storagedude writes "The FTC wants a do-not-track mechanism that would allow Web users to opt out of online behavioral tracking, similar to the national do-not-call registry. The agency's preferred method for accomplishing this would be a browser-based tool that would give users the option of blocking data collection across the Web. The only problem is that the agency may not have the authority to require this, thanks to concerted lobbying efforts by the advertising industry. The first step may just be voluntary measures, to be released this fall."
It's possible, it's just not a good use of money to just stick ads whereever.
Do you think they just stick billboards up next to a highway because they like to? Those ads you see on highway billboards were bought because the company that paid for them had data on the local population, like income level/political leaning/religion/language and so on.
If you can't tell a company who is coming to your site, they're less likely to buy ads if they do at all.
Definitely need some controls over tracking, though.
Tracking isn't studying data from your website accesses, it's forming profiles of a specific user over multiple websites, by "planting" a cookie or other means of identification.
The analogy would be the advertisements companies putting a RFID tag in your car, that would be detected by each billboard you happened to pass by. Would you be OK with that level of location tracking? I wouldn't.
The analogy would be the advertisements companies putting a RFID tag in your car, that would be detected by each billboard you happened to pass by. Would you be OK with that level of location tracking?
Yes.
That's not to say I'd let them just put the thing in my car without compensating me in some way. But that's not what you asked.
I wouldn't.
Turns out the world doesn't revolve around you.
Since advertising is inevitable on the web, if you want sites to continue to provide (otherwise) free content, than I'm al
What does tracking have to do with ad-supported websites? Advertisers should be able to develop advertisements based on the website content. No user tracking required.
There will be incalculable economic losses and numerous people losing their jobs over that of course. After all the whole advertising business will go totally down the drain if you build in such functionality. I mean think of the children and so. This is is also totally anti-capitalist. You really should listen to your local politicians and advertising lobbyists better for failing to see the obvious.
So that we can still get valuable information from people who really don't care about that particular aspect of their privacy but are too lazy to check the box. It's the same logic as opt-out organ donation, which seems to be very successful [ft.com].
I thought this was called disable cookies, and delete all browsing data upon exit? This isn't even an issue. Do that, and they can track you about as well as what phone prompts you chose when you call support.
Flash cookies FTL! And when that starts to fail more, advertisers can always rely on server-side stateful tracking using whatever identifying tokens they can get(ip address, user agent, etc) to track users. The only real way to stop tracking is to compel the trackers to stop trying. Even elaborate measures like TOR can and have failed to completely prevent tracking.
You enable cookies only for sites you want to log in to.
To complete you privacy you have Flash off by default and you set a minimal UA string.
The last two currently require plugins, but if browsers had built in click to run for plugins and sent minimal UA strings (just browser and version) be default the problem would largely be solved.
That would help, but there's still ETag-based tracking [wikipedia.org], which is really hard to disable unless you want to make the web dog-slow by disabling all caching.
Throwing advertising magazines into the trash is not a method of opting out.
This is about telling the publisher that you are not interested in such material. Disabling/deleting {images, cookies, history} is not the same thing.
TFS suggests signaling the publisher and requiring the publisher to react based on it.
One technical method of implementing this would be an additional HTTP-Request Header, like Accept-Language, or to reuse the now-abandoned Charge-To field.
UseBridges 1 paste the bridges you obtained from the url above here starting with the word bridge and following with the IP, one on each line, like so:
Bridge 1.2.3.4 Bridge 5.6.7.8
Need help with Tor? Speak to the developers (and users) directly: irc.oftc.net #tor
Or join the Tor mailing list: click the first url above, click Docs at the top of the page, scroll down for the mailing list information.
If this is true:
"The FTC wants a do-not-track mechanism that would allow Web users to opt out of online behavioral tracking, similar to the national do-not-call registry." they could encourage the use of Tor on their website, possibly running some tor nodes themselves to aid the Tor network.
There must be a FF extension that can do just that by now. I can't imagine that there are no paranoid nerds that haven't thought of this.
And if there is no FF extension then the required functionality is probably impossible to do browser-side.
Actually I am wondering how they track behaviour, and what a browser can do to prevent it. I can think of a few bits:
- Cookies. The obvious one. Third-party cookies especially. Can be blocked in FF and other browsers for more than a decade already.
