Anti-Google Video Runs In Times Square 346
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that Consumer Watchdog is running a 540-square-foot video billboard advertisement in Times Square, New York that shows Google CEO Eric Schmidt as an ingratiating ice cream truck driver who knows everything about everyone and happily offers free ice cream in exchange for full body scans. The group says its goal is to push Congress and the Federal Trade Commission to create a Do Not Track Me list, similar to the Do Not Call list developed to prevent telemarketers from aggressively calling consumers. 'Do you want Google or any other online company looking over your shoulder and tracking your every move online just so it can increase its profits?' writes the group's president, Jamie Curtis, at the group's web site. 'Consumers have a right to privacy. They should control how their information is gathered and what it is used for.' The FTC's consumer affairs group had no comment on whether the agency is considering creating a Do Not Track Me list."
Free ice cream (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Free ice cream (Score:5, Funny)
CAN WE FINALLY GET A NEW GOOGLE ICON? (Score:3, Interesting)
Google is far move invasive than Microsoft, which /. always puts the Gates Borg King visage on the articles for.
I think the image of Schmidt at the end of the video would be perfect.
Re:CAN WE FINALLY GET A NEW GOOGLE ICON? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmmm. Let's see:
Want to get that free body scan for a little ice cream, little girl
compared to:
You will be assimilated.
Then there's the
What, you're going to jailbreak your phone?!? Death to the Android apostates!
Or better still
Forget that huge freaking yacht I own, I'm suing you cause you stepped on my patents!
And there are so many more.....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Google is far move invasive than Microsoft...
Apparently you never heard of Microsoft's Hidden Files [archive.org]
SUMMARY:
Discuss this article with the author, and with other readers, in the Hidden Files discussion area of our forums!
There are folders on your computer that Microsoft has tried hard to keep secret. Within these folders you will find two major things: Microsoft Internet Explorer has not been clearing your browsing history after you have instructed it to do so, and Microsoft's Outlook Express has not been del
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I for one welcome our frozen, chocolate-covered, delicously creamy overlords.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Now we know what you two would do for a Klondike bar.
I'd kill a man.
Re:Free ice cream (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps the Grateful Dead saw this coming? [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I'd take free ice cream in exhange for a full body scan.
Well sure, who wouldn't?
Re: (Score:2)
Be careful what you wish for. Are you familiar with what a colonic scan entails?
But, today is your lucky today! For I have a box of rubber gloves, a case of KY, and *plenty* of ice cream.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The irony is that Consumer Watchdog is ... (Score:5, Interesting)
... tracking [businessinsider.com] you too. And that with Google Analytics. What a bunch of hypocrits.
Re:The irony is that Consumer Watchdog is ... (Score:4, Informative)
Why is this ironic?
They are a shill group paid for by MS to astroturf, so they need to know how well they are doing
(see http://techrights.org/2009/05/04/consumer-watchdog-exposed/)
So in order to Not Track Me properly (Score:4, Insightful)
They'll have to be sure to remember who I am wherever I go, right? That way they can be sure they aren't, for example, mistaking me for J. Random Trackable guy?
Re:So in order to Not Track Me properly (Score:5, Insightful)
Tracking should be opt-out by default.
If I wanted to be tracked, I'll make an account on your website.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the whole expression is retarded. The "by default" just confuses the issue, since the opt implies there is a default which is the opposite of the thing that follows "opt-".
Opt-in means you have to explicitly decide to be in; you default to out.
Opt-out means the opposite.
If I say "this bulletin board has a 'bite your nuts off if you get a frosty piss' feature which is opt-in by default what does that mean? Does it mean that unless the site admin edits some .conf file it's opt-in? Or does it mean
Re:So in order to Not Track Me properly (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, yes, I had it backwards. What's so hard about not misunderstanding what I didn't not say?
Jumpin' Jesus Christ on a cross....
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's more of a pogostick, really.
