11 ms·
It's not just Facebook. Thousands of companies are spying on you
- comportboy 9y agoGoogle can ID your web browser uniquely. If you've ever logged in to Google just once in your lifetime, they know it's you forever. They cross it with your location, your movements, your emails, expenses, everything. There is no single more spooky company than Google.
- code_duck 9y agoAs demoed on EFF’s Panopticlick site, anyone can. My browser tests as unique and it’s stock Safari on an iPhone.
- dunham 9y agoDoes it test as unique on subsequent visits?
- code_duck 9y agoWith subsequent visits I get “one in 339162.0 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours” and so forth, with the number decreasing each time. Clearing cookies makes no difference - the hash of WebGL and Canvas fingerprints stay the same.
- sdiepend 9y ago:( Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 1,357,338 tested so far.
- Retric 9y ago1 in 1,357,338 could easily be 10,000+ devices considering how fast these fingerprints change and how many users are out there. Geographic location is a much larger issue.
- cinquemb 9y agoI know this is probably going to sound like magic to some, but you know, one can control, if they so choose to, what one's browser (if one uses a FOSS browser) sends over the network by modifying the code and recompiling it for oneself…
- mercora 9y agoi bet disabling these features make you stick out even more ;D
- cinquemb 9y agoWho said anything about disabling… some actors spoof information all the time to appear as if they are somewhere/someone else or even a someone (bots) in the first place. On the topic of disabling, if one disabled javascript by default, one would get the immediate effect of not seeing most of the advertising on the web (outside of submarine articles). I bet people telling others that they "need" this shit to use the web probably has significant overlap with those who say they "need" Facebook (or any other random app) or else there would be no other way to find events or things to do. Like without facebook groups, one would die! lol
- a_imho 9y agoIndeed, obfuscation and sending noise is one obvious countermeasure and that space needs more exploring. Google banned Adnauseam on Chrome just for tinkering with the idea.
- singularity2001 9y agowhile theoretically possible there are enough people monitoring Google's JavaScript to make sure that they will never use fingerprinting on you. Or do they?
- singularity2001 9y agoCan someone please revive Random Agent Spoofer?
- chopin 9y agoIt's better to switch off JavaScript. Try panopticlick with and without it.
- mercora 9y agoi just tried but sadly it did not finish without allowing js on their site and for both of the thirdparty tests. It might would have finished if i would not have enabled this test though. However, even if it would show better results then my user agent and accept header is apprently pretty unique anyhow. But why bother.. My ip addresses do not change that often.
- singularity2001 9y agoyes, noscript is a must, however not enough against fingerprinting
- code_duck 9y agoI assumed that all large sites use code like this to filter out fraudulent and abusive accounts.
- mehrdadn 9y agoYes, Google has all this information. No, it hasn't been as careless with it as Facebook. If that counts for nothing in your threat model then your model is useless and you're just spreading FUD.
- malvosenior 9y ago“Google is less evil than Facebook” is absolutely not something you should assume in your threat model.
- r00fus 9y agoWhile your statement is true, it's best to talk probabilties. If you calculate the likelihood that companyX is a) hoarding sensitive data about you AND b) isn't competent at securing said data, I'd rate Google as less of a threat because I estimate (b) is much less likely. The best way to win is not to play. I block cookies, scripts and also don't use FB or much of Google except search & email.
- gt_ 9y agoBeing “competent at securing your data” is useless when they are incentivized to utilize it. Usually, when an entity motivated against our best interests is considered “competent”, we calculate that they are more of a threat. This makes fine sense to me. Why would one reason differently about Google? It looks illogical to me. Google is a company. Google is optimized for profit, not data privacy. Quite the contrary, of course. And that isn’t changing any time soon. Right now, they have a lot of surplus, but that can change, which will effect the nature of their optimization’s. For that reason, we should consider the incentives since they are evidently the core motivation of Google’s behavior. If I’m not mistaken, you are encouraging others to trust an unrelated entity known to be incentivized against their best interests. Sounds like a tough sell to put it lightly.
