4 ms·

This is similar to law enforcement saying: "You mean we cannot track everything you say and do. How in the world are we supposed to do our jobs safely and effic

This is similar to law enforcement saying: "You mean we cannot track everything you say and do. How in the world are we supposed to do our jobs safely and efficiently?" Answer is, you basically can't. Not safely and not (as) efficiently. Because the world will turn dystopian and will destroy the very thing we are trying to create/maintain. (Happiness, etc) It's nice to be able to A/B test your blog or product. It's cool and efficient, but it also hurts and to me that hurt outweighs your company's marginal benefits although it is a nuanced and difficult discussion to be fair. I'm being simplistic here to make the point clear. I hope.

TekMol 3y ago
The difference is that keeping cookies is a user choice. You can set your browser to not store cookies at all. Or to discard cookies when you close it. Or you can delete cookies whenever you feel like.
- arendtio 3y ago
  The problem is that there are good and bad cookies: - session cookie: good - tracking cookie: bad I remember a time when browsers would ask you for every website if you wanted to keep the cookies and because most cookies were good cookies, everybody agreed to accept them. Later came the ad industry and started to introduce bad cookies.
arp242 3y ago
> it also hurts How is simple analytics or A/B testing that's NOT internet-wide tracking (that is, only for the website you're on) or sold (which would be outright illegal without explicit consent) hurting you? Genuine question, because I don't see it. Internet-wide tracking across many sites: sure. But that's a very different thing – it's the difference between "I'm home Darling, I saw Sander at the mall today" vs. "Hello everyone, here is everything Sander did this week".
- andirk 3y ago
  The data is that of "I have a person who likes monkey paws" and then they can sell that to the monkey paw conglomerate. Next thing you know you're getting monkey paws in the mail!
  - arp242 3y ago
    The entire premise of my question is that data is kept private between the two parties (the website owner and the visitor). I don't see how this connects with that at all. And how do you even get someone's mail address without an extensive internet-wide profile (which, again, isn't what the premise of my question was in the first place)?
    - chazhaz 3y ago
      It’s one thing to say that you’ll keep the data private between you, but from the user’s perspective there’s no guarantee. Whether that’s because you change your mind and decide to sell the user’s data, or there’s some sorta data breach, or or or.
- Yizahi 3y ago
  It's like like being issued a state mandated always online tracker and then police would say verbally that they promise not to abuse that data. And before people would nitpick my comment, metadata is surveillance. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/metadata_equals.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/metadata_equa...
  - arp242 3y ago
    I bet HN keeps server logs; would you say you're being surveilled by viewing this page and posting that comment? If not, why not? What's the difference between that metadata and any other?
    - voltaireodactyl 3y ago

TekMol 3y ago

The difference is that keeping cookies is a user choice. You can set your browser to not store cookies at all. Or to discard cookies when you close it. Or you can delete cookies whenever you feel like.

arendtio 3y ago
The problem is that there are good and bad cookies: - session cookie: good - tracking cookie: bad I remember a time when browsers would ask you for every website if you wanted to keep the cookies and because most cookies were good cookies, everybody agreed to accept them. Later came the ad industry and started to introduce bad cookies.

arp242 3y ago

> it also hurts How is simple analytics or A/B testing that's NOT internet-wide tracking (that is, only for the website you're on) or sold (which would be outright illegal without explicit consent) hurting you? Genuine question, because I don't see it. Internet-wide tracking across many sites: sure. But that's a very different thing – it's the difference between "I'm home Darling, I saw Sander at the mall today" vs. "Hello everyone, here is everything Sander did this week".

andirk 3y ago
The data is that of "I have a person who likes monkey paws" and then they can sell that to the monkey paw conglomerate. Next thing you know you're getting monkey paws in the mail!
- arp242 3y ago
  The entire premise of my question is that data is kept private between the two parties (the website owner and the visitor). I don't see how this connects with that at all. And how do you even get someone's mail address without an extensive internet-wide profile (which, again, isn't what the premise of my question was in the first place)?
  - chazhaz 3y ago
    It’s one thing to say that you’ll keep the data private between you, but from the user’s perspective there’s no guarantee. Whether that’s because you change your mind and decide to sell the user’s data, or there’s some sorta data breach, or or or.
Yizahi 3y ago
It's like like being issued a state mandated always online tracker and then police would say verbally that they promise not to abuse that data. And before people would nitpick my comment, metadata is surveillance. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/metadata_equals.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/metadata_equa...
- arp242 3y ago
  I bet HN keeps server logs; would you say you're being surveilled by viewing this page and posting that comment? If not, why not? What's the difference between that metadata and any other?
  - voltaireodactyl 3y ago