The FCC Says It Can't Force Google and Facebook To Stop Tracking Their Users (washingtonpost.com)

But we can by jcbarlow · 2015-11-08 04:47 · Score: 1

Privacy Badger

Re:But we can by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2015-11-08 04:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

Then:
Users: hey can you please stop tracking us so much?
Social Media: screw you
Now:
Social Media: hey please don't use stuff to block our tracking thanks
Users: screw you

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Re:But we can by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-08 05:04 · Score: 2, Informative

Exactly. I recently got fiber and now have a 40mbps connection with much lower latency than the previous connection. But, sites load just as slowly now as they did then in many cases. Some of them have actually gotten worse.
So, now I use additional adblockers in addition to noscript, request policy and ghostery. Not to mention privacy badger to further screw up the tracking.
The worst thing is that there's no purpose the only times I ever click on ads are either a complete mistake or because the information is a simple text ad that's relevant to the page I'm looking at. I don't care what I looked at earlier this morning, the page I'm on has information that's relevant to what I want now, not what happened last month.
Re:But we can by houstonbofh · 2015-11-08 05:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

And it will always be this way. People will only put up with so much intrusion before creating tools to block it. And those tools will swing way back past the point they would have accepted as reasonable... Go ahead... Kill the goose.
Re:But we can by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2015-11-08 05:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

People will only put up with so much intrusion before creating tools to block it. And those tools will swing way back past the point they would have accepted as reasonable... Go ahead... Kill the goose.
Exactly- the backlash is almost always greater than what it would have been if they hadn't pushed so hard to begin with. They're always too greedy, too aggressive, too intrusive...and then they complain when people assert themselves and push back.

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Re:But we can by Opportunist · 2015-11-08 05:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

Pretty much this.
We're seeing the same now with ads and ad companies. Ad companies used to pretty much piss on it when their users asked them to maybe tone down the invasiveness of their ads, thinking that there was nothing their users could possibly do to fight back until users did actually start fighting back in masses. Now we see companies actually suing users over using ad blockers, trying to use copyright as a reason (because that ad blocker altered the page and it's no longer how they made it, and they claim copyright does not allow you to alter it. I don't make this up). Mostly out of desperation because people do now use ad blockers in masses, threatening the business model based on ad revenue.
The same can easily happen to invasive tracking if companies that make a living of tracking user habits don't watch out. There is already a movement where people, knowing they cannot avoid leaving footprints, want to poison the data pool by dumping data trash into it to make data indistinguishable from noise, invalidating the data gathered altogether. For now, this is, as it was with ad blockers, a minority of users. Not enough to threaten the tracking business model.
This can stay that way if, and only if, trackers don't go overboard and piss off the average user enough that they start using data poisoners.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:But we can by phantomfive · 2015-11-08 06:30 · Score: 1

Ad companies used to pretty much piss on it when their users asked them to maybe tone down the invasiveness of their ads, thinking that there was nothing their users could possibly do to fight back until users did actually start fighting back in masses.
This worries me. If enough people start using ad-block (and they should), then the natural response from advertisers is to try to create ads that get around the blockers. It's going to be a game of cat-and-mouse, with users in the middle.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:But we can by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-08 06:44 · Score: 0

There's no way around this. They've done it to themselves by going overboard with the advertising.
What should worry you is when the companies that write the ad blocking software figure out they can start charging a small monthly 'fee' to the ad companies so that their ads are considered premium and allowed through - ad least some percentage of the time.
Re:But we can by thegarbz · 2015-11-08 06:56 · Score: 2

What do you mean "if".
In a typical day I will see websites with HTML5 pop-overs, pages not showing content, and (my personal favourite) a banner saying "we can see you're blocking our ads. If you want to see our content disable adblocking", to which I direct my middle finger at the content provider and close the tab.
Re:But we can by Opportunist · 2015-11-08 07:03 · Score: 1

No. Actually, their response is trying to outlaw ad blockers and their use.
Remember, you're dealing with managers. Their response to a technical problem is a legal solution.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:But we can by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2015-11-08 07:18 · Score: 4, Informative

Yeah, that must be why Chrome's percentage of the browser market has been tanking... oh wait.
It's pretty simple - if you don't like what a company is doing, don't use their products. But people don't like to do that - they want to have their cake and eat it too. I quit Facebook a couple years ago. Most of my family (including my wife) continues to use it, though; and it's the standard place family photos and family news first get posted. Sometimes you miss out on certain things by making the choice to not participate... and that's the hard part of making that decision.
Not using Chrome, and using an alternative search engine like DuckDuckGo, is an easier choice to make - but it still requires a conscious decision and a change in your personal habits.
Obviously this isn't 100% effective - Facebook and Google have lots of ways to track individuals, including back room deals with companies like Verizon for access to super cookies and whatnot. But it's at least making their records incomplete and harder to tie to you as a specific individual... not to mention the tacit approval people who continue to use their services are providing them.

