Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Admits To Tracking Users, Non-Users Off-Site (theguardian.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the every-breath-you-take dept.

Facebook said in a blog post yesterday that they tracked users and non-users across websites and apps for three main reasons: providing services directly, securing the company's own site, and "improving our products and services." The statement comes as the company faces a U.S. lawsuit over a controversial facial recognition feature launched in 2011. The Guardian reports: "When you visit a site or app that uses our services, we receive information even if you're logged out or don't have a Facebook account. This is because other apps and sites don't know who is using Facebook," Facebook's product management director, David Baser, wrote. "Whether it's information from apps and websites, or information you share with other people on Facebook, we want to put you in control -- and be transparent about what information Facebook has and how it is used."

But the company's transparency has still not extended to telling non-users what it knows about them -- an issue Zuckerberg also faced questions over from Congress. Asked by Texas representative Gene Green whether all information Facebook holds about a user is in the file the company offers as part of its "download your data" feature, Zuckerberg had responded he believed that to be the case. Privacy campaigner Paul-Olivier Dehaye disagreed, noting that, even as a Facebook user, he had been unable to access personal data collected through the company's off-site tracking systems. Following an official subject access request under EU law, he told MPs last month, Facebook had responded that it was unable to provide the information.

147 comments

  1. Frosty Piss! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shocker...I hope that asshat burns.

  2. Facebook Tracks by john+of+sparta · · Score: 2

    whatever u got.

  3. No wonder it costs so much to save the Zuck's face by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    After this news spreads he'll have to spend way more than 7 mill to protect that pasty pudgy face.

    http://disinfo.com/2018/04/it-takes-over-7-million-dollars-a-year-to-keep-people-from-punching-mark-zuckerberg/

  4. Re:Duh by olsmeister · · Score: 1

    I don't care what other people do.

  5. Re: No wonder it costs so much to save the Zuck's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    A leftist needs protection from leftists empowered by his leftist platform. Enjoyable.

  6. I don't remember... by intermelt · · Score: 1

    I don't remember clicking that authorize cookies thing for Facebook. But I do just click yes to them all since the internet can function without cookies.

    1. Re:I don't remember... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 0

      I just enable cookies by default. More tracking means more relevant advertising, and better news link recommendations. The more Facebook and Google know about my preferences, the better.

      If I don't want to be tracked, I just open an Incognito window. Incognito also works well for reading "First-3-Free" news websites, such as WaPo and the NY Times.

    2. Re:I don't remember... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You seem pretty proud of the being a big part of the problem...

    3. Re: I don't remember... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What kind of person -wants- to be shown advertising at all, much less targeted?

    4. Re: I don't remember... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 0

      What kind of person -wants- to be shown advertising at all, much less targeted?

      You are going to see advertising whether you want it or not. I run an adblocker, but some ads slip through, and I don't run it on all sites. So, since I am going to see the ads anyway, I prefer them to be relevant.

      Now let's turn it around: What is the downside to being tracked? I don't see any.

    5. Re: I don't remember... by AceViper · · Score: 1

      If you know how and when to avoid it, as you clearly know how to do, you're probably right that being tracked isn't a big deal - and may actually be a plus. However, the issue is that most people don't know how or when to disable tracking.

    6. Re: I don't remember... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      However, the issue is that most people don't know how or when to disable tracking.

      Nearly everyone I know understands what Incognito mode is, and they understand that they should use it when searching for porn, or communicating with their KGB case officers.

      Incognito mode doesn't guarantee that you won't be tracked, but I have never seen an ad that appears to be related to my Incognito browsing.

    7. Re: I don't remember... by scdeimos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Facebook and friends are collecting far too much data on you, more than enough to impersonate your identity.

      Even if we assume that every single employee of Facebook, and all its data partners, are beyond reproach and would never stoop so low as to impersonate you to defraud government welfare, banks, or online shopping (given their CEO was alleged to have stolen Facebook in the first place, what do you think the chances of that are?)... eventually all that data is going to be involved in a breach and become available to all and sundry black hats.

    8. Re: I don't remember... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Donald Trump as president is a fairly big downside to tracking as default.

    9. Re: I don't remember... by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      There is no downside. Big Brother loves us all.

    10. Re: I don't remember... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You will in time come to love Big Brother too, until swatted that is.

    11. Re: I don't remember... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's like saying that despite good locks and alarm, someone might still break in, so I'll leave the front door open with a sign saying "free stuff inside".

    12. Re: I don't remember... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      That's like saying that despite good locks and alarm, someone might still break in, so I'll leave the front door open with a sign saying "free stuff inside".

      Your analogy makes no sense. What do the "locks and alarm" represent? What is the "break in"? Is that supposed to be a metaphor for the tracking? If so, that is not a threat, but something they are already doing openly. What is the "free stuff"? Is that a metaphor for my browsing history? If so, then you are just making a circular argument: Giving away my browsing history is bad because it may result in disclosure of my browsing history. Huh?

    13. Re: I don't remember... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Ignoring the danger of advertising delivered malware, the risk from being tracked is that it is used to screw you over.

      They know you are interested in a new widget. They know you have seen it advertised for âX. So now they know that you want it, and what you think the going rate is for it, and approximately where you live thanks to your geolocated IP address and closest CDN server, and can tailor their "offers" to you.

      If you come along with no tracking info, they have much less information to screw you with. I've seen it happen - I had an airline site that only worked in IE, and they kept jacking the price up over a few hours and days. I scrubbed all data from IE, switched VPN endpoints and the price went back down again.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re: I don't remember... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are going to see advertising whether you want it or not.

      I don't even use an ad blocker. I use a relatively small HOSTS file. (These days I also use Acrylic DNS proxy, for its HOSTS file that accepts wildcards.) I almost never see ads. That's because none of the ads are actually on the websites that I visit. And it's not just ads. It's also ubiquitous tracking. Facebook are simply lying. They don't track people by accident, because "the websites don't know if you're on Facebook". They simply collect as much data as they can through web bugs. Period.

      What is the downside to being tracked?