- Referrer tags in URLs. Sometimes useful - especially for sites to see where visitors originate - but also for the end user. E.g. after a Google search you go to some web page that then highlights your search terms. Seems trivial to block in your browser as your browser puts the referrer tag in the http request.
- IP address. Naturally public information. Can not be blocked, ever. Merely obfuscated by using tor or so.
- Browser ID. Can easily be faked. But is usually constant for a user, allowing them to be traced anyway using this and the IP address. Also between cooperating web sites. And of course third-party ad providers who in turn can follow IP addresses over their customer's web sites. Those third parties can be (partly) blocked by e.g. AdBlock Plus, only partly as the visited web site can still give your info (IP address, page visited) to the ad company, even when the actual ads are blocked.
That's all that I can think of at the moment, there may be more ways to follow a user. But I don't see much that can be done on the browser-side to stop more tracking.
And if there is no FF extension then the required functionality is probably impossible to do browser-side.
...
That's all that I can think of at the moment, there may be more ways to follow a user. But I don't see much that can be done on the browser-side to stop more tracking.
You missed the point. The summary is suggesting a server-side solution, i.e. signaling the website to bugger off.
Why are our elected officials spending any time on this? Is there *any* evidence that the data collected has ever been misused in any way? The online advertising industry is based on selectively targetting users with advertisements, and so far I see no compelling reasons for the government to interfere. Before the government starts regulating an industry, shouldn't there be evidence that the industry is in fact in need of regulating?
Disclaimer: I work in an advertising company developing the conversion rate models
Is there *any* evidence that the data collected has ever been misused in any way?
I don't particularly care if the data is misused because I don't agree with the method of data collection to begin with. I don't need people tracking my actions to see how to advertise to me. Advertisements are annoying. Advertisers should be tracking products or sales, not individuals.
Before the government starts regulating an industry, shouldn't there be evidence that the industry is in fact in need of regulating?
I support the FTC being proactive and considering preventative action. Should we wait for a crime to be committed before we make it illegal?
No, but if I barge into someone else's house (when that house has a "come on in!" sign outside), they can make a note of it and share those notes with whoever they want.
But what if the sign outside makes no mention of this note taking and sharing?
And besides, what goes on in the internet would be more like if that person followed you around town spying on you and taking notes of everywhere you visit.
And how to you identify theses?
We run just a few sites and they are allow users to change how info is displayed and then track the user and make sure those changes are available across all sites. Would we qualify even if all of that is for internal and a few external users?
For do not call that was easy, you make a commercial cold call you qualify, if this was that easy then someone would of already addeded it or a plug in would be available.
1. Online behavioural tracking and 3rd party cookies outlawed 2. Adverts shown to us are now even less relevant / interesting than they were before. 3. We all click on far fewer adverts as a result. 4. Websites make far less money from their advertising 5. Vast majority of free websites go bankrupt or become subscription only so we stop using them. 6. The concept of the 'free' (as in beer) Internet is lost in history.
It's a LOSE - LOSE situation. When will people realise that well targetted and appropriate adverts are good for everyone?
you need government regulations. you want to pay taxes for the legions of government bureaucrats toiling away somewhere interfering with business
because without such regulation business will trample your rights
you heard me correctly: the government protects your rights and corporations trample them. i'm sorry of this idea contrasts with certain brands of low brain wattage propaganda about the government trampling your rights: if the paranoid schizophrenic fantasies of certain right wing zealots ever come to fruition, those abuses will not happen at the hands of washington dc, they will happen at the hands of large corporate entities
i have every right to say what happens on my machine
additionally, i have every right to insist you change your behavior, such as with logs, if suitable logical reason can be found that my rights could potentially be abused by your practices
in other words, there are principles that govern society, and no one is above those principles. and claims to be exempt from those principles, for reasons of trade and commerce, is the road to hell
understand that, or be the enemy of freedom
individual liberty is not trumped by corporate interest, despite all the paid legal whores and assorted apologists to the contrary
>i have every right to say what happens on my machine
Then do it... if using firefox go to tools->options->privacy-> and uncheck accept cookies...
there are other plugins/methods/programs like noscript, adblock, editing host files that are there so YOU can stop them, otherwise, you can quit going to their sites.
however, the vast amount of users are not technically astute, and laws must be passed and enforced to protect them. it is not beholden upon the computer user to have a computer science degree to use a browser, nor should it be, all elitist snarky slashdot comments to the contrary
do you have to be an auto mechanic before you drive on the road?