--
#DeleteChrome
Re:But we can by BarbaraHudson · 2015-11-08 07:44 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, they now seem set to have a new weapon against users: TPP.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Re:But we can by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-08 07:44 · Score: 0

Seems useless without being able to DEFAULT BLOCK ALL or DEFAULT ACCEPT (AND EAT) ALL COOKIES.
If you don't think so, experiment with drudgereport.com and have fun managing the badger on each reload.
Re:But we can by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2015-11-08 08:14 · Score: 2

if you don't like what a company is doing, don't use their products.

I'd rather modify something I use to fit my needs. For example, it seems like a lot of the stuff I buy needs a extra hole drilled somewhere or a lanyard attached or another switch installed or whatever. I even modify sandwiches I buy to suit my tastes (literally) by adding my own mustard or mayonnaise whatever.
Now I know it's not the same with a website as I'm not paying for anything on the site directly, but I may refer others to the site or possibly buy a product they sell (not through a platform-served media ad, obviously), or I may comment on something or share a link and drive their engagement and reach up a little bit. By participating in the site I'm helping them out in one way or another, even if not directly. Who knows, I might even send 'em a few bucks via Paypal (yes, I've done that a few times).
I mean, if you don't want your site browsed then don't put it on the internet, or insist on some sort of client login. But regardless, I have to say that I don't lose any sleep at night by blocking potentially harmful ads (malware) or by stopping the site from tracking me.
-

But people don't like to do that - they want to have their cake and eat it too.
Of course we do, and so do you. We'd all like to have our cake and eat it, who in their right mind wouldn't?
-

I quit Facebook a couple years ago.

I never had a Facebook account specifically because of their blatant disregard for their user's privacy. So I'm in agreement with you there.
-

not to mention the tacit approval people who continue to use their services are providing them.
Well, it may or may not be tacit approval if I'm actively taking steps to preserve my privacy and the security of my PC when I visit the site. They're welcome to try and track me or advertise to me, and I'm welcome to try and tailor my user experience to my liking by preventing it. If it's bad enough then I won't go back but we both know that the last thing they really want.

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Re:But we can by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-08 09:16 · Score: 0

There is already a movement ... to poison the data pool by dumping data trash into it to make data indistinguishable from noise, invalidating the data gathered altogether.
For now, this is, as it was with ad blockers, a minority of users. ... This can stay that way if, and only if, trackers don't go overboard and piss off the average user enough that they start using data poisoners.
I believe that poisoning the data is the only way forward.
The problem is if we don't poison the data, then companies will use it. Your idea that trackers won't "go overboard and piss off" users simply doesn't exist. It is guaranteed that they will go overboard, some day, because capitalism has no mechanism to prevent abuse.
This is exactly parallel to the encryption issue: We must use encryption everywhere, because it's guaranteed that we will be abused if we don't. Likewise, we must always make sure our tracking data is poisoned, because it's guaranteed that we will be abused if we don't.
Re:But we can by Opportunist · 2015-11-08 10:03 · Score: 1

The battle is not over. It's not won yet, not by a long shot, but it also is not lost.
Basically we cannot lose it. Though it's doubtful what we'd gain when we win.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:But we can by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-08 10:32 · Score: 0

Yup. And you could equally substitute that advertising industry for social media there.
Re:But we can by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-08 11:02 · Score: 0

