way as well.

But, on the same time, whenever I asked the some police officer if I was allowed to drive in the country ( as people who have only a non EU driver's license may legally do it just for a year ), the police man asked my full name, my birth day and the city I was born and this way he was able to narrow me down. (and I was born in a city with 18 million people.... )

So you must have a lot of a accounts and different fake data on all of them.
Also, if the IP checking fakeself@gmail.com is the same checking realself@gmail.com, you won't go very far either....

It's hard to have a private life nowadays :(

There is no reset.

[SuperCharlie]

So when you create a new account and the same people tag you in pics and send you email and you write in the same way from the same geolocation..you get the picture. There is no reset, there is no hiding. We have turned the corner and there is no turning back. Welcome to the machine.

There are many trace points

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you replace your NIC adapter or manually change the MAC address.
- sites can identify you by your network interface
Did you burn all your web history in your browser?
- sites leave cookies and other stuff
Did you change your browser or hack it's ID string?
- the browser ID and OS combination are pretty good identifiers at infrequently visited sites or with cross correlation.
Did you ever attach your old ID to address or credit card information?
- they will attach the new online account to the history if they can make a match
Do you have any commercial games that you have attached to the online account info?
- again they can update account info to a new account
Did you throw out all your old contacts and don't talk to your old friend network, parents, work or other contacts?
- your contact list is a pretty good identifier of you. This is what the NSA surveilance meta-data collection is all about.
Did you change your browsing practices? Use new news sites, forums, game and porn sites?
- again your browsing habbits are the meta data the NSA tracks
Did you change your phrase usage, captialization and misspelling style?
- again good identifiers of individuals

Re:There are many trace points

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, this is where I wonder whether we have just gone full conspiracy retarded.

Your MAC on your computer is not externally visible, in order for that to matter they would have to be inside your gateway, and if that is the case no amount of changing NICs, or any other change is going to make a lick of difference.

Perhaps you mean to suggest changing ISPs or at least IPs...

Re:There are many trace points

[Anonymous Coward]

Installed fonts, too.

See

https://panopticlick.eff.org/

Re:There are many trace points

[Anonymous Coward]

Your ISP logs your account against the MAC that connects and the IP it assigns. I have had to MAC spoof when visiting friends. Granted it will usually be a gateway MAC that might be shared amoung a few users.

You think your ISP would pass on the opportunity make extra bucks by selling info to the marketers?

Re:There are many trace points

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a small script that changes mac every boot -> I get new ip from isp every boot
Same script also changes the computers name at boot (at least isp's dhcp-server sees that info, dunno if pages I visit?)
My browsers (Opera, IE, Firefox) all clear all cookies and cache-files when they are closed -> clear browser every boot/browser restart
I don't use Facebook, Google+ and rarely visit Linkedin and Gmail pages of mine (Gmail I read mainly from mobile).
I do use adblocker and have MVPS hosts-file in use also.

I feel quite anonymous enough for normal legal web-usage that I do.. With all the USA/TSA/NSA/etc. bashing going in Slashdot these days, this is probably the only site I visit that could flag me for NSA radar anyways :)

PS. Browser ID.. that one I'll have to look into :)

No.

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as you continue to use it, they will accumulate data and as long as you don't change all your friends at the same time, they can easily identify you based on your social circle (of course they could also use other behaviour for identification). So: No, it won't work.

Re:No.

[Em Adespoton]

As long as you continue to use it, they will accumulate data and as long as you don't change all your friends at the same time, they can easily identify you based on your social circle (of course they could also use other behaviour for identification). So: No, it won't work.

That said, you could probably do it the other way around...
Start 10 new identities, and feed them from different random sources. Also start one real identity. At the same time, turn your old identity into a fake one, filled with fake info (don't close it, it never really "closes" anyway).

Now, anyone filtering by IP, cookie, etc. won't know which information is legit at first glance. You'll hide better in the noise than by providing information analysts a fresh clean start with no noise and very strong correlations that starting up new accounts creates.

Every once in a while, you could spin off some new accounts; every once in a while, you can make one of them real.

Of course, this will really confuse real acquaintances, and you'd better be doing this with your credit cards as well, or you haven't really done much.

Reverse honeypots

[Solandri]

I've always maintained that passing laws to protect our privacy is a losing battle. If you make a law to make someone stop doing something they want to do, all that usually ends up happening is they figure out a way to do the exact same thing while skirting around the law.

Instead, we should pollute their data. Create programs which can run when you're not using your computer, which look like multiple browsers and access websites in a random but quasi-human-like fashion. They'll amass tracking cookies, but the cookies will be tracking bots rather than real people. Decrease their signal to noise ratio so much that it's no longer cost-effective to collect people's private data, at least from monitoring people's browsing habits.