Re:So in order to Not Track Me properly (Score:5, Funny)
Opt-in :
( ) Click here to have your nuts bitten off
Opt-out :
( ) Click here to not have your nuts bitten off
Default Opt-in :
(*) Click here to have your nuts bitten off
( ) Click here to not have your nuts bitten off
Default Opt-out :
( ) Click here to have your nuts bitten off
(*) Click here to not have your nuts bitten off
Most websites go for the last choice though :
(*) Click here to have your nuts bitten off
(*) Click here to have your nuts bitten off
(*) Click here to have your nuts bitten off
(please select 3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I recently ran into
(*) Click here to have your nuts bitten off
See how there's no other option?
I'm still having an email fight with them to get them to flip the bit to opt me out. They seem to hesitate whenever I mention federal law, so I'll keep doing that.
Re:So in order to Not Track Me properly (Score:5, Insightful)
The FTC may ask everything they want, but the internet is not limited to the USA. Once again, they fail to understand the scope of what they're asking.
The FTC should instead recommend a technical solution about disabling cookies, going through proxies, etc.
The real question is: how much disabling and routing would it take to be 100% anonymous, at least as far as websites/marketing is concerned?
Re: (Score:2)
The FTC doesn't cover everyone but Google sure as hell resides in the USA.
Re:So in order to Not Track Me properly (Score:4, Insightful)
Thank God that Sony/BMG isn't an advertiser.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, identifying a user is not the same thing as tracking, it is just the first step. Tracking also involves recording some information in a table that utilizes the user as a key. Big practical difference.
For example, when you are logged into Google they have already identified you, and can avoid logging you by not writing to any of your records.
Re:So in order to Not Track Me properly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't get the concern
If you really don't understand the value of privacy then would you, for the sake of verifying your sincerity, posting your own browsing history for the last few days?
If not the average person would have to assume that you have some financial stake in (other's) browsing history. We know Google owns doubleclick and pays PR firms to astroturf i.e., pose as people who "don't understand" in various public forums. All we don't know is who those 'turfers work for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So in order to Not Track Me properly (Score:5, Informative)
You know, that's a very good point. the only way to NOT track somebody, IS TO TRACK THEM.
Except it's not a good point and what you said is not true. It's very simple to not track someone without knowing a single thing about them. By default you set up your system to not store any information about a user of your website unless you've obtained their consent. Wow, that was hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You realise that they make money from tracking people so will do it to the extent allowed by law, right?
I do, but just because something is completely lawful doesn't make it ethical or a correct thing to do.
Re: (Score:2)
unless you've obtained their consent
But Google already does that, just like every other website out there.
The problem isn't requiring Google or others to get consent with a link at the bottom of each page pointing to a 30-page legal agreement.
The problem is people have no idea what those agreements mean.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like that 30-page EULA for each and every piece of software you buy that no one reads? Yeah, yeah, I agree to give you my first born child. *clicks Agree*
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is people have no idea what those agreements mean.
Which is the entire problem. I consider myself relatively well educated, relatively intelligent, relatively knowledgeable about IT, and relatively knowledgeable about law. I never read EULAs because doing so would take way, way too long. The amount of man hours used if everyone read and understood every EULA or legal agreement they clicked would result in the crippling of the economy, and the free time of the populace being reduced drastical
Gmail (Score:2, Interesting)
while i've set up a Gmail account, i've never actually used it. partly because of all the other ways that Google has of data mining their users, the Gmail account would like icing on the cake to them. they'd have access to all of the people you associate with, on top of your interests and usual WWW practices. the latter is enough info already.
Re:Gmail (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Because they're going to sell that data to the Illuminati, who will use it to compile lists of those who'll be detained by FEMA on the day when the one world government shall unveil itself. Duh.
Free ice cream? (Score:3, Informative)
I'm allergic to dairy, you insensitive clod!
Re:Free ice cream? (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly, and the REAL Google would know that, unlike this fake-ass Google knock-off going around trying to kill off the lactose intolerant.
Re: (Score:2)
Well then, I sure hope that Google uses vegan cookies...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well then, I sure hope that Google uses vegan cookies...
Yeah right. As if they would go to all the trouble.
You know how prohibitively expensive it would be to import cookies (or anything else for that matter) all the way from Vega? [wikipedia.org]
Not a good ROI there I would say.
Re: (Score:2)
In exchange, I suggest you turn around, bend over, and do some "targeting" of your Hershey squirts to paint the bastards brown.
