5 ms·

They are absolutely right. And last time I checked the internet was global and not micromanaged on state level.

by yanw 15y ago

MatthewPhillips 15y ago
That era is slipping away. More and more the internet is becoming like everything else; controlled by people who's job security depends on having something to crow about. There are already several means of stopping tracking: clearing your cookies and cache, using private mode, not visiting the sites that record this information.
- orangecat 15y ago
  clearing your cookies and cache, using private mode, not visiting the sites that record this information I don't necessarily support this bill, but those methods are not nearly sufficient.
  - MatthewPhillips 15y ago
    Please explain.
    - orangecat 15y ago
      IP matching, supercookies, browser fingerprints (http://panopticlick.eff.org/ http://panopticlick.eff.org/)...
      - earl 15y ago
        Supercookies, at least inside flash, are unlikely to be used following the lawsuit against quantcast and clearspring [1]. Full disclosure: I work for quantcast. This is nothing more than my personal opinion, and should not be taken as company policy. For company policy, feel free to review the settlement [2]. [1] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/zombie-cookies-lawsuit/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/zombie-cookies-laws... [2] http://www.quantcast.com/inside-quantcast/2010/12/reaffirming-our-commitment-to-consumer-choice-and-control/ http://www.quantcast.com/inside-quantcast/2010/12/reaffirmin...
    - nobody_nowhere 15y ago
      Companies who control enough net infrastructure or have visibility into enough sites can do a reasonably good job of tracking you without using cookies. One way is to fingerprint a browser. EFF has a nice demo of this using HTTP headers. If you're operating at the packet level, you don't even need that. So in that sense it's not a matter of avoiding certain sites or managing cookies properly, because the tracking is pervasive. Current ftc discussions seem like they center around cookies, and personally identifiable information (PII), and do nothing to address other forms of tracking. That will favor large corporations and eviscerate startups in the adtech space. The key thing that legitimate players in advertising want to do is understand which ads work well and which don't. Targeting users based on which sites they visit and based on offline demographic and shopping is very trendy right now, but it's not as necessary for keeping ads ROI-positive for advertisers in my opinion. None of it really involves identifying individuals or PII, at least in the sense that people would be creeped out by. Hopefully there'll be a reasonable outcome to this which will allow this kind of legitimate use, since it finances so much of the net now.
  - rbranson 15y ago
    ^^^ This. The big Internet companies should take this as a clue and start campaigns to inform users on Internet privacy and actively push for more user friendly privacy management.
  - earl 15y ago
    "not visiting the sites that record this information" is, in fact, perfectly sufficient I have to run, so: @falconas: of course this is a sacrifice. But if sufficient people feel similarly, over time, one would expect companies to act accordingly. @nobody_nowhere: damn, I totally forgot about cdns. But I can't imagine cdn contracts allow the cdn to use visit information from clients... or do they?
    - falcolas 15y ago
      Let's pretend, for a minute, that you did not want Google to have your surfing habits. How many sites would you have to avoid in order to prevent them from getting any whiff of your information? I believe that "any site which uses adwords, google analytics or links youtube videos, or ..." is a good definition of insufficient.
      - MatthewPhillips 15y ago
        Even if you're browsing in private mode on Comodo Dragon? http://www.comodo.com/home/browsers-toolbars/browser.php http://www.comodo.com/home/browsers-toolbars/browser.php
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      - ams6110 15y ago
        Just 127.0.0.1 google-analytics.com (and others) in your /etc/hosts
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      - yanw 15y ago
        Google offer opt-outs for their stuff. Bu that's not the point, the point is that if people are really that concerned about internet privacy they could install privacy software the same as with parental control software so their is no need to pile more restrictive innovation stifling laws.

They are absolutely right. And last time I checked the internet was global and not micromanaged on state level.

by yanw 15y ago

They are absolutely right. And last time I checked the internet was global and not micromanaged on state level.

That era is slipping away. More and more the internet is becoming like everything else; controlled by people who's job security depends on having something to crow about. There are already several means of stopping tracking: clearing your cookies and cache, using private mode, not visiting the sites that record this information.

orangecat 15y ago
clearing your cookies and cache, using private mode, not visiting the sites that record this information I don't necessarily support this bill, but those methods are not nearly sufficient.
- MatthewPhillips 15y ago
  Please explain.
  - orangecat 15y ago
    IP matching, supercookies, browser fingerprints (http://panopticlick.eff.org/ http://panopticlick.eff.org/)...
    - earl 15y ago
      Supercookies, at least inside flash, are unlikely to be used following the lawsuit against quantcast and clearspring [1]. Full disclosure: I work for quantcast. This is nothing more than my personal opinion, and should not be taken as company policy. For company policy, feel free to review the settlement [2]. [1] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/zombie-cookies-lawsuit/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/zombie-cookies-laws... [2] http://www.quantcast.com/inside-quantcast/2010/12/reaffirming-our-commitment-to-consumer-choice-and-control/ http://www.quantcast.com/inside-quantcast/2010/12/reaffirmin...
  - nobody_nowhere 15y ago
    Companies who control enough net infrastructure or have visibility into enough sites can do a reasonably good job of tracking you without using cookies. One way is to fingerprint a browser. EFF has a nice demo of this using HTTP headers. If you're operating at the packet level, you don't even need that. So in that sense it's not a matter of avoiding certain sites or managing cookies properly, because the tracking is pervasive. Current ftc discussions seem like they center around cookies, and personally identifiable information (PII), and do nothing to address other forms of tracking. That will favor large corporations and eviscerate startups in the adtech space. The key thing that legitimate players in advertising want to do is understand which ads work well and which don't. Targeting users based on which sites they visit and based on offline demographic and shopping is very trendy right now, but it's not as necessary for keeping ads ROI-positive for advertisers in my opinion. None of it really involves identifying individuals or PII, at least in the sense that people would be creeped out by. Hopefully there'll be a reasonable outcome to this which will allow this kind of legitimate use, since it finances so much of the net now.
- rbranson 15y ago
  ^^^ This. The big Internet companies should take this as a clue and start campaigns to inform users on Internet privacy and actively push for more user friendly privacy management.
- earl 15y ago
  "not visiting the sites that record this information" is, in fact, perfectly sufficient I have to run, so: @falconas: of course this is a sacrifice. But if sufficient people feel similarly, over time, one would expect companies to act accordingly. @nobody_nowhere: damn, I totally forgot about cdns. But I can't imagine cdn contracts allow the cdn to use visit information from clients... or do they?
  - falcolas 15y ago
    Let's pretend, for a minute, that you did not want Google to have your surfing habits. How many sites would you have to avoid in order to prevent them from getting any whiff of your information? I believe that "any site which uses adwords, google analytics or links youtube videos, or ..." is a good definition of insufficient.
    - MatthewPhillips 15y ago
      Even if you're browsing in private mode on Comodo Dragon? http://www.comodo.com/home/browsers-toolbars/browser.php http://www.comodo.com/home/browsers-toolbars/browser.php
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - ams6110 15y ago
      Just 127.0.0.1 google-analytics.com (and others) in your /etc/hosts
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - yanw 15y ago
      Google offer opt-outs for their stuff. Bu that's not the point, the point is that if people are really that concerned about internet privacy they could install privacy software the same as with parental control software so their is no need to pile more restrictive innovation stifling laws.