Re:Reverse honeypots

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the sort of noise online, all that will do is get you more ads for porn, sex toys, kinky sex toys, and stuff that you wouldn't want to talk about even to the people you laugh about the kinky sex toys with.

Re:Reverse honeypots

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a plan. As long as your random-ish web searches don't look for both 'pressure cookers' and 'backpacks'

Re:Reverse honeypots

[TheSpoom]

That'll either target you differently, or they'll just assume that you're a bot and opt you out of tracking. I prefer to just block the ads in the first place.

Re:Reverse honeypots

[Anonymous Coward]

we should pollute their data. Create programs which can run when you're not using your computer, which look like multiple browsers and access websites in a random but quasi-human-like fashion. They'll amass tracking cookies, but the cookies will be tracking bots rather than real people. Decrease their signal to noise ratio so much that it's no longer cost-effective to collect people's private data, at least from monitoring people's browsing habits.

That's exactly the idea behind TrackMeNot, an add-on for Firefox/Chrome/Chromium. There are also add-ons that block or change your browser headers, to reduce the amount of information that is leaked.

Re:Reverse honeypots

[DerekLyons]

Create programs which can run when you're not using your computer, which look like multiple browsers and access websites in a random but quasi-human-like fashion. They'll amass tracking cookies, but the cookies will be tracking bots rather than real people. Decrease their signal to noise ratio so much that it's no longer cost-effective to collect people's private data

Are you really so clueless as to think that some very minor pattern analysis won't be able to tell the difference between you and a bot? (And doing that analysis is cheap.) At worst, they'll simply identify that computer/address as having multiple users - which is something they almost certainly already do.

Re:Reverse honeypots

[Anonymous Coward]

Thumbs up for this! :)
Exactly, if the data is sufficiently polluted there wont be valuable data to be extracted as one doesnt know which is which

One can pollute the data in many ways. in simple and small ways such as changing writing style which i would assume is programmatically analysed these days, as well as changing browsers, computers, accounts etc.

Unfortunately with a bot widely spread human input is still needed to make that bot act unique otherwise via deep enough analysis one can still identify they are bots

Aggregation

[dreamstateseven]

And on some remote NSA system somewhere ... all of your new accounts will just get aggregated with your old accounts once your profile with the NSA has enough to make a reasonable enough assumption that you're the same person.

already wrong

[slashmydots]

You've already done it wrong. Paypal needs your real name and address, etc. There is absolutely no reason why Gmail does. So guess who's "John Smith" on Gmail since 2007? Me! I haven't used my real, actual name for any online account that doesn't truly verify it since the internet was invented.
Yes, making a new account everywhere will help slightly but you should have given them a fake name in the first place.

Re:already wrong

[imatter]

I don't think that a fake name used to create an account prevents them from knowing who you are. If your account acts like a 45 year male living in his parent's basement and your IP address results in your parent's house, I think you've been made.

Pay for it

[holophrastic]

If you don't want someone to amass your private data, why are you giving it to them for free in the first place, and why is your solution to keep doing so?

You're talking about e-mail. Buy your own e-mail server from any shared-server host out there. Pay for it. It'll cost you something like $20/month. POP, IMAP, and WebMail isn't difficult.

Quite frankly, if you've got a static IP (or buy one for a few bucks a month), you can just run your own from home.

If you want it to be yours, buy it. Welcome to ownership. And the moment you pay for it directly, there are countless laws to protect you and your information.

If you want free, then you're going to pay for it with your information instead of with your dollars. It's that simple. It's always been that simple.

Re:Pay for it

[Mr.Intel]

This is the answer to almost every Internet-inspired drama. The internet wants to be free. Information wants to be free. The bottom line instead is, everything has a price including the internet and your information. Pay for it, own it and no one else can.

Re:Pay for it

[volxdragon]

Quite frankly, if you've got a static IP (or buy one for a few bucks a month), you can just run your own from home.

You do realize this violates most residential ISP TOSs/AUPs in the US, right? Just because you have a static IP does NOT mean you can run a 'server' unless you have business-class service (and by 'server', I mean anything that accepts inbound connections offering a service....be it email, a web server, ssh server, etc). Now, will they detect it and do something about it? Likely not in most cases unless there are complaints, but I know a lot of residential ISPs now block SMTP to deal with spam malware (forcing you to use the submission ports instead or webmail, but breaking running a SMTP server). Frankly, I do what you suggest, but I have a business-class line run into my house (have for the past 15+ years) for exactly the reasons above...

Re:Pay for it

[holophrastic]

I would have argued that buying a static ip on most isp's tends to jump you out of residential class in the first place. but in any event, that's not my concern. I'm not in the U.S.A., and I know nothing of the poster's isp.