Nevermind Google. (Score:4, Funny)
Nevermind Google. Howabout a "do not track me" list for local governments and law enforcement that want to place tracking devices on me and my car?
Re: (Score:2)
Credit (Score:5, Insightful)
What all the fuss? (Score:2)
Do not track me list (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Heh, +1 insightful.
Well, it'll end up like Saudi Arabia and India... the government is just going to have to get full access to all of Google's and everyone else's information. That way, they can, uh, stay wary of whether anyone is collecting too much!
But personally, I'm more worried about the nosy old lady with binoculars across the street than Google (or hackers that happen to break into my Google account). On the other hand, I'm fairly careful/cognizant about what information I make available about mys
What about credit cards, and the WWW? (Score:5, Insightful)
What about credit ratings? (Score:2)
What about the credit ratings agencies? Why do they have the right to record information about you without your consent? And to share this with random third parties who want to know something about you - again without your consent?
This would be illegal in most (if not all) other Western countries.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the terms are probably written into the credit card agreements that no one reads when they open up the "pre approved for xxxxx" letters they get in the mail and go "wow, now i can get a new TV!"
Re: (Score:2)
What about the credit ratings agencies? Why do they have the right to record information about you without your consent?
They actually don't, I believe you can call them to be removed from their databases. Just don't expect to ever get any credit ever again. Or a cell phone contract. Or Internet service or other utilities without a formidable deposit.
Not new (Score:2)
Re:Not new (Score:5, Insightful)
"Does Google 'track you' any more than a telco does?"
Last I heard your telco wasn't using the _content_ of your communications to choose which ads to serve you. I'm a total privacy zealot, and despite following all the news, was really rather surprised just this past week to see a news article say that gmail actually scrapes the content of your mail for targetted advertising. I myself find that beyond creepy in and of itself, let alone the more disturbing (though fundamentally no different) situation of a telco selling the words of a private conversation to advertisers in order for them to better psychologically profile you and thus serve you a more persuasive advertisement.
Of course, we all know that becoming a telco is every companies wet dream, especially Google's.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally I think Google has every right to do whatever they want on their servers. There are lots of legal precedents regarding how an employee has no 'reasonable expectation of privacy' when they are using a work PC, bandwidth, etc for personal surfing or email. Their employer has every right to monitor and record (including keystrokes) ever
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Or at the very least sign out of Google before you go to www.hotunderagehorserape.com (god I hope that's not a real site).
Under Rule #35, you are now legally required to create it.
Re: (Score:2)
Er, really? You been under a rock down a hole on an island on a different planet?
This is years back - I remember getting an email from a friend and gmail was putting up weird adverts next to it. So weird that I actually noticed them and mentioned it to him, in a WTF kind of way.
I forget the exact case, it was him that eventually worked it out. He'd accidenta
Re:Not new (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree on the creepy part, but that's a matter of opinion and we're all entitled to feel about Google as we do.
You bring up a key thing about privacy that bothered me in this anti-Google propaganda: when the Schmidt caricature started revealing personal information about people to others in a way that was obviously harmful. Google has never proven to do serious harm even in an unintentional way, let alone as maliciously as portrayed.
It's one thing to use collected information from you to display things on your own email screen. It's another to sell information about your interests to a third party and that's hardly a new practice, even if Google participates in this (which I've never heard of as far as Gmail is concerned). It's an altogether together a different thing to datamine embarrassing information about you and offer to sell that information to those you don't want knowing such things, which is simply the worst kind of fabricated hyperbole.
Schmidt is criticized for having talked about the problem of people posting information they may not have wanted to later on, as if it's his fault for running a company who made it easy to discover such oversharing. But can I complain when sending an unencrypted email with baby pictures to my mother who lives halfway around the world, that Google switches my advertising from mountain biking to diapers as fair compensation for an email service I would use before any other? I can't do that in good conscience. It may not be something I appreciate if I'd rather keep getting the biking info, but I can't really call that creepy.
