Privacy search-engine company DuckDuckGo submits “The Do-Not-Track Act of 2019” to improve online privacy

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, poochyena said:

If you see the same person in multiple locations and he works there, its not stalking.

If every store took his details and shared them with all the other stores and google to setup a profile then that is digital stalking.

 

Cyber stalking includes monitoring a persons activities and the use of collected to data to harass.  Receiving unrelenting ads everywhere i go and having my digital shopping habits turned into an ad campaign is harassment.  

 

In fact given cyber-stalking is a criminal offense in California I can't see it being long before google are the subject of a class action on this.

[poochyena]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

pretending it is a public place and that makes it ok.

Not pretending, its the way it is.

 

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

Receiving unrelenting ads everywhere i go and having my digital shopping habits turned into an ad campaign is harassment.  

Its not. Stop acting childish. Web advertisements don't fit any form of harassment.

[Delicieuxz]

If we played a game where we guessed who in this thread is most likely to have a financial stake in selling people's data, I know who I'd pick.

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, poochyena said:

Not pretending, its the way it is.

 

Its not. Stop acting childish. Web advertisements don't fit any form of harassment.

You have yet to give one single example of how using the internet is intrinsically public or how using websites with unannounced tracking services is the same as willingly allowing yourself to be tracked.  Remember we have "do not track" enabled so it's not like websites can say we didn't request it.  When I visit an online shop it should be that no one but the shop knows I have visited. 

 

 

 

 

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, poochyena said:

 

 

Its not. Stop acting childish. Web advertisements don't fit any form of harassment.

look at thee definition of harass:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/harass

Quote

verb (used with object)

to disturb persistently; torment, as with troubles or cares; bother continually; pester; persecute.

to trouble by repeated attacks, incursions, etc., as in war or hostilities; harry; raid.

 

 

To bother continually or to pester.  Learn how language works before calling people childish.

 

When websites I visit a loaded with ads of sites I have visited that is indeed a form of harassment, it is constantly throwing my web history back at me in the form of marketing.  

 

[poochyena]

40 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You have yet to give one single example of how using the internet is intrinsically public

I did, right here

9 hours ago, poochyena said:

If you do not require any special credentials to enter, then it is public. This forum is public, the user settings page is private. 

 

41 minutes ago, mr moose said:

how using websites with unannounced tracking services is the same as willingly allowing yourself to be tracked.

Because you are being tracked on their site, so if you don't like it, you can leave and you won't be tracked.

35 minutes ago, mr moose said:

To bother continually or to pester.

ads sit in a corner and do nothing. If that pesters you then thats on you.

[ARikozuM]

2 minutes ago, poochyena said:

Because you are being tracked on their site, so if you don't like it, you can leave and you won't be tracked.

That isn't how the world works. I can't put a camera in the park just because it's a "public space" and not have to get a person's permission. Again, you're suggesting that the web is a public place and that people can follow you for no reason. 

2 minutes ago, poochyena said:

ads sit in a corner and do nothing. If that pesters you then thats on you.

Ads don't "sit in a corner" when they follow you around and track what you've looked at. 

[poochyena]

2 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

I can't put a camera in the park just because it's a "public space"

The park owner can.

3 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

ads don't "sit in a corner" when they follow you around and track what you've looked at.  

They don't follow you outside of their domain.

[ARikozuM]

2 minutes ago, poochyena said:

The park owner can.

They don't follow you outside of their domain.

Google adsense can be on 80 out of 100 websites. The "park owner" owns most of the places you would likely visit. 

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, poochyena said:

I did, right here

That's not actually showing anything.    You need to put "special credentials" in when you shop online, but all my info is still spread across the net as if I gave them permission. 

 

Now, Please show me something that actually is an example of how the internet is intrinsically a public place.

 

2 hours ago, poochyena said:

Because you are being tracked on their site, so if you don't like it, you can leave and you won't be tracked.

So basically no more online shopping, forums, getting information from companies about their products or even downloading the latest hardware drivers?  Just stop using the internet is not an appropriate solution. 

 

The solution is for websites to be actually give half a shit about their traffic and not track when requested.

 

2 hours ago, poochyena said:

ads sit in a corner and do nothing. If that pesters you then thats on you.

As ARikozuM and I have already said, they do not just "sit in a corner" they follow me all over the net and scoop my info from websites I visit.  Every new website automatically knows the last 5 I visited. 

