4 ms·

Step 1: Give my data to someone. Step 2: That someone uses it to their benefit. Step 3: Complain to the authorities.

judge2020 7y ago
You don't go to websites in order to give your data to them, you go to websites to consume the content they're displaying. The role is more similar to this: 1. go to a restaurant, eat, give wait(ress|er) credit card to pay for food 2. wait(ress|er) uses it to pay for the food, but also takes a picture of credit card front and back, then later uses it to buy an expensive TV 3. complain to the authorities (or your bank) about the fraud
- hartator 7y ago
  A fairer comparison will be the restaurant selling what you look like to an advertising firm that will later find you back and push an ad to you.
  - clarry 7y ago
    What you look like, what did you order, did you consider ordering something else, what kind of clothes did you have on, cheap or expensive? What brand was your phone, what brand was your watch, who was accompanying you, how old do you appear to be, did it seem like a date or just a lunch? Was she pregnant? Did you arrive on foot or did you park a car in front of the restaurant? What brand was the car? Did you arrive by taxi? How much time did you spend looking at your phone? Did you use restaurant wifi? Which domains did you perhaps visit? Did you leave a tip? How many times did you use the bathroom?
- lone_haxx0r 7y ago
  Credit card payment, the way it works today, is a broken system. So, in your case, the root problem is using a broken system. Laws around credit card fraud are the only reason why the whole system doesn't collapse. With enough power, even a broken system "works". HTTP, on the other hand, is not a broken system, it's well designed for its use case: the client has the option of sending only the information that is completely necessary for the transaction, and nothing else, but users send more data than they need and then complain about it. Remember that cookies are sent by the web client, they are not violently stolen by the server or anything. Same principle applies for everything that happens through HTTP.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  But your browser does give out your data. A website doesn't know anything about you until your browser sends them some data. That's not the case in your restaurant example, because the waiter has eyes. He gets information from you by your mere presence whether you want it or not. That's not the case on the internet. To be clear, I think some privacy regulation is necessary, but there seems to be some kind of dissonance. People want a service, but are unwilling to pay for it nor give their data. Then they complain to the government that they should be able to get the service without payment anyway.
  - clarry 7y ago
    Uh the browser runs code that comes from the website. The website decides what the browser sends more than the user does.
    - Mirioron 7y ago
      Then make the browser block attempts of sending out that kind of data? That's all what the browser can do. Javascript can't force a browser to do something the browser doesn't want to.
      - clarry 7y ago
        I agree that we should break the web. Few others agree.
    - lone_haxx0r 7y ago
      The website doesn't decide, the browser does. The website merely suggests what could be sent by the browser.
      - clarry 7y ago
        That's a pointless technicality and irrelevant to the discussion. Largely as irrelevant as claiming that it's not my software that's spying on you, it's your CPU and my software is just suggesting your CPU what to do. For the past two decades browsers have been extended year after year to better run arbitrary applications delivered via the website. New tracking techniques crop up all the time and anti-tracking won't keep up, and often can't do much without breaking compatibility with the existing sites, not something browser vendors are willing to do, except when it serves Google's ends.
- msla 7y ago
  > wait(ress|er) Just as a point of interest, the old-fashioned gender-neutral term is "Waitron" and the new one is "Waitstaff" or "Waitperson", I suppose.
- njharman 7y ago
  Your analogy is flawed. Comparing a service given "freely" in exchange for some other non-monetary consideration to a service paid for. If you pay, there is expectation that that payment is totally of the exchange. If it's exchange for some other consideration (no idea why, but people think it really is free, it's not it's just not priced in money), there should be expectation that there is some other exchange. A better comparison would be "tv studio audience" you get seat/place to watch show live in exchange they get to use your voice and probably image. Same at sporting event. There probably even is an agreement outlining this exchange. There is also on websites, just no body reads them.

judge2020 7y ago

You don't go to websites in order to give your data to them, you go to websites to consume the content they're displaying. The role is more similar to this: 1. go to a restaurant, eat, give wait(ress|er) credit card to pay for food 2. wait(ress|er) uses it to pay for the food, but also takes a picture of credit card front and back, then later uses it to buy an expensive TV 3. complain to the authorities (or your bank) about the fraud

hartator 7y ago
A fairer comparison will be the restaurant selling what you look like to an advertising firm that will later find you back and push an ad to you.
- clarry 7y ago
  What you look like, what did you order, did you consider ordering something else, what kind of clothes did you have on, cheap or expensive? What brand was your phone, what brand was your watch, who was accompanying you, how old do you appear to be, did it seem like a date or just a lunch? Was she pregnant? Did you arrive on foot or did you park a car in front of the restaurant? What brand was the car? Did you arrive by taxi? How much time did you spend looking at your phone? Did you use restaurant wifi? Which domains did you perhaps visit? Did you leave a tip? How many times did you use the bathroom?
lone_haxx0r 7y ago
Credit card payment, the way it works today, is a broken system. So, in your case, the root problem is using a broken system. Laws around credit card fraud are the only reason why the whole system doesn't collapse. With enough power, even a broken system "works". HTTP, on the other hand, is not a broken system, it's well designed for its use case: the client has the option of sending only the information that is completely necessary for the transaction, and nothing else, but users send more data than they need and then complain about it. Remember that cookies are sent by the web client, they are not violently stolen by the server or anything. Same principle applies for everything that happens through HTTP.
Mirioron 7y ago
But your browser does give out your data. A website doesn't know anything about you until your browser sends them some data. That's not the case in your restaurant example, because the waiter has eyes. He gets information from you by your mere presence whether you want it or not. That's not the case on the internet. To be clear, I think some privacy regulation is necessary, but there seems to be some kind of dissonance. People want a service, but are unwilling to pay for it nor give their data. Then they complain to the government that they should be able to get the service without payment anyway.
- clarry 7y ago
  Uh the browser runs code that comes from the website. The website decides what the browser sends more than the user does.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    Then make the browser block attempts of sending out that kind of data? That's all what the browser can do. Javascript can't force a browser to do something the browser doesn't want to.
    - clarry 7y ago
      I agree that we should break the web. Few others agree.
  - lone_haxx0r 7y ago
    The website doesn't decide, the browser does. The website merely suggests what could be sent by the browser.
    - clarry 7y ago
      That's a pointless technicality and irrelevant to the discussion. Largely as irrelevant as claiming that it's not my software that's spying on you, it's your CPU and my software is just suggesting your CPU what to do. For the past two decades browsers have been extended year after year to better run arbitrary applications delivered via the website. New tracking techniques crop up all the time and anti-tracking won't keep up, and often can't do much without breaking compatibility with the existing sites, not something browser vendors are willing to do, except when it serves Google's ends.
msla 7y ago
> wait(ress|er) Just as a point of interest, the old-fashioned gender-neutral term is "Waitron" and the new one is "Waitstaff" or "Waitperson", I suppose.
njharman 7y ago
Your analogy is flawed. Comparing a service given "freely" in exchange for some other non-monetary consideration to a service paid for. If you pay, there is expectation that that payment is totally of the exchange. If it's exchange for some other consideration (no idea why, but people think it really is free, it's not it's just not priced in money), there should be expectation that there is some other exchange. A better comparison would be "tv studio audience" you get seat/place to watch show live in exchange they get to use your voice and probably image. Same at sporting event. There probably even is an agreement outlining this exchange. There is also on websites, just no body reads them.