8 ms·

You're presenting a false choice: It's entirely possible to care about privacy, and still use Facebook and GMail. Simply pretend that everything you post on F

You're presenting a false choice: It's entirely possible to care about privacy, and still use Facebook and GMail. Simply pretend that everything you post on Facebook and GMail is in the public domain, posted in the public square. If I never share anything I don't want public, then my privacy is guaranteed. I'd advise others with privacy concerns to do the same. Given that you NEVER KNOW, EVER that you can 100% trust the people you're sharing with (no matter which media you use), I think people are kind of crazy to act any other way.

LoganCale 13y ago
Facebook tracks your external web browsing history through the use of their embedded buttons, and links that history with your profile. So even if you don't post private information to Facebook, they're tracking your private activity unless you take measures to block such buttons across the web.
- VikingCoder 13y ago
  ...or use Facebook in a different browser (or Incognito), or specifically log out of Facebook when you're not using it. Or only use it in the Facebook App on your phone, but never log your browser in to it. "Logging in" is completely broken on the internet - no argument, there.
  - chris_mahan 13y ago
    or on a different computer.
    - crpatino 13y ago
      connected to the neighbor's open wifi?
  - LoganCale 13y ago
    The other two approaches may work, but > or specifically log out of Facebook when you're not using it will probably not, because they set tracking cookies that remain even when you log out. Complete speculation here, but if they're willing to do that, who's to say they don't link traffic from known IP addresses as well? It might be linked less strongly but in many cases could still be associated in some way. They track web browsing for non-users already anyway, so if they can connect that to existing users by IP I'd be fairly surprised if they didn't. In order to prevent this, you have to block trackers in all your browsers and devices with Ghostery or similar tools.
    - Orva 13y ago
      Browser user agent string alone is quite accurate identification [1]. Just add IP/country data on top of that..
  - wutbrodo 13y ago
    With the immaturity of the app permissions model and Facebook's abysmal record, I feel like you're far better off using a mobile browser (in incognito, of course) than the mobile app.
  - flyinRyan 13y ago
    If people can't be bothered to care about security, they won't be interested in doing this.
- cdrxndr 13y ago
  They say they don't keep shadow profiles of your external Web traffic [though I can't imagine that's true]. In line with other responses, I use a browser plugin that blocks all traffic to Facebook when I'm not on a facebook.com domain, and I exclusively sign in via incognito mode so the session is destroyed when I'm finished.
- marssaxman 13y ago
  Easy enough: I have a separate browser for connecting to Facebook. I also have the usual set of tracker-blocking plugins installed on Firefox, which I use for normal browsing.
- rhizome 13y ago
  Facebook tracks your external web browsing history through the use of their embedded buttons, and links that history with your profile Not if you log out of FB. Conveniently, the "Like" button tells you when you're logged in and the "(Not You?)" link allows you to log out of FB whenever you notice you're still logged in. Hmm, this gives me an idea for an indicator browser extension.
  - LoganCale 13y ago
    Yes, it does, through the use of tracking cookies that persist after you log out. They also track non-users.
- ahsiduhfisuh 13y ago
  Google also tracks you on non-Google sites that use Google-hosted Ajax libraries, which is a huge chunk of the web.
  - pyre 13y ago
    If they do, that's a lot more devious that Facebook's "like" button, because if you block it, then the site doesn't work.
    - gcb0 13y ago
      That's silly. I block it (via the someonewhocares host file) and not it works but makes browsing faster. Only downside is when i click done actual useful advertising result on gsearch i get a 404 :)
      - pyre 13y ago
        How is it silly? When someone loads jQuery from Google, and their site depends on jQuery, do you expect the site to still work when you block Google's CDN?
        gcb0 13y ago
        no major provider serve ads and jquery/yui mirrors from the same CNAME... i know your example is moot because google doesn't
- rcabrillo 13y ago
  Facebook can't track you regardless of whether you have an account much less whether are logged in IF you use Firefox's RequestPolicy plugin.
  - GoodIntentions 13y ago
    was about to post the same. Request policy + noscript ftw
- disgruntledphd2 13y ago
  Nope, not if you're outside the US. Seriously getting sick of repeating this, but whatever. Facebook Ireland (mmm, double Irish) is the data controller for all Facebook users outside the US, and they released a report which prevents facebook from doing this. AFAIK, they said that this data can only be retained for 30 days and cannot be linked to user profiles and/or used for targeted advertising. For some strange reason, the same requirements do not apply to Google, and Twitter are currently being investigated.
coda_ 13y ago
I agree with you that it's a false choice. But the part about never sharing anything private with anyone, regardless of the media used... maybe I'm misunderstanding it. That sounds like a terrible way to live. By living that way, you are not retaining your privacy... you've already lost it. You could die when get on plane, but you still do it, because the reward is worth the risk. Someone could wire tap my house, but I don't let that stop me from having private conversations with my family. There's a risk/reward balance that each of us have to set with respect to our privacy and our ability to share and interact with other people. To say the risk always outweighs the reward seems a little extreme.