- the_other 9y ago> ... much of Google except search & email. This reads like self-satire.
- nukeop 9y agoThere's so many things that can change your fingerprint that their methods are useless, unless you continue to use their products willingly and don't block their scripts. Without your willful participation, they are quite helpless.
- wyck 9y agoGeo-location is the scary metric, peoples habits / when/ where is a trove of data, it can be analyzed much more deeply.
- praet 9y agoIsn't this already known for years? I might be wrong but feel like the whole thing with Cambridge Analytica was more about accurately influencing public opinion than it was about data being leaked. This is kind of dumbing down the issue, but: anyone not well-versed in implications of privacy violations would feel way stronger when claiming "Mark Zuckerburg is partly responsible for Donald Trump becaming president" versus "Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft have data which will make you more susceptible to spending slightly more money [...on something you don't actually need]"
- blat001 9y ago100% agree, Im a little surprised how shocked everyone is in this "exposure" as if you look at any AdTech they talk about this as a standard feature (audience matching etc...)
- jackvalentine 9y ago> 100% agree, Im a little surprised how shocked everyone is in this "exposure" I'd recommend you try and spend more time with 'regular' people rather than tech bubble then. What you're seeing here is this knowledge breaking further in to the mainstream.
- stareatgoats 9y agoI disagree. What we're seeing here IMO is targeted influencing in it's own right. "Regular people" are way too susceptible to influence - period. In this case it is the joint forces of old media (who are vying to keep their obsolete business idea of peddling influence using paid ads), and governments who are seeing their tax-base dwindle when global tech companies move to tax havens, and certain tech competitors pointing fingers away from themselves: all whom are targeting Facebook to set an example. Add a sprinkle of righteous outrage at the unethical tactics of Cambridge Analytica and how the Trump Campaign was able to use data that the DNC would rather have exclusive access to. "Regular people" don't care that their data is hoarded, they only start caring when it is framed nefariously (and disingenuously) by interests like the above.
- amanzi 9y agoThis is the tradeoff for getting free stuff on the internet. But surely there has to be a balance between watching adverts to pay for free services, and handing over all privacy in return.
- toomanybeersies 9y agoThe bigger irk for me is when you pay a company for a product, and then they still sell your data anyway.
- ShorsHammer 9y agoExactly, the "you paid nothing so you're the product" trope is patently false. Spend $1000's a year on sites that are still highly invasive. Using blockers and disabling js often breaks them. Does this business really need to send my data off to a dozen 3rd parties to upsell me on a drillbit set?
- feelin_googley 9y agoPerspicuous! Why do it? Because they can? Without Javascript it would not be as easy. With the help of the "modern browser" and its defaults, its like shooting fish in a barrel. The original HTTP/1.1 RFC has some reasonably low limits on simultaneous connections; todays ad-sponsored browsers ignore them. Turn off Javascript and the web marketing Rube Goldberg machines begin to fail. Most web pages try to coax users into turning on Javascript, or even installing a different browser. At this point, a web developer will jump in and try to convince us the web cannot work without Javascript. This is false. There was e-commerce on the web before Java1 or Javascript. 1. Java began life as a language intended to be embedded in devices. It was repurposed to be a scripting language for the web. That was a failure. Javascript is a "success" but in the ways that it is abused, it can be every bit as annoying as a 1990s Java applet.
- beagle3 9y agoIt’s not false. If you didn’t pay, you are the product. If you did pay, you may or may not be the product. But that’s not covered by the trope.
- ttflee 9y agoIn a privacy-less future, one has to learn how to achieve goals without revealing intentions by hiding them in randomized behaviors and words. One has to practice double-think, triple-think or even recursive-onion-think.