Maybe it's simply a matter of trust I have that no humans are bothering to look at pictures of just one more baby, which others do not share. Maybe I don't actually do anything I shouldn't be doing, as Schmidt said, or anything I'm ashamed of and don't want told about to my face. I've never heard an actual reason for why people think it's "creepy" and bothers them. If someone can elaborate, I'd like to see what you have to say.
Who sponsors this? (Score:4, Insightful)
No doubt, from a hostile company. But who? Microsoft? Apple? Viacom?
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, but the video billboards in Times Square are the pinnacle of consumerism. Its not exactly incompatible with a Consumer Watchdog, but I can't imagine they're on the same team either.
Re:Who sponsors this? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Who sponsors this? (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft: http://techrights.org/2009/05/04/consumer-watchdog-exposed/ [techrights.org]
if Net Neutrality does not pass (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The internet will be carved up into a unusable CompuServe like mess with nickel and dime plans similar to the crap cable tv bundle plans
"Yeah, I used to get Youtube, but then my trial ran out and the monthly fee was just too hefty... I can't afford both it AND my social networking package"
A Do Not Track Me list? (Score:2)
Guess it's time to bring this post out, and update it:
Dear Consumer Watchdog
Your post advocates a
( ) technical ( X) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting invasions of privacy. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( X) Those invading privacy can easily use it to target people who want to hide their info
Consumer Watchdog = troll sponsored by Microsoft. (Score:4, Interesting)
Consumer Watchdog = troll sponsored by Microsoft. More here: http://techrights.org/2009/05/04/consumer-watchdog-exposed/
Re:Consumer Watchdog = troll sponsored by Microsof (Score:5, Interesting)
1. There's no privacy in third world America - (anti-google article, no mention of bing)
2. Top trustbuster says DOJ watching search industry
3. Advocacy Groups Ask Facebook for More Privacy Changes
4. Critics Call on Feds to Squelch a Google Monopoly
5. Data Show Google Abuses Search Role, Group Contends
6. Watchdog Backs Google Antitrust Complaint with (More) Data
7. Google's Wi-Fi Data Harvest Facing More Probes, Lawsuits
8. Google Using Search Engine To Muscle Into Internet Businesses, Study Finds
9. Google Worth $1 Billion to Pa. Commerce
10. Google Raises Its Game In Washington
11. Google shows the way on search engine encryption; others must follow
12. FTC Clears Google Purchase of Mobile Ad Service
13. White House Reprimands Ex-Googler After Consumer Watchdog FOIA Request
14. Few Hardballs from Shareholders at Google's Annual Meeting
15. Google's Growth Markets Include Lobbying
16. Consumer Watchdog Targets Google
17. Privacy Groups, Business Firms Firing Warning Shots on New Online Ad Privacy Bill
18. Boucher's Privacy Bill Scolded by Consumer Groups
19. Google Spent $1.3 Million on Lobbying, What Are They Buying?
20. Consumer Group to Call for Google Break up
Damn, that's a lot of google mention for a search on microsoft. Hell, even on a search on facebook [consumerwatchdog.org]has "google" in 6 of the top 10 results returned! Facebook doesn't appear until the 11th result, and is in 5 of the headers. What a joke, this site makes fox news looks fair and balanced.
"consumer watchdog" (Score:2)
Did Microsoft Hire Consumer Watchdog to Attack Google? [techrights.org]
That is a year old story. According to it, "consumer watchdog" is a hired gun.
BUSTED! (Score:5, Informative)
Jamie Curtis (Score:2)
Even at her advanced age, Jamie Curtis is still a damned sight more attractive than Consumer Watchdog's president Jamie Court. How addled does a mind have to be to confuse the two?