      The down side is loss of basic rights and corrosion of common decency. Webmail providers claim the right to read and co-own your private correspondence. The relatively new MoviePass intends to make money by tracking your actions and location before and after you visit a movie theater. Various entities are working on the idea of spying on people through their TV sets. What's the down side? They have no right by any popular definition of common decency. Allowing these activities at all actively redefines legal precedents related to privacy. Why does it always take someone spying on naked children before people understand that point?

    15. Re: I don't remember... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      The downside of being tracked is that laws change. What's legal today needn't be legal tomorrow. Did you stop that activity that used to be legal but is illegal now?

      Then there's that pesky data breach thing. You know, when companies that collect every minute of your day "lose" data which shows up in inconvenient places. Does your boss know you're reading those newspapers that don't agree with his political views? Probably not, but here's the guy that you pissed off because you didn't drink the coolaid and dared to speak out against his harebrained views on $topic just once, who now makes it his mission to dox you and destroy your life.

      And I'm sure if I get to ponder for a minute or two I could come up with more ideas how to abuse information about you against you.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    16. Re: I don't remember... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Do I have to take over your life or is it proof enough if I just destroy the one you have now?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    17. Re: I don't remember... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are going to see advertising whether you want it or not. I run an adblocker, but some ads slip through

      Then you're doing it wrong .. except for a small handful of static ads served up by the odd website who actually hosts it (which is exceedingly rare), I don't see ads ... I whitelist javascript and cookies, haven't enabled Flash in well over a decade, and have plugins which allow me to block entire domains or limit what they can serve me. If it's purely an ad company, they get blocked and every site I visit they stay blocked.

      Now let's turn it around: What is the downside to being tracked? I don't see any.

      Having an endless number of third party assholes having a surprisingly detailed view into your life for starters, which they can and will share with other assholes.

      Think of it in terms of a real world analogy ... say you walk into a store ... and as you're walking in the greeter slaps tracking beacons on you for half a dozen of their marketing affiliates who now know you've been to that store, and can then follow you around to other stores ... all this so that periodically some asshole with a megaphone can walk up to you in a store and say "hey, we have a sale on hemmorhoid cream, and it sounds like you could really use it".

      If you didn't punch that person in the face you'd be an idiot.

      As it is, there is a new trend of in-store sales people who just randomly start talking to you to try to sell you something else ... and those people all pretty much get directly told to fuck off.

      I don't care about your business model, your corporate profits, or your executive bonuses. Not my fucking problem.

      I view ad tracking about as favourably as I would a door-to-door salesman who just opened my front door and walked in.

      If you don't see a problem with it, that's your choice. It's a stupid choice, but it's your choice.

    18. Re: I don't remember... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the jobs will be taken over by robots but I'm sure my janitor job is safe.

    19. Re: I don't remember... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Do I have to take over your life or is it proof enough if I just destroy the one you have now?

      My tracking data gives you the ability to do neither.

      If you have a list of websites that I have visited, how are you going to use it to "destroy my life"?

    20. Re: I don't remember... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Ignoring the danger of advertising delivered malware

      What does that have to do with tracking? I see WAY more misbehaving ads when I am in Incognito mode, so tracking appears to reduce malware.

      They know you are interested in a new widget. They know you have seen it advertised for âX. So now they know that you want it, and what you think the going rate is for it

      They also know that I didn't buy at that price, so they have an incentive to offer me a better deal.

    21. Re: I don't remember... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all that tracking creates a system that makes abuse of power scale
      between cellphone-metadata and social media we've essentially privatized the STASI

      I've largely given up on explaining the danger of such a system to the average acquaintance.
      IMHO people are only gonna grok how bad systems like these are after the first genocide, untill then they'll happily delude themselves that "it can't possibly happen here"

      So at this point I'm just hoping that'll happen in somebody else's sphere of influence.

    22. Re: I don't remember... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      What does your tracking data give me? Your hobbies, your interests, maybe your position on certain topics or even your political view, along with your possible religious faith (if any).

      First of all, find out more about the webpages you visit. Any boards among them? Then it's time to find out who you are. Read your posts. Get an idea where you stand on various things.

      After that's done, or while doing this, send the raw information to your wife/husband/lover/whatever, boss, your coworkers, your friends and so on. Which, again, I may be able to get from your browsing history and the things you leave on Facebook. No need for any content you created just yet, this might already be enough to cause trouble, domestic and work related.

      Next level would be to check that information for stuff that might ruffle the feathers of some people with way too much time on their hand and an agenda to push. Religious nuts, SJWs, Trump-haters and Hillary-haters, any group that's easy to get worked up over nothing and doesn't do any fact checking is good. I'll let them have some fun with you. Here look what this slimeball said on (board). Think they'll go out of their way to create an account there just to berate you? You bet.

      Then the usual suspects from /b to the rest of the internet troll army. Anything "funny", odd, weird or otherwise unusual about you is good enough to become a target.

      And so on.

      The point is that I won't do anything with the webpages you visit. There's plenty of people with no life who just need a target and an excuse to shoot.

      And no, I don't do that. I try to get people to understand that there are assholes like this out there that DO do that. All it takes is to disagree with them on something trivial that they themselves base their life on and then the ride's on.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    23. Re: I don't remember... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to speak for ShanghaiBill, but anybody who searches through my Slashdot history will know most of my hobbies, a lot of my interests, my politics and positions on specific issues, and my vagueness on religion (I think I've mentioned that I'm "None of the above" for most lists). I've mentioned the city I live in, and if you assume that "david_thornley" means "David Thornley", I'll tell you up front that you will find one person of that name in that city, whose address and phone number is readily available.

      So, go ahead and send that information to anybody. I can ruffle the feathers of lots of people, and often find it an entertaining side effect. My favorite programming languages are C++, Lisp, and Perl, which means I can get into a language flamewar with almost anyone who pays attention to such things. I've been insulted by stupider people than you, Opportunist, although nobody's displaced "black propagandist" as my favorite of the things I've been called, and that's fifteen years old.