do you have to be a lawyer before you sit in a jury box?
do you have to be a architect before you own a home?
no?
then it is obvious that your appeal to technical competen
do you have to be an auto mechanic? no, but you do have to take a drivers test to show you are proficient enough to drive a 2 ton chunk of metal around safely.
do you have to be a lawyer? no, but you have to at least be responsible enough to show up & follow instructions.
do you have to be a architect? no, but you do have to be responsible to perform maintenance & upkeep your house.
and to top it off... the vast number of people don't care about being tracked. if they did, facebook would be a complete
to the extent the state is NOT an extension of my willpower is the same as the extent to which it is corrupted by corporate influence
some argue that because the government works against individual rights (since it is corrupted by powerful corporate interests), then the government should be reduced. however, this merely reduces the only (imperfect) buffer we have between our abusers (the corporate infection of our government) and our rights. with less government comes more
because of infection of the government by corporate money
read the first sentence:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
We. The. People.
to the extent that the interests of the corporations are more important to the politicians than the interests of we the people, is the extent to which that government MUST BE CLEANED UP, not destroyed
your position is this: you see a sick person in front of you (the government). your solution is to condemn the sick person, rather than treat him for the disease
"At least a "greedy" corporation is putting people to work"
additionally, you completely absolve the disease of any wrongdoing for the fact that the patient is sick
it just blows my fucking mind, its fucking incredible: that some people should see the corporate infection of our government and conclude the only solution is to destroy the government!
the only thing standing between us and the infection that is the real source of the abuse of our rights is the government. it needs to be CLEANED UP, not DESTROYED, or then all of the abuses you see GET WORSE. that really is the truth. wake the fuck up
why is it that so many free market fundamentalists forget about the banking panics in the 1800s (no regulations=bubbles and pops... hello 2008)? why do so many libertarians ignore the abuses of individual liberties by corporations in the gilded age (corporations, not governments, remove your liberties)? why do so many right wing small government zealots completely ignore the hard fought and hard won protections for workers in the 1800s? (40 hour work week, minimum wage, etc... you think these ideas were not developed in an atmosphere of constant abuse of the individual by corporations?)
fact, solid motherfucking fact: corporations will abuse your individual liberties as much as they can in the pursuit of the buck. they ARE NOT BEHOLDEN TO YOU. you NEED the government as your protector with all those regulations and enforcement, or YOU WILL BE ABUSED. to the extent that the government has been coopted by corporate interests and infected from the inside is the extent YOU NEED TO CLEAN UP YOUR GOVERNMENT OF CORPORATE INFECTION...not destroy the only entity which keeps the REAL abusers from defiling your rights!
corporations are the single greatest abusers of individual liberties. government is your only source of protection from those abuses. you NEED a strong central government, or every abuse you detest will be visited upon you MORE
so stop working to DESTROY government, start working to CLEAN UP government
if you argue for smaller government, in the name of individual liberties, the real world effect of your efforts is increased abuses of individual liberties, because you do not understand who the real abusers are
if the patient is sick, don't kill the patient and let the disease spread, treat the patient of the disease and stop the spread of the disease. fight the disease, not the patient. the patient is YOUR government, the disease is corporate dollars
read the first fucking sentence:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
WE. THE. PEOPLE. to the extent that the government is not we the people is the extent to which it has been corrupted by corporate dollars. so get rid of the corporate dollars, not the government!
reclaim YOUR government from corporate infection and make it a more effective tool in protecting your rights and freedoms from the real abusers: corporations who would destroy your rights and freedoms, and have done so in the past, and will happily do so again in the pursuit of more profit, if there is only a weak ineffective government between them and more profit
CLEAN UP GOVERNMENT. DON'T DESTROY THE ONLY THING THAT PROTECTS YOU FROM THE REAL ABUSERS OF YOUR RIGHTS
The reality that only government holds the special right to employ coercion against you, while the rest of us (including corporations) do not.
Sure they do, it's just a different form of coercion, namely economic coercion.
For instance, let's say you're living in a mining town. You can just about make ends meet by working in the mines, but haven't been able to squirrel away significant savings (your job gives you enough to keep a roof over your head, food on your plate, clothes on your back, and not much else). There aren't any other companies in the area hiring because it's an economic recession. Now, your boss tells you that you need to work an extra 10 hours a week without reporting it in order to keep your job. Your options are: (a) work the extra 10 hours effectively as slave labor, (b) move out of town, (c) unemployment, or (d) report the crime to somebody. Option b is more than you can afford. Option c leaves you homeless and starving. Option d means that your employer will retaliate by firing you (along with anyone else they think was involved) so it's equivalent to option d. So that leaves you with no choice but option a.