I know I'm going to sound like a troll here... (Score:5, Insightful)
...but the internet ceased a looooong time ago to be the wild and secretive jungle that we all remember and loved, and it's now a commercial enterprise. Period. I don't understand how people can get so outraged over Google's data-mining without starting long before that. Google, as evil as people think they might be, track *who you say you are*. Of a handful of Gmail accounts that I have, exactly one of them has any information at all that could be traced directly to me. The rest are throwaway accounts, as are my six or seven yahoo accounts, and I don't think I have a single other account anywhere in my own name other than Facebook. When my identity got stolen, computers had nothing to do with it. They either stole my mail or my trash, not my Gmail password. Why do people freak out so much about Google using keyword-targeted advertising that's completely run by a machine that cares not a whit who you are and spends its day searching for "hdtv" or "tentacle porn", but these same people have no problem whatsoever giving their name, address, phone number, credit card number, bank routing information, and direct access to every single byte that comes out of their computer to the phone companies that have proved over and over and *%&$ing over again that they simply DO NOT CARE about their customers and look at them as nothing more than money troughs? (Seriously? $.30 for a text message, but a 650K jpg is free? *^&$ you.) Where's the similar outrage at the telcos, who are less progressive than the MPAA and will roll over for a warrantless wiretap like a wiener dog with an itchy belly? Seriously. Did I miss something?
*cough* (Score:3, Informative)
This is what we want! (Score:3, Interesting)
Having the retailers tracking us, tailoring their products to our interests, it is part of our dream. We want robots to fetch us beer from the fridge and chairs that adjust to our bodies. How is retailers only showing stuff we're interested in any different? The chances of me clicking on an ad for tampons is vanishingly low, so why waste my time and their money to show me a tampon ad? Heck, I'd love for bricks-and-mortar stores to work like this. It seems like every time I go to buy new clothes, I have to walk through a mile of women's clothes. Do they really buy that much more clothing?
I admit, the tracking sometimes can be a disadvantage. I looked at some socks online, about a week ago, and that is all my ads are since. All showing different types of socks.
Re:How much did Microsoft pay them to do this? (Score:4, Informative)
Coming up next, our most recent study showing that Linux is more expensive than Windows.
For most businesses, Linux is more expensive than windows. Anyone who can tie their own shoes can set up a Windows server. Linux, on the other hand, requires someone who at least kind of knows what they're doing, and that commands more money. Not to mention the cost of training the Luddite employees on a new operating system, when it took them 10 years to get used to the last one.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who can tie their own shoes and really understands why a knot stays tied can set up a Windows server.
FTFY
Seriously, though I COMPLETELY AGREE that this is one of the easiest things to setup in the modern world, I can think off the top of my head of 20 people I know in the "IT Industry" that can't perform this basic task.
it's funny what passes for a "tech" these days.
Re: (Score:2)
... is the basic task setting up a Windows server, or tying a shoe? It's not clear from your post.
Re: (Score:2)
For most businesses, Linux is more expensive than windows. Anyone who can tie their own shoes can set up a Windows server. Linux, on the other hand, requires someone who at least kind of knows what they're doing, and that commands more money. Not to mention the cost of training the Luddite employees on a new operating system, when it took them 10 years to get used to the last one.
Linux config can be pretty fire-and-forget these days. But even so - it's a dangerous thing to bet your business on an IT infrastructure set up by someone who's qualification is the ability to tie their shoes. It can be done. But it's going to cost you eventually. As for the Luddite employees - no IT environment is without change.
Re: (Score:2)
For most businesses, Linux is more expensive than windows. Anyone who can tie their own shoes can set up a Windows server. Linux, on the other hand, requires someone who at least kind of knows what they're doing, and that commands more money. Not to mention the cost of training the Luddite employees on a new operating system, when it took them 10 years to get used to the last one.
Linux config can be pretty fire-and-forget these days. But even so - it's a dangerous thing to bet your business on an IT infrastructure set up by someone who's qualification is the ability to tie their shoes. It can be done. But it's going to cost you eventually. As for the Luddite employees - no IT environment is without change.
My point though is that it's not just about the IT. Most slashdotters' lives center around IT in one way or another, so we have a strong bias toward keeping up with current technology. Most normal people, OTOH, couldn't give a crap about the computer except in so far as it allows them to enter basic info into some random app and lets them look youtube when the boss isn't around. These people will resist change with every fiber of their being, and you need to pick your battles with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who can tie their own shoes can set up a Windows server.
Finally, an explanation for the size of my spam folder!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if any reputable TCO studies have actually shown that, at least over any decent length of time.
And how many of these managers really care about the cost over a 2+ year period? They care about their quarterly bonus, and that's usually all they care about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If your management can't plan long term, there's a good chance your company won't exist long term.
