FTC Wants Browsers To Block Online Tracking 205
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."
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.)
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.
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: (Score:2)
I'm not "afraid" of anything. I don't have any big secrets to hide, and I couldn't care less if $random_person knows my browser history.
It's the gradual move to a society where privacy is regarded as a bad thing, when in fact it's one of the most important. There was a line in a US Privacy Study that said:
Re: (Score:2)
Of course there was. In 1890 Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren wrote an article called The Right of Privacy, and talked about the dangers of new technology (photography) as a means to capture and divulge others' private information.
Privacy is only a new concept because it was the default - there
Re: (Score:2)
Most Slashdotters would claim that, for example, the content of emails they received was "private information." when Gmail first came out, there was a pretty huge outcry about that.
Yes, and I agree.
So, wait... you said sites should serve ads targeted using the text of the page. Now you're saying you agree that emails you receive are private information.
So how do sites hosting email (or private message forums, or whatever) target ads using your model? You can't have it both ways!
Re: (Score:2)
They don't. Either get by with non-targeted ads, or charge for it. When I was talking about website content, I meant public content, not private, obviously. Webmail business is a very small part of the web, and its business model worked fine without email content analysis before Gmail appeared.
(Again, I don't want to make it illegal, or anything like that - I just wished people didn't use them).
But then again, this isn't tracking, and I think it's less "evil", since it's more obvious that you're giving that
Re: (Score:2)
(fricking /. time limit! I can perfectly write a meaningful response in 5 seconds.)
I find that annoying, too, but I understand its purpose -- defeating spambots. I find that hitting "preview" first gives a long enough delay.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if you're using D2, which doesn't show the "submit" button until you hit preview.
Re: (Score:2)
"So now it's impossible to advertise without tracking?"
Exactly. Just put the ads up, and I'll ignore them like I do anyways. Adblock Plus kills most of them, the few I see are meaningless clutter that is easy to ignore.
"(fricking /. time limit! I can perfectly write a meaningful response in 5 seconds.)"
Try typing with your toes. ;^) If you get to speedy with your toes, well, you can try hunt and peck with your pecker! THAT would slow you down!
Re:why Opt-out? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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].
Organ donation (Score:2)
Can we have your liver? [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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: (Score:2)
Both are incredibly difficult to stop without also impacting useful functionality.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
BetterPrivacy [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6623/] helps with the Flash cookies, at least. Server-side stuff we're just going to have to live with, because even if they pass a law, there's no way to prove anyone's tracking you that way.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because if you disable cookies - you cannot log in to any website. Hardly practical.
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
warm chocolate chips and walnuts;
a cookie fixes everything.
Chrome's Incognito isn't enough? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed the 2nd of 3 sentences in the summary (emphasis added by me):
A browser-based solution would by definition not be a server-side solution.
I know it's too much to expect people to read the articles here but if you can't even make it though 3 sentences of summary why even bother.
Re: (Score:2)
You know you could have pointed that out just as easily without the smarmy comments about RTFS.
Anyway I read it as the browser signalling the server to not track the user. As in the
browser makes the request (as browsers tend to do) and the server is responsible for honoring
the request and doing it's part to turn off tracking (e.g. not logging the header data sent by
the browser).
So just like most useful functionality on the web it would be a combination of browser and
server. That said my feeling is that this
Re: (Score:2)
There was nothing in the summary that even remotely suggested the solution you envisioned.
The phrase "blocking data collection" to me suggests preventing the server from doing something rather than cooperating with the server and expecting it to honour your request. Considering the industry we are talking about expecting it to honour anything is a naive at best.
And I'm sorry if you found my comment smarmy...I was going for sarcastic.
Re: (Score:2)
I just re-read the summary, and it is at best ambiguous about where to block, what to block, and how to block. It is talking about a browser-based tool, while of course the actual tracking is done on the other end of the connection.
Having something browser-side to thoroughly block tracking would be much more useful as it is very easy to move servers into another jurisdiction. Or to use a third-party tracking service that is located in another country. Having a browser ask politely to not track that user ma
Re: (Score:2)
For cookies there's lots of options. I'm sure there's more, but that's a quick list off the top of my head.
Ghostery - identifies and allows you to block the 3rd parties (web bugs) that are hidden on the current page you're visiting. Web bugs include ad networks, behavioral data collectors and web analytics providers.