That exact scenario is a reality for millions of Americans (as well as workers in other countries) - read up on wage theft. And think about the fact that the only recourse someone in that situation potentially has is government regulation.
since the dawn of time, the rights of the INDIVIDUAL are pitted against the rights of the GROUP
pretty much the entire history of mankind is a narrative about this essential struggle
so some ancient greeks, a few others, and finally some american colonists said "hey, this abuse by the group sucks, but we still have to coordinate our activities if we are to survive as a strong entity able to fend off such abuse by large injust groups. so how do we do that? maybe this democracy thing, hmmm..."
and so began a silly experiment called democracy, which has always been messy, always imperfect, but still better than lying down and accepting horrible abuse at the hands of a group
so what i am saying is: yes, the government abused your rights, is abusing your rights, and will always abuse your rights. i understand and agree with that assessment completely, and offer no lala land tales about the wonderful joys of big government: i am not an idiot. but at least, in a democracy, in theory IT IS ACCOUNTABLE TO YOU and you have CIVIL AND LEGAL AVENUES FOR RECOURSE. you don't have to pick up a gun or throw a molotov cocktail to address your grievances. you can stand on a soap box or start a blog or a lawsuit instead. and if enough people agree with you, you begin to see satisfactory justice for your abuse, without violence
what about corporations? who or what are they accountable to? answer: profit, greed, make more bucks AT ANY COST. a corporation will clearly trample your rights in order to get more profit. a government will also trample your rights for various random goals. but only one of those entities allows you to say "this is not fair!" and if enough of your fellow citizens agree with you, the abuse is addressed, reversed, and not allowed
see my point?
because democracy is imperfect is no reason to accept something clearly worse. because the government nibbles your toes is no reason to accept or see as superior a world in which corporations gnaw your fingers off
The problem is how to decide who can & who does not consent to tracking. What they suggest is something
similar to the Do-Not-Call registry
— which means that you need to identify exactly who you are so that the web site knows not to track you. Most trackers currently do not know who you are, just that you have visited some set of web sites. <irony>That will, of course, not be abused by anyone.</irony>
So their suggested cure is worse than the current disease.
Having a database of users is also heavily bureauocratic & sooner of later that list will get stolen.
A much simpler mechanism is to have a new HTTP header, eg Tracking with values of yes or no. True anonymity, not hard for the browser vendors to implement, light weight.
OK: it will be ignored, but so could the Do-Not-Call registry. Enforcement was always going to be the issue, does the FTC realise that the first letter of www stands for World, ie it has no legal right to control all of it ?
There are ads on the internet? Seriously, when did this happen?
The best targeted ads are useless if no one sees them. Firefox could include Adblock Plus functionality by default (with easylist enabled) and we'd have an instant restructuring of the entire online advertisement model. Sites that would throw up a pay-wall aren't worth my time anyway, good riddance to bad rubbish.
Is to have the FTC and FCC start gaining real statutory powers to mandate product design. It's one thing like with the FCC to have a program that requires that wireless devices follow certain guidelines to keep from interfering with one another or emergency responders, but this? No way. This sort of mandate would only be the beginning of the federal government telling software developers how to do their job in ways that are dubiously related to the common good.
The necessary technological change is about as likely. Given the prevalence of "web bugs", the one-pixel transparent images used to track web use by downloading images from a third party web server, and the third party management of cookies used to share data, and all the other technologies, there's no "browser setting" that will fix it all. Even insisting that all web content come from the same hostname when viewing a page breaks down when that server can simply proxy the requests for content to a third pa
why Opt-out? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why Opt-in?
Why not disabled by default and not activable?
What's the tremendous benefit we'd be losing?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:why Opt-out? (Score:4, Insightful)
So now it's impossible to advertise without tracking?
(fricking /. time limit! I can perfectly write a meaningful response in 5 seconds.)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's possible, it's just not a good use of money to just stick ads whereever.
Do you think they just stick billboards up next to a highway because they like to? Those ads you see on highway billboards were bought because the company that paid for them had data on the local population, like income level/political leaning/religion/language and so on.
