Idiots who think that so long as you do nothing wrong, no harm will come to you are going to be rudely awakened when they find out just how insanely wrong they are.
Hiding money during a divorce is wrong. Defaulting on credit is wrong.
I think your problem may be your understanding of right and wrong.
So a browser say wouldn't need to know the screen size? A browser needs to know it to render properly. A website serving it certainly doesn't. And I have no idea why it would.
So if you are drawing graphics on a canvas you don't need to know the canvas size? You do.
. A web app wouldn't need to know my timezone? Why would it? And why would a website? Why would Slashdot? Or (choose a news site)? Or Reddit?
That said, why does it need to get reported back to the server.
It's really hard to allow code to use a value but somehow prevent that value from being passed as data somewhere else.
Instead of just listing features, you should explain what benefit I get out of letting that data leak out of my browser. Cause I don't see it.
If all you do is read/. and reddit, then you don't. You see however I thought you were discussing things in general, not your narrow, unusual use case compared to the rest of the web users out there. My mistake.
So a browser say wouldn't need to know the screen size? That was the #1 most unique attribute for my browser (seems to be the canvas size, so perhaps my choice of UI element sizes made this unique). A web app wouldn't need to know my timezone? My browser's time (clock skew is an identifying attribute)? My host OS (you know, for suggesting the right download package for things)? Again, NOT an exhaustive list. I can keep going.
I think you are being naive about what could reasonably be done without breaking a large amount of the internet.
I want the browser to show me pages by default. A single-page webapp is a special case, and should be treated that way. Not a default.
As you point out, there's no need for my browser to report back version, plugins, settings, or pretty much anything else. "Desired language" and "IP address" seem to be the only vital ones.
I was giving examples, not an exhaustive list.
Versions are used for compatibility, and settings are things like "allows local storage" (again, this is just ONE example) are things web apps can figure out by attempting to use the feature.
Plugins can be derived. E.g., is there an adblocker installed? Let's test if ads are blocked.
Oh, it's not the search and indexing of the internet that's hard.. I participated in building a web crawler that could index the internet if you let it run long enough
def index(url):
links = parse_page(url)
for (u in links):
index(u)
is something that should be disabled (by default).
It's not a feature that can be switched off. Fingerprinting works by collecting as many attributes about the host browser as possible. This might be things like your language, browser version, installed plugins, settings, IP address, and many other things. Most of these have potential legit uses, but when combined they build a "fingerprint" of you.
I suppose you could disable collection of some of the fingerprint components. This is however contradictory to a world where we want web apps to have the same power as "native" apps. Either web apsp are more secure than native apps, or as powerful as native apps. It's not both.
the problem to solve is how to pay content creators the royalties they deserve
It is quite the opposite. It's easy for copyright holders to flag content. It's a completely automated system. You can read about it here: https://support.google.com/you...
Platforms such as Facebook are much, much worse. Someone can steal your video from YouTube and upload it to Facebook and it'll be there for weeks before Facebook gets around to taking it down. You can learn about that here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Carter had a globalist cabal 'advising' him, same as every president since him--with one exception.
That's the thing. Great leaders aren't hyper-intelligent individuals that know all the answers. Why? Because that describes no one. Nobody is an expert in all the fields necessary to govern a large nation.
Great leaders are people that are smart enough to surround themselves with experts to form coordinated informed actions. "That person" continues to alienate and fire all of their experts and go it alone. That should scare you.
This would be obvious to any user, Fox News would have a field day, and Facebook would be in trouble.
Yes, that's the point. As it would be obvious if FB stopped being "I Voted" stickers for folks with a particular political affiliation. I realize that's (slightly) less obvious than my examples but when you have 2 billion users people even the most minute things get noticed.
Yet if you ask the average person, I guarantee they will have never visited it, not even once.
Have you taken a poll? I'm a pretty average person and I've visited it. There's never anything I don't recognize, although I do "revoke" some things that I am no longer actively using.
Maybe they have made an informed decision not to care. Why is it so hard to believe that a person looked at all of the Google products they use every day and made a decision that letting Google know they like babysitter pr0n and prefer Coke over Pepsi was a fair trade.
Now, imagine if Facebook identifies all of the people who are likely to vote for party X and all the people who will vote for party Y. It shows the 'I've voted' badges to supporters of party X, but not to the supporters of party Y. In a lot of elections, that's enough to swing the outcome.
Imagine if Facebook closed the accounts of all Republican candidates. What if Walmart laid off all Democrat employees. What if Youtube shut down all gay content creators.