BetterPrivacy - "super-cookie safeguard" Permanently opt-out cookies to stop behavioral advertising by 100+ different advertising networks, including Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, all members of the
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)
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.
Then turn fucking cookies off, like you've been able to for a decade.
Advertisers should be tracking products or sales, not individuals.
How could they do one without the other?
I support the FTC being proactive and considering preventative action. Should we wait for a crime to be committed before we make it illegal?
Yes, b
Re: (Score:2)
Then turn fucking cookies off, like you've been able to for a decade.
My cookies are off. I still don't want advertisers stalking me. I shouldn't have to be on the defensive.
How could they do one without the other?
You can sell a product without collecting any information about the purchaser. Every company knows how many units they're moving. Why do they need purchaser details? They can continue to use surveys to get details that people voluntarily offer. Advertising is a tool, not a right.
you're simply assuming that because you don't like it, nobody else does either.
You're assuming what I assume. I just stated I don't like it. I could care less what everyone else thinks.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when is the FTC composed of elected officials?
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?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Here's how this will go...
[snip sky caving in scenario]
It's a LOSE - LOSE situation. When will people realise that well targetted and appropriate adverts are good for everyone?
Hahaha, funny fucker.
Oh, you're serious.
Advertising costs companies money, so if a product is advertised it has more costs associated with it than an unadvertised product. Therefore the advertised product it is a worse deal for me. So I do not want to see the adverts.
Adverts are maybe good for the businesses behind them, but I don't give a flying fuck about them. Adverts are definitely not in my interest, nor yours. And for you to think so.... well, I think you have been watching too much commercial TV or w
Parent has a good point (Score:2)
You would have to be a moron with almost no exposure to a) family b) friends c) colleagues d) search engines, wikipedia, etc. in order to think that ads are an important source of information or that they add value to the consumer experience.
Therefore, I don't get why individualized targeting is good for me unless I'm interested in buying lots of overpriced and ill-conceived products/services. And I don't get why advertising and ad-financed sites need the targeting either: Advertising did just fine as a bus
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Just because you don't "click on and ad" doesn't mean that a site doesn't make revenue. There are several models in advertising and the Pay Per Click model is just one. Also, the internet advertising industry is huge. There are millions of people clicking on ads every day. I hate the type of people who expect to go to a web site for free and then use ad block. You can try to use the "i only use ad block because ads are so annoying" argument but that is BS. AdSense isn't annoying at all. Even the banner ads
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
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, the next story in the news feed is a bit about how the FBI will be tracking you online. Heh... so much for government protecting me. So much for that Fourth Amendment.
Point is: big government, big labor, and big business collude to destroy your rights.
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
Re: (Score:2)
Getting people to agree with you is not a measure of right.
This country was great because it was NOT a democracy, but rather a Constitutional republic, which recognized certain spheres of power.
A democratic element was a necessary part of this structure, but it was just one of many.
The national government had its place. The state governments theirs. The individual theirs.
Corporations (read economic power), especially post industrial revolution, is difficult to grapple with, indeed.
However, what needs to be
why do you find it necessary (Score:2)
to explain away the democratic element as ineffectual?
when the democratic element is the one extraordinary gem of your government which makes it so much better and superior (as a function of social stability and everything else that is important in the american experiment)
do not be dismissive or contemptuous of the idea that people should or could be allowed to govern themselves. it is the most important attribute of the american government and one you should trumpet and champion, not perform an autopsy on
Re: (Score:2)
Democracy needs to be tempered with a due respect for the rule of law. That's all. For instance the 17th Amendment was a bad idea.
you're afraid of mob rule (Score:2)
which is something that is very frightening
however, we're this close to becoming a corporatocracy, and miles away from mob rule
priorities, please: i'm not going to worry that much about being bitten by a snake when there's a herd of buffalo bearing down on me
Re: (Score:2)
you heard me correctly: the government protects your rights and corporations trample them.
Hearing, but disagreeing:
First, corporations are appendages of government. Think about it - they don't exist without the force of government to create and back them. So you arguments against corporations are arguments against government protection of corporate actors, who could not get away with their actions but for corporate protection.
