3 ms·

I think it's the responsibility of the website to do the best that it can to protect the user's privacy, especially for those that don't know what a cookie is o

by blub 16y ago

I think it's the responsibility of the website to do the best that it can to protect the user's privacy, especially for those that don't know what a cookie is or does. On the contrary, most websites do the minimum they can get away with and try to squeeze every bit of data for profit. Those companies can cry all they want but they get ZERO sympathy from me. I'm sick of having to install three extensions to counter their hostile behaviour towards my privacy.

al_james 16y ago
You don't like websites earning money for providing you with free content?
- furyg3 16y ago
  This is a fallacy. A site's business model is it's own responsibility.
  - al_james 16y ago
    Be that as it may, most of the sites I (at least) enjoy every day use the free content for advertising model. Very few of the sites would be able to make the transition to another business model that did not rely on advertising.
    - furyg3 16y ago
      But that point (that sites give away free content for advertising) doesn't have much to do with blub's point (that many sites use hostile, non-privacy friendly tactics for advertising). Basing your site revenue on advertising doesn't require trackig across sites/domains, supercookies written in flash, circumvention of user-defined browser privacy settings, etc (which is probably what blub is talking about). Honestly it doesn't even require cookies or retaining IP logs, though I don't think anyone here is arguing that those are malicious. That's why your comment is a fallacy. Websites providing me content for free, and websites respecting the privacy of their users are not mutually exclusive concepts.
      - al_james 16y ago
        In an ideal world, yes. However, in the real world, most high paying advertising campaigns are retargeting based, thus requiring cross domain tracking. Excluding such tracking limits you to lower paying campaigns and remnant backfill. Most publishers are simply forced to accept such policies otherwise their earnings would reduce significantly.
olalonde 16y ago
What responsibility? Man up and be responsible for yourself. If you don't trust companies with your data just don't deal with them. Or use your anti-cookie extensions! You get ZERO sympathy from me. I understand you feel companies have a hostile behavior towards your privacy. But you're part of a minority. If people really cared that much about cookies, the market would have responded accordingly and there wouldn't be any need for this kind of regulation at all. Why impose your obsession with privacy to the rest of us?
- Silhouette 16y ago
  > If people really cared that much about cookies, the market would have responded accordingly and there wouldn't be any need for this kind of regulation at all. That's naive. For one thing, most people are not technically knowledgeable and don't understand the extent to which they are being tracked. For another, even those who would care about such issues can't spend their entire lives becoming experts in every ethical, legal, regulatory and financial field that might affect them. It simply isn't humanly possible, which is one reason we have laws crafted by specialists but applying to everyone. Your argument only makes any sense if everyone knows about what's going on, understands the implications, and still doesn't care.
  - olalonde 16y ago
    > It simply isn't humanly possible, which is one reason we have laws crafted by specialists but applying to everyone. You apparently haven't heard of the invisible hand.[1] The role of experts is to educate and influence, not to impose their own values. People should be allowed to chose what's best for them and put their trust where they want, not be forced into putting their trust on bureaucrats. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand
    - Silhouette 16y ago
      I think you're making my point for me. Right now, a lot of people simply don't know what is going on or the implications it has for their privacy, so they can't possibly make informed judgements about whether they are willing to accept that behaviour. Any argument that some sort of market forces would drive change is completely negated as long as you keep your market in the dark about what is really going on.

by blub 16y ago

al_james 16y ago

You don't like websites earning money for providing you with free content?

furyg3 16y ago
This is a fallacy. A site's business model is it's own responsibility.
- al_james 16y ago
  Be that as it may, most of the sites I (at least) enjoy every day use the free content for advertising model. Very few of the sites would be able to make the transition to another business model that did not rely on advertising.
  - furyg3 16y ago
    But that point (that sites give away free content for advertising) doesn't have much to do with blub's point (that many sites use hostile, non-privacy friendly tactics for advertising). Basing your site revenue on advertising doesn't require trackig across sites/domains, supercookies written in flash, circumvention of user-defined browser privacy settings, etc (which is probably what blub is talking about). Honestly it doesn't even require cookies or retaining IP logs, though I don't think anyone here is arguing that those are malicious. That's why your comment is a fallacy. Websites providing me content for free, and websites respecting the privacy of their users are not mutually exclusive concepts.
    - al_james 16y ago
      In an ideal world, yes. However, in the real world, most high paying advertising campaigns are retargeting based, thus requiring cross domain tracking. Excluding such tracking limits you to lower paying campaigns and remnant backfill. Most publishers are simply forced to accept such policies otherwise their earnings would reduce significantly.

olalonde 16y ago

What responsibility? Man up and be responsible for yourself. If you don't trust companies with your data just don't deal with them. Or use your anti-cookie extensions! You get ZERO sympathy from me. I understand you feel companies have a hostile behavior towards your privacy. But you're part of a minority. If people really cared that much about cookies, the market would have responded accordingly and there wouldn't be any need for this kind of regulation at all. Why impose your obsession with privacy to the rest of us?

Silhouette 16y ago
> If people really cared that much about cookies, the market would have responded accordingly and there wouldn't be any need for this kind of regulation at all. That's naive. For one thing, most people are not technically knowledgeable and don't understand the extent to which they are being tracked. For another, even those who would care about such issues can't spend their entire lives becoming experts in every ethical, legal, regulatory and financial field that might affect them. It simply isn't humanly possible, which is one reason we have laws crafted by specialists but applying to everyone. Your argument only makes any sense if everyone knows about what's going on, understands the implications, and still doesn't care.
- olalonde 16y ago
  > It simply isn't humanly possible, which is one reason we have laws crafted by specialists but applying to everyone. You apparently haven't heard of the invisible hand.[1] The role of experts is to educate and influence, not to impose their own values. People should be allowed to chose what's best for them and put their trust where they want, not be forced into putting their trust on bureaucrats. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand
  - Silhouette 16y ago
    I think you're making my point for me. Right now, a lot of people simply don't know what is going on or the implications it has for their privacy, so they can't possibly make informed judgements about whether they are willing to accept that behaviour. Any argument that some sort of market forces would drive change is completely negated as long as you keep your market in the dark about what is really going on.