I guess you kind of expect companies will act rationally and avoid actions that alienate ~50% of their customers. You know, because they like money. I fail to see the point of speculating about irrational actions.
Everyone who signs up to Facebook makes the world a very slightly worse place.
Yes, assuming the terrible thing you thought up in your mind 10 minutes ago is true.
A Democrat President would have done the same thing.
Stop reading partisan politics into everything for God's sake. He just said Bush was corrupt. He didn't say all Rs are corrupt. If you want to talk about Carter's corruption, go start a thread where that's relevant. It's not an excuse for other corrupt presidents.
Yeah, but the main difference is now everyone demands all that domain/web hosting shit be provided for free, which is exactly how consumers made the jump from using a product to becoming the product.
Who'd have thought people don't want to pay thousands of dollars a year to host their own media.
Other than that wasn't when the Internet started, yes, personal websites or the "Blogosphere" as it was briefly known, was better than Facebook in so many ways.
I think the 2 billion people using Facebook, and the out of business companies and dead projects for personal websites would beg to differ.
It's also common sense. Did you think that if her official people happen to capture an image of you during the concert (say gathering footage for a video or documentary) they have to look the 15,321 people in the audience and get their written approval?
What I would want to know is: if someone buys a ticket say with credit card do that attach the name to the ticket number (of course they do; will call etc) and when you present the ticket do the sample your face and stored that data with the identifying information
Barring any evidence, the answer to that is "no". Also, she does not eat baby flesh backstage before concerts, by the same logic.
Slashdot Mirror
Idiots who think that so long as you do nothing wrong, no harm will come to you are going to be rudely awakened when they find out just how insanely wrong they are.
Hiding money during a divorce is wrong.
Defaulting on credit is wrong.
I think your problem may be your understanding of right and wrong.
False positives are a huge problem in the security sphere.
Not as much as false negatives.
So a browser say wouldn't need to know the screen size?
A browser needs to know it to render properly. A website serving it certainly doesn't. And I have no idea why it would.
So if you are drawing graphics on a canvas you don't need to know the canvas size? You do.
. A web app wouldn't need to know my timezone?
Why would it? And why would a website? Why would Slashdot? Or (choose a news site)? Or Reddit?
To render a site like this?
https://www.worldtimebuddy.com...
There are websites other than slashdot or reddit.
That said, why does it need to get reported back to the server.
It's really hard to allow code to use a value but somehow prevent that value from being passed as data somewhere else.
Instead of just listing features, you should explain what benefit I get out of letting that data leak out of my browser. Cause I don't see it.
If all you do is read /. and reddit, then you don't. You see however I thought you were discussing things in general, not your narrow, unusual use case compared to the rest of the web users out there. My mistake.
I was giving an exhaustive list.
So a browser say wouldn't need to know the screen size? That was the #1 most unique attribute for my browser (seems to be the canvas size, so perhaps my choice of UI element sizes made this unique). A web app wouldn't need to know my timezone? My browser's time (clock skew is an identifying attribute)? My host OS (you know, for suggesting the right download package for things)? Again, NOT an exhaustive list. I can keep going.
I think you are being naive about what could reasonably be done without breaking a large amount of the internet.
I want the browser to show me pages by default. A single-page webapp is a special case, and should be treated that way. Not a default.
So you want to go back to the web of 1992.
As you point out, there's no need for my browser to report back version, plugins, settings, or pretty much anything else. "Desired language" and "IP address" seem to be the only vital ones.
I was giving examples, not an exhaustive list.
Versions are used for compatibility, and settings are things like "allows local storage" (again, this is just ONE example) are things web apps can figure out by attempting to use the feature.
Plugins can be derived. E.g., is there an adblocker installed? Let's test if ads are blocked.
Oh, it's not the search and indexing of the internet that's hard.. I participated in building a web crawler that could index the internet if you let it run long enough
def index(url):
links = parse_page(url)
for (u in links):
index(u)
I just wrote Google for you.
The problem with DuckDuckGo is that, when it comes to searching
Who would have thought that indexing the internet and the algorithms behind it would be a hard problem?
is something that should be disabled (by default).
It's not a feature that can be switched off. Fingerprinting works by collecting as many attributes about the host browser as possible. This might be things like your language, browser version, installed plugins, settings, IP address, and many other things. Most of these have potential legit uses, but when combined they build a "fingerprint" of you.
I suppose you could disable collection of some of the fingerprint components. This is however contradictory to a world where we want web apps to have the same power as "native" apps. Either web apsp are more secure than native apps, or as powerful as native apps. It's not both.