I've been sitting on an idea for a couple of months now, but the reality is that with my PhD still six months out from completion the reality is that there simply won't be time for me to get started on this any time soon. Anyway, preamble aside, there have been some excellent points raised in favour of poisoning tracking data. I too think this is the way forward, and with a suitably clever implementation I think it would have legs. Here in the UK Teresa May wants ISPs to log all websites accessed on all home connections. You may think "who cares" the NSA have been doing that for years(decades?). Well, here in the UK the data will be provided to local police and councils on request. I have deep philosophical objections to this, but others have put together much better comments on this than I will manage here.
Anyway, here's a top to bottom description of what I imagine. I know it would be a lot of work. But perhaps these ideas will inspire someone to make a start. If it doesn't happen, then who knows, once I finish the PhD I may just take a crack.
0) FOSS, cross platform as much as possible. No commerical affiliation, no advertising, malware, junkware, or PUPs. All those working on the program have to commit to this philosophy or you don't get to be involved.
1) For security reasons each instance of my program will run in a small lightweight virtual machine running a Linux guest. While the VM is running the user of the computer is unable to interact with the program and the VM has no display and is locked away from the host. It only has network access on ports 80 and 443 for web browsing.
2) The program has a browser. This is either something embedded such as a framework (e.g. webkit) or an actual separate browser process that runs in its own right and is manipulated via mouse or keyboard intercepts. The program runs a simple AI that simulates web browsing.
3) I know AI is hard. The AI in this program will be simple. It will basically follow ideas, like a regular person would. Say the program starts on slashdot.org. It breaks out the keywords from the front page, opens some tabs in the background, runs searches for some of them, "reads" them and follows the chain of ideas until it decides to stop. The browser will be running JS and by interacting with the browser via mouse or keyboard hooks, then I believe the tracking efforts can be fooled. It may even click on some ads for shits and giggles.
4) The idea is that the virtual browsing will look as much as possible like real browsing. Because the VM is lightweight, most computers could run up to 5 or 6 of these, perhaps 100s depending on resources.
5) The user can choose whether the virtual browsers should be entirely sandboxed from their own browsing, or whether they wish to share their Google, Facebook, and other tracking cookies with them. It's up to the user. You can either make your home connection appear to have dozens of computers/people browsing the web, or you can make yourself look like a web browsing savant, using multiple web browsers simultaneously...
6) For the win, a plugin could be written for the users own browser that would monitor their own usage patterns. By this I mean scroll rate and estimated reading rate, time to move mouse, click links, whether they open lots of tabs, or just use one, that kind of thing. This information would be handed to the VMs and used to make the AI act like the user.
7) The VMs can be run 24/7, or on certain schedules. Bandwidth reporting and rate limit controls will be added as well.
8) The VMs have to be pretty robust, since AIs randomly browsing the web will undoubtedly come across some nasty shit. Using Linux will help a lot, but it may also be good if the program running in the VM can package itself up in a secure way and drop that outside the VM, allowing the VM to be wiped and reset, and the datapackage used to re-initialise the AI in the program. I wouldn't want this to happen using a third party server or the public internet. Some kind of dead letter drop,
Re:But we can by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-08 11:13 · Score: 0

No. Actually, their response is trying to outlaw ad blockers and their use.
Remember, you're dealing with managers. Their response to a technical problem is a legal solution.
Posting anon to avoid burning a lot of mod points.
Fine, seriously, I don't give a rats ass. You seen just what a ridiculous slow moving mess the internet is if you don't usa an ad blocker? or noscript?
If that's what the law says I have to put up with then they are going to have to strap me in a chair and prop my eyes open with toothpicks and force me to use it, because otherwise, I'll just spend my time not using the clusterfuck they turned it into.
Because the internet needs people a whole shitload more than people need the internet.
Re: But we can by Bartles · 2015-11-08 13:40 · Score: 1

Nope.
Re:But we can by Grishnakh · 2015-11-08 14:58 · Score: 1

When? They've already done it. That's exactly what AdBlock Plus does, which is why people are switching to other blockers. Personally I use uBlock Origin; it doesn't have any of that silliness.
Re:But we can by Grishnakh · 2015-11-08 15:00 · Score: 1

Are you running NoScript? That might help with some of that stuff, by blocking the JS that detects ad-blocking. I emphasize "might".
Re:But we can by mrchaotica · 2015-11-08 16:51 · Score: 1

It's pretty simple - if you don't like what a user is doing, don't serve the page to him.
FTFY. Until then, I'll tell my browser to interpret the data received however the fuck I want, thank you very much!

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:But we can by flajann · 2015-11-08 18:39 · Score: 1

Indeed. They have long since gotten around the built-in popup block in most browsers by doing the same directly at the HTML level. Nothing is more annoying than the entire page darkening up while I'm reading and then seeing that annoying sneaky pop-up. I usually close the tab at that point.
Tracking is becoming more insidious every day. Now, Hotspots will record the probe requests your cellphones send out looking for a WiFi to connect to, and will include your MAC address for technical reasons (can probe faster that way). Many are storing that MAC and sending up to a central server for analysis.
Imagine as you drive around a city your MAC address is being used to trace your movements. If you go to a posh mall and afterwards go to pick up your kids from day care, that can be used to profile you. And if your own WiFi router is also phoning this info back somewhere... well, you see where this is going.

--
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
Re:But we can by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-08 21:38 · Score: 0

That's a nice ad you've got there... Would be a shame if something happened to it!
Re:But we can by thegarbz · 2015-11-08 22:19 · Score: 1

No I'm not. I got sick of having to click 100 times to make every website work.
That said I have been considering going back to using it.
Re:But we can by Grishnakh · 2015-11-09 02:24 · Score: 1

Why would you need to click 100 times to make every website work?
Here's a tip: go to the settings and whitelist all scripts from that site's own domain. That's usually most of the stuff that has to be enabled to make a website work, and doesn't give you too much crap usually.
After that, you'll find some sites need to have *cdn.com (or something like that) enabled. That's where the site is linked to some "content delivery network" like AWS. Whitelist those on an individual basis.
There's a few other things you may need to enable, such as disqus.com if you want to read the comments on some sites.
After you've got it tuned like this, pretty soon you won't even notice it any more.
For example, just for reading and replying on Slashdot now, NoScript tells me there's scripts from 10 (!) different sites on this reply page I'm typing on. The only one I have enabled is slashdot.org. I don't even have slashcdn.com enabled (that's probably for some stupid videos). Of course, all the other junk like janrain.com, jaboola.com, googleadservices.com are disabled.
Re:But we can by BarbaraHudson · 2015-11-09 02:56 · Score: 1