      You should be able to find my Facebook account, and you're welcome to anything you find there. I don't mark anything as private or restricted deliberately, since I have precisely zero faith in keeping anything on Facebook out of my permanent public record. There are things I don't mention on the net, and I'll leave imagining what they might be as an exercise for the reader.

      Now, among what you've got from Slashdot, Facebook, and a log of my HTTP requests, you're not going to find my SSAN, so it will be easier to do identify theft with information from other sources. That, and a few other things, I'm careful about.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    24. Re: I don't remember... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Used to be I could rely on NoScript to protect me on the web. I'd look at the list of sites trying to serve me Javascript, and allow the few that were relevant to what I actually want to do on the site. Nowadays, that JS relies on stuff they pull in from other sites with names that tell me nothing, so NoScript isn't that useful anymore. Whitelisting just isn't as useful as it used to be.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  7. Combat it.. but yes FB is Big Data as a carrot.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/facebook-container/

  8. What Bonzai Buddy and Facebook Has in Common by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Both tracked everything in existence. The difference? Bonzai Buddy was labeled as evil spyware, whereas Facebook is labeled as a life-essential service.

    The internet has changed...

    1. Re:What Bonzai Buddy and Facebook Has in Common by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Facebook is labeled as a life-essential service.

      By whom??

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:What Bonzai Buddy and Facebook Has in Common by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By everyone who can't put their phone down for more than 5 seconds.

  9. If you use the internet, you use facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, that's how the machine works. This is by design. And nothing can change until we can make real peer to peer connections. And to make any real difference, we have to take the service provider out of the picture. They are the weak link, too easily controlled.

    1. Re:If you use the internet, you use facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Protip: redirect Facebook hostnames to 127.0.0.1 in the hosts file.

  10. Facebook isn't tracking me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because i tracked down all of their servers and.... hosts file!

  11. Re:No wonder it costs so much to save the Zuck's f by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    over 7 mill a year

    No recurring costs on that big-ass wall around his mansion though.

  12. ||facebook.com^ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also facebook.net. Not a difficult problem.

    Obviously hosts works too, though using an adblocker would let you whitelist the facebook site itself if you're so inclined.

  13. There is a word for this ... by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The word is STALKING. It is illegal in the real world and should be illegal in the online world as well. I leave your site (or never use it) and you shouldn't be allowed to STALK me.

    1. Re:There is a word for this ... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      How about we start taking some personal responsibility for our own data, eh?

      Right now, this entire situation exists because browsers give away tonnes of information to everyone and anyone who requests it as part of the web page. This isn't done on the server side, this is done right there in your browser, on your computer - so why aren't you putting basic stuff in place to stop it?

      You close your curtains when you get undressed, right? You don't do that because peeping at you naked without your permission is legal, because it isn't. You do it because its a basic step in protecting your privacy.

      Right now, you are doing the equivalent of voluntarily telling your medical history to anyone you interact with, directly or indirectly, and expecting there to be a law to prevent them from listening.

      Learn to say no.

    2. Re: There is a word for this ... by Reverend+Green · · Score: 2

      How about we start telling personal responsibility for being physically stalked, too. Forget demanding that building security keep the stalkers out, or calling the cops. What you need to do is *wear a disguise* and put on a *silly walk*. Now THAT is the way to deal with a stalker!

    3. Re:There is a word for this ... by Solandri · · Score: 1

      The way these people weasel out of it is that if they're not targeting a specific individual, it's not considered stalking.

      e.g. I ran into the same weird distinction in Everquest. Sometimes griefer players would deliberately drag mobs onto people camping a popular spawn spot to get them killed. Because they were non-discriminatory in their griefing (i.e. they targeted everyone and anyone), Sony deemed their behavior fair play and refused to stop it. But if the players trying to camp the spawn fought back and tried to do things to slow the griefer down or get him killed (non-PvP servers), that was considered targeting a specific individual and thus a violation of the game's anti-griefing rules. And Sony in their infinite wisdom promptly banned the people trying to stop the griefer for targeting a specific individual for their "harassment."

    4. Re: There is a word for this ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. The way to deal with a stalker is to blow their brains out.

    5. Re: There is a word for this ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no ;surprise birthday parties for you

    6. Re:There is a word for this ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about we start taking some personal responsibility for our own data, eh?

      Right now, this entire situation exists because browsers give away tonnes of information to everyone and anyone who requests it as part of the web page. This isn't done on the server side, this is done right there in your browser, on your computer - so why aren't you putting basic stuff in place to stop it?

      Like what? Ad blocking? Yeah, more and more websites won't show you their content until you turn that off. Same goes for blocking scripts, cookies, and all the other tools that websites use as excuses to offer you "free" content in exchange for THEIR right to sell your information. Wake the hell up and understand that it does not matter if someone closes their curtains or locks their doors; it's still fucking illegal to stalk someone or enter a home without permission. And NO, most users don't realize that the default behavior is digital stalking and scouring everything whenever you visit a website, nor are they saavy enough to close the digital curtains and lock the e-doors. Not everything should fall on the consumer; this is why we have laws in place to prevent such activity.

      Learn to say no.

      Learn how this shit really works before coming forth with your bullshit analogies and overly simplistic solutions. If it were that simple, we wouldn't be discussing this.

    7. Re: There is a word for this ... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Good. I hate them.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:There is a word for this ... by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      More and more people are saying no by taking the simplest path of not using it. But if you want mass adoption, it will need to be simpler. Explaining how cookies and referers work to my mom isn't going to help. One of my favorite security analogies is the car security system. It's a single red button on the key fob. Press it, the system beeps, and I am good to go. So simple, it gets used extensively. Online security is light years away from a red button. Instead there is a morass of advice involving hovering, double checking, "special characters", installing multiple tools which may or may not work reliably, plus a huge runbook of things to do when site X doesn't let you submit your mortgage payment. It is amazing that personal tools like ad blockers get used as much as they are.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    9. Re:There is a word for this ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could the CFAA be of use here? Like if I installed anti-tracking add-ons like Ghostery or PrivacyBadger, but Facebook found a workaround. Wouldn't that be a violation of the CFAA? Sure, the average user has taken no steps to prevent this access of their machine, but if I put up security measures and they work around them, that sounds like a textbook CFAA violation.