Re:Pay for it

[mlts]

I also found that the dynamic IP addresses provided tend to be in a blacklist so E-mail will get shitcanned the moment it hits someone else's SMTP port. Of course, the trick is to use the ISP's or a third party's SMTP server as a relay.

Re:Pay for it

[Anonymous Coward]

Please tell me how I can buy (and own) functionality equivalent to what gmail was a month ago (before the compose fiasco).
I'd pay good money for that (but only if I own it, so it runs on my server, and they're not capable of changing it).

Re:Pay for it

[holophrastic]

Cowards don't get advice from me.

Re:Pay for it

[wisnoskij]

Which would implying that torrenting is inherently illegal, as uploading small parts of the latest linux distro is providing a service.

Re: Pay for it

[volxdragon]

I didn't say illegal - I said violated the TOS/AUP which means they can terminate your account for breach of contract. In theory, BitTorrent, Skype, or hell, even BattleNet could fall under the clause of most residential TOS/AUPs, but you aren't likely to run into issues there... It's all about economics and money for the ISPs, plus you can actually get a real SLA with business service (residential is always best effort)

Re:Pay for it

[Anonymous Coward]

That's an awfully vindictive attitude in a thread about keeping a low-profile online.

Re:Pay for it

[holophrastic]

It's a thread about data privacy and ownership, not low profiles. I've no problem with the opinions that I publish being known. I've problems with the opinions that I don't publish being known.

If you aren't willing to put your name to your opinions, then I don't need to help you with your request.

Re:Pay for it

[Anonymous Coward]

Similarly, if you aren't willing to give answers in a public forum, then I don't need your answer!

HINT: When someone replies to your comment, they're not replying exclusively to you; they're asking the whole forum.
(But you knew that; you just wanted a platform dish on AC's, and then I fed the troll. Ugg.)

Re:Pay for it

[holophrastic]

I'm obviously willing to give answers in a public forum. Look at my many answers.

And you do need my answer, because you asked for it with the words "Please tell me...".

What I don't need is you.

And yes, I'm not a fan of cowards around here.

Re: Pay for it

[volxdragon]

Nope - a static IP for residential will normally cost you like $5/month more where business class will normally cost you like $200/month more...

Re: Pay for it

[holophrastic]

I like how you use "normally" and "you" (referring to me), as though you know my location, situation, and ISP.

Re: Pay for it

[volxdragon]

Fair enough, poor word choice - was meant to be in the abstract and referencing common/average US pricing.

watch out for panopticlick methods

[circletimessquare]

level of paranoia increase: start with a new machine

just using the same machine will id you

no cookies, user accounts, or ip addresses needed

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/01/27/1638216/tracking-browsers-without-cookies-or-ip-addresses

http://panopticlick.eff.org/

No. Suck it up.

[Anonymous Coward]

So while Google/Doubleclick might possess lots of data about me from 2001-2012, from this point on, they only have a clean slate.

I'm afraid not.

What may happen is that there would be "two of you". In other words, let's say your Joe Blow who lives in East Timbucktu Idaho and like cherry pie with his cat blah blah blah ... What may happen in the corporate Big Brother data World is that there will be two Joe Blows with extremely similar profiles - and then when some algorithm figures out it's the same guy, it'll merge.

Your only hope is to:

disconnect ALL electronic subscriptions (internet, phone, cable, etc ...), get rid of your credit cards, pay off ALL debt, pay EVERYTHING in cash (Good luck traveling!) and after about ten years, you'll "disappear" from corporate America. How do I know?

I met a couple out in the country (rural GA) who did that. During the real estate melt down in '08, they wanted to buy the farm next to theirs - 50% CASH down - and mortgage the rest - remember they had NO other debt. The bank said "now way" because they had no profile in the credit bureaus or anywhere else. They pointed out that they were putting down 50% in a DEPRESSED market so the pretty much couldn't lose, the bank said sorry, you don't exist.

Fucked up isn't it?

Worry about everything else (too)

[vinn]

The things you need to worry about with regards to privacy is everything else in your life. Did you apply for the grocery card that gives you those special discounts? If so, your information got sold. Did you buy a season pass last year at a major ski resort? If so, your information got sold. Did you get one of those cards at the casino so you could rack up some gaming points? If so, your information got sold. All of this, and a whole lot more, are available to marketers or really anyone who wants to pay for it.

As a general rule, if you are filling out a form - regardless of whether its on the interwebs or printed on a dead tree - any information you provide is going to get sold. Actually, in many cases it's even worse, the information is just given away.

So, if your reasoning for changing your online accounts is to beat the marketers, credit agencies, etc then you've got many other things to worry about that have probably already got you householded and deduped from everyone's databases. Now, if your goal in life is to, say, build an encrypted email platform and promote it for worldwide privacy use, then yes - I think you should be careful how big your online presence is. If you're worried about receiving a piece of direct mail from a private golf course because it's known you reside within 50 miles from their clubhouse, have a net income of $X, and drive an Audi, well, in that case you're probably already screwed because they already know all that.