If you can't tell a company who is coming to your site, they're less likely to buy ads if they do at all.
Definitely need some controls over tracking, though.
Re:why Opt-out? (Score:5, Interesting)
Tracking isn't studying data from your website accesses, it's forming profiles of a specific user over multiple websites, by "planting" a cookie or other means of identification.
The analogy would be the advertisements companies putting a RFID tag in your car, that would be detected by each billboard you happened to pass by. Would you be OK with that level of location tracking? I wouldn't.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The analogy would be the advertisements companies putting a RFID tag in your car, that would be detected by each billboard you happened to pass by. Would you be OK with that level of location tracking?
Yes.
That's not to say I'd let them just put the thing in my car without compensating me in some way. But that's not what you asked.
I wouldn't.
Turns out the world doesn't revolve around you.
Since advertising is inevitable on the web, if you want sites to continue to provide (otherwise) free content, than I'm al
Re:why Opt-out? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:why Opt-out? (Score:4, Funny)
There will be incalculable economic losses and numerous people losing their jobs over that of course. After all the whole advertising business will go totally down the drain if you build in such functionality. I mean think of the children and so. This is is also totally anti-capitalist. You really should listen to your local politicians and advertising lobbyists better for failing to see the obvious.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:why Opt-out? (Score:4, Interesting)
So that we can still get valuable information from people who really don't care about that particular aspect of their privacy but are too lazy to check the box. It's the same logic as opt-out organ donation, which seems to be very successful [ft.com].
Parent
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
That's what I thought, too, but google Quantcast and zombie cookies and you'll find out that isn't necessarily true.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, you mean Flash cookies? Having Flash enabled by default is stupid anyway. Just get a flash blocker (NoScript works fine) and forget it.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because if you disable cookies - you cannot log in to any website. Hardly practical.
Parent
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
You enable cookies only for sites you want to log in to.
To complete you privacy you have Flash off by default and you set a minimal UA string.
The last two currently require plugins, but if browsers had built in click to run for plugins and sent minimal UA strings (just browser and version) be default the problem would largely be solved.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Throwing advertising magazines into the trash is not a method of opting out.
This is about telling the publisher that you are not interested in such material. Disabling/deleting {images, cookies, history} is not the same thing.
TFS suggests signaling the publisher and requiring the publisher to react based on it.
One technical method of implementing this would be an additional HTTP-Request Header, like Accept-Language, or to reuse the now-abandoned Charge-To field.
Tor Already Provides This (Score:3, Informative)
There's already an opt-out option:
https://www.torproject.org/ [torproject.org]
Visit https://bridges.torproject.org/ [torproject.org] to grab some bridge IPs and
add this to your torrc file:
UseBridges 1
paste the bridges you obtained from the url above here starting
with the word bridge and following with the IP, one on each line,
like so:
Bridge 1.2.3.4
Bridge 5.6.7.8
Need help with Tor? Speak to the developers (and users) directly:
irc.oftc.net #tor
Or join the Tor mailing list: click the first url above, click
Docs at the top of the page, scroll down for the mailing list
information.
If this is true:
"The FTC wants a do-not-track mechanism that would allow Web users to
opt out of online behavioral tracking, similar to the national do-not-call
registry." they could encourage the use of Tor on their website, possibly
running some tor nodes themselves to aid the Tor network.
Re: (Score:2)
Chrome's Incognito isn't enough? (Score:3, Interesting)
Firefox extension? (Score:5, Interesting)
There must be a FF extension that can do just that by now. I can't imagine that there are no paranoid nerds that haven't thought of this.
And if there is no FF extension then the required functionality is probably impossible to do browser-side.
Actually I am wondering how they track behaviour, and what a browser can do to prevent it. I can think of a few bits:
- Cookies. The obvious one. Third-party cookies especially. Can be blocked in FF and other browsers for more than a decade already.
- Referrer tags in URLs. Sometimes useful - especially for sites to see where visitors originate - but also for the end user. E.g. after a Google search you go to some web page that then highlights your search terms. Seems trivial to block in your browser as your browser puts the referrer tag in the http request.
- IP address. Naturally public information. Can not be blocked, ever. Merely obfuscated by using tor or so.