    10. Re:There is a word for this ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If browsers had a switch for privacy, you might have a point. As it is, you're basically telling everyone who cares about privacy to go fuck ourselves because we haven't written a custom browser that actually manages privacy considerations!

      So, you go fuck yourself.

    11. Re:There is a word for this ... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re "our own data"
      Friends who take an image and tag every face?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  14. Websites with a Facebook share icon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Are watching you. Hmmm... What's that at the top of /.?

    1. Re: Websites with a Facebook share icon... by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Big Brother Facebook is always watching.

    2. Re:Websites with a Facebook share icon... by munch117 · · Score: 1

      A plain link, using the image https://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/f... - fsdn.com seems to be a sourceforge domain. On this one thing /. comes out clean. No facebook tracking.

    3. Re:Websites with a Facebook share icon... by munch117 · · Score: 1

      Wait, just realised I forgot to turn off tracking protection extensions before inspecting the HTML source. I've gotta run, so no time to redo the check with tracking protections turned off.

    4. Re: Websites with a Facebook share icon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as chocolate rations keep increasing, I don't mind.

  15. Interpretation by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and "improving our products and services."

    Of course this primarily refers to the products and services they offer to advertisers.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:Interpretation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks Captain Obvious. You are such a clever cunt.

    2. Re:Interpretation by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      Since revenue can be viewed as an improvement, this is a glorious catchall. Much like the job description equivalent "other duties as assigned."

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  16. smart people solve problems, when they want to by epine · · Score: 2

    Facebook could have distributed a free "please track me everywhere" browser add-on that added some flag to the http session so that their users were identified as such.

    With a bit of crypto, you could even make this so it didn't leak Facebook membership to third-party sites (for example, by providing an encryption key which Facebook can/cannot actually decrypt). Then everything gets sent to Facebook, but for the people who opt out, it's encrypted with a key associated with no known decryption key, and basically useless.

    Also, I think Facebook has the resources to support more than one major browser.

    This discrimination problem is a problem manufactured out of their own indolence, to their own convenience.

    1. Re:smart people solve problems, when they want to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't fix it, feature it!

    2. Re:smart people solve problems, when they want to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Opt out is part of the problem. Most of the shit show going on with the Internet right now should be OPT IN.

    3. Re:smart people solve problems, when they want to by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Wrong. EVERYTHING needs to be opt-in. Hey, we're doing it for sex now, it's way less ridiculous on the internet...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:smart people solve problems, when they want to by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I know your trolling, but sex is literally the most intimate and private thing most people do.

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
    5. Re:smart people solve problems, when they want to by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      True, but the demand for the double and triple opt-in that you're supposed to go through now is not only ridiculous, it also kinda kills the mood. And I mean for everyone involved.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:smart people solve problems, when they want to by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      To me, trust is a big part of sex. I don't see it killing the mood.

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
    7. Re:smart people solve problems, when they want to by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Trust is the opposite of demanding multiple questions of "may I?". When I trust someone, I trust them to know where to stop and to notice and act on the clues he gets.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:smart people solve problems, when they want to by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      If you trust your partner, you have no problems.

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
    9. Re:smart people solve problems, when they want to by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Maybe people should stop screwing people they don't trust, I dare say that would solve this problem, and many others.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  17. Re:Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, whats happened is that general populations' computer literacy has increased and they've relised how crap FaceBook really is. They still use it because its an accepted form of entertainment but everyone knows these days it takes no great genius to make something like FaceBook. And of course the fact that all of a sudden the EULA everyone signed up too now makes sense. So no, nobody is happy with it. I wasn't I didn't. Therefore, DUHHHH to the rest of them :)

  18. Facebook Cookie Killer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook Cookie Killer

    1. Re:Facebook Cookie Killer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't actually use cookies, it just helps. They can track without them.

    2. Re:Facebook Cookie Killer by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Facebook Cookie Tumbler is more what I'm after. You toss your cookie into a pool every couple of seconds and get another one that someone else used for a couple clicks.

      Poison their data pool while you're at it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  19. Right up there in the "biggest lie" category... by GerryGilmore · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...along with: "The check is in the mail"; "of course I'll respect you in the morning"; and "I promise I won't cum in your mouth" is..."(our only goal is) improving our products and services."
    Unless that is Yiddish for: "I just want more money!", in which case - yeah.

  20. You are being spied on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your data is for sale

  21. Free Pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MIB: "Why have you been monitoring government server traffic?"
    You: "To improve my companies products and services."
    MIB: "Oh OK off you go then. No harm no foul."

  22. Aw hell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck Zuck! Preferably up the ass with a cattle prod with a nail stuck in it at a 45 degree angle so as to rip his intestine massively and cause ultimate carnage. Then maybe a duck will come in and eat his steaming remains, probably soon to vomit it as a complete reject.

    1. Re:Aw hell... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That's disgusting. Can't we just shoot him with an artillery piece like they do in North Korea?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Aw hell... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      What kind of artillery piece and shell are we talking about here? I'm thinking a W48 shell out of a 155mm Howitzer would do. You know, just to be sure.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    3. Re:Aw hell... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Are you the same guy that berated me for there not being assault rifles available in the US?

      What matters is that you DO it, not what you do it with. Jeesh, people, focus!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Aw hell... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Are you the same guy that berated me for there not being assault rifles available in the US?