Right vector. Incorrect magnitude.

[briancox2]

To truly create the anonymity you are looking for, you should create 200 accounts on each service and spend every day creating false data to obfuscate the real you. Spend at least 10 times the time you would normally spend on Facebook, Reddit, Google accounts and Spotify doing things you'd never do. No algorithm would ever truly know if you were a My Little Pony customer or a porn addict.

That's nonsense

[vivaoporto]

First: it only take one of your FB friends to tag a picture of you with your new profile that were tagged before in your old profile to link both accounts.

Second: why would you trust FB (or any other third party service, anyway) with your information if you want it to keep private? Social networking (and the internet in general) is for publication of info (with emphasis in the "public" part of publication).

Bottom line: keep your private things in your own disk, not in a service designed to share content with as many people as you can.

Re:Right vector. Incorrect magnitude.

[Anonymous Coward]

No algorithm would ever truly know if you were a My Little Pony customer or a porn addict.

Or?

Simple Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook thinks that I am 82 years old and unemployed. I never get any adverts from them.

Here are some rules

[gurps_npc]

1) If you are abandoning the old accounts, do it when you buy a new computer. 2) Never give out more information than necessary 3) If they demand a phone number, send it to either a friend's phone or if truly paranoid a burner phone purchased with cash. 4) Before abandoning the old accounts, fix their information by replacing it with new, incorrect information. 5) Then delete them. 6) Never use Facebook for anything. They are too expensive privacy wise for the cheap stuff they offer. You can get what they offer (or similar stuff) at other web sites, for less of a privacy invasion. 7) On your new PC, set security HIGH and accept a bit of inconvenience,

Re:Here are some rules

[ClioCJS]

You can't get what facebook offers at other sites. Facebook offers the audience of every single person I know (except 2). No other service does.

Re:Here are some rules

[Anonymous Coward]

8) Format new PC and install Linux. 9) Install Host file and ad blocking to block all ads, script blocking to block scripts. 10) Only use new computer in internet cafe's, leaving your phone at home (not crossing through any tag reading or license plate reading devices on the way there)

Re:Here are some rules

[gurps_npc]

So the reason you like Facebook is that everyone else uses it?

Hm. Most people are not entirely 100% sheep and are willing to use products that other people have not used.

If your friends refuse to check your blog, or answer your emails, or play games with you on a service of your choice, then they are not your friends.

As for the notification aspect, you can set your blog and game to send emails to your friends. Of course, they will probably hate your as much for that as they hate you for doing it to them on Facebook.

Re:Here are some rules

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Yes, when electing a platform to notify your friends about your life, the best selection is the platform that most effectively notifies your friends about your life. That is facebook, because that is where people go and read such notifications. It's not "because everyone else uses it", as you so dishonestly attempted to strawman.

2) " If your friends refuse to check your blog, or answer your emails, or play games with you on a service of your choice, then they are not your friends."

Keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, I'll laugh that the crux of your viewpoint is a No True Scotsman fallacy.

3) Yes, because social notifications are a lower priority information than email, and belong on the RSS or internal-Notification layer, and would be really annoying to upcast every social interaction into an email. They would be right to hate me. So by your own admission, your last paragraph was pretty much just you being a blowhard.

Why did I bother replying to such an ineffective argument? Oh right, getting paid right now.

Free services cannot be trusted

[Anonymous Coward]

I think its clear that you should not expect a "free" service like a Facebook, Twitter or other social site to worry so much about YOUR privacy. They are worried
about paying those data bills from YOU sharing your worthless pictures and comments. Anyone who thinks Free means protected is in a Utopia land of the internet.
I think you might as well pull the internet plug now. Their are ways to reduce your foot print but most people are too lazy to do things like enter in passwords, or credit card information or sign in information every time they use a site that requires it. We use tools that help us do these things automatically. Why does Google sniff your mail? Because they can. Hey, Google's primary money maker is still ads. Sure you think they make tons on Android, Chromebooks and their other pet projects. Yea right. Like I said, if your that paranoid stay off the internet.

What, son?

[SuperBanana]

Did you replace your NIC adapter or manually change the MAC address.
- sites can identify you by your network interface

What? Anything beyond the first-hop router has no idea what your MAC address is.

Re:What, son?

[Anonymous Coward]

IPv6 is working hard to fix that oversight.
Can't wait for the first network appliances which will randomize those last 64 bits for me (and keep track of state).

Re:What, son?

[Anonymous Coward]

What? Anything beyond the first-hop router has no idea what your MAC address is.

That is true if you are talking strictly about websites. However, some of these "online services" provide or require local app clients, which may or may not be able to get the MAC and send it home.

Re:What, son?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean, working hard since 2007?