 

If that isn't a form of harassment, when all I want to do is visit websites and gather information that I want, not what's pushed to me as a result of my web history, then I don't know what is.

[RejZoR]

6 hours ago, poochyena said:

I did, right here

 

Because you are being tracked on their site, so if you don't like it, you can leave and you won't be tracked.

ads sit in a corner and do nothing. If that pesters you then thats on you.

Your logic is severely flawed. I don't mind if company does it on its own page, like Google on Google Search or GMail. But I sure as hell mind if Google is tracking me on CocaCola, Toyota, WordPress or even this very forum that has Google Analytics enabled. If I don't like Google, I can opt for not using their own webpages. I cannot opt out of 99% of webpages infested with their shit unless I block it with brute force basically. Does that sound like an acceptable behavior from a company? But majority of normies don't even know this shit is on webpages behind the colorful frontend and even if you tell them they don't understand what kind of problem it poses to them. They'll be like "I don't have anything to hide or worry about" in most cases. Because they just don't understand it and thus don't make an outrage thing out of it.

[Mindersteve]

On 5/12/2019 at 2:03 PM, DrMacintosh said:

Don't get me wrong, privacy laws and all that are great, but I also realize that if these companies really cared, they would already be taking measures to implement their ideological goals on their own. Currently the only major brand that I see doing that is Apple. 

 

*Cough* Mozilla *cough*

*cough* Google *cough*

*cough* Microsoft *cough*

[Mindersteve]

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

You have yet to give one single example of how using the internet is intrinsically publicrepl

 

 

 

How is the internet not intrinsically public? If you mean intrinsically government owned then no the internet is not public, but if you mean the internet is a public space. Then yeah it is. You can go to nearly any library in the United States and access the internet.

[Mindersteve]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

So basically no more online shopping, forums, getting information from companies about their products or even downloading the latest hardware drivers?  Just stop using the internet is not an appropriate solution. 

What? Do you even understand how the internet works?

[RejZoR]

9 minutes ago, Mindersteve said:

*Cough* Mozilla *cough*

*cough* Google *cough*

*cough* Microsoft *cough*

 

Some people seem to have hard times differentiating privacy on a level where everyone respects it. Google and Microsoft only care about your privacy by means that your mails or photos don't get exposed to external source that has no rights to access them (basically account hack). But they sure as hell don't respect your privacy in terms of processing user data to make profit from it. I mean come on people, Google literally makes billions of this business model. How else do you think they fund their giant operations and everything they offer is free? Do the frigging math.

 

And I defended Google in the past that it's all statistical aggregated data. But when company has so much access to our data and they have very clear aggressive political stance I just don't want them to have any of my data.

[Mindersteve]

Just now, RejZoR said:

 

Some people seem to have hard times differentiating privacy on a level where everyone respects it. Google and Microsoft only care about your privacy by means that your mails or photos don't get exposed to external source that has no rights to access them (basically account hack). But they sure as hell don't respect your privacy in terms of processing user data to make profit from it. I mean come on people, Google literally makes billions of this business model. How else do you think they fund their giant operations and everything they offer is free? Do the frigging math.

 

And I defended Google in the past that it's all statistical aggregated data. But when company has so much access to our data and they have very clear aggressive political stance I just don't want them to have any of my data.

I agree with you on that front I was just making a point cuz there was an Apple fanboy

I've boycotted google now except for YouTube.

[poochyena]

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

You need to put "special credentials" in when you shop online, but all my info is still spread across the net as if I gave them permission. 

No you don't, you only have to to buy something, and the buying page is secured.

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

So basically no more online shopping, forums, getting information from companies about their products or even downloading the latest hardware drivers?

Online OR offline!

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

they follow me

They don't follow you, you follow them. You visit the sites they are hosted on.

 

[RejZoR]

Your logic is so monumentally bizarre I don't even know where to begin. No, I don't want Google to be on a god damn Toyota webpage. They have NOTHING to do with Toyota and they bring me NO value being there. Meaning no, I'm not following them, I came to check Toyota cars, not fucking Google. And yet Google is there. Do you see how stupid you sound saying "WE" are following them and not the other way around?

[dalekphalm]

11 hours ago, poochyena said:

Because you are being tracked on their site, so if you don't like it, you can leave and you won't be tracked.

This is factually incorrect. And part of the problem.