- Browser ID. Can easily be faked. But is usually constant for a user, allowing them to be traced anyway using this and the IP address. Also between cooperating web sites. And of course third-party ad providers who in turn can follow IP addresses over their customer's web sites. Those third parties can be (partly) blocked by e.g. AdBlock Plus, only partly as the visited web site can still give your info (IP address, page visited) to the ad company, even when the actual ads are blocked.
That's all that I can think of at the moment, there may be more ways to follow a user. But I don't see much that can be done on the browser-side to stop more tracking.
Re:Firefox extension to block the zombies (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And if there is no FF extension then the required functionality is probably impossible to do browser-side.
...
That's all that I can think of at the moment, there may be more ways to follow a user. But I don't see much that can be done on the browser-side to stop more tracking.
You missed the point. The summary is suggesting a server-side solution, i.e. signaling the website to bugger off.
Why????? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there *any* evidence that the data collected has ever been misused in any way?
I don't particularly care if the data is misused because I don't agree with the method of data collection to begin with. I don't need people tracking my actions to see how to advertise to me. Advertisements are annoying. Advertisers should be tracking products or sales, not individuals.
Before the government starts regulating an industry, shouldn't there be evidence that the industry is in fact in need of regulating?
I support the FTC being proactive and considering preventative action. Should we wait for a crime to be committed before we make it illegal?
Disclaimer: I work in an advertising company
I'm sorry. I'll pray for you.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but if I barge into someone else's house (when that house has a "come on in!" sign outside), they can make a note of it and share those notes with whoever they want.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Visits you (Score:2)
Don't make the website angry. You wouldn't like the website when it's angry!
how do you identify. (Score:4, Interesting)
We run just a few sites and they are allow users to change how info is displayed and then track the user and make sure those changes are available across all sites. Would we qualify even if all of that is for internal and a few external users?
For do not call that was easy, you make a commercial cold call you qualify, if this was that easy then someone would of already addeded it or a plug in would be available.
Here's how this will go... (Score:4, Funny)
Here's how this will go...
1. Online behavioural tracking and 3rd party cookies outlawed
2. Adverts shown to us are now even less relevant / interesting than they were before.
3. We all click on far fewer adverts as a result.
4. Websites make far less money from their advertising
5. Vast majority of free websites go bankrupt or become subscription only so we stop using them.
6. The concept of the 'free' (as in beer) Internet is lost in history.
It's a LOSE - LOSE situation. When will people realise that well targetted and appropriate adverts are good for everyone?
a lesson for libertarians (Score:5, Insightful)
and assorted free market fundamentalists:
you need government regulations. you want to pay taxes for the legions of government bureaucrats toiling away somewhere interfering with business
because without such regulation business will trample your rights
you heard me correctly: the government protects your rights and corporations trample them. i'm sorry of this idea contrasts with certain brands of low brain wattage propaganda about the government trampling your rights: if the paranoid schizophrenic fantasies of certain right wing zealots ever come to fruition, those abuses will not happen at the hands of washington dc, they will happen at the hands of large corporate entities
the cookie exists on my machine (Score:4, Informative)
i have every right to say what happens on my machine
additionally, i have every right to insist you change your behavior, such as with logs, if suitable logical reason can be found that my rights could potentially be abused by your practices
in other words, there are principles that govern society, and no one is above those principles. and claims to be exempt from those principles, for reasons of trade and commerce, is the road to hell
understand that, or be the enemy of freedom
individual liberty is not trumped by corporate interest, despite all the paid legal whores and assorted apologists to the contrary
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
>i have every right to say what happens on my machine
Then do it... if using firefox go to tools->options->privacy-> and uncheck accept cookies...
there are other plugins/methods/programs like noscript, adblock, editing host files that are there so YOU can stop them, otherwise, you can quit going to their sites.
this is a fine argument for the technically astute (Score:2)
however, the vast amount of users are not technically astute, and laws must be passed and enforced to protect them. it is not beholden upon the computer user to have a computer science degree to use a browser, nor should it be, all elitist snarky slashdot comments to the contrary
do you have to be an auto mechanic before you drive on the road?
do you have to be a lawyer before you sit in a jury box?
do you have to be a architect before you own a home?
no?
then it is obvious that your appeal to technical competen
Re: (Score:2)
do you have to be an auto mechanic? no, but you do have to take a drivers test to show you are proficient enough to drive a 2 ton chunk of metal around safely.
do you have to be a lawyer? no, but you have to at least be responsible enough to show up & follow instructions.
