Google, Apple Lead Massive List of Companies Supporting CISPA 153
redletterdave writes "TechNet, the trade association representing and led by dozens of prominent technology companies including Google, Apple and Facebook, has formally come out in support of CISPA, sending a letter to the U.S. House of Representatives. The letter said: 'We commend the committee for providing liability protections to companies participating in voluntary information-sharing and applaud the committee's efforts to work with a wide range of stakeholders to address issues such as strengthening privacy protections. As the legislative process unfolds, we look forward to continuing the dialogue with you and your colleagues on further privacy protections, including discussions on the role of a civilian interface for information sharing.'"
The White House won't support the bill in its current form, but they plan to work with legislators on a compromise. The current text of the bill is available online.
Re:Google hates privacy (Score:5, Informative)
Hell, have you noticed how Google's advertisements on other sites like Slashdot change based on what you've been recently searching on Google.
The least you could do (besides an adblocker, assuming you haven't already got one and are whitelisting slashdot) is disable all cookies, enabling exceptions for sites you want. It's scary seeing how many cookies from how many different sites a single page tries to set nowadays. By disabling all by default, I end up enabling only the one(s) required for login, and it leaves all the other tracking cookies blocked. Sure, there are non-cookie ways to track, especially by IP and browser version/feature fingerprint, but Google no longer remembers my searches with just blocked cookies.
Re:Google hates privacy (Score:5, Informative)
The GP is an ad itself. No need to reply to it. Notice the new ID and the posting at the same time article was posted.
Re:Google hates privacy (Score:5, Informative)
Took me under 5 seconds to put "firefox prevent google tracking" into my google toolbar and that brings up:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/remove-google-tracking/ [mozilla.org]
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/gdc/ [mozilla.org]
and a hella comprehensive guide for thick tin-foil hats:
http://www.leavegooglebehind.com/how-tos/how-to-build-a-firefox-privacy-arsenal/ [leavegooglebehind.com]
Re:Google hates privacy (Score:4, Informative)
Google CEO: If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
Re:Google hates privacy (Score:4, Informative)
have you thought for one second... to stop using google?
Exactly, DuckDuckGo FTW.
Re:Google hates privacy (Score:4, Informative)
Hell, have you noticed how Google's advertisements on other sites like Slashdot change based on what you've been recently searching on Google.
The least you could do (besides an adblocker, assuming you haven't already got one and are whitelisting slashdot) is disable all cookies, enabling exceptions for sites you want.
Of course the other alternative is to contribute a small amount to the costs of running a website like slashdot by becoming a subscriber. Then you can see no ads what so ever if you so chose.
Seriously, running and hosting a website is expensive. If you completely removed all adverts from the web then many websites would simply have to close as it is impossible to reliably host something popular without incurring costs.
I have nothing to do with slashdot, but I do work as technical lead for a site that probably has nowhere near as much traffic and I know we have to pay a fair whack for our hosting even before you pay my colleagues and myself to actually develop the site. There are free or very cheap hosting companies but they either don't guarantee enough uptime or don't let you go above bandwidth caps.
Re:Google hates privacy (Score:5, Informative)
Running and hosting a website is not free, but IT IS NOT EXPENSIVE. It is just electrons, no trees cut down to make paper, no postage, no fat lazy postmen delivering magazines, no delivery trucks burning gas and needing repairs, no distribution centers, etc.
I agree. I mean, it costs Google a mere $4bn a quarter to run and host their sites. If you only want reliable hosting with failover, uptime, bandwidth and performance SLAs and security patching then the costs are utterly trivial.