3 ms·

> Apparently if a buyshoesxyz.com shares with Google the fact that you bought shoes, and Google later uses that information to let you through ReCAPTCHA v3, tha

> Apparently if a buyshoesxyz.com shares with Google the fact that you bought shoes, and Google later uses that information to let you through ReCAPTCHA v3, that's "not safe" It's not safe when the third-party the data is shared with has a global view of the internet, spyware in the vast majority of websites and even some mobile apps, and has a business incentive to use this data to stalk you for ad-targeting purposes. The author seems to be quite clear as to what kinds of data are sent to Google: > Since reCAPTCHA v3 scripts must be loaded on every page of a site, you must send Google your browsing history and detailed data about how you interact with sites in order to access basic services on the internet, such as paying your bills, or accessing healthcare services. > It's needless to say that the kind of data that is collected by reCAPTCHA v3 is extremely sensitive. Those requests contain data about your motor skills, health issues, and your interests and desires based on how you interact with content. Everything about you that can be inferred or extracted from a website visit is collected and sent to Google. Maybe that's a thing some users like you would be fine with, but in this case it should be laid out explicitly and (at least as per the EU GDPR) it should be opt-in. Buying shoes on a shoe retailer's website shouldn't require being stalked by a multinational spyware operator, and especially not without disclosure.

phendrenad2 4y ago
> It's not safe when the third-party the data is shared with has a global view of the internet, spyware in the vast majority of websites and even some mobile apps, and has a business incentive to use this data to stalk you for ad-targeting purposes So the danger I face by using these services is... targeted ads. > Maybe that's a thing some users like you would be fine with So the "danger" is actually a good thing, maybe, for some people? I'm just as confused as before, please clarify.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  It's less the targeted ads and more the collection & concentration of all this personal data in a single place. There are lots of ways it can be misused if a malicious actor (or the government) gets their hands on it. So it's not that "targeted ads" are bad by themselves, it's that they justify an industrial-scale spyware operation, which other malicious attackers could potentially co-opt to do their bidding.
  - phendrenad2 4y ago
    Okay so, the chances that someone will suffer as a result of targeted ads is INCREDIBLY small, and yet it's somehow become completely acceptable to use the word "unsafe" as a shorthand for this extremely slim possibility.
    - Nextgrid 4y ago
      Well it's incredibly small until there's a breach. The problem with security is that as a defender you need to win all the time, while the attackers only need to win once. So it's just a matter of time before something happens.
      - phendrenad2 4y ago
        If the "matter of time" is a billion years, then I think we're fine. So my guess is that it's a billion years. Do you have evidence to the contrary? It's only a "matter of time" before every human on earth is simultaneously struck by lightning while being eaten by a shark. But the odds are so astronomically low that it's probably never happened. Since this thread is getting very long, I'll go ahead and say that the icloud hack of 2014 was targeted at celebrities (normal users didn't have their data leaked), and things like the equifax hack were things that a normal user has no way to opt out of anyway.

phendrenad2 4y ago

> It's not safe when the third-party the data is shared with has a global view of the internet, spyware in the vast majority of websites and even some mobile apps, and has a business incentive to use this data to stalk you for ad-targeting purposes So the danger I face by using these services is... targeted ads. > Maybe that's a thing some users like you would be fine with So the "danger" is actually a good thing, maybe, for some people? I'm just as confused as before, please clarify.

Nextgrid 4y ago
It's less the targeted ads and more the collection & concentration of all this personal data in a single place. There are lots of ways it can be misused if a malicious actor (or the government) gets their hands on it. So it's not that "targeted ads" are bad by themselves, it's that they justify an industrial-scale spyware operation, which other malicious attackers could potentially co-opt to do their bidding.
- phendrenad2 4y ago
  Okay so, the chances that someone will suffer as a result of targeted ads is INCREDIBLY small, and yet it's somehow become completely acceptable to use the word "unsafe" as a shorthand for this extremely slim possibility.
  - Nextgrid 4y ago
    Well it's incredibly small until there's a breach. The problem with security is that as a defender you need to win all the time, while the attackers only need to win once. So it's just a matter of time before something happens.
    - phendrenad2 4y ago
      If the "matter of time" is a billion years, then I think we're fine. So my guess is that it's a billion years. Do you have evidence to the contrary? It's only a "matter of time" before every human on earth is simultaneously struck by lightning while being eaten by a shark. But the odds are so astronomically low that it's probably never happened. Since this thread is getting very long, I'll go ahead and say that the icloud hack of 2014 was targeted at celebrities (normal users didn't have their data leaked), and things like the equifax hack were things that a normal user has no way to opt out of anyway.