do you have to be a architect? no, but you do have to be responsible to perform maintenance & upkeep your house.
and to top it off... the vast number of people don't care about being tracked. if they did, facebook would be a complete
i live in a democracy (Score:3, Interesting)
the state IS me
well, it should be me
to the extent the state is NOT an extension of my willpower is the same as the extent to which it is corrupted by corporate influence
some argue that because the government works against individual rights (since it is corrupted by powerful corporate interests), then the government should be reduced. however, this merely reduces the only (imperfect) buffer we have between our abusers (the corporate infection of our government) and our rights. with less government comes more
why are the politicians interests (Score:5, Insightful)
separate form their constituents interests?
because of infection of the government by corporate money
read the first sentence:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
We. The. People.
to the extent that the interests of the corporations are more important to the politicians than the interests of we the people, is the extent to which that government MUST BE CLEANED UP, not destroyed
your position is this: you see a sick person in front of you (the government). your solution is to condemn the sick person, rather than treat him for the disease
"At least a "greedy" corporation is putting people to work"
additionally, you completely absolve the disease of any wrongdoing for the fact that the patient is sick
it just blows my fucking mind, its fucking incredible: that some people should see the corporate infection of our government and conclude the only solution is to destroy the government!
the only thing standing between us and the infection that is the real source of the abuse of our rights is the government. it needs to be CLEANED UP, not DESTROYED, or then all of the abuses you see GET WORSE. that really is the truth. wake the fuck up
Parent
if government is weak (Score:5, Insightful)
then there is a power vacuum
that power vacuum will be filled by corporations, who will employ blackwater private security forces against individual liberty
am i talking science fiction?
no, i'm talking HISTORICAL AMERICAN FACT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_National_Detective_Agency [wikipedia.org]
why is it that so many free market fundamentalists forget about the banking panics in the 1800s (no regulations=bubbles and pops... hello 2008)? why do so many libertarians ignore the abuses of individual liberties by corporations in the gilded age (corporations, not governments, remove your liberties)? why do so many right wing small government zealots completely ignore the hard fought and hard won protections for workers in the 1800s? (40 hour work week, minimum wage, etc... you think these ideas were not developed in an atmosphere of constant abuse of the individual by corporations?)
fact, solid motherfucking fact: corporations will abuse your individual liberties as much as they can in the pursuit of the buck. they ARE NOT BEHOLDEN TO YOU. you NEED the government as your protector with all those regulations and enforcement, or YOU WILL BE ABUSED. to the extent that the government has been coopted by corporate interests and infected from the inside is the extent YOU NEED TO CLEAN UP YOUR GOVERNMENT OF CORPORATE INFECTION...not destroy the only entity which keeps the REAL abusers from defiling your rights!
corporations are the single greatest abusers of individual liberties. government is your only source of protection from those abuses. you NEED a strong central government, or every abuse you detest will be visited upon you MORE
so stop working to DESTROY government, start working to CLEAN UP government
if you argue for smaller government, in the name of individual liberties, the real world effect of your efforts is increased abuses of individual liberties, because you do not understand who the real abusers are
if the patient is sick, don't kill the patient and let the disease spread, treat the patient of the disease and stop the spread of the disease. fight the disease, not the patient. the patient is YOUR government, the disease is corporate dollars
read the first fucking sentence:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
WE. THE. PEOPLE. to the extent that the government is not we the people is the extent to which it has been corrupted by corporate dollars. so get rid of the corporate dollars, not the government!
reclaim YOUR government from corporate infection and make it a more effective tool in protecting your rights and freedoms from the real abusers: corporations who would destroy your rights and freedoms, and have done so in the past, and will happily do so again in the pursuit of more profit, if there is only a weak ineffective government between them and more profit
CLEAN UP GOVERNMENT. DON'T DESTROY THE ONLY THING THAT PROTECTS YOU FROM THE REAL ABUSERS OF YOUR RIGHTS
Parent
Re:Rights (Score:5, Interesting)
The reality that only government holds the special right to employ coercion against you, while the rest of us (including corporations) do not.
Sure they do, it's just a different form of coercion, namely economic coercion.