Second, a corporation never put anybody in a rape cage for ingesting the wrong t
two points (Score:2)
#1: yes, it would be lovely if corporations were merely appendages of the government. unfortunately the truth is that our government is somewhat of an appendage of corporations
#2: corporations would trample on your rights with blackwater style private military forces and private prison systems in a heart beat, and some people in this country are working hard to make sure they can (whether they realize it or not). i'm not talking about science fiction, i'm talking about historical american fact:
http://en.wik [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
#1: yes, it would be lovely if corporations were merely appendages of the government. unfortunately the truth is that our government is somewhat of an appendage of corporations
I'm not sure the semantics matter, but you've got a causality problem there. Corporations don't exist without government. It's all the government, and you won't get any arguments from me about regulatory capture or oligarchy, but let's remember from whence the use of violence arises.
#2: corporations would trample on your rights with
dude (Score:2)
what is more likely to happen:
1. someone is going to get the government to revoke the corporate charters of bp or blackwater
2. bp or balckwater will create legislation suitable to their agenda and trampling on individual's rights
you tell me, #1 or #2
"you've got a causality problem there"
no sir, you have a causality problem
the puppet is our government, the puppeteer are corporations. i really don't udnerstand why you can't see that
Re: (Score:2)
2. bp or balckwater will create legislation suitable to their agenda and trampling on individual's rights
Right, so how do we solve the problem - Get rid of BP and Blackwater? That seems to be essentially impossible. Get rid of the current government? It's been done before.
Even if you got rid of BP and Blackwater, given our current government, other corporations would just take their place. I submit, and I think our only point of disagreement, that the conditions that allow them to exist as they do now
Re: (Score:2)
Judging by our last Republican president, it looks like it'll happen at the hands of both.
Of course, what with Obama renewing (parts of) the Patriot Act, it seems the Democrats aren't doing any better...
Re: (Score:2)
you heard me correctly: the government protects your rights and corporations trample them.
Government is put in place to protect our rights. But whether government prefers to protect our rights, or protect/promote the interests of corporate aristocrats is another matter that depends on the political culture.
And our political culture is still dominated by the effects of market fundamentalism. Most people still believe that government is necessarily evil, so they keep electing people with strong inclinations to use the government for evil.
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
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
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You claim to value "freedom", "individual liberty", and the rights you have regarding your private property ... yet you consistently attack libertarians and look to big government as your savior?
The inconsistency in your world view is so absurd that I'm forced to consider the possibility that you have a vested interest in the expansion of government power.
The historical record demonstrates beyond question that government power and their monopoly on the use of force has been the instrument used to trample on
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
Re: (Score:2)
"... why are the politicians interests separate form their constituents interests?"
They're evil power-hungry bastards more interested in enriching themselves and their friends than in serving the best interests of their constituents. In addition, they've managed to set up a sham-electoral system which impairs candidates outside the two party duopoly and practically ensures that the majority of incumbents are re-elected.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union . . ."
I would
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
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.
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 ?
Re: (Score:2)
Hello? P3P where are you?
six feet under [mozilla.org]
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"...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
Question (Score:2)
Does it still work? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The summary is misleading (what a surprise) (Score:2)
Cross-browser protection (Score:2)
One solution I've used for ages is Privoxy. You have a local (if you like) proxy which filters out a ton of this crap, regardless of which browser or plugins you use. There is simple integration with any specific rules you would like to add. More interesting is how much of the tracking crap is out there. Just turn on some basic logging, and see all the cruft that is not getting requested on your behalf.
Don't get me wrong, I like the browser tools too, and use them, but like the visibility and control I get
FTC back in business (Score:2)
A major function of the Federal Trade Commission is to keep advertisers honest. The current list of active scams includes bogus contests, work-at-home schemes, free credit reports, investment opportunities, credit repair, and vacation prizes. Old scams die out; the "free cable box" scam seems to have expired, and the used car business seems to have settled down to boredom. New scams are invented to replace them. Pre-paid phone cards with bogus fees are big right now. So the FTC has to change the rules k
Re: (Score:2)
Google (the advertising company) have been Mozilla's biggest benefactor since somewhere during the FF 1 product life. Between FF1 and 2 the option box to disallow 3rd party cookies vanished. I don't see this as a coincidence.
The option to reject 3rd party cookies is still in about:config, but most users will never know about it, and for some that do they will be put off by the scary message that appears the first time you go to about:config.
Google's money got Google as the default search engine in FF (and p