6 ms·

>My argument or question is why does Google (and not specifically Google, plenty of others) need to know all of that stuff? Alright, but do you assume that the

>My argument or question is why does Google (and not specifically Google, plenty of others) need to know all of that stuff? Alright, but do you assume that they know it is you? By name, by your identity? If not then why do you care if they know your user-agent likes bondage? Are you worried about seeing ads for bondage movies while you're not searching for bondage, while perhaps someone is looking over your shoulder? >we wouldn't accept that from anyone who kills, prostitutes, sells drugs, smuggles immigrants, or even legal-but-tasteless stuff like RIAA lawyer. I've noticed something about people arguing on your side of the fence. They keep dragging in ridiculous extremes to try and prove their point; Comparing those extremes to Google (or whoever) knowing information about you. Another guy in here was comparing this to being watched in your home with video cameras against your own will. >Google and god knows who else has a lot of deeply personal information that "making money" doesn't justify So stop giving it to them. They won't know who is searching this information unless you link your identity to an account and therefore enable them to link it to your human identity. As for whether or not it's justified I think is subjective. It's a moral issue and it's entirely subjective. >we say, search and browse very intimate stuff on the web, and we don't even know who it's being shared with. There was a time when you could search and browse anything on the Web without the repercussion of someone else finding out about it. But that era is over. No amount of arguing this fact will bring it back. In the Web of 2011 and beyond if you search for bondage videos and you are logged into your Google account then Google will have a way to map it to you. If you don't log in, don't create an account, then they won't. It's that simple. In the Web of today, if you search for it, you just have to be aware that people have the technological means to know about it and there is no good reason for them to not want to know about this information. It helps them make the decisions they need to make to generate more money -- the entire purpose of a business. No altruistic causes here.

andrewcooke 16y ago
>In the Web of 2011 and beyond if you search for bondage videos and you are logged into your Google account then Google will have a way to map it to you. If you don't log in, don't create an account, then they won't. It's that simple. No it's not. They're likely going to track IP addresses and make assumptions there. And even if limited IPv4 addresses give some protection for a while, browsers can be fingerprinted. I'm sorry, but people like you are way too complacent. People like us know a little history. Things can get nasty.
- coderdude 16y ago
  >No it's not. They're likely going to track IP addresses and make assumptions there. So? Unless Google is getting direct data from ISPs and requesting personal information about your identity from them then your IP address is just as useless to them as it is to me for linking your tastes to your human identity. Browser fingerprinting, in the Panopticlick sense, is just as useless to that end. At Google's scale the Panopticlick method doesn't even work because of how many people they come across. Once the number of browsers that match your "fingerprint" is > 1 it becomes useless to them. >I'm sorry, but people like you are way too complacent. I'm not complacent, I just know what I'm talking about. Take the tin-foil hat off. >People like us know a little history. Things can get nasty. You are so full yourself. You have no idea what you're talking about.
  - andrewcooke 16y ago
    Maybe so. If you're right, that will be great. If I'm right, well, I hope I'll be OK. You'll be fucked, but who cares about that? Not me.
  - benologist 16y ago
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304410504575560243259416072.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230441050457556...
    - coderdude 16y ago
      You could at least add some commentary to your comment. I've read that article and I don't see the implications to our discussion here. They linked together all the information that women (and everyone else) put out there for others to scrape. That is not the same as the keyword/referrers/logged into Google argument that we are having.
      - benologist 16y ago
        Just thought I'd show you how identifiable you really are, without your knowledge or consent or even knowing who the companies tracking you are. And it's exactly the same as what we're discussing - Rapleaf was even one of the companies I specifically mentioned earlier. These companies don't look at any single piece of data individually, they collate as much as they can and the result is ... what I linked to. Referrers and search terms are just two easily ended streams of data.

andrewcooke 16y ago

>In the Web of 2011 and beyond if you search for bondage videos and you are logged into your Google account then Google will have a way to map it to you. If you don't log in, don't create an account, then they won't. It's that simple. No it's not. They're likely going to track IP addresses and make assumptions there. And even if limited IPv4 addresses give some protection for a while, browsers can be fingerprinted. I'm sorry, but people like you are way too complacent. People like us know a little history. Things can get nasty.

coderdude 16y ago
>No it's not. They're likely going to track IP addresses and make assumptions there. So? Unless Google is getting direct data from ISPs and requesting personal information about your identity from them then your IP address is just as useless to them as it is to me for linking your tastes to your human identity. Browser fingerprinting, in the Panopticlick sense, is just as useless to that end. At Google's scale the Panopticlick method doesn't even work because of how many people they come across. Once the number of browsers that match your "fingerprint" is > 1 it becomes useless to them. >I'm sorry, but people like you are way too complacent. I'm not complacent, I just know what I'm talking about. Take the tin-foil hat off. >People like us know a little history. Things can get nasty. You are so full yourself. You have no idea what you're talking about.
- andrewcooke 16y ago
  Maybe so. If you're right, that will be great. If I'm right, well, I hope I'll be OK. You'll be fucked, but who cares about that? Not me.
- benologist 16y ago
  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304410504575560243259416072.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230441050457556...
  - coderdude 16y ago
    You could at least add some commentary to your comment. I've read that article and I don't see the implications to our discussion here. They linked together all the information that women (and everyone else) put out there for others to scrape. That is not the same as the keyword/referrers/logged into Google argument that we are having.
    - benologist 16y ago
      Just thought I'd show you how identifiable you really are, without your knowledge or consent or even knowing who the companies tracking you are. And it's exactly the same as what we're discussing - Rapleaf was even one of the companies I specifically mentioned earlier. These companies don't look at any single piece of data individually, they collate as much as they can and the result is ... what I linked to. Referrers and search terms are just two easily ended streams of data.