- VikingCoder 13y ago
  Pretend I choose that the risk of me sharing something with you (that you might make it public) is worth it. By doing that, and using any given media that I don't entirely control and that I can't guarantee I can perfectly secure, I'm also accepting the risk that either the provider of the service(s), or a hacker, could also make the information public or share it with the government. Think about the risk of my friends making the information public, intentionally or unintentionally (they have lousy passwords, or share passwords with friends, or don't use SSL in a cafe, or have an easy to guess Password Recovery answers, or they forget to log out on a computer someone can sneak onto, or they get hit by a keylogger and don't use two-factor authentication like I do, or they get hit by phishing). I think that risk is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more likely than the risk that the media provider (Google, Facebook) will, intentionally or unintentionally, make the information public. Or somehow use it to harm me. Also, the damage, should that risk occur, to me, is very low. (Based on the type of information I share.) Now, every layer of the service provider is also demonstrably sharing with the government. That's happening. And many people here are blaming Google (the victim) rather than the government (the abuser), which makes no sense to me. I accept the argument that we ALL need protection from government spying. I really do. But I have yet to see someone propose how to avoid using an ISP. And many of the people abandoning Google are still running Windows. Or how to abandon a major cell provider. Dropping Google, while continuing to use major ISPs and Cell providers is like changing which STAMP you put on your postcard, and expecting that will somehow stop the postman from reading it.
deelowe 13y ago
This only considers the current state of 3rd parties, governments, and laws. The gigantic issue with all this is that everything is stored indefinitely. Also, laws and governments change. What's to stop you from suffering tomorrow for seemingly innocuous actions you performed today? And I'm not just talking about getting prosecuted for some specific crime. This data is used as a means of proactive prosecution and profiling. This means that the powers that be are actively looking for signals in the noise that indicate crime(and most likely just things they don't agree with, illegal or not). If the profile created off your various seemingly innocent actions and "meta-data" over the course of many years puts you within the error bars, you could become a false positive. With secret courts, secret prisons, and indefinite detention all possible, what's to stop you from simply disappearing? Or, at the vary least, what's to stop all of this from ruining your life even if you are never convicted of anything(e.g. months of detention and interrogation without prosecution, inability to travel, holds placed on bank accounts, calls to employer, etc...)? That said, the focus shouldn't be on the companies that collect this data. They are simply doing the best they can to make a profit within the bounds of the law. No, the issue is government. There should be strict laws regulating how data is collected and stored(even non "PII") and even stricter laws around how 3rd parties are allowed to consume, store, and use this data, especially governments. But alas, this is asking the police to police themselves, so I guess this will never happen.
- VikingCoder 13y ago
  Tell me how I can share private information, but avoid the consequences you describe. I don't believe you can. Therefore, I see no particular disadvantage to Facebook and GMail (over any other possible solution), as long as I realize that the government IS watching me. And yes, the issue is government.
  - deelowe 13y ago
    I wish I knew... :-/
  - ownagefool 13y ago
    It's technically possible with encryption. One cannot be sure that said encryption will not be trivially broken in the future, but theres a massive difference between using a service that doesn't know how to read your data now and one that does.
alan_cx 13y ago
It is a difficult choice, not a false one. That is why you and others are trying to justify not making one. Writing it off as false is a convenient excuse.
- VikingCoder 13y ago
  You just asserted that BECAUSE I use Facebook and GMail, that PROVES I don't care about privacy. Your assertion is false.
- nollidge 13y ago
  > It is a difficult choice, not a false one. Please state your case for this. VikingCoder stated theirs.
mariuolo 13y ago
Given the scope and reach such services have, one ought to be parsimonious with any private information put online, because it might eventually be correlated with the former.
lupatus 13y ago
Better yet, pretend that everything you say/post/share will be seen on a jumbotron at a packed sporting arena. This way, you will have data security, better grammar, and fewer embarrassing personal moments.
jancborchardt 13y ago
The problem with that is that while you might be conscious of that, other people might not be. And you using Facebook and Gmail pulls these people in, for example an email sent to you by someone not using Gmail will still end up on Google’s servers.
wwhitman 13y ago
That makes too much sense. We should expect all governments of the world to completely change how they have operated throughout history so we can post nonsense with impunity. That is all.

