5 ms·

Uh, Gabriel made a point by point analysis of the issue, and your response is "fud" and "many of us see right through"? Can you please stick to responding to th

by ellyagg 16y ago

Uh, Gabriel made a point by point analysis of the issue, and your response is "fud" and "many of us see right through"? Can you please stick to responding to the issue and not engaging in your own contentless smear?

coderdude 16y ago
I'm not spreading any fear, uncertainty, or doubt with my response. In what way should this blog post rectify the view of donttrack.us and that billboard in the eyes of the people who think it's a load of crap?
seanalltogether 16y ago
Gabriel has been avoiding the 2 most important points though. 1. Most of this is theoretical 2. Theoretically advertisers can build profiles of you based on the web pages you visit anyway. Referer leakage or not
- joh6nn 16y ago
  1) actually, to my understanding it's a pretty common practice. i know that i at least have been served ads based on queries i just made, or pages that i just visited. i'd be very surprised if i was the only one here on HN who has had that experience. 2) that's certainly true, but i'd say that means we should be concerned about those alternate methods as well, not that we shouldn't be concerned about this one.
  - seanalltogether 16y ago
    1. I don't doubt that google (who owns 60% of ad space online) doesn't have some kind of profiling on you already, but they don't need http referers to build that data. Hell, even the example email in the blog has nothing to do with referer tracking, unless gabriel is suggesting that wikipedia is running hidden ad trackers on their pages.
    - joh6nn 16y ago
      well, i think Gabriel's point (though he's had some trouble getting it across) is not that Google is building the profile on you, but rather that other ad networks are. you do raise an excellent point about the email example, though. hopefully Gabriel or Matt could shed some light on that?
- grhino 16y ago
  Profiles based on the web pages you visit is different from the search terms used to find those web sites. People are more honest with their search engine than they are with their family. I do not place as high a value on privacy as others. I hope that doesn't bite me in the butt someday.
- benologist 16y ago
  The only part that's theoretical is the extent we're being tracked online but there's plenty to suggest it's "as much as possible". - Google's targets ads based on your browsing history - that could include Search, Analytics, AdSense, DoubleClick, and a whole ton of other data they have and collect. [1] Rapleaf tracks so much that it's actually "a challenge" not to identify people. [2] QuantCast settled for $2.4 million for making sure their precious tracking cookies were recreated if you delete them. [3] Facebook just tried to give apps your fricking phone number and address. [4] Google and their referral leaking is not really "the bad guy" in all of this - there's no bad guy, just a bunch of companies consuming and analyzing as much data as they can get their hands on. It's not evil, but is it necessary? [1] http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/making-ads-more-interesting.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/making-ads-more-inter... [2] http://blog.rapleaf.com/dev/2010/07/20/anonymouse/ http://blog.rapleaf.com/dev/2010/07/20/anonymouse/ [3] http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/12/zombie-cookie-settlement/ http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/12/zombie-cookie-settlem... [4] http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/18/5868697-facebook-wont-share-phone-numbers-addresses-for-now http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/18/5868697-face...
  - iamelgringo 16y ago
    It's not evil, but is it necessary? Gathering all this data is necessary and essential for any company who's primary product is their users personal information. (see: Google, Facebook, et al..) And, corporations being what they are, people within that corporation will optimize to try and make as much money as possible off of that information, because it is in the corporations best interest.
    - benologist 16y ago
      "More money" for them doesn't make it necessary for any of us.
      - coderdude 16y ago
        It does if you feel like using their services for free. Otherwise, feel free to opt-out entirely by not using their resources.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

by ellyagg 16y ago

coderdude 16y ago

I'm not spreading any fear, uncertainty, or doubt with my response. In what way should this blog post rectify the view of donttrack.us and that billboard in the eyes of the people who think it's a load of crap?

seanalltogether 16y ago

Gabriel has been avoiding the 2 most important points though. 1. Most of this is theoretical 2. Theoretically advertisers can build profiles of you based on the web pages you visit anyway. Referer leakage or not

joh6nn 16y ago
1) actually, to my understanding it's a pretty common practice. i know that i at least have been served ads based on queries i just made, or pages that i just visited. i'd be very surprised if i was the only one here on HN who has had that experience. 2) that's certainly true, but i'd say that means we should be concerned about those alternate methods as well, not that we shouldn't be concerned about this one.
- seanalltogether 16y ago
  1. I don't doubt that google (who owns 60% of ad space online) doesn't have some kind of profiling on you already, but they don't need http referers to build that data. Hell, even the example email in the blog has nothing to do with referer tracking, unless gabriel is suggesting that wikipedia is running hidden ad trackers on their pages.
  - joh6nn 16y ago
    well, i think Gabriel's point (though he's had some trouble getting it across) is not that Google is building the profile on you, but rather that other ad networks are. you do raise an excellent point about the email example, though. hopefully Gabriel or Matt could shed some light on that?
grhino 16y ago
Profiles based on the web pages you visit is different from the search terms used to find those web sites. People are more honest with their search engine than they are with their family. I do not place as high a value on privacy as others. I hope that doesn't bite me in the butt someday.
benologist 16y ago
The only part that's theoretical is the extent we're being tracked online but there's plenty to suggest it's "as much as possible". - Google's targets ads based on your browsing history - that could include Search, Analytics, AdSense, DoubleClick, and a whole ton of other data they have and collect. [1] Rapleaf tracks so much that it's actually "a challenge" not to identify people. [2] QuantCast settled for $2.4 million for making sure their precious tracking cookies were recreated if you delete them. [3] Facebook just tried to give apps your fricking phone number and address. [4] Google and their referral leaking is not really "the bad guy" in all of this - there's no bad guy, just a bunch of companies consuming and analyzing as much data as they can get their hands on. It's not evil, but is it necessary? [1] http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/making-ads-more-interesting.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/making-ads-more-inter... [2] http://blog.rapleaf.com/dev/2010/07/20/anonymouse/ http://blog.rapleaf.com/dev/2010/07/20/anonymouse/ [3] http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/12/zombie-cookie-settlement/ http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/12/zombie-cookie-settlem... [4] http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/18/5868697-facebook-wont-share-phone-numbers-addresses-for-now http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/18/5868697-face...
- iamelgringo 16y ago
  It's not evil, but is it necessary? Gathering all this data is necessary and essential for any company who's primary product is their users personal information. (see: Google, Facebook, et al..) And, corporations being what they are, people within that corporation will optimize to try and make as much money as possible off of that information, because it is in the corporations best interest.
  - benologist 16y ago
    "More money" for them doesn't make it necessary for any of us.
    - coderdude 16y ago
      It does if you feel like using their services for free. Otherwise, feel free to opt-out entirely by not using their resources.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]