For instance, let's say you're living in a mining town. You can just about make ends meet by working in the mines, but haven't been able to squirrel away significant savings (your job gives you enough to keep a roof over your head, food on your plate, clothes on your back, and not much else). There aren't any other companies in the area hiring because it's an economic recession. Now, your boss tells you that you need to work an extra 10 hours a week without reporting it in order to keep your job. Your options are: (a) work the extra 10 hours effectively as slave labor, (b) move out of town, (c) unemployment, or (d) report the crime to somebody. Option b is more than you can afford. Option c leaves you homeless and starving. Option d means that your employer will retaliate by firing you (along with anyone else they think was involved) so it's equivalent to option d. So that leaves you with no choice but option a.
That exact scenario is a reality for millions of Americans (as well as workers in other countries) - read up on wage theft. And think about the fact that the only recourse someone in that situation potentially has is government regulation.
Parent
absolutely (Score:4, Insightful)
since the dawn of time, the rights of the INDIVIDUAL are pitted against the rights of the GROUP
pretty much the entire history of mankind is a narrative about this essential struggle
so some ancient greeks, a few others, and finally some american colonists said "hey, this abuse by the group sucks, but we still have to coordinate our activities if we are to survive as a strong entity able to fend off such abuse by large injust groups. so how do we do that? maybe this democracy thing, hmmm..."
and so began a silly experiment called democracy, which has always been messy, always imperfect, but still better than lying down and accepting horrible abuse at the hands of a group
so what i am saying is: yes, the government abused your rights, is abusing your rights, and will always abuse your rights. i understand and agree with that assessment completely, and offer no lala land tales about the wonderful joys of big government: i am not an idiot. but at least, in a democracy, in theory IT IS ACCOUNTABLE TO YOU and you have CIVIL AND LEGAL AVENUES FOR RECOURSE. you don't have to pick up a gun or throw a molotov cocktail to address your grievances. you can stand on a soap box or start a blog or a lawsuit instead. and if enough people agree with you, you begin to see satisfactory justice for your abuse, without violence
what about corporations? who or what are they accountable to? answer: profit, greed, make more bucks AT ANY COST. a corporation will clearly trample your rights in order to get more profit. a government will also trample your rights for various random goals. but only one of those entities allows you to say "this is not fair!" and if enough of your fellow citizens agree with you, the abuse is addressed, reversed, and not allowed
see my point?
because democracy is imperfect is no reason to accept something clearly worse. because the government nibbles your toes is no reason to accept or see as superior a world in which corporations gnaw your fingers off
Parent
Add a new HTTP header (Score:4, Interesting)
similar to the Do-Not-Call registry
— which means that you need to identify exactly who you are so that the web site knows not to track you. Most trackers currently do not know who you are, just that you have visited some set of web sites. <irony>That will, of course, not be abused by anyone.</irony>
So their suggested cure is worse than the current disease.
Having a database of users is also heavily bureauocratic & sooner of later that list will get stolen.
A much simpler mechanism is to have a new HTTP header, eg Tracking with values of yes or no. True anonymity, not hard for the browser vendors to implement, light weight.
OK: it will be ignored, but so could the Do-Not-Call registry. Enforcement was always going to be the issue, does the FTC realise that the first letter of www stands for World, ie it has no legal right to control all of it ?
Ghostery FF Add-on (Score:2, Informative)
Ghostery blocks all that tracking crap...
While I was sleeping? (Score:2)
There are ads on the internet? Seriously, when did this happen?
The best targeted ads are useless if no one sees them. Firefox could include Adblock Plus functionality by default (with easylist enabled) and we'd have an instant restructuring of the entire online advertisement model. Sites that would throw up a pay-wall aren't worth my time anyway, good riddance to bad rubbish.
The last thing we need... (Score:2)
Is to have the FTC and FCC start gaining real statutory powers to mandate product design. It's one thing like with the FCC to have a program that requires that wireless devices follow certain guidelines to keep from interfering with one another or emergency responders, but this? No way. This sort of mandate would only be the beginning of the federal government telling software developers how to do their job in ways that are dubiously related to the common good.
"...the agency may not have the authority... (Score:2)
...to require this."
I sure as hell hope not. All we need is a Federal agency regulating browser design.
And they'd like no one to use ALL CAPS (Score:2)
The necessary technological change is about as likely. Given the prevalence of "web bugs", the one-pixel transparent images used to track web use by downloading images from a third party web server, and the third party management of cookies used to share data, and all the other technologies, there's no "browser setting" that will fix it all. Even insisting that all web content come from the same hostname when viewing a page breaks down when that server can simply proxy the requests for content to a third pa