LoganCale 13y ago

Facebook tracks your external web browsing history through the use of their embedded buttons, and links that history with your profile. So even if you don't post private information to Facebook, they're tracking your private activity unless you take measures to block such buttons across the web.

VikingCoder 13y ago
...or use Facebook in a different browser (or Incognito), or specifically log out of Facebook when you're not using it. Or only use it in the Facebook App on your phone, but never log your browser in to it. "Logging in" is completely broken on the internet - no argument, there.
- chris_mahan 13y ago
  or on a different computer.
  - crpatino 13y ago
    connected to the neighbor's open wifi?
- LoganCale 13y ago
  The other two approaches may work, but > or specifically log out of Facebook when you're not using it will probably not, because they set tracking cookies that remain even when you log out. Complete speculation here, but if they're willing to do that, who's to say they don't link traffic from known IP addresses as well? It might be linked less strongly but in many cases could still be associated in some way. They track web browsing for non-users already anyway, so if they can connect that to existing users by IP I'd be fairly surprised if they didn't. In order to prevent this, you have to block trackers in all your browsers and devices with Ghostery or similar tools.
  - Orva 13y ago
    Browser user agent string alone is quite accurate identification [1]. Just add IP/country data on top of that..
- wutbrodo 13y ago
  With the immaturity of the app permissions model and Facebook's abysmal record, I feel like you're far better off using a mobile browser (in incognito, of course) than the mobile app.
- flyinRyan 13y ago
  If people can't be bothered to care about security, they won't be interested in doing this.
cdrxndr 13y ago
They say they don't keep shadow profiles of your external Web traffic [though I can't imagine that's true]. In line with other responses, I use a browser plugin that blocks all traffic to Facebook when I'm not on a facebook.com domain, and I exclusively sign in via incognito mode so the session is destroyed when I'm finished.
marssaxman 13y ago
Easy enough: I have a separate browser for connecting to Facebook. I also have the usual set of tracker-blocking plugins installed on Firefox, which I use for normal browsing.
rhizome 13y ago
Facebook tracks your external web browsing history through the use of their embedded buttons, and links that history with your profile Not if you log out of FB. Conveniently, the "Like" button tells you when you're logged in and the "(Not You?)" link allows you to log out of FB whenever you notice you're still logged in. Hmm, this gives me an idea for an indicator browser extension.
- LoganCale 13y ago
  Yes, it does, through the use of tracking cookies that persist after you log out. They also track non-users.
ahsiduhfisuh 13y ago
Google also tracks you on non-Google sites that use Google-hosted Ajax libraries, which is a huge chunk of the web.
- pyre 13y ago
  If they do, that's a lot more devious that Facebook's "like" button, because if you block it, then the site doesn't work.
  - gcb0 13y ago
    That's silly. I block it (via the someonewhocares host file) and not it works but makes browsing faster. Only downside is when i click done actual useful advertising result on gsearch i get a 404 :)
    - pyre 13y ago
      How is it silly? When someone loads jQuery from Google, and their site depends on jQuery, do you expect the site to still work when you block Google's CDN?
      - gcb0 13y ago
        no major provider serve ads and jquery/yui mirrors from the same CNAME... i know your example is moot because google doesn't
rcabrillo 13y ago
Facebook can't track you regardless of whether you have an account much less whether are logged in IF you use Firefox's RequestPolicy plugin.
- GoodIntentions 13y ago
  was about to post the same. Request policy + noscript ftw
disgruntledphd2 13y ago
Nope, not if you're outside the US. Seriously getting sick of repeating this, but whatever. Facebook Ireland (mmm, double Irish) is the data controller for all Facebook users outside the US, and they released a report which prevents facebook from doing this. AFAIK, they said that this data can only be retained for 30 days and cannot be linked to user profiles and/or used for targeted advertising. For some strange reason, the same requirements do not apply to Google, and Twitter are currently being investigated.

coda_ 13y ago

I agree with you that it's a false choice. But the part about never sharing anything private with anyone, regardless of the media used... maybe I'm misunderstanding it. That sounds like a terrible way to live. By living that way, you are not retaining your privacy... you've already lost it. You could die when get on plane, but you still do it, because the reward is worth the risk. Someone could wire tap my house, but I don't let that stop me from having private conversations with my family. There's a risk/reward balance that each of us have to set with respect to our privacy and our ability to share and interact with other people. To say the risk always outweighs the reward seems a little extreme.