One partial solution would be to make a modern-day equivalent of FIDOnet. Latency would still be a problem, but I think there are enough people addicted to Facebook and Twitter that there would be sufficient nodes available at any time of the day or night.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Re:But we can by Khyber · 2015-11-09 03:27 · Score: 1

" then the natural response from advertisers is to try to create ads that get around the blockers."
At which point they're circumventing my security measures and will get held accountable in court for such.

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Re:But we can by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-09 03:34 · Score: 0

There's no security measure in you being bitch slapped down eating your words vs. apk which you're accountable for http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
Re:But we can by phantomfive · 2015-11-09 03:34 · Score: 1

lol I would love to see that court case. The way the law is written, you might have a case.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:But we can by phil.swansborough · 2015-11-09 04:03 · Score: 1

What do you mean "if".
In a typical day I will see websites with HTML5 pop-overs, pages not showing content, and (my personal favourite) a banner saying "we can see you're blocking our ads. If you want to see our content disable adblocking", to which I direct my middle finger at the content provider and close the tab.
Would have given mod points for this.
Re:But we can by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-09 05:11 · Score: 1

Eh, give him some leeway for hyperbole. It's not uncommon to visit a site: empty page. Sigh. Click Noscript, click "allow example.com". Click off the Noscript menu. Page reloads. Still white. Sigh. Click Noscript, there are three new domains listed. Be liberal and allow all three. Click off the Noscript menu. Page reloads. Still broken. Click Noscript again. Now there are ANOTHER couple of domains. Click to allow them. Click off the menu. The page finally loads!
Total count: 12 clicks for one page.
True, most pages are not that intensive, but it's bothersome when it happens.
Re:But we can by david_thornley · 2015-11-09 10:07 · Score: 1

Increasingly, websites seem to rely on third-party javascript to function. At that point, I don't know which of twelve sites are providing needed functionality, optional functionality, or stuff I don't want. That's why I installed AdBlock Plus: NoScript wasn't doing the job anymore.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:But we can by Grishnakh · 2015-11-09 13:09 · Score: 1

APB doesn't work for that. It only blocks actual ads, not scripts in general. Plus, it's a memory hog, and also allows some advertising where they pay ABP to be whitelisted.
uBlock Origin is a much better ad-blocker, and uses far fewer resources. However, it still doesn't block all scripts, so you end up with a really slow browser hogging CPU and memory because the ridiculous amount of tracking scripts in use.
NoScript fixes that, but as you point out, it's not as easy to use. However, the rule I've found is that enabling scripts from the host domain gets most stuff working, and frequently you'll see some closely-related *cdn.com domain. Some sites use something like amazon AWS, so enable that too. After that, it can be a pain though, but after I got used to NoScript I'm not finding too many sites where I have to screw around with that stuff.
Re:But we can by david_thornley · 2015-11-10 03:42 · Score: 1

I used to not have many problems with scripts, but that's changed over time. NoScript has become more of a pain and less useful.
As far as ABP goes, they have standards for ads that I'm happy to accept. I don't want overly distracting ads, and I don't trust them not to contain malware, but I'm fine with simpler ads. I'm not all that worried about malware from other sources, which may or may not be a good call. Therefore, ABP works for me.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:But we can by Grishnakh · 2015-11-10 03:58 · Score: 1

I used to use just uBlock Origin (and ABP before that). My browser was dirt slow. After I installed NoScript, things got a LOT faster. So just blocking ads didn't work for me; all those other tracking scripts were just using up too many resources.
Re:But we can by thegarbz · 2015-11-10 09:58 · Score: 1

Here's a tip: go to the settings and whitelist all scripts from that site's own domain. That's usually most of the stuff that has to be enabled to make a website work, and doesn't give you too much crap usually.
After that, you'll find some sites need to have *cdn.com (or something like that) enabled. That's where the site is linked to some "content delivery network" like AWS. Whitelist those on an individual basis.
Wow, I thought I was going to see someone tell me I missed something obvious and simple.
I'm just trying to browse the internet man. That is way too much work. Especially when reloading the page after allowing some script will only lead to the next broken content being loaded.
Re:But we can by Grishnakh · 2015-11-10 11:49 · Score: 1

