5 ms·

https://www.wsj.com/public/current/summaries/hypefaq.htm https://www.wsj.com/public/current/summaries/hypefaq.htm "Do I Have Privacy On-Line? While you sign o

by pmlnr 8y ago

https://www.wsj.com/public/current/summaries/hypefaq.htm https://www.wsj.com/public/current/summaries/hypefaq.htm "Do I Have Privacy On-Line? While you sign on to the Internet and blithely zap and receive electronic mail, visit Web sites and bare your soul in on-line discussion groups, you are increasingly being watched and tracked. Every move you make on the Internet can be followed, and the information gathered can be used against you." Is this really from 1996? EDIT: Looking at the site HTML, it looks very legit, or someone remembers way too well how '96 HTML looked like.

oelmekki 8y ago
I wonder what the doctype is supposed to mean: > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//Dow Jones//DTD DJ-HTML//EN"> What is supposed to be a copyright notice or something?
- grzm 8y ago
  The DOCTYPE element technically describes the Document Type Definition (DTD). The HTML there doesn't mean it's an HTML document: it means the root element of the document is an HTML tag. The "-//Dow Jones//DTD DJ-HTML//EN" is a Formal Public Identifier, which specifies the actual DTD. The vast majority of sites don't actually guarantee their HTML is valid or even well-formed. In the grand scheme of things, this is most likely cruft left over from the early days of when the site was published and a lot of these things were more up in the air. For a bit more detail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_type_declaration#Syntax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_type_declaration#Synt...
  - chrisfinazzo 8y ago
    It's never really gone away either. Even now, provided you take the time to learn the format, custom DTD's are still very much a thing. http://leancrew.com/all-this/2014/09/sgml-nostalgia/ http://leancrew.com/all-this/2014/09/sgml-nostalgia/
- pjc50 8y ago
  That's quite remarkable. I can only assume that, like most people writing HTML by hand, they copy-pasted the boilerplate from some other page without really understanding it. I can find no other references to this on Google, the best I can do is: http://xml.coverpages.org/mdml.html http://xml.coverpages.org/mdml.html which links to http://xml.coverpages.org/dow-mdml-dtd20010105.txt http://xml.coverpages.org/dow-mdml-dtd20010105.txt : that refers to <!DOCTYPE mds-results PUBLIC "-//Dow Jones//DTD MDML//EN"> The original Dow Jones page from that era according to the Internet Archive (and this is an amazing thing in itself!) just has <HTML>, no DOCTYPE. In 1997 it acquires <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML//EN">
pjc50 8y ago
Yes, it's legit. See their more detailed story: https://www.wsj.com/public/current/articles/SB848585925823144000.htm https://www.wsj.com/public/current/articles/SB84858592582314... Which references "Lexis-Nexis P-TRAK": https://www.alternet.org/story/6981/lexis-nexis_backs_down_on_p-trak https://www.alternet.org/story/6981/lexis-nexis_backs_down_o... (2000) I remember this era of the Internet, and it's astonishing how little the debate has progressed on so many of the subjects. The EU has chosen in favour of privacy with data protection, boosted recently by GDPR. But state surveillance is still an issue, huge insecure private databases are still an issue. People are still arguing about censorship: https://www.wsj.com/public/current/articles/SB848381449114304500.htm https://www.wsj.com/public/current/articles/SB84838144911430... Broadband is still inadequate: https://www.wsj.com/public/current/articles/SB84811906424727500.htm https://www.wsj.com/public/current/articles/SB84811906424727... The SEC is still trying to deal with fraudulent securities, most recently in the form of ICOs: https://www.wsj.com/public/current/articles/SB849537190500897500.htm https://www.wsj.com/public/current/articles/SB84953719050089... People are still conspicuously flouncing off the internet when they don't get what they want: https://www.wsj.com/public/current/articles/SB849638694139306000.htm https://www.wsj.com/public/current/articles/SB84963869413930...
rconti 8y ago
I mean, yeah. If you ran your company's mail server it was trivial to read everyone's mail, for example. The reason you didn't is the same reason you don't do the snooping you could do today -- it's too boring. However, automated data collection has gotten far more advanced.
- hermitdev 8y ago
  > it's too boring. I don't know about that...I once had a compliance officer at a hedge fund I used to work at tell me to my face that any time he was bored, he'd open up my chat logs and follow the links. Most of the links were technical, some were memes, a few slightly unsavory variety (nothing nearly as bad as what floats around on a trading desk, though).
froasty 8y ago
If you think that's prescient, take a look at the Privacy Protection Study Commission's Report to Congress twenty years before that in 1977: https://www.epic.org/privacy/ppsc1977report/epilogue.pdf https://www.epic.org/privacy/ppsc1977report/epilogue.pdf https://www.epic.org/privacy/ppsc1977report/appendix5.pdf https://www.epic.org/privacy/ppsc1977report/appendix5.pdf Or Paul Baran's testimony to Congress in 1965: "The initial questions are those of examining the proposed central file system, considering its weak spots, and creating a precise description of those safeguards required that are technologically and economically feasible. If the gap is too great, then clearly we should not build the system; But as a practical matter--we should realize that eventual development is almost inevitable. We would do well to concentrate on the more constructive and larger issue of how shall we control the development of the automation of all sensitive information files in order to [...] protect the rights of the individual and avoid a “1984” nation? This may sound pessimistic, but if one can save money automating a data system it is only a matter of time until it happens. The only questions are: when and how? I would like to add the further distressing thought that we may already be well-along in the creation of the very system whose needs and dangers we are discussing today."