VikingCoder 13y ago
Pretend I choose that the risk of me sharing something with you (that you might make it public) is worth it. By doing that, and using any given media that I don't entirely control and that I can't guarantee I can perfectly secure, I'm also accepting the risk that either the provider of the service(s), or a hacker, could also make the information public or share it with the government. Think about the risk of my friends making the information public, intentionally or unintentionally (they have lousy passwords, or share passwords with friends, or don't use SSL in a cafe, or have an easy to guess Password Recovery answers, or they forget to log out on a computer someone can sneak onto, or they get hit by a keylogger and don't use two-factor authentication like I do, or they get hit by phishing). I think that risk is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more likely than the risk that the media provider (Google, Facebook) will, intentionally or unintentionally, make the information public. Or somehow use it to harm me. Also, the damage, should that risk occur, to me, is very low. (Based on the type of information I share.) Now, every layer of the service provider is also demonstrably sharing with the government. That's happening. And many people here are blaming Google (the victim) rather than the government (the abuser), which makes no sense to me. I accept the argument that we ALL need protection from government spying. I really do. But I have yet to see someone propose how to avoid using an ISP. And many of the people abandoning Google are still running Windows. Or how to abandon a major cell provider. Dropping Google, while continuing to use major ISPs and Cell providers is like changing which STAMP you put on your postcard, and expecting that will somehow stop the postman from reading it.

deelowe 13y ago

This only considers the current state of 3rd parties, governments, and laws. The gigantic issue with all this is that everything is stored indefinitely. Also, laws and governments change. What's to stop you from suffering tomorrow for seemingly innocuous actions you performed today? And I'm not just talking about getting prosecuted for some specific crime. This data is used as a means of proactive prosecution and profiling. This means that the powers that be are actively looking for signals in the noise that indicate crime(and most likely just things they don't agree with, illegal or not). If the profile created off your various seemingly innocent actions and "meta-data" over the course of many years puts you within the error bars, you could become a false positive. With secret courts, secret prisons, and indefinite detention all possible, what's to stop you from simply disappearing? Or, at the vary least, what's to stop all of this from ruining your life even if you are never convicted of anything(e.g. months of detention and interrogation without prosecution, inability to travel, holds placed on bank accounts, calls to employer, etc...)? That said, the focus shouldn't be on the companies that collect this data. They are simply doing the best they can to make a profit within the bounds of the law. No, the issue is government. There should be strict laws regulating how data is collected and stored(even non "PII") and even stricter laws around how 3rd parties are allowed to consume, store, and use this data, especially governments. But alas, this is asking the police to police themselves, so I guess this will never happen.

VikingCoder 13y ago
Tell me how I can share private information, but avoid the consequences you describe. I don't believe you can. Therefore, I see no particular disadvantage to Facebook and GMail (over any other possible solution), as long as I realize that the government IS watching me. And yes, the issue is government.
- deelowe 13y ago
  I wish I knew... :-/
- ownagefool 13y ago
  It's technically possible with encryption. One cannot be sure that said encryption will not be trivially broken in the future, but theres a massive difference between using a service that doesn't know how to read your data now and one that does.

alan_cx 13y ago

It is a difficult choice, not a false one. That is why you and others are trying to justify not making one. Writing it off as false is a convenient excuse.

VikingCoder 13y ago
You just asserted that BECAUSE I use Facebook and GMail, that PROVES I don't care about privacy. Your assertion is false.
nollidge 13y ago
> It is a difficult choice, not a false one. Please state your case for this. VikingCoder stated theirs.

mariuolo 13y ago

Given the scope and reach such services have, one ought to be parsimonious with any private information put online, because it might eventually be correlated with the former.

lupatus 13y ago

Better yet, pretend that everything you say/post/share will be seen on a jumbotron at a packed sporting arena. This way, you will have data security, better grammar, and fewer embarrassing personal moments.

jancborchardt 13y ago

The problem with that is that while you might be conscious of that, other people might not be. And you using Facebook and Gmail pulls these people in, for example an email sent to you by someone not using Gmail will still end up on Google’s servers.

wwhitman 13y ago

That makes too much sense. We should expect all governments of the world to completely change how they have operated throughout history so we can post nonsense with impunity. That is all.