      No that wouln't be me.
      While I am fairly pro gun, I'm not one of those crazies that thinks that everyone should own a full auto M14. That said I do disagree with a lot of the hysteria about intermediate powered semi-automatic rifles (think semi-auto AKs, ARs, SKSes or other guns that shoot .223 or 7.62x39 rounds). Especially the complaints that they are only good for killing people or that they are weapons of war. For years I used a SKS for deer hunting (AK predecessor shoots the same round) and it is very effective for putting a deer in the freezer. I have a buddy who goes out prairie dog hunting in SD on his parent's property with an AR platform gun a couple of times a year, I have other buddies who go out coyote hunting with ARs. These aren't the type of people you hear about making the news as they, like myself, are responsible owners. We don't sit there and fantasize that we will be the lone survivors of some civilization ending event or defending our selves from our own government. Hell with firearms like those we even realize that they would be ineffective for defending our home from a random intruder. We have all had quite a bit of training on the proper care, use, handling, and storage of them as well, which far too many people seem to lack. However the things those guns mostly shoot are empty cans at our various properties up in the north woods. However I do have one friend who is someone who should not own a gun yet owns a Frankenstein AR he built from parts and an 80% receiver because he thinks he needs it to protect himself from the government or that society will collapse in about 3 months.

      Also it is still possible to get a real fully auto weapon legally in the US, they are just gong to be expensive, old, a bitch to find, and an overall pain in the ass to own given what you have to agree to.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    5. Re:Aw hell... by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Don't you think that limiting access by requiring afew extra hoops to jump through would better protect your right to own those weapons in the future?
      Would you be averse to a law making it illegal to carry a loaded weapon in a ready to fire state, outside of a narrow set of circumstances?

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
  23. Sleezy creepers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    three main reasons: providing services directly, securing the companyâ(TM)s own site, and âoeimproving our products and servicesâ.

    We stalk every Internet user to secure our own site. What kind of insane bullshit is this? While nobody gives a shit "why" Facebook does it this particular justification is batshit crazy.

    âoeWhen you visit a site or app that uses our services, we receive information even if youâ(TM)re logged out or donâ(TM)t have a Facebook account."

    It's about time this change. Site owners who install harmful malware on their sites need to be called out and be made to pay a price. If you don't respect your users you shouldn't get a free pass because your users are ignorant of what your doing behind their back.

    âoeWhether itâ(TM)s information from apps and websites, or information you share with other people on Facebook, we want to put you in control â" and be transparent about what information Facebook has and how it is used.â

    In the science and transportation hearing Zuckerburg explicitly admitted not even Facebook users have access to this data. Not that having access in any way diminishes the real issue of collecting it in the first place.

  24. Better ProTip (defends vs. that & FAR more) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ÃPK Hosts File Engine 10++ SR-1 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=ZYrPWpW_H-ykggel7JLwBg&btnG=Search&q=APK+site%3Astart64.com/

    Ads/script/malware rob speed/security/privacy/bandwidth.

    Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).

    Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivir + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. av/addons/routers/remote dns!

    Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirect (99++% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + DNS tracking & lighten DNS load & resolve faster via local RAM!

    * Viâ what u NATIVELY have in a FASTER kernelmode IP stack (does more w/ less).

    APK

    P.S. - Accept NO substitute for more speed, security, reliablity & anonymity that natively does more for less vs. ANY other single "so-called 'solution'"... apk

    1. Re:Better ProTip (defends vs. that & FAR more) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used APK hosts file engine once, my dick got ultra AIDS Ebola and exploded into a million pieces. Then my balls shrived up, turned black, and fell off. This only took 10 seconds so avoid his work if you value you dick and balls. APK hosts file engine, not even once.

  25. Re: No wonder it costs so much to save the Zuck's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think you mean Emperor Trump. "Comrades" are lefties, David Brock.

  26. They failed to mention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That their 'products and services' translates to using people's personal data for their own, non-Facebook related projects. All of their defenses smell like Twinkie.

    1. Re:They failed to mention by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Nothing substantial and just fluff and filler?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  27. Re:Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They still use it because its an accepted form of entertainment but everyone knows these days it takes no great genius to make something like FaceBook.

    While it takes no great genius to make something like Facebook it takes a collective of geniuses to make it scalable.

  28. Re: Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've obviously never interested with Facebook's engineering staff...

  29. Re: No wonder it costs so much to save the Zuck's by Reverend+Green · · Score: 4, Funny

    I, for one, prefer "His Imperial and Royal Majesty Donald I, By the Grace of God and the Constitutions of the Empire, Emperor of the Americans, King of Canada, Mediator of the Mexican Confederation, Protector of the Confederation of Panama, Co-Prince of Cuba."

  30. Re: No wonder it costs so much to save the Zuck' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I prefer blowbag, although bully comes close.

  31. No reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no reason and no excuse for tracking people who are not users of Facebook.

    Facebook should be the target of more class action suits.

  32. So, they want to put me in control... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By spying on me and not telling me and selling my info to people?

  33. Re: No wonder it costs so much to save the Zuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump is a douchebag, pure and simple. Every move he makes is to line the pockets of his family and 'friends'.
    Comey was right about him being unfit to be POTUS.

    Yours,
        Not an American and living in Europe, so I can't be a Democrat.

  34. and they say we wear tin hats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    They say that we are paranoid

    They say that we are crazy, that there is no one out there doing anything 'funny'

    They say if we have nothing to hide we shouldn't be afraid of people taking pictures when we are somewhere close by

    Yep, we might be the crazy ones, but WE ARE RIGHT

    They are identifying us, and sell us as their products even though we don't even have any account on their platform

    They do not even bother to GET OUR APPROVAL before making us their products

    FUCK YOU !

    1. Re: and they say we wear tin hats by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      If it makes you feel better, you're typically called "inventory," not a product. You know, hope that helps.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  35. Another lie for Zuckerberg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not that it matters much but this is in direct contradiction to what he told the US Senate. They drilled him over what data was collected by users whom weren't logged in. The questions The Guardian refer to are related to something else entirely as he was asked specifically about the report generated by Facebook's "Download your data".

    Facebook rightly so cannot provide data on a person that isn't technically a user, the question was thus either a deliberate deflection or as I said before, this entire show was nothing more then that .. a show. *The button on Facebook enabled sites, is the problem*. Short of getting access to infrastructure logs (collectively referred to web servers), AND validate non-account-bearing user X was behind IPs A-infinity, it's IMPOSSIBLE. That of course doesn't apply if you have any of their applications installed and running. Ironically that in of itself blows their "we don't know if you're a facebook user", out of their ass because if the app is installed but not setup / no account created, then they in fact do.

