2 ms·

> But you don't have a right to say what runs on my computer, or make it tell you what I'm doing. This is where our perceived rights collide. You already have

> But you don't have a right to say what runs on my computer, or make it tell you what I'm doing. This is where our perceived rights collide. You already have control over this. That doesn't contradict someones right to track how people use the site. > No, my computer, my browser, my roof, my rules. And again, you already have control over this. However, if you give data to a remote server, they have the right to use that data. You are, in fact, giving them that data. > No, people get offended when you try to turn their computer into a device that spies on them. And we get more offended that this sort of stuff happens without most people even being aware its going on. That's a result of people wanting defaults, and most people change those defaults to be the least annoying as possible, regardless of security/privacy implications, even if it's explained to them. > And it's so lovely of you to have made the decision for me that it's to my benefit, so I don't have to worry about pesky things like privacy concerns, or having control over my own computing. But you do. You can prevent cookies from being put on your computer. You can prevent 3rd party cookies. You do have this control. What do you not have control over that you feel you should have control over? You keep talking about control as if you don't have it?

Nursie 13y ago
>> You already have control over this. That doesn't contradict someones right to track how people use the site. >> And again, you already have control over this. However, if you give data to a remote server, they have the right to use that data. You are, in fact, giving them that data. I think we may be talking at cross-purposes. The post I replied to says that they have a right to run tracking scripts and I don't have the right to reject them. This is what I disagree with. Track that my IP address has requested page A, then B, then D, F, Q and P in rapid succession? Knock yourself out. I have no problem with this. If I want to obfuscate it I'll use Tor or a proxy. But he doesn't get to force me to run his scripts. >> most people change those defaults to be the least annoying as possible, regardless of security/privacy implications, even if it's explained to them. Indeed, but at least then they are informed and its their choice to make. At the moment this isn't really the case. >> What do you not have control over that you feel you should have control over? You keep talking about control as if you don't have it? I know I have these powers and I exercise them. I'm only arguing against people who seek to take them away.
- jasonlotito 13y ago
  > I think we may be talking at cross-purposes. The post I replied to says that they have a right to run tracking scripts and I don't have the right to reject them. This is what I disagree with. Yep, I saw that. Maybe it's just my interpretation. I thought of that as saying "I have the right to have scripts that track you." Not "I have the right to require that you run those scripts." So, they can provide the scripts, you can just choose to not have them run. That's where I am coming from, and I don't get that anyone is trying to take that part away from you. That's all =)
  - Nursie 13y ago
    >> Not "I have the right to require that you run those scripts." Unfortunately the OP has just popped up again to say exactly that.
    - jasonlotito 13y ago
      Well, that's not something the OP can expect. After all, that's not the way HTTP and associated technologies work. Regardless, it's a shame. Not that it changes what I said (at least, within the context of my understanding). Anyways, I'm preaching to the choir.

Nursie 13y ago

>> You already have control over this. That doesn't contradict someones right to track how people use the site. >> And again, you already have control over this. However, if you give data to a remote server, they have the right to use that data. You are, in fact, giving them that data. I think we may be talking at cross-purposes. The post I replied to says that they have a right to run tracking scripts and I don't have the right to reject them. This is what I disagree with. Track that my IP address has requested page A, then B, then D, F, Q and P in rapid succession? Knock yourself out. I have no problem with this. If I want to obfuscate it I'll use Tor or a proxy. But he doesn't get to force me to run his scripts. >> most people change those defaults to be the least annoying as possible, regardless of security/privacy implications, even if it's explained to them. Indeed, but at least then they are informed and its their choice to make. At the moment this isn't really the case. >> What do you not have control over that you feel you should have control over? You keep talking about control as if you don't have it? I know I have these powers and I exercise them. I'm only arguing against people who seek to take them away.

jasonlotito 13y ago
> I think we may be talking at cross-purposes. The post I replied to says that they have a right to run tracking scripts and I don't have the right to reject them. This is what I disagree with. Yep, I saw that. Maybe it's just my interpretation. I thought of that as saying "I have the right to have scripts that track you." Not "I have the right to require that you run those scripts." So, they can provide the scripts, you can just choose to not have them run. That's where I am coming from, and I don't get that anyone is trying to take that part away from you. That's all =)
- Nursie 13y ago
  >> Not "I have the right to require that you run those scripts." Unfortunately the OP has just popped up again to say exactly that.
  - jasonlotito 13y ago
    Well, that's not something the OP can expect. After all, that's not the way HTTP and associated technologies work. Regardless, it's a shame. Not that it changes what I said (at least, within the context of my understanding). Anyways, I'm preaching to the choir.