4 ms·

I don't understand why this surprises people. Facebook is in the business of collecting every bit of information it can about every one if its users. I think it

by antsar 13y ago

I don't understand why this surprises people. Facebook is in the business of collecting every bit of information it can about every one if its users. I think its reasonable to assume that every click, scroll, and keypress is being captured and used for analytics.

seiji 13y ago
It's time for another browser fork. The new browser will disable invasive javascript methods (mouse tracking, reading every key press, over-zealous XHR partial-entry saving) on known-bad sites and on any site including javascript from known-bad actors. We shouldn't really let our interfaces to the world be run by advertising interests.
- antsar 13y ago
  Agreed with your sentiment, but I think a plugin approach (many exist) is better than a browser fork. The fork could surely convert some users (and developers), but that just means duplication of development efforts between the fork and (for example) the Mozilla+Plugins ecosystem. Contributing to existing projects (or building a new plugin, if an open one doesn't already exist) seems like a better way to go.
  - seiji 13y ago
    Mass adoption ends up being the problem though. It doesn't hurt the evil privacy invading corporations to cut off 0.0005% of the population consisting of privacy conscious computer nerds. Maybe a partnership of some sort. "You can only use Pinterest if you have Freedom Guard installed." (which sounds like spyware anyway) We just need The Next Big Thing to guide normal people to install software to cut the legs off of current information hoarding enterprises. They only reason what they do isn't illegal is because laws haven't caught up yet, not because it's "right," "allowable," or even "morally conscionable." The internet platforms are being run by amoralists who don't care what happens as long as they end up with more power in world in the end.
    - rmrfrmrf 13y ago
      Most privacy conscious people simply choose not to use sites like Google and Facebook.
- rmrfrmrf 13y ago
  ...or just use NoScript...? I really don't understand the incredulity, though; does the average user think that Google has the entire Internet stored on its homepage to get Auto Suggestions to work?
  - cbhl 13y ago
    > the entire Internet Thanks to things like PHP calendars that don't restrict the input date in the URL parameters and programmatically-generated content honeypots, the internet is infinitely infinite. (Sure, the source code representation of the Internet might be finite, but Googlebot doesn't always have access to that.)
    - rmrfrmrf 13y ago
      I was joking; apparently people are shocked that autocomplete requires a website to log your keystrokes.
      - cbhl 13y ago
        Computers are magic to a lot of people. Understanding that autocomplete requires a website to log your keystrokes probably requires at least a rudimentary understanding of how machine learning works.
kevando 13y ago
I agree. And I'm always curious why articles take such a tone like this. This is probably to improve the UX anyway. Some people probably type a long status and their browser crashes. This feature lets them restore it.

by antsar 13y ago

seiji 13y ago

It's time for another browser fork. The new browser will disable invasive javascript methods (mouse tracking, reading every key press, over-zealous XHR partial-entry saving) on known-bad sites and on any site including javascript from known-bad actors. We shouldn't really let our interfaces to the world be run by advertising interests.

antsar 13y ago
Agreed with your sentiment, but I think a plugin approach (many exist) is better than a browser fork. The fork could surely convert some users (and developers), but that just means duplication of development efforts between the fork and (for example) the Mozilla+Plugins ecosystem. Contributing to existing projects (or building a new plugin, if an open one doesn't already exist) seems like a better way to go.
- seiji 13y ago
  Mass adoption ends up being the problem though. It doesn't hurt the evil privacy invading corporations to cut off 0.0005% of the population consisting of privacy conscious computer nerds. Maybe a partnership of some sort. "You can only use Pinterest if you have Freedom Guard installed." (which sounds like spyware anyway) We just need The Next Big Thing to guide normal people to install software to cut the legs off of current information hoarding enterprises. They only reason what they do isn't illegal is because laws haven't caught up yet, not because it's "right," "allowable," or even "morally conscionable." The internet platforms are being run by amoralists who don't care what happens as long as they end up with more power in world in the end.
  - rmrfrmrf 13y ago
    Most privacy conscious people simply choose not to use sites like Google and Facebook.
rmrfrmrf 13y ago
...or just use NoScript...? I really don't understand the incredulity, though; does the average user think that Google has the entire Internet stored on its homepage to get Auto Suggestions to work?
- cbhl 13y ago
  > the entire Internet Thanks to things like PHP calendars that don't restrict the input date in the URL parameters and programmatically-generated content honeypots, the internet is infinitely infinite. (Sure, the source code representation of the Internet might be finite, but Googlebot doesn't always have access to that.)
  - rmrfrmrf 13y ago
    I was joking; apparently people are shocked that autocomplete requires a website to log your keystrokes.
    - cbhl 13y ago
      Computers are magic to a lot of people. Understanding that autocomplete requires a website to log your keystrokes probably requires at least a rudimentary understanding of how machine learning works.

kevando 13y ago

I agree. And I'm always curious why articles take such a tone like this. This is probably to improve the UX anyway. Some people probably type a long status and their browser crashes. This feature lets them restore it.