 

Example: I visit a new site, I've never been on before. Therefore I have no idea if they respect DNT requests, or use obtrusive ads, etc.

 

The page loads, I realize it's a garbage website. So I leave.

 

Oh wait, it's already too late. See, they've already tracked my advertising ID tag. Now, that tag knows I went to that website. Now, that tag follows me to the next website that uses the same ad provider (almost certainly Google AdSense). Literally the entire point of this, is that you are tracked after you leave a website.

[RejZoR]

Only way to avoid it is to:

- block 3rd party ads from ad networks (first party ads on webpages are fine)

- block known trackers as whole

- block 3rd party cookies

 

I'm pretty certain there is some possible information leakage still, but the less you give them, the better.

 

In the past, referrers (URL address of visited page during browsing) were also a problem where page you left knew what was the next one you visited and the new one knew where you came from. Now, referrers are only allowed within one domain, so webpage within own domain knows what links within that page you've visited, but aren't cross referenced outside of the webpage.

 

And then there is IP which can't be done much about. Even if you use VPN, they'll profile you correctly if you don't also block all the other trash on webpages.

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, Mindersteve said:

How is the internet not intrinsically public? If you mean intrinsically government owned then no the internet is not public, but if you mean the internet is a public space. Then yeah it is. You can go to nearly any library in the United States and access the internet.

There is a difference between being able to access the internet in public spaces and the internet itself being public.

6 hours ago, Mindersteve said:

What? Do you even understand how the internet works?

Do you? 

 

5 hours ago, poochyena said:

No you don't, you only have to to buy something, and the buying page is secured.

I don't have to buy anything, I only need to visit the site and  that site reads the ad tracking cookies and it already knows what sites I have visited before I even know if it has anything I want.  On top of this it is has already added that visit to the list of sites I have been to.

 

5 hours ago, poochyena said:

Online OR offline!

It should not be an all or nothing. That is what makes it an intrinsically anti consumer practice.

5 hours ago, poochyena said:

They don't follow you, you follow them. You visit the sites they are hosted on.

 

That's not how it works.  They use tracking ID and cookies to log your movement across the web.   And if you disable the cookies the webpage doesn't work.  \

 

Why do you think the EU made them tell everyone that they use  cookies and why they use them? 

[Mindersteve]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

There is a difference between being able to access the internet in public spaces and the internet itself being public.

Public :Maintained for or used by the people or community: a public park. American Heritige Dictionary

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Do you?

I'm very confused on how sending a do not track request wont allow you to download device drivers?

[mr moose]

14 minutes ago, Mindersteve said:

Public :Maintained for or used by the people or community: a public park. American Heritige Dictionary

That doesn't describe the internet.   The internet is maintained predominately by private business to serve both people and business.  

 

14 minutes ago, Mindersteve said:

I'm very confused on how sending a do not track request wont allow you to download device drivers?

I don't even know why you are trying to work that out.    No one said that was the case.

[Mindersteve]

11 minutes ago, mr moose said:

That doesn't describe the internet.   The internet is maintained predominately by private business to serve both people and business.  

It's not like the MAJORITY of websites accessed on the internet and actively uploaded to and viewed by the public. /s

11 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

I don't even know why you are trying to work that out.    No one said that was the case.

Sorry I misunderstood what you said earlier. My bad

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, Mindersteve said:

It's not like the MAJORITY of websites accessed on the internet and actively uploaded to and viewed by the public. /s

Viewed by the public and being public are not the same either.  However the majority of the issue is not forums like this or even youtube (although I can foresee a lot of contention there), it is online shopping and services that are contention here.  When you log on to AMD or nvidia's site for drivers they use cookies to track your movement, when you go to amazon and ebay they use the same cookies to give you ads about the latest products from whichever site you just visited to get your drivers from.   I did not give either AMD nor ebay permission to gather information regarding what websites I have visited.  In fact with my "do not track" request I specifically asked that they don't do that. 

 

The argument appears to be that they can track you because you are in a public space, that is not true.  The argument then changed and became it is their website (ergo now no longer a public space) if you don't like it don't use it.  Which is a fallacy because nowadays you can't get driver updates on disc much less ignore 80% of the internet which continues to share their tracking data across websites.

 

So either way the argument goes the only consistent and immensely obvious condition that remains is that people are being tracked  across websites without their permission and in many cases without their knowledge.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Mindersteve said:

Sorry I misunderstood what you said earlier. My bad

That's cool.