- mlb_hn 9y agoIt's continuing to like the most recent Facebook exposure is going to get a lot more public interest than Equifax or other previous exposures over the last decade. The author suggests that the key difference now is GDPR compliance will ultimately force the public to routinely pay attention to the personal data industry.
- headsoup 9y agoOf course they are, and up till now they didn't even need to be shy about it. Let's hope things change this time Start here: http://www.internetremoval.com/directory/ http://www.internetremoval.com/directory/
- jonbarker 9y agoThe only thing keeping all most people's app download history from getting leaked is fb's (and others') threat of kicking the app download ad partners off their platform. They usually don't do that, and it's always reactive, meaning the damage is already done.
- swang720 9y agoThere's an old adage that I go by–if you're not paying for a product, you are the product.
- wruza 9y agoLikely, but the inverse may be not true.
- dqpb 9y agoLike The New York Times, where you pay, and they serve you ads, and they collect your data.
- taneq 9y agoI find it so frustrating when people trot out the "if you're no the customer, you're the product" about Android and then claim that it's impossible for Apple to monetize your data just because you also paid through the nose for that shiny iPhone.
- beagle3 9y agoI have never seen anyone claim that Apple cannot monetize your data; only that, at present, they do not.
- snomad 9y agoI guess. But Windows 10 and Amazon Echo are bought and paid for products that seem to be joining the spy-on-you-game.
- walrus01 9y agoWindows 10 is basically free considering it comes on $100 tablets now, and you can easily buy OEM win10 home licenses on eBay for $6. And the fact that they upgraded all win7 users to win10 for "free". Microsoft expects to make money from office365 subscriptions, xbox game store purchases, azure, etc.
- zombieprocesses 9y agoAlmost every company is spying on you online. Including CNN and hacker news. The question is why is everyone picking on FB? In china or russia, Xi or Putin orders the institutions to attack so and so and the media/government hounds an entity. What happened with FB? Was it just an magical organic process where the media, government, etc all decided to attack FB all at once? That's quite a coincidence. What's even more interesting is how britain, canada and western europe also joined in as well. I'm not a fan of FB. I've never had a FB account and never will. But what has happened in the past year vis a vis FB is quite astounding. I don't think there has been a day on HN the past year where we didn't have a hit piece on FB.
- rndmind 9y agoOther websites are different. facebook is performing one big MITM attack between friends and family, and shameless siphoning and selling all information to nefarious bidders.
- aylmao 9y agoI'm all for privacy, but I'm also all for facts and reason, and some of this comments are getting incendiary. > facebook is performing one big MITM Is it a MITM attack if you choose to use that platform? That's like saying Uber is kidnapping, because you're in someone else's car. The whole point of MITM is you don't know there's a MITM. > shameless siphoning Accurate. > selling all information to nefarious bidders The data by CA was not sold, it was stolen. Facebook sells targeted ads.
- Natsu 9y ago> Is it a MITM attack if you choose to use that platform? They also build 'shadow profiles' of people who don't, though.
- aylmao 9y agoThat's sketchy, but not a MITM since there's no communication to or from a shadow profile. Again, I'm all for privacy and it's unceasing that facebook has profiles of people without their knowledge, but just trying to keep the discourse rational cause I've seen a lot of very sentimental and fearful posts, which lead to an irrational collective discourse, which just leads to chaos and unproductive conversations.
- nkkollaw 9y agoI opened the article. My ad blocker blocked 20 scripts, the page somehow managed to still load something from facebook.com--which was the last script to load and froze the page, and then a video started playing automatically. Doesn't look like CNN can preach anything.
