8 ms·
I am happy that things are finally moving in the right direction. A person stalks you and they (rightfully) get punished. {Google, Facebook, ad networks} stalk
by danieldk 9y ago
I am happy that things are finally moving in the right direction. A person stalks you and they (rightfully) get punished. {Google, Facebook, ad networks} stalk you across the net, recording information about your interests, your fears, and your secrets, without permission. And they get away with a free pass. In fact, we celebrate them as startup success stories and want to work for them.
We should at least have a choice on whether they can track us or not. And when we say 'no thank you', that should be respected.
- cromwellian 9y agoHow can Facebook not know your interests, isn’t that the whole point of the Like button? How do you propose having a social network that lets you Like and Reshare stuff and not let them know?
- jacquesm 9y agoYou don't need to save each and every action for ever to build up a profile, you can just use it for the moment and then forget it. Just like on HN there is no page with 'favorite articles'. Oh wait ;)
- klez 9y agoThe fact that the favorites list is public is known and explicit. If you want to keep it private you can upvote what interests you.
- klez 9y agoIf Facebook tracks me outside of Facebook's website because that other website has tracking code or a like button (which I didn't click) and I don't have an account on Facebook, I'm not ok with that. I think that's what GP is referring to.
- cromwellian 9y agoAren’t the Like buttons distributed around the Web and used on purpose by publishers? If your reading the New York Times, there’s a like button on the story, if you click it, aren’t you explicitly telling Facebook your interested? Perhaps you object to the page impression being tracked even if you don’t like it? This seems unavoidable unless you mandate publishers host their own copy of the code behind these buttons and use a public API only to record the likes.
- detaro 9y ago> This seems unavoidable unless you mandate publishers host their own copy of the code behind these buttons and use a public API only to record the likes. Yes, that's the consequence (well, it does't really have to be an API triggered from the server, it can send the user there). Or a pattern where a user has to click a locally hosted link/button which then loads the Facebook one, and/or records permission to load it with further page visits. It's not really that much difference from an integration perspective if you include code in your page that loads a facebook iframe, or code that only does that after user interaction.
- emiliobumachar 9y agoAs far as I know, Like buttons are partially served by Facebook, which then knows I've accessed the site (the NYT in your example). This happens even if I do not click the button, do not hover over it, and do not have a Facebook account.
- merreborn 9y ago> Like buttons are partially served by Facebook Yes, the default configuration has your page include javascript from facebook.net which the browser will request on every page view https://developers.facebook.com/docs/plugins/like-button https://developers.facebook.com/docs/plugins/like-button In the case of this the theguardian.com page it looks like they've got a webbug as the last element of the body, which results in a request to https://www.facebook.com/tr https://www.facebook.com/tr? Having facebook count views of your like button is probably considered a feature to publishers.
- 9y ago
- pbalau 9y agoWhy not blame the other website that added the fb button on their page?
- klez 9y agoI blame both. I never said I only blame Facebook.
- ashooner 9y agoI'm not crazy about the current state of internet privacy, but I think it's a missed opportunity if we don't teach the general public just how much control they have over it. Most tracking being done can be prevented by a few modifications to web browser configuration. At the end of the day, we are sending Facebook our ID to be tracked. This is avoidable for a user with some knowledge and agency.
- paublyrne 9y agoI don't think the answer is to put the onus on users to be tech savvy. We should be structurally preventing the behaviour.
- CaptSpify 9y agoWhy not both? We can remind people that the internet is still a dangerous place, while also trying to discourage bad behaviour
- ashooner 9y agoBy structural, you mean regulatory. I agree that data stewardship should be much better-regulated than it is now. But right now I can install any number of tools on Google's own browser that mitigate most common tracking/privacy concerns. I don't necessarily agree that we need to increase government regulation to address a concern that a Chrome extension is already serving.
- s73v3r_ 9y agoWhile that should be taught, it should also be taught to companies that they should respect people's right to privacy.
- Barrin92 9y agothe answer to privacy violations cannot just be technological solutions on the consumer end. It's like having people break into your house every week and someone tells you to buy a good pair of boxing gloves. This warrants a political solution and I'm glad that the EU is moving into the right direction.
- wtfstatists 9y agoIf Facebook tracks me outside of Facebook's website because that other website has tracking code or a like button (which I didn't click) and I don't have an account on Facebook, I'm not ok with that. Then your beef is not with FB but the website which _chose_ to embed FB like button. You should stop using that website if you are not ok.
- monocasa 9y agoYeah, that's like 40% of the internet, including almost all news. The argument "just don't participate in society if you don't want people tracking every news report you read" doesn't really sit well with me.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- TomMarius 9y agoWell these are the terms of using the site. You are not entitled to anything.
- simion314 9y agoThe problem is that you are tracked by FB and Google on other websites, they know what you are reading and canalizing it, say they know what politics site you visit, what technology site you are reading, any other pages and then they put you in a bucket for advertising(say rich dude likes expensive tech, car videos, prefers dark color sites, not that smart, prefers this party, has X opinions on y) Google analytics should not be allowed without me getting a prompt to allow it or not, FB button should be a simple static image without tracking unless I click on it. Also they track users that are not logged in or do not have accounts.