    I don't have a facebook account. It would be interesting to know if the data provided by "Download your data", included some of the more sinister points like what wireless networks were around you. What locations did their GPS logging have. What shadow associations have they created. Maybe you take the bus every day with a known felon, does that make you an accomplice? Etc. That is the kind of thing I have more of a problem with.

    1. Re:Another lie for Zuckerberg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know that certain browser & PC settings can lead you to being unique enough that you are in with a few hundred people globally.
      Then it's easy enough to add a little bit more location information based on the language and country codes of the websites you frequent.
      They have a pretty good idea on whom/where that person is.

      They are tagging people in photos and asking users to name them.
      So users of facebook are providing private data on non-users and FB is building up templates of those people.
      What they look like.
      Where they have been and when.
      Who they were with.
      Individuals are not covered by the privacy issues that companies are. They are disclosing information on 3rd parties without the permission of the 3rd party but the law doesn't cover that.
      And of course auto opt in by FB to do this.

      Then the harvesting of data from phones is adding phone numbers, names, addresses, emails, etc.
      Hard to say that an entry in a phone book from a known user who gives the same name to someone in a photo isn't going to be the same person?
      And that data can be validated in all sorts of ways. eg: asking multiple users to ID the same person.

      And we've got object identifcation. Such as cars, makes, model, registration plates, obtaining data on that sort of things because governments want to sell data.
      Or even publically available data like voter registration which has names and addresses.
      OCR on anything readable in a photo I really wouldn't put it past them doing that and recording the meta data because it costs nothing to do it.
      You might have an application of that data someday. It might be useful to sell to advertisers if you see certain products in a photo too.

      And those non users have no idea that this is happening or what data is stored about them.
      Perhaps because they took a stand against using facebook because they saw the authoritarian wet dream coming a mile off.
      But this is state levels of survellience. It's completely unprecedented for a private company to have the capability to do this.

      People are inevitably tagged for further examination by virtue of not having a FB account and thus "having something to hide".
      I see FB take it as a challenge to ID non-users as much as they possibly can.
      Because data harvesting is their aim and we all like a challenge when there is a roadblock in the way of accompalishing a goal.

      Meanwhile FB hide behind some bullshit technicality of not being able to confirm who the data belongs to but they are essentially 99.999% certain.
      Data protection law preventing them from sharing it with that person because FB gamed it to take advantage of those laws.

      I know that if they wanted to, as a non-user, facebook know:
      My real name.
      My age if not my DOB but they most likely know that.
      Where I live (actual address)
      My previous addresses.
      What car I drive. Make/model/registration. - and historically what I've owned.
      My phone number(s)
      Email and website URL's.
      Various account names on various websites.
      Who my friends are.
      Where I work.
      My approximate height and weight, hair colour, eye colour. - from photos, simple.
      If the photo's are available and high enough res, I'll wager they are recording fingerprints too where possible -- the police already do this from photos.
      My web browsing habits / interests.
      Any place I've visited in the world where I've been in a photo taken by a user of facebook which my face is visible. Time/date/location.

      That is beyond stasi levels of tracking and knowledge.
      And google know a heck of a lot of that information about me too.

      The dog and pony show of MZ answering questions is just government reminding him that they want 100% access to all the data he has collected and they can shut him down any time they want to.
      It's pandering to the people. Let them eat cake.

  36. Sue Sue Sue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is cyber stalking... major invasion of privacy... finally the scumbug... can go to jail.

    What's makes me wonder... who he have been a stalker without facebook ?! LOL.

  37. this is good news ... by houghi · · Score: 1

    ... for the EU as we can start using them as a cashcow driving them bankrup. It's a win-win situation.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  38. Complicit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This has been known for years. FB was convicted multiple times for these practices in Europe.

    What hardly ever comes up in the news or comments is that every website that puts FB-hosted 'like' buttons on their pages is complicit in all of this.

    Note: all other social media buttons on webpages perform the same 'service'.

    1. Re:Complicit by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      A lot of (more reputable) pages around here have started something like a "double opt in" for Facebook, where you have to click on an icon of their page first to load the "like" button, so no data is sent to FB unless you explicitly want to.

      Of course, that icon is as obnoxiously begging for "pleeeeeeeeeeease like us!!!" as it can... but it's a start.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  39. Re: No wonder it costs so much to save the Zuck's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When did he become a leftist? Why wasn't it news?

  40. Enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shut down Facebook, erase its databases, confiscate and destroy their equipment, jail Zuckerberg, enact a ban on social media. It's time to regulate the internet since it's obvious it's not going to regulate itself and the industry has shown a lack of responsibility and accountability. #internetcontrolnow

    1. Re:Enough by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Careful what you wish for, it might come true. The last thing I'd want is more nanny state hand holding with government-approved content allowed only. If I wanted that I could've kept my TV.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  41. it is not all Facebooks fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least just as guilty are all those sites that have Facebook like buttons and run Facebook scripts. They are willingly exposing their users to this, just as they expose them to tracking by a million other trackers and malware through malevolent advertisements.

    This is the primary problem, the attitude that it is ok to rape you guests privacy and risk their computer systems health for a tiny benefit to yourself. It is rude and would be deemed completely unacceptable in any other form of human interaction.

  42. Re: No wonder it costs so much to save the Zuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bully comes automatically with the position as US president.

  43. connect.facebook.net script at honda.com and many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    other sites. What I'm curious about it HOW does facebook get these thousands of sites to run this script for them?

  44. Tracking of non-users violates GDPR by jools33 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I would say that tracking of non-users violates GDPR in several ways, hope Facebook has 4% of revenue at the ready to donate to the EU.

    1. Re:Tracking of non-users violates GDPR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck the EU.

  45. They were Warned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I personally warned Zuckerberg years ago that I don't have nor have I ever had a facebook account, and all data and material was MY intellectual property, and if they enabled anybody enough information that it jeopardizes my family, that it would be viewed as a military attack and subject to a measured response.