by pmlnr 8y ago

oelmekki 8y ago

I wonder what the doctype is supposed to mean: > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//Dow Jones//DTD DJ-HTML//EN"> What is supposed to be a copyright notice or something?

grzm 8y ago
The DOCTYPE element technically describes the Document Type Definition (DTD). The HTML there doesn't mean it's an HTML document: it means the root element of the document is an HTML tag. The "-//Dow Jones//DTD DJ-HTML//EN" is a Formal Public Identifier, which specifies the actual DTD. The vast majority of sites don't actually guarantee their HTML is valid or even well-formed. In the grand scheme of things, this is most likely cruft left over from the early days of when the site was published and a lot of these things were more up in the air. For a bit more detail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_type_declaration#Syntax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_type_declaration#Synt...
- chrisfinazzo 8y ago
  It's never really gone away either. Even now, provided you take the time to learn the format, custom DTD's are still very much a thing. http://leancrew.com/all-this/2014/09/sgml-nostalgia/ http://leancrew.com/all-this/2014/09/sgml-nostalgia/
pjc50 8y ago
That's quite remarkable. I can only assume that, like most people writing HTML by hand, they copy-pasted the boilerplate from some other page without really understanding it. I can find no other references to this on Google, the best I can do is: http://xml.coverpages.org/mdml.html http://xml.coverpages.org/mdml.html which links to http://xml.coverpages.org/dow-mdml-dtd20010105.txt http://xml.coverpages.org/dow-mdml-dtd20010105.txt : that refers to <!DOCTYPE mds-results PUBLIC "-//Dow Jones//DTD MDML//EN"> The original Dow Jones page from that era according to the Internet Archive (and this is an amazing thing in itself!) just has <HTML>, no DOCTYPE. In 1997 it acquires <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML//EN">

pjc50 8y ago

Yes, it's legit. See their more detailed story: https://www.wsj.com/public/current/articles/SB848585925823144000.htm https://www.wsj.com/public/current/articles/SB84858592582314... Which references "Lexis-Nexis P-TRAK": https://www.alternet.org/story/6981/lexis-nexis_backs_down_on_p-trak https://www.alternet.org/story/6981/lexis-nexis_backs_down_o... (2000) I remember this era of the Internet, and it's astonishing how little the debate has progressed on so many of the subjects. The EU has chosen in favour of privacy with data protection, boosted recently by GDPR. But state surveillance is still an issue, huge insecure private databases are still an issue. People are still arguing about censorship: https://www.wsj.com/public/current/articles/SB848381449114304500.htm https://www.wsj.com/public/current/articles/SB84838144911430... Broadband is still inadequate: https://www.wsj.com/public/current/articles/SB84811906424727500.htm https://www.wsj.com/public/current/articles/SB84811906424727... The SEC is still trying to deal with fraudulent securities, most recently in the form of ICOs: https://www.wsj.com/public/current/articles/SB849537190500897500.htm https://www.wsj.com/public/current/articles/SB84953719050089... People are still conspicuously flouncing off the internet when they don't get what they want: https://www.wsj.com/public/current/articles/SB849638694139306000.htm https://www.wsj.com/public/current/articles/SB84963869413930...

rconti 8y ago

I mean, yeah. If you ran your company's mail server it was trivial to read everyone's mail, for example. The reason you didn't is the same reason you don't do the snooping you could do today -- it's too boring. However, automated data collection has gotten far more advanced.

hermitdev 8y ago
> it's too boring. I don't know about that...I once had a compliance officer at a hedge fund I used to work at tell me to my face that any time he was bored, he'd open up my chat logs and follow the links. Most of the links were technical, some were memes, a few slightly unsavory variety (nothing nearly as bad as what floats around on a trading desk, though).

froasty 8y ago

If you think that's prescient, take a look at the Privacy Protection Study Commission's Report to Congress twenty years before that in 1977: https://www.epic.org/privacy/ppsc1977report/epilogue.pdf https://www.epic.org/privacy/ppsc1977report/epilogue.pdf https://www.epic.org/privacy/ppsc1977report/appendix5.pdf https://www.epic.org/privacy/ppsc1977report/appendix5.pdf Or Paul Baran's testimony to Congress in 1965: "The initial questions are those of examining the proposed central file system, considering its weak spots, and creating a precise description of those safeguards required that are technologically and economically feasible. If the gap is too great, then clearly we should not build the system; But as a practical matter--we should realize that eventual development is almost inevitable. We would do well to concentrate on the more constructive and larger issue of how shall we control the development of the automation of all sensitive information files in order to [...] protect the rights of the individual and avoid a “1984” nation? This may sound pessimistic, but if one can save money automating a data system it is only a matter of time until it happens. The only questions are: when and how? I would like to add the further distressing thought that we may already be well-along in the creation of the very system whose needs and dangers we are discussing today."