- visarga 9y ago> Google analytics should not be allowed without me getting a prompt to allow it or not One way to go about it could be to force all these data collectors to show what they know about us, how much they shared and with whom, and allow us to delete that data on request. I'd really like to know everything FB tracks on those like buttons, it's probably an obscene amount of personal data. Once people see how much data they retain, there would be a righteous outrage. These datasets have been provably used to manipulate elections, subvert democracy and target us with fake news. I'd like a report of what fake news and politically motivated ads I've been served by their recommenders. Maybe if they are forced to come out in the clear about what they do with our personal info, they would change their tactics. We need reverse surveillance on FB and the other tech giants and ad companies.
- icebraining 9y agoIf you're not in the US or Canada, you can ask for all the data FB is storing about you: http://europe-v-facebook.org/EN/Get_your_Data_/get_your_data_.html http://europe-v-facebook.org/EN/Get_your_Data_/get_your_data...
- merreborn 9y ago> I'd really like to know everything FB tracks on those like buttons, it's probably an obscene amount of personal data. When you request a page like this guardian article, all they'd have access to would be: * The url you requested, along with time and IP * Any facebook.com/facebook.net cookies you have stored * Any other headers your browser sends * Metadata about the page itself that the publisher publishes via "og:" tags Said og: tags look like this: <meta property="og:title" content="Facebook ordered to stop collecting user data by Belgian court"/> How does that compare with what you meant by "obscene amount of personal data"?
- ryandrake 9y agoI agree with you, and saying "no thank you" should not even be necessary. Continuing your example, should stalkers be allowed to stalk you up until the point where you deliberately request that they don't?
- slededit 9y agoYour analogy fails because for most people facebook is not a "stranger" as they already have an account with them. In the case of acquaintances there is more of an onus to inform them if you wish to minimize your contact.
- jhasse 9y agoFacebook tracks you even without an account.
- ryandrake 9y agoSo if I buy a watch from someone on Craigslist, he's no longer a "stranger" and the onus is now on me to explicitly inform him to not follow me around? Doing business with someone or some business should not imply consent to their monitoring you.
- slededit 9y agoYou describe a one-off transaction in which no expectation of future contact is anticipated. Facebook is an account with an on going relationship. Its the difference between seeing someone multiple times and saying hello to a stranger on the train. I'm not saying they don't take it too far, but certainly someone with an account has invited facebook to do some data collection and tracking.
- TazeTSchnitzel 9y agoFacebook also spies on people who have never used the service.
- visarga 9y ago
- briandear 9y agoCal Pen Code § 646.9 . Stalking. (2008) (a) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family is guilty of the crime of stalking... In California, stalking requires both malice AND a credible threat to safety. Comparing Facebook or Google tracking to stalking is, at least in California, highly inaccurate. There is actually no crime in following someone around. The crime happens when it's done maliciously and with the intent to create a reasonable fear. Facebook isn't trying to instill fear. That's not their intent at all. To be clear, I'm not defending Facebook, I'm just calling out the hyperbolic nonsense that gets thrown around in these discussions.
- danieldk 9y agoIn daily use people (at least here) will also use the word 'stalking' for obsessively following a person physically or online. Or if you want to stick to definitions: verb (used with object) 5. to pursue (game, a person, etc.) stealthily. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/stalking?s=t http://www.dictionary.com/browse/stalking?s=t
- vonmoltke 9y agoPeople don't get punished for that definition of "stalking", which you specifically referenced in your first post.
- wu-ikkyu 9y agoI would consider the mental/emotional manipulation of billions of people solely for monetary gain to be malicious. Fear is a cash cow for advertising. Your safety is indeed at stake when so much sensitive personal information is aggregated and centralized by anonymous persons and then sold to other unknown parties.
- Crespyl 9y ago> Facebook isn't trying to instill fear Except for when they're running psychological experiments designed to manipulate the emotional state of their users.
- zavi 9y agoConsumers have a choice of not using the service. It's possible to survive without using Facebook.
- TomMarius 9y agoCareful, last time I made this argument here I lost over 100 karma
- Teichopsia 9y agoTrue. But we are not the average consumer. We know better and can make an informed decision.
- wcarron 9y agoExcept for the fact that facebook tracks you even if you do not nor have ever created an account. We can survive without facebook, but it is a leech that cannot survive without our data.
- Feniks 9y agoFacebook is tracking everyone including non users. That's what those Like buttons do.
- tmnvix 9y agoAre facebook 'shadow' profiles not real?
- xster 9y agoI wonder, if a European implementation of the TPP existed and passed, whether Facebook could have sued Belgium('s public coffers) back for lost profits.
- digitalni 9y agoI like your analogy. This is classic stalking and I'm glad that something is finally being done about it.
- tripzilch 9y ago"No thank you" is such an archaic term; The cool kids these days are given the option to "Agree later".