I've been doing this for a month or so, and I don't find it to be "way too much work". Honestly, there aren't that many sites that really need all these scripts to work. Just about every site these days needs a locally-hosted script to work it seems, but that's taken care of with my point #1 (Options->General->Temporarily allow top-level sites by default->Base 2nd level Domains). Just set that one option and most sites work fine.
After that, you'll find some sites that need stuff from some CDN. Enable those as needed. You might as well just permanently enable the Amazon AWS one. Do this permanently for all the sites you regularly visit.
I don't know about you, but I don't visit *that* many different sites on a regular basis, so after a week or so of this, I haven't had to mess with it too much. Everything pretty much "just works". And as a bonus, my browser isn't so slow and I'm not running out of memory so quickly on this old machine that's limited to 4GB.
You'll have to enable disqus.com if you want to see comments on a lot of sites.
There are a few really shitty sites where even after enabling a few things it still won't work. I don't really feel like letting these sites run scripts from 20 different domains, so I just close the tab. I don't need to see their crap that badly. Even the porn sites aren't nearly that bad.... (usually those just need the own-domain and some CDN site enabled).

"provider of Internet access"? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-08 04:47 · Score: 0

The rules, which took effect this summer, allow the FCC to regulate only providers of Internet access, not individual Web sites, said a senior agency official.

But isn't Google also a "provider of Internet access"?

Re:"provider of Internet access"? by PPH · 2015-11-08 04:58 · Score: 1

Only if you've got Google Fiber.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Because it's the FTC's job, not the FCC's. by tlambert · 2015-11-08 04:49 · Score: 5, Informative

Because it's the FTC's job, not the FCC's.

The Federal Trade Commission regulates things like this -- business interactions with customers -- in the same way it regulates the federal Do Not Call list.

If you are asking the FCC to regulate this, you are asking the wrong regulatory body; you might as well be asking the FDA to regulate it, because you think that being tracked all the time is injurious to people's mental health.

Re:Because it's the FTC's job, not the FCC's. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-08 06:26 · Score: 0

If you are asking the FCC to regulate this, you are asking the wrong regulatory body; you might as well be asking the FDA to regulate it, because you think that being tracked all the time is injurious to people's mental health.
Don't forget physical health, these data miners don't care who they sell to. People like stalkers, pedophiles, ex-husbands, scammers, and hate groups.
Re:Because it's the FTC's job, not the FCC's. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-08 06:27 · Score: 1

It IS injurious to people's mental health.
Just about as much as their hallucinations that Facebook, Google, and the like, really give a shit that you're a man in his 30's looking for purple Beanie Babies of My Little Broni at 3am.
Forget I typed that.
Re:Because it's the FTC's job, not the FCC's. by ememisya · 2015-11-08 07:27 · Score: 1

Well, can the better business bureau stop those really annoying waiters/waitresses from asking all about you? No. But maybe one could advise restaurant staff not to follow their customers to the restroom. Also maybe a restaurant with a sign outside which states, "Free Food" should not be so enticing.
Re:Because it's the FTC's job, not the FCC's. by rtb61 · 2015-11-08 10:57 · Score: 1

The FCC if is so chose and if the US government was so inclined, could simply ban the trade in people's information and simply require that only fiscally relevant details be retained by business, unless information is held at the person request and is only accessible by the person that requested it to be stored. Very effective as the FCC can ban the electronic transmittal of that information and add a small fine, say $10 per infraction of which person whose privacy was sold gets say half (might not seem like much of a fine but when multiplied out by the hundreds of millions it becomes crushing). So simply ban the trade of citizens private information.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:Because it's the FTC's job, not the FCC's. by Solandri · 2015-11-08 14:16 · Score: 1

Actually, I'm not sure it's the FTC's job either. This is one of those places where the International nature of the Internet which usually protects individual users from government censorship, ends up hurting them. If the U.S. government were to mandate that Google and Facebook honor Do Not Track requests, what's to stop them from just moving all their servers to a country which won't impede them from tracking users? The only way to enforce it then would be to require Google and Facebook abide by U.S. law regardless of where they're operating from. That's a huge slippery slope which legitimizes China's censorship of the Internet, and France's attempts to make Google's global search results abide by French law.
Re:Because it's the FTC's job, not the FCC's. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-08 22:37 · Score: 0

How about a simple thing. Companies which wish to make money in a country should abide by the laws of that country when they believe they are serving people from that country? Other countries only enforce those laws when they can agree on democratic protection (similar to extradition).

what happened to personal responsibility? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-08 04:50 · Score: 1

The FCC Says It Can't Force Google and Facebook To Stop Tracking Their Users

... nor should they. Nobody is forcing anybody to use gmail and facebook. If you don't want your personal data monitized - and I know this is a heretical idea - how about don't use services "whose business models rely on monetizing Internet users' personal data"?

I know somebody is going to say, "... But tracking cookies! But like buttons!" But you don't have to load those either!

Seriously people, FB became "the internet" for hundreds of millions of people because they all decided to use it. Nobody held a gun to their heads. You can communicate just fine on the internet without using FB.