Most don't. Even more reason not to sink heavy costs into something that won't pay off for years, especially in the current economy.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who can tie their own shoes can set up a Windows server
... which is practically guaranteed to be taken over by botnets.
You get what you pay for.
And what users do you have to pay to use a Linux server? How lazy can you be? At least spend the ten seconds it takes to pick the right FUD for the occasion.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who can tie their own shoes can set up a Windows server
... which is practically guaranteed to be taken over by botnets.
You get what you pay for.
And what users do you have to pay to use a Linux server? How lazy can you be? At least spend the ten seconds it takes to pick the right FUD for the occasion.
There's two arguments in here.. One for the back end, which is the one you addressed. The other is for the desktop, which you seem confused on.
Think like a businessman. What happens if you switch from Windows to Linux? Suddenly mission-critical app X no longer works (or only half works in Wine), you have to hire a full time sysadmin, and half the users' productivity drops to nothing because they spend all their time bitching about how they can't install iTunes. Now imagine you really don't care ab
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
More FUD. Yawn.
Assuming you only care about a 3 month profit cycle, you'd never do any kind of investment or significant change to your business, including upgrading your Windows , not that that would guarantee support of your mission-critical system either. Plus that's a hidden premise that a businesses necessarily has one of those and that it's both not portable and so convoluted Wine won't work today. Big stretch there, cowboy.
Your premise that Linux systems actually require a full time sysadmin is pa
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The separation of the two is in the enterprise space -- think midsize businesses and larger -- and as your enterprise grows larger, Linux is easier to maintain and implement.
Personally, I maintain 10 Linux servers / VM's, a h
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I see you've never used Linux, nor configured a Windows server. Anyone can NOT set up a Windows server without training; at least, not a robust, secure one. It's no harder to set up an Apache server on Linux. And Linux with KDE is as easy to use as Windows (actually it's easier).
Not to mention the cost of training the Luddite employees on a new operating system, when it took them 10 years to get used to the last one.
XP wasn't out for ten years. Vista was only around a year or two, Seven is still shiny-new,
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, point of order... shouldn't that be TINSTAAFL?
Or TANSTAFL (There are no such things as free lunches)? I question the subject-verb agreement of TANSTAAFL.
Re: (Score:2)
It's "ain't"" not "are"...
Though it SHOULD be. TANSTAAFI. Ice Cream. Not Lunch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
just stop using the free services provided on the internet
And if you quit using Google's free services, they still have other methods of tracking you. Namely, by offering Google Analytics to sites for "free" to help monitor their traffic. So, despite you telling Google "no thanks, I'll find an alternative to your services," they still track you. Or, instead of Analytics, by loading jQuery libraries? Or perhaps you e-mailed someone with a GMail account?
I think the real issue isn't making money. It's Google's omnipresence on the web, and their primary method of
Re:People have all the privacy they want: (Score:5, Informative)
You want to opt-out of being tracked by Google? Simple:
http://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout [google.com]
You change your mind about using Google and want to export all your data? Simple:
http://www.dataliberation.org/ [dataliberation.org]
The website/organization behind this ad doesn't even mention those links.
You think MS gives you options like this? Facebook?
I'm a big supporter of legit consumer organizations, like the BBB, but this one is clearly bogus. By supporting and giving attention to an organization like this we undermine the legit ones.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Google Analytics means that you can be visiting any of an ever increasing range of sites with no visible affiliation to Google, but still be being tracked by them.
So? Can I demand that the shopkeeper turn off the CCTV before I enter the store? Try buying gas without ending up being recorded on tape somehow.
If someone is that paranoid about being tracked, turn off the damned cookies in your browser. If you're super-duper paranoid, get off the internet - no-one is forcing you to browse.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure I understand that you have a right to privacy, but if you aren't doing anything wrong, why do you care?
So you keep your house unlocked all the time so people can freely enter and leave all they want? You make sure that every all your windows are uncovered and you have no fences around your property so everyone can see in, right? You have all your phones tapped for any police organization who would want them? You make sure to forward all copies of your snail mail, emails, IMs, texts, etc to all relevant police organizations?
If you don't, why don't you? It's not like you have anything to hide, right?