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4941

Or did you mean the original http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3041 circa 2001?

Re:What, son?

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but your machine does, and potentially so does any "required" browser plugin that the site wants you to install.

Re:What, son?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you replace your NIC adapter or manually change the MAC address.
- sites can identify you by your network interface

What? Anything beyond the first-hop router has no idea what your MAC address is.

unless you use IPv6 without the privacy extensions (ex., on Linux).

There isn't much currently that will help.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only do they monitor the account, but they also do pattern recognition to analyze the way you type. I would advise dropping facebook. as they log pretty much everything about you. Removing cookie and changing ip's no longer protect you as there are other means to track you http://lucb1e.com/rp/cookielesscookies/ Like ETag

Not enough

[wiredlogic]

You need to change your computer to remove any identifying signature the trackers can use to correlate with their old records of you. Then you have to assume your ISP is ratting you out so you'll have to leech off of someone else's WiFi (with a spoofed MAC changed daily). For the really paranoid you should also consider completely changing the websites you visit (switch from Google to Bing, etc.) since that "metadata" can be used to identify you through your behavioral profile.

Once you've established a sanitized connection you must ensure that you never transmit identifying information or allow malicious code to execute that could search for identifying information on your computer. You did remember to run GNU shred on that hard drive you reformatted, right?

Good luck.

Re:Right vector. Incorrect magnitude.

[imatter]

I once did a painting in art school, well it was 900 small paintings that made up one large painting. While I was working on this painting Peter Saul gave a lecture at the school. When he finished I approached him and asked for his autograph on one of my little canvases. When I hung the 900 paintings in the final show I create reproductions of that one canvas for fear that the original would be stolen. I hung all five so that no one would know which painting was the original.

The real solution... I never hung the original.

Security rather than privacy

[santosh.k83]

I'm more interested in security rather than privacy. What's the worst that can happen? Targeted ads? I block ads anyway. Future employer might look at my Facebook posts? He's welcome to... it might educate him. Bank may refuse loan? I care two hoots. My govt or NSA can track me down? Lol that'd be a really stupid thing on their part. What I wouldn't want though are insecure systems which could enable my accounts to get hacked or my transactions to be compromised.

Re:Right vector. Incorrect magnitude.

[geekoid]

And thus explaining to the world you are a paranoid person who would let is paranoia prevent him from sharing art.
You should see someone about that.

You're concerned...?

[albacrankie]

I used to get ads featuring young ladies in skimpy underwear. Move on a few years, and now I get ads for 'mature' dating sites. These ads are extremely depressing. So much so that I suspect it's a euthanasian plot intended to make me top myself. It may succeed. And now you're suggesting I could fix things by changing my e-mail address. That may be even more depressing. Fuck it!!!!

No Robert Nagle, it can't

[Anonymous Coward]

-NSA

This is all good info.

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything on this list is accessible, one way or another.

If I needed this info, there are legal ways to obtain all of it.

There are easy illegal ways...

I've been playing with SecretAgent for firefox, it does some interesting things to the metadata collection, lol.

Not going to work

[gr8_phk]

It has been observed that some very basic data can uniquely identify people in the US. IIRC this can be as simple as: Your zipcode, gender, and birthdate. Never mind your browser, IP, list of contacts, common words you use. Just those 3 things are enough to uniquely identify most people.

A creepy anecdote

[ebunga]

For the longest time I had a fake facebook account, as did an acquaintance. Despite the fact that neither of those accounts were connected to our real lives, and the fake accounts did not follow each other, Facebook was able to suggest I may know my acquaintances brother...

Facebook is a stalker so dedicated to looking in your windows while masturbating in the bushes behind your house that it not only planted the bushes, but also built the house.

Re: Grocery Store discount cards

[Anonymous Coward]

The grocery store discount cards are primarily paid for by Nielsen. Nielsen actually pays for, provides, and manages entire discount card programs as part of the advertising analytical tools it provides to TV advertisers. This allows the advertiser to more directly correlate sales with ads.

give them bad data

[PopeRatzo]

I remember a story here on Slashdot that mentioned a browser plug-in that sent Google, etc random searches, keywords, etc., thus corrupting the data that was collected about the user.

Does anyone remember the name of that project or any other details? I would think that it might be useful if you could seed the data that is mined with enough crap to make it much less useful.

I'd be happy to use something like that. I'm already using disconnect.me and startpage.com and https everywhere and pay for email that (I hope) is a little more protective of my communications than gmail or any of the big webmail providers. But I'd really like to do everything I can to frustrate attempts to use my personal data.

I know it doesn't mean much for one person to do this, but it's the principle of the thing.