Cool site that can show the details of your browser fingerprint:
https://amiunique.org/
How would you notice it?
The tens of thousands of people that voted and didn't see the stickers on their pages?
Or if they showed up a day late, after the election?
Then there'd be a huge backlash against FB and it'd never, ever happen again.
I tend to believe the financial analysts.
Ummm...
Baird's Colin Sebastian estimated YouTube is doing around $15 billion in annual sales.
https://www.thestreet.com/inve...
the problem to solve is how to pay content creators the royalties they deserve
It is quite the opposite. It's easy for copyright holders to flag content. It's a completely automated system. You can read about it here:
https://support.google.com/you...
Platforms such as Facebook are much, much worse. Someone can steal your video from YouTube and upload it to Facebook and it'll be there for weeks before Facebook gets around to taking it down. You can learn about that here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Carter had a globalist cabal 'advising' him, same as every president since him--with one exception.
That's the thing. Great leaders aren't hyper-intelligent individuals that know all the answers. Why? Because that describes no one. Nobody is an expert in all the fields necessary to govern a large nation.
Great leaders are people that are smart enough to surround themselves with experts to form coordinated informed actions. "That person" continues to alienate and fire all of their experts and go it alone. That should scare you.
This would be obvious to any user, Fox News would have a field day, and Facebook would be in trouble.
Yes, that's the point. As it would be obvious if FB stopped being "I Voted" stickers for folks with a particular political affiliation. I realize that's (slightly) less obvious than my examples but when you have 2 billion users people even the most minute things get noticed.
Yet if you ask the average person, I guarantee they will have never visited it, not even once.
Have you taken a poll? I'm a pretty average person and I've visited it. There's never anything I don't recognize, although I do "revoke" some things that I am no longer actively using.
Maybe they have made an informed decision not to care. Why is it so hard to believe that a person looked at all of the Google products they use every day and made a decision that letting Google know they like babysitter pr0n and prefer Coke over Pepsi was a fair trade.
Is it possible that the majority of people simply do not care as much as Slashdot thinks they should?
That, and Slashdot thinks they are smarter than the average person.
Now, imagine if Facebook identifies all of the people who are likely to vote for party X and all the people who will vote for party Y. It shows the 'I've voted' badges to supporters of party X, but not to the supporters of party Y. In a lot of elections, that's enough to swing the outcome.
Imagine if Facebook closed the accounts of all Republican candidates. What if Walmart laid off all Democrat employees. What if Youtube shut down all gay content creators.
I guess you kind of expect companies will act rationally and avoid actions that alienate ~50% of their customers. You know, because they like money. I fail to see the point of speculating about irrational actions.
Everyone who signs up to Facebook makes the world a very slightly worse place.
Yes, assuming the terrible thing you thought up in your mind 10 minutes ago is true.
A Democrat President would have done the same thing.
Stop reading partisan politics into everything for God's sake. He just said Bush was corrupt. He didn't say all Rs are corrupt. If you want to talk about Carter's corruption, go start a thread where that's relevant. It's not an excuse for other corrupt presidents.
And Trump's had 3 years to get it done. So.... ?
I think it's fair to say the sitting president primarily takes responsibility for the policy thereafter.
Not everything that is popular is good and not everything that is good is popular.
I guess everyone was tricked into using Facebook. Not you though of course.
Yeah, but the main difference is now everyone demands all that domain/web hosting shit be provided for free, which is exactly how consumers made the jump from using a product to becoming the product.
Who'd have thought people don't want to pay thousands of dollars a year to host their own media.
Seems like since we're all walking around with computers in our pockets, capable of amazing things
It's media hosting. Your phone doesn't have the bandwidth or storage to host images let alone video.
Other than that wasn't when the Internet started, yes, personal websites or the "Blogosphere" as it was briefly known, was better than Facebook in so many ways.
I think the 2 billion people using Facebook, and the out of business companies and dead projects for personal websites would beg to differ.
It's not consent if it's buried in some ToS.
It's also common sense. Did you think that if her official people happen to capture an image of you during the concert (say gathering footage for a video or documentary) they have to look the 15,321 people in the audience and get their written approval?
What I would want to know is: if someone buys a ticket say with credit card do that attach the name to the ticket number (of course they do; will call etc) and when you present the ticket do the sample your face and stored that data with the identifying information
Barring any evidence, the answer to that is "no". Also, she does not eat baby flesh backstage before concerts, by the same logic.