  46. Time to boycott all sites allied with facebook by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    It is very logical, all the allied sites provide all the data about all the visitors because they don't know who is a facebook user and who is not. True. Agreed.

    So we should just stop visiting all sites that support facebook login, (like slashdot) all companies that have a facebook page. That is the only way we can make sure facebook does not build a shadow profile of non users/

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  47. Call this lie by sdinfoserv · · Score: 2

    This is a lie Zuck chirped on Capital Hill, that users (now we know non users as well) are tracked when their Not on FB for `secutity`.... WTF does FB security have to do with non users not on the FB platform.... Nothing. When youre caught in a lie, all testimony becomes suspect.

  48. Lots of other options work better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lots of other options work better providing more broad based security with less user intervention. They also don't overstate their capabilities like you do.

  49. And THAT is why I block them ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of my browsers block the Facebook domains, precisely because with my blocking extensions I've seen just how many sites link to Facebook.

    Facebook can kiss my fucking ass, along with any other third party parasite.

    If you're not running something like HTTP Switchboard, you're letting far too much shit eavesdrop on your web habits.

  50. Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck the Zuck!

  51. "resting on ONE stone" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    access to address book, cookies and a monster SQL database.
    what can go wrong?
    your phone number and to some extend your email address are your online identity.
    forced access to your personal address book (phone numbers, email addresses, address, names) to be able to use a online service should be illegal.
    the main culprit in the whole facebook witch hunt isn't mentioned:
    People-You-Might-Know.
    make that illegal and watch facebook crash and burn!

  52. This is why you should delete it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has been well known for a while.

    Currently the reasons people aren't deleting it seem to based on it filling a need which they can get elsewhere. Like they use it to keep in touch with family and friends.

    But really if you switch to something else, people will follow. Even grandparents can learn to use something else, they did with facebook.

    I'm really not sure what's keeping people on facebook apart from peer pressure now.

  53. Re: No wonder it costs so much to save the Zuck's by Bobrick · · Score: 0

    Americans like to call "leftist" pretty much anyone they disagree with.

  54. Wow such bullshit by HermMunster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They are saying that we non Facebook users are being tracked so they can provide us services that we don't use? They are saying that they are tracking non Facebook users to protect their security? All of us need to be tracked so they can be secure? Improving services by collecting data on users that don't use their site? They violate our privacy so that they can provide stuff to other users in order to make a profit?

    --
    You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
  55. Re: No wonder it costs so much to save the Zuck's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about, "Princess Angelina Contessa Louisa Francesca Banana Fanna Bo Besca the Third"

  56. Re: No wonder it costs so much to save the Zuck's by HermMunster · · Score: 1

    This is a logical fallacy. The key to the fallacy is the word Americans. It indicates that all Americans that disagree view themselves as non-leftists.

    Obviously this is identity politics calling itself out. There are some americans that disagree with some people and they call those that they disagree with right wing and white supremacist and racist.

    There are racists and supremacist people on both sides. There are women that think they are the superior gender. There are blacks that think they are a superior race. The same goes for whites and males.

    You proved you participate in identity politics while condemning identity politics.

    --
    You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
  57. Re: No wonder it costs so much to save the Zuck' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm partial to Fuckface von Clownstick, myself.

  58. LOCK ZUCKERBERG UP by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    ..and throw away the key.

    Facebook == CANCER

  59. Re: No wonder it costs so much to save the Zuck's by PmanAce · · Score: 0

    That would be King of Upper Canada and King of Lower Canada if some people here had their way.

    --
    Tired of my customary (Score:1)
  60. Like what? Time to destroy you easily... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: DNS (Full of bugs & easily poisoned), AntiVirus (full of bugs), Addons (don't do as much by FAR), Firewalls (most threats use hostnames, NOT IP addresses)?

    * Each weighs more by FAR & has far more COMPLEXITY room for exploitation illogic logic STUPIDITY "bolting on 'MoAr'" that does less OR costs so much in flaws or inefficiency (firewalls are close to hosts but again: MOST THREATS DO NOT USE IP ADDRESSES but instead use host-domain names HOST BLOCK & yes, firewalls are native largely but have filtering driver overheads hosts don't - hosts are NATIVE to the tcpip.sys driver (IP stack) itself as a native filter).

    APK

    P.S.=> You have NO IDEA how simple it is for me to dismantle "your kind's" bullshit - none... apk

    1. Re:Like what? Time to destroy you easily... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hosts files = blacklist = reactive. 'Someone' has to list the bad URL for you to block. No heuristics.
      Hosts files = no wildcards, can't address even simple DGAs; have to exhaustively list all subdomains.
      Hosts files = binary. Block/don't block. No capacity to block elements of a site that remain local to the site.
      APK 'solution' = has to be run manually before web use to pull down latest list.

      Browser add-ons/extensions = capacity to white list (adblockers, script blockers etc). Heuristic based blocking.
          = wildcards.
          = capacity to refine what is and isn't blocked, even from the same URL/IP
          = can update automatically, seamlessly and in the background.

      That's four losses to hosts files. Sure, there's some things that a host file may do better than a browser extension, and if that fits your use case, more power to you. For most people, who aren't living in a 3rd world hell-hole and who have decent, highly available DNS; who aren't visiting the same 3 sites; who browse on something other than a potato and for whom the resources used by a browser add-on are negligible fraction of total resources; whose primary constraint is time and attention, not CPU or RAM - then their use case is better served by things like browser add-ons and extensions.

      You have NO IDEA how simple it is for me

      Dunning & Kruger wrote a paper about this. I commend it to your attention.

  61. Balls? You have no balls unidentifiable ac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: You ILLOGICALLY FAIL as always vs. me & You KNOW it! By comparison I destroy you bs via facts I can backup nigh instantly https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11999175&cid=56459175/

    * Lastly, on BALLS? You have NO BALLS hiding behind either FAKE NAMES online (for your fake "ne'er-do-well" DO NOTHING OF WORTH LIVES) or UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous posts!

    (Can't attack a message? Attack the messenger?? You will lose, always, vs. me + fact I use vs. your bullshit!)