Re:give them bad data

[Anonymous Coward]

track me not

I'm just a bored anonymous coward

[Anonymous Coward]

I just don't get the "OMG I must hide from these companies or else they will know I shit because I BUY TOILET PAPER." News flash - everyone poops. Some people buy even buy crazy embarrassing things like condoms, adult diapers, and laxatives ALL ON THE SAME TRIP, and unless they are 12 they DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK BECAUSE THEY ARE ADULTS, NOT CHILDREN. No one cares, no one is going to be looking at your shopping list tittering. It is all about money, and trying to get your business (and more of it).

What kind privacy are all of these hand wringers worrying about? Why do you care if there are ads targeted at you - ignore them, the same as you would ignore non-targeted ads. It's like worrying about if you are driving through Kansas or Nebraska - they look the same, morons, it doesn't matter. If you buy a stool softener, and then facebook tells your friends "dickweed johnson loves this here stool softener so that he's ready for his man lover Joe Bob (shown below with his Aunt Betilda (who buys like 80 large tampons a month, WTF?) ). You might think Joe Bob and Dickweed are straight but you haven't seen their private messages - although I hear Mrs. Johnson enjoys delivering a good pegging", guess what, capitalism is going to shut that company down faster than you can say "I got the clap from that cross eyed hooker in Tea... Tij.... however you spell that place down in Mexico we went for Jimmy's 21st birthday where he almost lost an eye at that bar with the shitty tequila... no, the left eye, you're thinking of the place with those huge mojitos, man I've never been so wasted like that, I can't believe how big your sister's tits are, did you know she could do that with her tits, that was RE-DICK-U-LUZ MAN, I about popped just watching but I'm glad I didn't because she totally got me off later". Or in other words, really quickly.

If you are worried about the collusion between the govt and facebook et al, guess what - if you vote, you REGISTERED FOR YOUR PARTY. THEY ALREADY KNOW YOU ARE A democrat or republican or other. If you are an other, GUESS WHAT YOUR VOTE IS FUCKING USELESS. I feel like I'm killing baby seals here, this is painful. You may have delusions of persecution as a democrat or republican - I know, it can be hard to get up in the morning knowing how people are dissing Paul Ryan | Obama. But they are grown ups, they can handle it in their big boy pants with all of those $ in the pockets. Which while I'm on the topic, Obama, CLOSE FUCKING GITMO ALREADY. JESUS CHRIST. FUCKING RULE OF LAW DUDE. GET SOME GOD DAMN MANNERS, YOU SAID YOU WOULD LIKE SIX YEARS AGO SERIOUSLY LAME.

If you are afraid you have righteous views about how the government is not moral and needs to be fixed, and as a result know with absolute certainty that the government is going to ass rape you as soon as you blink, guess what - people who worry about being ass raped are almost always guys who are closet homosexuals, so _that's_ what you should be worried about. Straight guys don't worry about ass rape, because they paid attention in statistics class. Unless they had a really hot statistics teacher, in which case they were busy fantasizing, but those fantasies now shield them from worrying about things like Syria, the GOP, and health care, so they are good. Anyway, it just isn't on their radar any more than worrying if they are going to get man boob cancer.

You wantz your guns cache to be private, I get it - no one wants their neighbors to know they FUCKING NUTS. So you have a few options - don't be FUCKING NUTS, but I understand without good govt. supported health care, not being nuts can be difficult - you have to be rich to get therapy unless you go to Canada or some other hell hole. So I'll do some "how-not-to-be-a-gun-nut-splaining". One or two hand guns is totally legit - it's for "safety". Add in some rifles, for, you know "hunting for food", because you have to eat meat, and I don't mean hot man rod, right?! Unless you go for that kind of thing, and then FUCKING YES HOT MAN ROD FOR THE WI

Kinda, but don't think your "hidden"

[Trax3001BBS]

Every account I have in under a different handle, each piece of mobile equipment is under a different
persona http://www.fakenamegenerator.com/ I don't do social sites only because I don't care for them.

I've nothing to hide, it's just what I do. I was security conscious long before Gore gave the public access to the Internet.

Forte Agent mail reader lets you have multiple personalities, POP3ing Email from your other accounts.
-I don't care for online e-mail.

Google will catch up with you if you have multiple Gmail accounts; asking if you would like to combine
them and use your real full name Mr. Micky Mouse . I see this as an IP match and where the weak link is.

It's what I do, but not a fanatic about it, I know there are key phrases, and statements I'm prone to use
no matter the account.

Just use a HOSTS file it blocks most of your tracking and spam online, it's your E-mail address that screws you (spam wise),
I use https://spamgourmet.com/ for disposable Email addresses, many filter that address and don't allow it.
-A HOSTS file block tracking ie if you don't touch their site they don't know about you or your surfing habits.

Root (jailbreak) your mobile equipment so you can use a HOSTS file cause your phone/tablet has conversations with the trackers.
Google Play Store put a halt to programs that stopped that conversation, so you have to find your blockers elsewhere.