Own up to your own choices. You want such a service? Fine, go ahead. You don't? Fine, then don't. But don't use a service whose business model is to get all up in your business, and then bitch when they get all up in your business. They are so huge because you all moved everything you do onto there! It wasn't a fucking random number generator that made them so huge.

Re:what happened to personal responsibility? by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2015-11-08 04:59 · Score: 1

You can communicate just fine on the internet without using FB.
OMG, DEATH to the BLASPHEMER!
Seriously, though, you're exactly right. The users helped make Facebook what it is and they objected hardly at all as Facebook's reach and intrusive nature grew and grew and grew.
I don't have a Facebook account, and unless I'm forced to at gunpoint, I never will.

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Re:what happened to personal responsibility? by houstonbofh · 2015-11-08 05:08 · Score: 1

You have a point for some, but how does the average and unsophisticated user totally avoid google? Just not searching on www.google.com is not enough...
Re:what happened to personal responsibility? by Greyfox · 2015-11-08 05:31 · Score: 2

If the average and unsophisticated user is worried about his privacy, he's probably not average or unsophisticated. There are a number of privacy management plugins you can install on popular browsers that can help with this. If you're really paranoid, you could just do all your web browsing with Tor Browser and never sign in to anything. Especially not Facebook.
The most current popular browsers all have an agenda and don't have your best interests in mind. Neither does the HTTP standard. I keep thinking that one of these days we're going to see something like netnews or gopher make a comeback. Most major ISPs dropped netnews support ages ago, but it's really not that difficult to configure a store and forward network. Perhaps some people are already doing this and just not talking about it that much on the web.

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Re:what happened to personal responsibility? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-08 05:32 · Score: 1

You have a point for some, but how does the average and unsophisticated user totally avoid google? Just not searching on www.google.com is not enough...
To avoid Google tracking you need to avoid Android phones and Chrome PCs, Chrome browser, all Google services (Search, GMail, Maps, Drive, Docs, etc.), and all sites that use Google analytics or adwords (2 Google trackers here on Slashdot). The last ones you can block, the others they can track you even with blocking attempts (fingerprinting etc.).
Re:what happened to personal responsibility? by Opportunist · 2015-11-08 05:38 · Score: 1, Funny

"Hey, why didn't you invite me to the party?"
"What? I announced it like 3 months ago!"
"I never heard anything about it."
"It's been on my Facebook page for like ever, didn't you check?"
This isn't so far from the average conversation I have with friends. Not having a Facebook account means that I miss even more parties and gatherings than I did before Facebook became an issue.
So no, I don't have to have Facebook. But then again, I also have no big problem with being a social pariah.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:what happened to personal responsibility? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-08 07:14 · Score: 0

Maybe the average and unsophisticated user doesn't deserve privacy.
Re:what happened to personal responsibility? by BradMajors · 2015-11-08 07:17 · Score: 1

Nope. The vast majority of persons have made no such choice because they have no idea the data Google and Facebook is collecting on them. For example, you will not find anything in their T&C about them providing all your personal info to the NSA.
Re:what happened to personal responsibility? by BradMajors · 2015-11-08 07:19 · Score: 1

I don't have a Facebook account, and unless I'm forced to at gunpoint, I never will.
You already have a Facebook account. Facebook creates shadow Facebook accounts for those who are willing to create one themselves.
Re:what happened to personal responsibility? by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2015-11-08 08:17 · Score: 1

You already have a Facebook account. Facebook creates shadow Facebook accounts for those who are willing to create one themselves.
(You mean "unwilling", right?)
But anyway, nope. I've looked from time to time and there's never anything there that has anything to do with me. Maybe they're hiding it from view, but if that's the case then I don't care.
So no, I don't think there's a shadow Facebook account for me.

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Re:what happened to personal responsibility? by reboot246 · 2015-11-08 11:39 · Score: 1

If Facebook is the only way they have to contact me about a party, then I'd rather not "party" with them anyway. I don't associate with idiots.
Re:what happened to personal responsibility? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-08 12:25 · Score: 0

You must have zero friends.
Facebook is pretty much the only way things get organized for most people under the age of 35 these days.
And for the record: Calling everyone who organizes things on Facebook an "idiot" is a surefire way to ensure that you find yourself lonely and desolate at the age of 40.
Re: what happened to personal responsibility? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-08 17:02 · Score: 0

So you're saying the choice is to let a private company track everything you do or have no friends? What shallow, self-absorbed people you must hang out with. Then again, this is Facebook we're taking about.
I too refuse to use it. That's cost me some alleged friends but they're not worth it.
Re:what happened to personal responsibility? by gl4ss · 2015-11-08 19:53 · Score: 1

you don't have to load those either? I suppose you don't have to visit pretty much any webpages either or read any news. or you can use hosts *cough*.
even that isn't foolproof though.
and once they introduce facial recognition cameras on the streets that tag you when you walk past starbucks you can just wear a bag over your head too.
just how the heck are you supposed to know in ADVANCE that cnn.com has facebook and google tracking on it, or your local newspapers page, when they go out of their way to purposely make it not that obvious even when you]re LOOKING at the page.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re: what happened to personal responsibility? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-09 03:08 · Score: 0

My friends just learned (after a period of missing out on parties/events) that they had to call or text me on top of the facebook event to make sure I'll come too.

