5 ms·

You are right. I don't browse like you do. That would take forever. I wonder: Are you afraid Google is sitting at home drooling over the fact that you bought

by Katelyn 15y ago

You are right. I don't browse like you do. That would take forever. I wonder: Are you afraid Google is sitting at home drooling over the fact that you bought your shoes from JcPenny? You’re not a name, you’re not a face, you’re a knode. a cookie. literally, a number in trillions of records. Secondly, you sit on the web writing openly about privacy issues, while overtly displaying your information on those "Identity tracking" services you use, like Facebook, which If you spent the same amount of time you spend writing about how Google is out to get you, perhaps would understand that while you're browsing incognito, Google is having a frenzy with your gmail content, building a profile on you that you may never see. At the end of the day, someone is always going to be collecting information on you, and your information will be again, one dot tied to your one number- among trillions of other records. There will always be internet ads. To wrap this up, my point is that if you really don’t wan’t to be tracked, then cancel your credit card, pay everything in cash, disable your GPS, avoid connecting via Wi-Fi, forget doing ‘good deeds’ like filling out surveys, or giving your name and number to a blood drive. Oh and completely disconnect your router.

EGreg 15y ago
depending on where he lives, he can still be tracked by CCTV, when he fills out his taxes, renews his driver's license, or any other number of things
bryanh 15y ago
I disagree with this comment: "are you afraid Google is sitting at home drooling over the fact that you bought your shoes from JcPenny?" I'm sure Google doesn't consciously care, but the fact that they track it it can seriously screw you if in the wrong hands. Further, at risk of building a strawman, it sounds a bit to similar to "what do you have to hide?" which is wrong on many many levels. Given plenty of data it would be easy to cherry pick information useful enough to cast some serious suspicion of a crime. People have been convicted on circumstantial evidence alone. Is it really the lay person's responsibility to worry about this? A silly example: "Where were you at 9:35pm the 3rd of June, 2011?" ... "I was having dinner and drinks with friends" ... "Really? According to documents obtained by the prosecution you bought shoes that night online at 9:29pm from JCPenney" ... "Oh, I guess I left earlier than I thought" ... "Court, clearly the defendant is lying about his whereabouts". /paranoia
- sfgfdhgfdshdhhd 15y ago
  "the fact that they track it it can seriously screw you if in the wrong hand" exactly. the whole darned point is that I care more about my personal information than Google does. It matters little whether they are actively drooling over our personal details, or passively collecting them. The fact that Google might be permanently storing cross-references between your searches for "herpes medication" and "communist party" with your emails to grandma and job applications... I dunno, might give you just a little pause for thought.
buro9 15y ago
I replied to you on the blog but since you cross-posted: @Katelyn, I think you misunderstand the purpose. It’s not a paranoia thing to prevent companies recording information, instead it’s a preference for how I like to consume the web. The companies are free to record whatever they wish, they do so by my user of their service. But I’m free to choose how my client consumes their service. I just prefer web sites that aren’t updating state based on me just reading things. I like to see opposing sides of the argument, so don’t like the idea of being bubbled by my own preferences. I feel a little freaked out when one cycling site I go on has adverts for the tyres I looked at 2 weeks ago on an entirely unconnected web site. Personalisation can get it wrong. In the same way that Amazon recommendations become tainted every December when you do the Christmas shop. And personalisation can be extremely upsetting, such as a family member who still receives new born baby information months after a miscarriage. It just comes back to how I use the web. I enjoy it more when it’s made up of many disconnected things giving a consistent experience to the user... me.
- mangodrunk 15y ago
  You don't give any good reasons to do what you do. You just seem to be paranoid about something, I'm not sure of. >I just prefer web sites that aren’t updating state based on me just reading things. That seems odd. What do you care? Do you get frustrated if they incremented a counter to see how many people are currently on their site? >I like to see opposing sides of the argument, so don’t like the idea of being bubbled by my own preferences. That's shortsighted of you. The algorithm can detect that you like this and will show you a healthy does of opposing arguments. >I feel a little freaked out when one cycling site I go on has adverts for the tyres I looked at 2 weeks ago on an entirely unconnected web site. So you don't like to see relevant ads. >Personalisation can get it wrong. In the same way that Amazon recommendations become tainted every December when you do the Christmas shop. Sure, it can get it wrong, that's why it isn't as prevalent as you make it seem to be. Also, Amazon does their recommendations based on the latest things you shopped for. So when you start browsing other stuff, they'll show you related content. >And personalisation can be extremely upsetting, such as a family member who still receives new born baby information months after a miscarriage. Any one can get that wrong (and this isn't an extreme case). Their friend could congratulate them on the baby. >It just comes back to how I use the web. Like old media that isn't dynamic. >I enjoy it more when it’s made up of many disconnected things giving a consistent experience to the user... me. That doesn't make sense. It seems you don't like the Internet. You make some good points on how they could improve these things, but not on them not being used.

