firefox, trackers and ghostery

[Robert Holtzman]

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 02:24:00AM -0500, Sajan Parikh wrote:
> Yay!  Finally somebody with a thoughtful rebuttal.
> 
> Edit: When I say 'you', I don't mean anyone personally, just in general.
> 
> I'm not being hostile, but like this discussion, so don't read too
> much into any false tones due to poor choice of words at 2AM.
> 
> TLDR;
> 
> Everyone has a right to be mad about all of this.  Just direct it
> toward the ones doing it secretly.  Don't direct at the sites you
> buy stuff from, consume free content from, or interact with
> willingly.  When you enter into any transaction with another entity
> (monetary or not), you give that other entity a right to take a
> remember information about you.  What you look like, color of your
> eyes, height, etc.  You can't then get mad when that entity
> recognizes you on your second visit and puts dots together about
> your habits while you're on their site.
> 
> Be mad the the party you're NOT engaged with that's collecting the
> information.  US Defense Department.  That's it.
> 
> A tracking cookie is nothing to put a tinfoil hat on for.
> 
> On 07/16/2013 02:11 AM, Patrick Asselman wrote:
> >It's not unreasonable to ask your users these things, but it is
> >very unreasonable to simply go ahead and investigate all you can
> >about them without their consent. Compare it to sending a private
> >investigator after someone who just visited your grocery store.
> I think you're mixing two things here.  The private investigator
> should be thought of as the US Defense Department, as in the one who
> is doing this secretly and snooping for the purposes of snooping.  I
> fully advocate being angry at that.
> 
> However, what people have reacted to is things like tracking
> cookies, which 99% do not have any nefarious intent and are not in
> any way secret.  The simple facts about the HTTP protocol sort of
> require you to at least give up your IP address to make the
> connection, the page you want to visit, and some details about your
> system so that the web developers can work on optimizing the web
> site for you.  This is what the media have focused on and started to
> scare people with.
> 
> Even then, I don't think anyone should have any reasonable
> expectation of your visit to a web page being private.
> 
> If you walk into a movie theater, at least one person is going to
> see you.  You don't get to control who that person then tells about
> your presence at the movie theater.  The minute people start to
> think of the internet as a 'place', everyone will start to
> understand a bit more.
> >
> >You could also set up a little inquiry on some (free) inquiry site
> >and ask your customers kindly to participate in this inquiry so
> >that you will be able to help them better in the future.
> Sorry, but I don't think a form asking users to list every article
> they've read on CNN.com is reasonable.  Or whatever equivalent that
> is for other sites.  What items you've browsed on a shopping site
> for example.  You don't think Walmart review in store footage at
> test  stores to study people's browsing patterns, and change item
> placement and store arrangements accordingly?  Same thing.
> >
> >It's not new and it started out as not being unreasonable, but it
> >has grown way out of hand, to the extent that if the big guys go
> >and puzzle all the bits of gathered information together they can
> >create a file on you that contains way more than you want them to
> >know. There is a story on the 'net about a family who got targeted
> >with very specific advertisements for pregnant people, based on
> >their online behaviour. They got upset about it and thought it was
> >a mistake. It then turned out the woman *was* pregnant, but the
> >marketing people knew about it sooner than the family. Is that
> >where we want to go? I don't think so.
> The dramatic point in that is anecdotal.  The overall point doesn't
> really hit me either.  Free content is paid for by ads.  You can't
> want to continue enjoying free content, and then complain the ads
> are for "junk I don't even need."
> 
> In what way, specifically, has it gotten unresonable?  That they now
> know you check prices on NewEgg AND Amazon?  Or that you browse at
> Overstock, but then really buy at Buy.com?  I mean seriously, what
> is it that everyone is complaining about?  On a site like Amazon,
> that probably gets millions of pageviews a day, do you really think
> that a single Amazon employee is specifically stalking his
> ex-girlfriends shopping habits?  Well...maybe, but do you think that
> an Amazon employee is sitting there literally stalking YOUR shopping
> habits?  No!  That amount of data is all just aggregated by layers
> of software and algos.
> >
> >Which is exactly what people are doing by using these plugins :)
> >
> >True, you use a free service and agree to the terms and conditions
> >of that service. But you do want to know exactly what you are
> >getting into, and you want to have a choice. After PRISM people
> >are just not sure anymore how all that information is used. They
> >thought it was used in a trustworthy way, it turned out to go way
> >beyond their expectations. It's not strange that people are now
> >weary of all online information storage.
> Ah, I do agree with you here.  However, my point is that the anger
> should not be directed at those who we've trusted are data with.

Since when does walking into a store, real or vitual, buying something
or not, mean I'm trusting them with my data? They're getting it but
certainly not with my permission.

  I
> don't see them having broken anyone's trust.  The anger should be
> directed toward the secret FISA courts and those that operate PRISM
> and the like.  Once again, those are the ones that are secretly
> doing all this.  Everyone else's data collection is not secret.
> >
> >Yes you do, if you want. Some religions prescribe women to wear a
> >niqab. These woman can walk into buildings just fine.
> My analogy of a mask might've coincedentally been too literal.  Let
> me put it this way.  You don't get to walk into a grocery store with
> an invisibility cloak.
> >
> >It is the first one to leak that they are doing it, but there may
> >be more. The user just doesn't know.
> >New and bigger data centers are being opened all the time, but
> >there does not seem to be a good check as to what is stored for
> >how long and whether it is within legal limits.
> >
> >Having the footage is fine, but it would be nice if the footage
> >was also destroyed after the legal storage time has expired. Or
> >that a court order is needed to look into the footage. Society
> >needs to have assurance that these things are happening according
> >to the law, and that there is not some secret agreement made with
> >a secret 'judge' in a back room that it is okay from now till the
> >end of time to look into all information if there is some
> >suspicion (there always is *some* suspicion), and that the people
> >storing the footage are not allowed to talk to anyone about the
> >fact that these things are happening.
> >
> I agree a court order should be required for a THIRD party (US
> Defense Department) to look at the footage.  However, if you walk
> onto my property and I log your IP address, browser version, screen
> resolution, and whatever else, that's my perogative and I can store
> that as long as I want.  

Only if you asked for it and I had the right to refuse to give it to
you. If you obtained it surreptitiously I would probably arrange an
accident for you.

          ........snip........

> No, you can't blame them.  I'm not.  I just wish they didn't see
> people like me who use Google Analytics and other tracking software
> companies as the bad guys.  We have no interest in sharing our hard
> earned data with other organizations.  We keep it private to
> ourselves (and the company we use to retrive it obviously) 

The reasons are obvious and odious.

I absolutely see you and all people like you who use tracking software
as the lowest of bad guys....cleaned up in deference to the moderators. 
> 
> No, the only people you should be angry about are complete third
> parties.  So far, only the US Defense Department.  They are the only
> ones collecting data that have no reason or right to.

I'm fine with the reason but what makes you think you have the right?
Who gave it to you?

> If you're
> buying a news article from me, you have a right and I have a right.

You sold me the article, I paid you. End of transaction. You have no
further rights.

> You can't get made at either of those parties.  Go nuts on the
> Defense Department though.
> 
> Yet the media want to make us the bad guys with headlines
> like...."How much data are you giving away by shopping online?" -
> The answer to that is..."The same as if you walked into a store!" In
> fact, less, because you're not interacting with any particular
> person who could memorize your face and personally identify you.

Your attitude seems to be totally self serving. "Be angry at them, not
me/us"

Back to your hole.

-- 
Bob Holtzman
If you think you're getting free lunch, 
check the price of the beer.
Key ID: 8D549279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20130717/13ae61c4/attachment.sig>