That's right. They can't by fustakrakich · 2015-11-08 04:51 · Score: 1

It is impossible and futile to enforce. And besides the government needs the info also. What could be more convenient than to put Google, et al in charge of *information retrieval*?

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Getting harder to escape by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-08 05:00 · Score: 0

With these companies vying to be everywhere on the internet as possible (I started seeing Google Fiber trucks lately in my travels), they are getting hard to escape when they control even the pipes...

For now, we still have ad blockers.

Well? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-08 05:01 · Score: 0

Does the tin man have a sheet metal cock?

BS by shaitand · 2015-11-08 05:29 · Score: 1

"The announcement is a blow to privacy advocates who had petitioned the agency for stronger Internet privacy rules. But it's a win for many Silicon Valley companies whose business models rely on monetizing Internet users' personal data."

In other words, it is a loss for people. Last I checked the entire purpose of the FCC was to protect people from large corporate entities. Clearly laying down on the job today.

Re:BS by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2015-11-08 07:46 · Score: 1

I don't know that it is a loss. So what you look at and talk about on a particular web site is scanned and you are placed into one of many potential advertising bins.
Seriously, I don't see how this is a bad thing. It may even arguably be a good thing by only serving you ads for things you might be interested in.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:BS by KGIII · 2015-11-08 10:29 · Score: 1

I don't think you ever checked 'cause that's not what the FCC's charter says. It has never said such.

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Re:BS by shaitand · 2015-11-08 14:51 · Score: 2

"It may even arguably be a good thing by only serving you ads for things you might be interested in."

My personal data is my property. It's my right to decide who may have it, how valuable it is, and under what terms if any I will part with it. Seeing ads I might be interested in when I'm not even seeking to buy something is nowhere near as valuable as my privacy. Not even in the same ballpark. I'd be willing to bleed on a battlefield to protect the right to privacy and personal data.

The money isn't even going to me for my data, these companies are stealing what doesn't belong to them and selling it.

So stop using them. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-08 05:31 · Score: 0

And problem metasolved.

We need a plugin by Snotnose · 2015-11-08 05:39 · Score: 1

One that keeps track of which sites set what cookies, then randomly swaps them with someone else using the plugin.

I dunno, is it better to use plugins to block tracking, or to use plugins to fuzz the data enough that the tracking is useless?

Political by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-08 06:03 · Score: 0

It's also the latest move in an ongoing battle to defend the agency's new net neutrality rules, which opponents warned would result in the regulation of popular Web sites and online services. By rejecting the petition, the FCC likely hopes to defuse that argument.

In other words, the petition was not rejected because of it's lack of merit, it was rejected purely for political reasons.

Re:Addendum: THIS is why I do it... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-08 06:18 · Score: 0

I'd be happier if the FCC got rid of this idiot.

Then don't come crying to users about ethics by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-08 06:21 · Score: 0

...when ad blocking and pro-privacy software becomes even more common.

This is WHY I do it... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-08 06:42 · Score: 0

FROM (& I'd suggest listening to Mr. Chaplin do it, he delivers like NO other could have (even Robert Downey Jr., as good as a "thespian" as he is, couldn't in the film "Chaplin")) -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

"I'm sorry, but I don't want to be an emperor. That's not my business. I don't want to rule or conquer anyone. I should like to help everyone - if possible - Jew, Gentile - black man - white.

We all want to help one another. Human beings are like that.

We want to live by each other's happiness - not by each other's misery. We don't want to hate and despise one another. In this world there is room for everyone. And the good earth is rich and can provide for everyone.

The way of life can be free and beautiful, but we have lost the way.

Greed has poisoned men's souls, has barricaded the world with hate, has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed.

We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in. Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want.

Our knowledge has made us cynical. Our cleverness, hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery we need humanity. More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness.

Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost...

The aeroplane and the radio have brought us closer together. The very nature of these inventions cries out for the goodness in men - cries out for universal brotherhood - for the unity of us all. Even now my voice is reaching millions throughout the world - millions of despairing men, women, and little children - victims of a system that makes men torture and imprison innocent people.

To those who can hear me, I say - do not despair. The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed - the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress. The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people.

And so long as men die, liberty will never perish.

Soldiers: Don't give yourselves to brutes - men who despise you - enslave you - who regiment your lives - tell you what to do - what to think and what to feel! Who drill you - diet you - treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder. Don't give yourselves to these unnatural men - machine men with machine minds and machine hearts!

You are not machines! You are not cattle! You are men! You have the love of humanity in your hearts!

