My concerns in those cases are that it means remembering a separate account for each such website, signing into those websites each time my session expires in order to remove the ads
That's no problem. Use an ad-blocker, then you don't have to log in.
How many of you pay for that content you're using ad blockers on?
I do, for the few sites that have a mechanism that lets me. Not all the sites (since I block all ads all the time no matter what site is serving them up), but the ones that I go to regularly.
If everyone blocked 100% of ads, the Internet would be a very different place.
Indeed. I remember when the internet had almost no ads at all on it, and it was a very different place. A very better place.
Sometimes the balls on Microsoft amazes me. To tout themselves as some sort of champion of privacy right after releasing the spyingest operating system they've ever released is an awe-inspiring move.
The days when phoning home and privacy violations were associated with malware are over.
No, they're not. I consider all applications that so this in a way that I can't disable to be spyware. It doesn't matter what the overt purpose of the software or who made it is.
Applications that phone home by default but let me tell them not to aren't quite spyware, but are certainly malware.
Be careful about trusting firewall software that runs on the machine you use for other purposes. Operating systems and specially designed applications can and do route around those firewalls.
What you need is a standalone firewall that protects your entire LAN. Preferably not one of the premanufactured "appliance" firewalls. With an obsolete computer and a moderate amount of knowledge, you can put together your own standalone firewall that is much more trustworthy.
This. Anytime someone is claiming that information collection is OK because it's "not PII" and/or it's "anonymized", they are either lying or deeply misunderstanding the problem.
While I personally would disable this stuff, it is unfortunately the price we pay for modern tech.
That's the point... it shouldn't be the price we pay for modern tech. It's truly sad that I have to treat every piece of software or hardware as the enemy these days, and have to set up my firewall to prevent all outgoing traffic that I don't explicitly authorize.
Sure, it's valuable to Lenovo to know how many people disable the scheduled hardware tests, or opt to remove the bundled AV software immediately upon install. It's valuable to them to know how often people use their System Update to keep up-to-date, and how often all of this stuff simply doesn't work. Even knowing the average user's preference in power management settings is useful.
There's no question this data is of value to them. It's also none of their goddamned business.
I am, because I'm going to block all the ads anyway. If the day comes that I can't, then I'll just stop going to websites that engage in terrible advertising practices.
This is not actually malicious, but an artifact of the rendering engines and the order in which they render things.
Oh? In order to say it's not malicious, one has to believe that they never actually tested it by browsing using smartphones. If that's true, then they're dangerously incompetent. If they did test, then they're being malicious in allowing such behavior to persist.
This I actually agree with, but there's a risk. If you start actually attracting traffic you can end up with a very big bill. I fondly remember situations in the 90s where some poor guy would get slashdotted and then take his server permanently offline because he can't afford the hosting bill.
Maybe that was a risk in the '90s, but it's not anymore. Even the cheapest of hosting providers won't suddenly present you with an oversized bill. When you've reached your quota, they'll just temporarily disable your site. If you don't want to pay extra then you can just wait until the next month to begin. If you decide to pay extra, it's never something that will break the bank. When this has happened to some of my sites, I just paid an extra $20 for the month and all was well.
Not true. For as long as the internet has existed there have been very useful and entertaining sites that are genuinely free. As in, their audiences are not subjected to advertising and are not asked to pay money. These sites still exist. I even run a few of them myself.
How would you fund a site like Slashdot? Or are you implying that sites like Slashdot should go away?
Personally, I would be willing to pay a small fee for it. I recognized that not everyone would prefer that, though. What I would love to see is the standard behavior changing such that if a site runs ads, it also has an option to pay a small fee to remove the ads entirely. Note, though, that by "remove the ads" I mean more than just "I don't see the ads". I mean that all the tracking that comes with the ads stops as well.
Even if you never use Google or Facebook they know almost every webpage you visit because most have Google Analytics or Facebook like buttons that load JavaScript from their servers.
That's one of the main reasons why I use NoScript.
The problem I have is that no company has defined "well behaved ads" in a way that I agree with. For me, the #1 feature of a well behaved ad is that it does not track or otherwise spy on me. As near as I can tell, there's no such thing as a "well behaved" ad.
Of course you can change a MAC address. However, your average 90 IQ bag snatcher can't do that.
Of course they can. It doesn't take any special skill whatsoever, unless you count searching for, downloading, and installing a program a "special skill".
All of those companies (albeit Apple least of all) are pretty cavalier about their own invasions of our privacy. None of them are defenders. At best, they're just giving us the choice of who will be spying on us.
If they are our best hope, then we've already lost.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't care what technique is used to accomplish it, animated ads are automatically objectionable.
My concerns in those cases are that it means remembering a separate account for each such website, signing into those websites each time my session expires in order to remove the ads
That's no problem. Use an ad-blocker, then you don't have to log in.
How many of you pay for that content you're using ad blockers on?
I do, for the few sites that have a mechanism that lets me. Not all the sites (since I block all ads all the time no matter what site is serving them up), but the ones that I go to regularly.
If everyone blocked 100% of ads, the Internet would be a very different place.
Indeed. I remember when the internet had almost no ads at all on it, and it was a very different place. A very better place.