And always read ToS's and Privacy Policies, while they may not be telling you the truth they do list sites you need to block
if you use their service (tracking). Also one's with a hardcore we collect everything policy I've no use for (Angy Birds (rovio.com)).

No they know your browser machine and ISP info

[WOOFYGOOFY]

Here's what won't vary if you do that-

Your ISP. Your ISP may have everywhere you've ever surfed keyed by your name, your ID (whatever you showed them) and your router. Your ISP knows everything. Think they collect and share that data ? Think they can make money by doing that? It's not even illegal to cyber stalk someone if you're they're ISP, phone company or any other company you give info to as we're finding out . Since it's not illegal to do it and they can make money doing it, (it's safe to assume) they do it.

Your browser. Your browser hands over everything about your machine , your plugins, your OS on every request. You'd be surprised how personally identifiable that info is. Here, have a depressing look:

https://panopticlick.eff.org/index.php?action=log&js=yes

https://panopticlick.eff.org/browser-uniqueness.pdf

I was unique amongst the 3-4 million people they tested so far. . Great.

There are companies that sift through your fingerprinty clickstream (all of the above plus the URLs you go to) solely the purpose of identifying you uniquely. Then they sell that information.

You can fight back to a degree. First you need an ISP that doesn't know you're you. You can use someone else's ISP account, say, your roommate's. If they don't know you live there (don't be too sure) then they don't know it's you. That would work.

BTW that is part of the reason MUNI (free, municipal) WIFI is blocked by the telcos every time a city tries to get it going. It provides low cost, shared internet that anonymizes your activities to the extent that the ISP->Your ID connection is broken. MUNI WIFI sends shivers down telco's executives spines because it digs straight into their profit sweet spot- selling you out to the highest bidder.

To fight the browser ID thing, you need to dump your browser and aim for a a configuration that is as generic as possible. Possibly you'd have to switch out your OS, depending on how uniquely identifying it turns out to be (moire than you suppose) You can also use Tor or another anonymous proxy.

Then you'd have to dump all your accounts online and never go back. No continuation of support from vendors. No using your credit card- that would match your name to your new online browser ISP identity. No getting your Amazon wishlists or pandora lists or anything. WRT to your previous online life, you're in the witness protection program.

Then there's your friends who will accidentally out you via FB or Gmail or other social media. You can't let them email you, chat with you or anything. You can never permit your identity to be connected by anyone at all with your new email, browser, or ISP.

It's not that it's impossible, it's that it's unlikely you'd be assiduous enough to maintain it supposing you were willing to give it a go at all.

HTH.

Re:No they know your browser machine and ISP info

[WOOFYGOOFY]

I should add- this is one of the reasons I have never applied to large companies like Google and Yahoo. They just know way way too much about me.

You're going to sit across a desk in an interview with someone who knows absolutely everything about everywhere you've ever surfed at any time in your life, or at least, as deep as that person cares to know.

You've got to be crazy.

You think you're sitting there presenting yourself in your best light, as you do in an interview but trust me, the full force of dehumanization-via-transparency is in effect. It's not that they'll let on, it's that they'll know at all. I don't have anything THAT bad to hide, but just like everyone else online, I have surfed some kinky (some would say! ) porn and flamed out into angry trolling (some would say!) in online arguments . They know all about that or can find out.

The power imbalance is incredible. You're effectively stripped bare with none of the dignity that PRIVACY is supposed to have afforded you. Without privacy, you cannot create a face for the faces you meet. Someone who is watched and recorded loses their humanity and becomes an object to the watcher's subject.

You are no longer a person with any mystery. You lose the ability to define how others see you and in that you lose the incentive to be something more, to realize your potentiality and re-define yourself to yourself and others, perhaps defining yourself as something great, or noble or extraordinary. All that happening, that mechanism, that thing we have always done over the course of human history is totally shot to hell when you're rendered like a piece of meat, categorized, transparent, marked and grade and delimited by others - others whose lives you don't have an equal view into and whose process is invisible to you.

Dignity and humanity is something you can never ever have at a Google interview or a Yahoo interview, no matter how far down how many Googlers mod this post and no matter how much they deny it, rest assured, it's true.

Here's a great quote - an excerpt from an excerpt - that appeared here:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130818120421175

One way of beginning to understand privacy is by looking at what happens to people in extreme situations where it is absent. Recalling his time in Auschwitz, Primo Levi observed that "solitude in a Camp is more precious and rare than bread." Solitude is one state of privacy, and even amidst the overwhelming death, starvation, and horror of the camps, Levi knew he missed it.... Levi spent much of his life finding words for his camp experience. How, he wonders aloud in Survival in Auschwitz, do you describe "the demolition of a man," an offense for which "our language lacks words."...