You don't hate! Only the unloved hate - the unloved and the unnatural! Soldiers! Don't fight for slavery - Fight for liberty!

In the 17th Chapter of St Luke it is written: "the Kingdom of God is within man" - not one man nor a group of men, but in all men!

In you!

You, the people have the power - the power to create machines. The power to create happiness! You, the people, have the power to make this life free and beautiful, to make this life a wonderful adventure.

Then - in the name of democracy - let us use that power - let us all unite. Let us fight for a new world - a decent world that will give men a chance to work - that will give youth a future and old age a security.

By the promise of these things, brutes have risen to power. But they lie! They do not fulfill that promise. They never will!

Dictators free themselves but they enslave the people!

Now let us fight to fulfill that promise! Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance.

Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men's happiness.

Soldiers: in the name of democracy, let us all unite!"

APK

P.S.=> Quoting a great man (Charlie Chaplin) from LONG AGO on that one - he said it better than I ever could - CHANGE STARTS WITH YOU, in "little revolutions"... apk

"Great minds think alike"... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-08 06:51 · Score: 0

See subject & this, Opportunist (you hit it right on the head)-> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... - top marks to you!

APK

P.S.=> What's beneath it describes why I created it even moreso - Actually, Charles Chaplin does FOR ME & BETTER THAN I EVER COULD, better than anyone from LONG ago ("This life can be free & beautiful, but we have lost the way: Greed has poisoned men's souls... You the people have the power - the power to create machines" -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... )... apk

Re:"Great minds think alike"... apk by Opportunist · 2015-11-08 07:04 · Score: 1

Oh good, I was already worried something happened to you when I didn't see you advertise your hosts file in a thread about security and privacy.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Share this on FACEBOOK TRACKING COOKIE by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-08 07:12 · Score: 0

The fact that the facebook button is on THIS Slashdot story says it all.

Coming from an unidentifiable ac... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-08 07:26 · Score: 0

See subject: In yourself? LOL @ U - your trolling tells me I've "gotten rid of you" before which is why you troll by unidentifiable ac posts. You know I can toss your doubtless tons of fails vs. myself right back in your face!

* :)

(Think others here don't KNOW how online scum like YOU operate? Guess again - you SHOW them in your trolling unidentifiable ac posts, projecting it...)

APK

P.S.=> You can't stop me - you & "your kind" stop themselves in your actions (or rather lack of action) - the worst thing good folks can do is DO NOTHING vs. trash like you - I'm NOT like you @ all, which is why you probably can't understand me (but I surely do you) - you can't "guilt me" for it, when I know that what I'm doing is right, the absolute overall good (Google losing ad money @ 50++% & counting proves it for me - I merely give folks what they want, & moreso, what they NEED vs. ads being infested like mad with malware (all the evidence I need + MAIN REASON I released the app in 2012 (I had it built as far BACK AS 2003 HERE & KEPT IT TO MYSELF)) via OpenBID ad networks being misused by malware makers)... If I am wrong? Then I do NOT want to be "right"... apk

Then users can force it, I help them do it by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-08 07:29 · Score: 0

NoScript can help along with this: APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...

---

FREE & not 'souled-out' to advertisers + adds speed, security & reliability & does FAR more w/ FAR less more efficiently vs. redundant browser addons & locally installed DNS servers @ home + fixes DNS' many security issues & it stops a LOT of tracking @ webpage + DNS levels combined too from 1 file you already NATIVELY have - firewalls do the rest (on lesser used IP address based tracking vs. host-domain name type).

---

It obtains data vs. online threats & for adbanner blocking from 10 reputable sites in the security community!

---

It SPEEDS YOU UP 2 ways (adblocking + locally cached in RAM favorites placed @ the TOP of hosts for fastest resolution speed vs. remote DNS also aiding reliability) vs. other "so-called security 'solutions'" SLOWING YOU!

---

It does all that via something you natively have vs. "bolting on browser addons 'MOAR'" that's usermode slower & increases messagepassing, cpu + ram overheads!

---

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

&

It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

In its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

---

* "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend".

APK

P.S.=> By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts" so-to-speak:

"The image this title brings to mind is of a mighty military commander, one who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" from https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & THAT WORD = hosts!

(Accept NO substitutes!)

...apk

DO NOT CALL list by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-08 07:29 · Score: 0

Is a complete failure, so I'm not surprised the FCC says they can't "DO NOT" anything.

Manually add youself to the DO NOT CALL list and you'll be treated as "fresh meat" by the telemarketers.

Legally this is an increased abuse with increased fines by the telemarketers, but not the death penalty so they don't seem to give a poop.

Re:DO NOT CALL list by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-08 07:30 · Score: 0

Dur. I just read the FTC FCC post. Yeah I guess this is a non-issue like going to the auto-parts store looking for a gallon of milk.

Addendum: THIS is why I do it... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-08 07:33 · Score: 0