Sometimes the balls on Microsoft amazes me. To tout themselves as some sort of champion of privacy right after releasing the spyingest operating system they've ever released is an awe-inspiring move.
You joke, but what really happens is the US carriers have decided "we'll call it whatever we like for marketing purposes".
What's even worse is that with 4G, the US managed to force the ITU to redefine the 4G standard to allow the US's not-really-4G to be called 4G anyway.
The days when phoning home and privacy violations were associated with malware are over.
No, they're not. I consider all applications that so this in a way that I can't disable to be spyware. It doesn't matter what the overt purpose of the software or who made it is.
Applications that phone home by default but let me tell them not to aren't quite spyware, but are certainly malware.
You all probably carry a cell phone which tracks everything you do, where you are what you click and what apps you run
Mine doesn't. Or, at least, it doesn't let anything phone home with that information.
Be careful about trusting firewall software that runs on the machine you use for other purposes. Operating systems and specially designed applications can and do route around those firewalls.
What you need is a standalone firewall that protects your entire LAN. Preferably not one of the premanufactured "appliance" firewalls. With an obsolete computer and a moderate amount of knowledge, you can put together your own standalone firewall that is much more trustworthy.
This. Anytime someone is claiming that information collection is OK because it's "not PII" and/or it's "anonymized", they are either lying or deeply misunderstanding the problem.
While I personally would disable this stuff, it is unfortunately the price we pay for modern tech.
That's the point... it shouldn't be the price we pay for modern tech. It's truly sad that I have to treat every piece of software or hardware as the enemy these days, and have to set up my firewall to prevent all outgoing traffic that I don't explicitly authorize.
Sure, it's valuable to Lenovo to know how many people disable the scheduled hardware tests, or opt to remove the bundled AV software immediately upon install. It's valuable to them to know how often people use their System Update to keep up-to-date, and how often all of this stuff simply doesn't work. Even knowing the average user's preference in power management settings is useful.
There's no question this data is of value to them. It's also none of their goddamned business.
I'm not sure why you are concerned about it allowing the first access to a site.
Because what pages I'm looking at are none of the advertisers business. I don't want one single byte of information about me sent to them.
I mean think about it, who's going to win here:
I am, because I'm going to block all the ads anyway. If the day comes that I can't, then I'll just stop going to websites that engage in terrible advertising practices.
That's a win!
This is not actually malicious, but an artifact of the rendering engines and the order in which they render things.
Oh? In order to say it's not malicious, one has to believe that they never actually tested it by browsing using smartphones. If that's true, then they're dangerously incompetent. If they did test, then they're being malicious in allowing such behavior to persist.
Cool that PB works for you. For me, PB is woefully anemic.
I agree that ads have gotten out of hand, but penalizing sites that use them responsibly is horrible.
What sites are using them responsibly? I've never seen one. I guess the better question is what counts as "using them responsibly"?
This I actually agree with, but there's a risk. If you start actually attracting traffic you can end up with a very big bill. I fondly remember situations in the 90s where some poor guy would get slashdotted and then take his server permanently offline because he can't afford the hosting bill.
Maybe that was a risk in the '90s, but it's not anymore. Even the cheapest of hosting providers won't suddenly present you with an oversized bill. When you've reached your quota, they'll just temporarily disable your site. If you don't want to pay extra then you can just wait until the next month to begin. If you decide to pay extra, it's never something that will break the bank. When this has happened to some of my sites, I just paid an extra $20 for the month and all was well.
Your options are a pay-wall or ads.
Not true. For as long as the internet has existed there have been very useful and entertaining sites that are genuinely free. As in, their audiences are not subjected to advertising and are not asked to pay money. These sites still exist. I even run a few of them myself.
How would you fund a site like Slashdot? Or are you implying that sites like Slashdot should go away?
Personally, I would be willing to pay a small fee for it. I recognized that not everyone would prefer that, though. What I would love to see is the standard behavior changing such that if a site runs ads, it also has an option to pay a small fee to remove the ads entirely. Note, though, that by "remove the ads" I mean more than just "I don't see the ads". I mean that all the tracking that comes with the ads stops as well.
Even if you never use Google or Facebook they know almost every webpage you visit because most have Google Analytics or Facebook like buttons that load JavaScript from their servers.
That's one of the main reasons why I use NoScript.
Well behaved ads are not an issue.
The problem I have is that no company has defined "well behaved ads" in a way that I agree with. For me, the #1 feature of a well behaved ad is that it does not track or otherwise spy on me. As near as I can tell, there's no such thing as a "well behaved" ad.
Android can't be far behind
I have been doing this on Android for a few years now.
Of course you can change a MAC address. However, your average 90 IQ bag snatcher can't do that.
Of course they can. It doesn't take any special skill whatsoever, unless you count searching for, downloading, and installing a program a "special skill".
Fortunately, we have choices that are not Intel or Microsoft. BIOS is s tougher problem, but hardly insurmountable.
All of those companies (albeit Apple least of all) are pretty cavalier about their own invasions of our privacy. None of them are defenders. At best, they're just giving us the choice of who will be spying on us.
If they are our best hope, then we've already lost.