One function of privacy is to provide a safe space away from terror or other assaultive experiences. When you remove a person's ability to sequester herself, or intimate information about herself, you make her extremely vulnerable....

The totalitarian state watches everyone, but keeps its own plans secret. Privacy is seen as dangerous because it enhances resistance. Constantly spying and then confronting people with what are often petty transgressions is a way of maintaining social control and unnerving and disempowering opposition....

And even when one shakes real pursuers, it is often hard to rid oneself of the feeling of being watched -- which is why surveillance is an extremely powerful way to control people. The mind's tendency to still feel observed when alone... can be inhibiting. ... Feeling watched, but not knowing for sure, nor knowing if, when, or how the hostile surveyor may strike, people often become fearful, constricted, and distracted.

I've quoted from that book before, back when the CNET reporters' emails were read by HP. We thought that

Re:No they know your browser machine and ISP info

[CodeBuster]

You're going to sit across a desk in an interview with someone who knows absolutely everything about everywhere you've ever surfed at any time in your life, or at least, as deep as that person cares to know.

If you can earn more for Google than the cost of your salary, do they care? My guess is probably not.

Re:No they know your browser machine and ISP info

[WOOFYGOOFY]

It';s not that they care. It's that they know. That's the invasion of privacy. That's the dehumanization.

Along these lines it's amusing to read that the very-married ex Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who's famous for asserting that everyone should just get over their need for privacy is spending 6 million soundproofing his New York love nest so his neighbors won't hear him having loud sex with his girlfriends... did I say whores? No. I didn't .

http://theblemish.com/2013/07/heres-googles-eric-schmidts-sex-pad/

So I guess privacy IS important after fall.. but just for important people.

Re:No they know your browser machine and ISP info

[santosh.k83]

Good perspectives, and I agree with the need for security and privacy for everyone, but I disagree that an interview at Google would dehumanise you. Just know that you won't allow anyone else to define your humanity, and that all of us are essentially in the same boat. It's just that while he (your Google interviewer) might have some dirt on you, you don't have any on him, but you can rest assured he too has visited porn sites and done much the same blunders as all of us. If you're doing wrong stuff you've to be ashamed of it yourself, even if not even one person in the world knows you do it. On the other hand, if you truly believe you've not done any serious wrong, or have made up for any, and have basic self respect, you wouldn't let the fact that someone knows about it stop you from holding your head high. I know, not as easy as in words yet...

Concentration camps are whole different league to online privacy, at least several orders of magnitude difference between the two.

Having said all this, yes, I do agree the Internet in it's early days afforded us the ability to be at least psuedo-anonymous from everyone except government and law enforcement, and now it's too bad that any old company can store data on you, while both companies and governments are increasingly eroding the little shreds of privacy still left by things like mandating real name, blocking proxies, and so on.

Facebook has ads?

[advocate_one]

no, don't see any ads with adblock plus

The secret

[jandersen]

If you want privacy, don't go out in public where people can see you. And remember, just because you are sitting at home, undressed in front of you computer, you are still making yourself "visible" in a public place when you use the internet.

Alternatively, make sure that you stay insignificant and unremarkable, and nobody will bother you, whether they are criminals or government; but I repeat myself.

advice from a CIA agent

[napata]

I was once advised by Philip Agee that if you are a social activist the worst thing you can do is worry excessively about surveillance. If you make too much effort to avoid surveillance yo will fail to make any social change and therefore give them victory without a fight. A just cause was never stopped by surveillance e.g. fall of apartheid, civil rights movement in US etc

Just match address books

[Reziac]

Seems to me all they'd need to do is match up address books to make a reasonable guess as to which old and new accounts are whom. Not much different from what Facebook and LinkedIn already do, albeit for "who knows whom". Same principle, tho.

Simple solution :

[RockDoctor]

I'm concerned about the implications of storing personal data on Gmail, Facebook, and other social media sites.

Stop using them.

Ah, so they do some things that you like? Well now you've got to the nub of the problem : are the services that they provide to you sufficiently worthwhile to counterbalance the intrusiveness of their data mining.

Incidentally, doing things like trashing your Facebook account, then setting up a new one and re-friending lots of the same people won't do much, if anything, to break their chain of continuity. They'll re-connect your new and old accounts pretty damned quick.

At a minimum, you'd need to delete all of your data from Facebook while keeping the account open (but inactive) for some time, so that their various servers will replicate the emptied account around their global network (may only take seconds) and into their backups (hours, days, months? No idea. I emptied my account over a month ago, and I doubt that that data has gone.) Even then that rests on the somewhat forlorn hope that they'll actually obey your instructions to delete the data, not just tell you that they've deleted it.

Actually, I'd have to dig into my (encrypted) password store to find out what my log-in credentials for Facebook are. It's that long since I logged in.