- rosege 9y agoThis reminded me of Scott McNealy from 1999 saying you have no privacy get over it! https://www.wired.com/1999/01/sun-on-privacy-get-over-it/ https://www.wired.com/1999/01/sun-on-privacy-get-over-it/
- avoidit 9y agoTo everyone who is saying "What's the big deal? Wasn't all of this obvious and well known?" - ask 10 people you know who the parent company of WhatsApp and Instagram is (and throw in an irrelevant app in there just to make it less predictable). If your friends list is across a reasonable cross spectrum of age and job titles, I am guessing not more than 2 of them would know the answer. Or, if you want to make it a little more humorous, ask "So what do you think of the recent Facebook scandal?". At least a few of them would say "Oh! I don't use Facebook anymore! I only use WhatsApp"
- oculusthrift 9y agohad a non-tech friend recently message me this (about brian acton from WhatsApp tweeting against Facebook): "so dumb. of course the founder of a competing company would criticize them"
- dotsh 9y agoBecause normal users are not techies. They just use whatever they want and not getting into their company information, privacy or other things. World is about money. You have to realize that that best money come form people who don't give a f$#k. They click on ads, they give their personal data, they buy the most, etc. We can rant as much as we want that Apple does not give us PRO hardware that Microsoft does the same but most of their income is from ordinary people who just use their hardware/software.
- mar77i 9y agoTech-savvy person here, "big deal" isn't what I'm wondering. How on earth, though, is this "big news"?
- soziawa 9y agoBecause it started with Trump and Trump makes people click on headlines. They have now realised that Facbeook is bad also makes people click on headlines. That's all. In any half serious newspaper this isn't big news but more of a reminder of a story they ran when Facebook launched this shit.
- 9y ago
- kingname 9y agoEspecially in China, almost all the android apps will steal your personal info, such as all your contracts, all your sms, all your photos, all other apps and etc.
- mobilemidget 9y agoAnd not only companies, probably your government too
- pi-squared 9y agoThis is a standard media trick (and also common people's rationalization) - oh, it's not just X that's bad for you, see everything else - it's also bad for you too. You might as well stick with what you know. Suddenly, people feel they have no choice and the story is over in a day or two, everything's back to normal. The difference is these few days blew off the periphery of uncertain users. It won't hurt them now, but in the long run - it may be like tobacco. Annectodal example from here on. I've tried many times to quit Facebook, these latest ones threw me off board for good. I tried to do it smartly by contacting people I know and want to keep in touch with and then posted on my wall and my profile pic that I am going out of fb for good. I gave (I think reasonable) 72 hours and some people did reach out and most congratulated me. Which means a lot of people want it, they get its bad for them but "everybody is there" is the main argument. I don't try to convince them, I just tell them where they can find me. Tonight I am out for good.
- HenryBemis 9y agoIt's the well known "whataboutitsm" (what-about-ism). Distract, divert, confuse and conquer!!! Works-every-time. In every (media controlled) topic!
- im3w1l 9y ago"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." - Cardinal_Richelieu You need to ask yourself "what about..." and make sure your target truly is the worst offender and not just the most publicized offender, or you become the attack dog of the media.
- forgottenpass 9y agoIs this whataboutism? It reads like "its worse than you thought"ism. If the author is calling for regulation of the category that includes facebook, how is he distracting and diverting attention from facebook?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mar77i 9y agoFrom a while ago, this famous onion piece... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juQcZO_WnsI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juQcZO_WnsI
- throw2016 9y agoThis site itself is full of people who see nothing wrong in the invasive stalking of users by facebook or google inspite of knowing about their practices well before the public. If there was any serious concern you won't need a whistleblower. While facebook is bad, Google and Android is far worse. Singling out facebook without comment on the unrestrained greed and ethical vacuum in the engineering community that makes this possible seems not only insincere but also feels like a hatchet job by vested interests, happy to replace facebook with their version of the 'users are dumb' and laugh their way to the bank. The community here is deeply intertwined with invasive practices and implementing and defending them for years now and cannot simply wash their hands away.
- johnnyOnTheSpot 9y agos/spying on/recouping their investment in/
- equalunique 9y agoThis link here on HN should include a disclaimer that CNN has a vested interest in you spending less time looking at facebook.com and more time looking at cnn.com.
- sctb 9y agoPlease stop repeating this.