by Katelyn 15y ago

EGreg 15y ago

depending on where he lives, he can still be tracked by CCTV, when he fills out his taxes, renews his driver's license, or any other number of things

bryanh 15y ago

I disagree with this comment: "are you afraid Google is sitting at home drooling over the fact that you bought your shoes from JcPenny?" I'm sure Google doesn't consciously care, but the fact that they track it it can seriously screw you if in the wrong hands. Further, at risk of building a strawman, it sounds a bit to similar to "what do you have to hide?" which is wrong on many many levels. Given plenty of data it would be easy to cherry pick information useful enough to cast some serious suspicion of a crime. People have been convicted on circumstantial evidence alone. Is it really the lay person's responsibility to worry about this? A silly example: "Where were you at 9:35pm the 3rd of June, 2011?" ... "I was having dinner and drinks with friends" ... "Really? According to documents obtained by the prosecution you bought shoes that night online at 9:29pm from JCPenney" ... "Oh, I guess I left earlier than I thought" ... "Court, clearly the defendant is lying about his whereabouts". /paranoia

sfgfdhgfdshdhhd 15y ago
"the fact that they track it it can seriously screw you if in the wrong hand" exactly. the whole darned point is that I care more about my personal information than Google does. It matters little whether they are actively drooling over our personal details, or passively collecting them. The fact that Google might be permanently storing cross-references between your searches for "herpes medication" and "communist party" with your emails to grandma and job applications... I dunno, might give you just a little pause for thought.

buro9 15y ago

I replied to you on the blog but since you cross-posted: @Katelyn, I think you misunderstand the purpose. It’s not a paranoia thing to prevent companies recording information, instead it’s a preference for how I like to consume the web. The companies are free to record whatever they wish, they do so by my user of their service. But I’m free to choose how my client consumes their service. I just prefer web sites that aren’t updating state based on me just reading things. I like to see opposing sides of the argument, so don’t like the idea of being bubbled by my own preferences. I feel a little freaked out when one cycling site I go on has adverts for the tyres I looked at 2 weeks ago on an entirely unconnected web site. Personalisation can get it wrong. In the same way that Amazon recommendations become tainted every December when you do the Christmas shop. And personalisation can be extremely upsetting, such as a family member who still receives new born baby information months after a miscarriage. It just comes back to how I use the web. I enjoy it more when it’s made up of many disconnected things giving a consistent experience to the user... me.

mangodrunk 15y ago
You don't give any good reasons to do what you do. You just seem to be paranoid about something, I'm not sure of. >I just prefer web sites that aren’t updating state based on me just reading things. That seems odd. What do you care? Do you get frustrated if they incremented a counter to see how many people are currently on their site? >I like to see opposing sides of the argument, so don’t like the idea of being bubbled by my own preferences. That's shortsighted of you. The algorithm can detect that you like this and will show you a healthy does of opposing arguments. >I feel a little freaked out when one cycling site I go on has adverts for the tyres I looked at 2 weeks ago on an entirely unconnected web site. So you don't like to see relevant ads. >Personalisation can get it wrong. In the same way that Amazon recommendations become tainted every December when you do the Christmas shop. Sure, it can get it wrong, that's why it isn't as prevalent as you make it seem to be. Also, Amazon does their recommendations based on the latest things you shopped for. So when you start browsing other stuff, they'll show you related content. >And personalisation can be extremely upsetting, such as a family member who still receives new born baby information months after a miscarriage. Any one can get that wrong (and this isn't an extreme case). Their friend could congratulate them on the baby. >It just comes back to how I use the web. Like old media that isn't dynamic. >I enjoy it more when it’s made up of many disconnected things giving a consistent experience to the user... me. That doesn't make sense. It seems you don't like the Internet. You make some good points on how they could improve these things, but not on them not being used.