    APK

    P.S.=> It's always a JOY showing the planet what "your kind" are all about - LOSING due to lives of complete failure, lol -it's about ALL you are good for BY making ME look GOOD & yourselves to be the reject do-nothing welfare LEECH SHIT you are... apk

  62. We Track Because We Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Typical mass surveillance bullshit.

  63. Re:connect.facebook.net script at honda.com and ma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    basicaly one of two ways:
    - like buttons
    - facebook loin as single-sign-on provider

  64. Re:No wonder it costs so much to save the Zuck's f by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After this news spreads he'll have to spend way more than 7 mill to protect that pasty pudgy face.

    http://disinfo.com/2018/04/it-takes-over-7-million-dollars-a-year-to-keep-people-from-punching-mark-zuckerberg/

    I just want to say this... Mark Zuck's :-)

  65. Sociopaths gonna sociopath by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Zuckerberg is just a more polished version of Martin Shkreli, the Pharma Bro.

    He is so anti-social that he can't even comprehend the ways in which he is violating basic social norms of decency and respect. All he sees is the money, of one day being richer than Bezos.

    Used to be that people like Zuckerberg were treated with contempt in the industry ("What's the difference between Larry Ellison and God?"). Now, greedy sociopaths are revered and worshiped like pop-culture icons.

    God, the tech industry has gone to shit.

  66. Re: No wonder it costs so much to save the Zuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your next two posts compared people to "Big Brother" and then Nazis....

  67. Annihilating you = too easy... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wildcards DNS/addons use create FALSE POSITIVES - hosts specifics don't! Heuristics do too!

    Addons use more & do less vs. hosts & = crippled by default (adblock)!

    DNS is BUG RIDDLED https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9007355&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=51969075/ & that's only a PARTIAL list (not even current) & is constantly exploited (or down). Hosts help you avoid it & so much so CHINA even copied me: Imitation IS the sincerest form of flattery http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/26/boffins_supercharge_the_hosts_file_to_save_users_plagued_by_dns_outages/

    Addons & DNS use TONS more resources!

    DNS + addons aren't native to workstation OS (host are, in kernelmode operation, faster vs. both of them).

    APK

    P.S.=> They're ILLOGIC logic "Bolting on 'MoAr'" inefficient stupidity vs. hosts... apk

    1. Re:Annihilating you = too easy... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      false positives

      If someone is using generated subdomains for C&C there are no false positives and I can block them with a single line. Yes, someone _could_ use wildcards in other ways and end up with false positives, but that's not relevant to this point.

      Addons use more

      More CPU and RAM and take less of my time and attention. I have that to spare. No-one I know has resources at 100% when their browser extensions are in use. Your 'hosts use less' is a mantra you repeat. It's true, but meaningless. The resources that are constrained are attention and time.

      do less vs. h0sts

      Bullshit. They do some things h0sts can't, some things better and vice versa. It's a use case situation and your argument that hostfiles are the be-all and end-all solution is nonsense.

      crippled by default

      You've got one example of an author who took a kickback to modify his code. This says nothing about extensions in general. Or are you saying that the people who provide your lists are immune to corruption?

      DNS is bug riddled

      So is every server you visit. I use DNS daily. I have _never_ had a problem or outtage in over 20 years privately and professionally.

      I've also used hostfiles. While working for a bank, on a limited number of backend servers in an environment that was almost entirely static for over 5 years. Pointing only to other servers in the environment and only as a way of providing redundancy. It was an edge case.

      CHINA even copied me

      Which just shows you don't read the links you post.

      No-one copies you, you unfettered narcissist.

      Add0ns & DN5 use TONS more resources!

      You've said that already. Not. Relevant. Those resources aren't constrained.

      addons aren't native to workstation OS

      Neither is your tool. Which doesn't integrate with the browser, has to be manually updated, launched etc. I don't run DNS on my PC. I run it on a dedicated piece of hardware. This is just nonsense. It doesn't address anything I've said and is too incoherent to be a point.

      ---

      As I predicted you've completely ignored the blacklist/whitelist point because not even your usual offtopic counterpoints apply.
      You ignore the use of wildcards in DGAs and subdomain blocking while making a weak point, offtopic, about false positives.
      You completely ignore that hostfiles can't block offensive elements native to the site. Like autoplay video, for eg.
      You completely ignore that your program has to be launched before each browsing session, and make some absurd comment about addons not running in kernelspace. Neither does your software.

      As predicted you outright ignored three of my four points and made a weak counter about an edge case on the fourth.
      Thank you for playing. I won't check this interaction, no doubt I'll comment on another of your posts another time.'

      HAND

  68. Re: No wonder it costs so much to save the Zuck's by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Actually, I thought Reagan would make a fine king, although I was dubious about "Ronald I". You left out "Defender of the Seas" or some such phrase, BTW. Any king of the US past, say, 1890, needs something like that in his title.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  69. Re: No wonder it costs so much to save the Zuck's by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

  70. Dismantling you again easily... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My hosts prog's use of hardcodes in hosts protects & speeds you up where you spend most time avoids DNS issues & I did it 1st & only hosts prog that does & I did it LONG BEFORE the Chinese!

    It's why CHINA did imitate part of what I do in my hosts program - fact!

    (Learn to read hypocrite)

    Wasting resources on overly complex exploitable inefficient bloat that's BUGGY hell (solely via DNS)? Dumb!

    Wholesale indiscriminate wildcard domain blocking creates false positives (as do heuristics).

    Whitelists? Malware blows it using dll injection into VALID processes!

    Host do more for LESS (my POINT). Best bang for the buck ARE native & I populate them.

    Integration w/ browsers & regex (same in dns rulesets (hard for users to control or edit unlike hosts)) creates messagepass overhead (FF slows up if you stack too many addons (even in new addon model))

    APK

    P.S.-> Prove you've created something BETTER than I did yourself (You can't)... apk

  71. Re: No wonder it costs so much to save the Zuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, but you surely must be a socialist, then. :-) Which in the simplistic US world view is the same as being a communist and only just a tad lass bad than being a Democrat.