Advertising Network Caught History Stealing 143
jonathanmayer writes "Last week the Stanford Security Lab reported some surprising results on how advertising networks respond to opt outs and Do Not Track. This week we made a new discovery in the online advertising ecosystem: Epic Marketplace, a member of the self-regulatory Network Advertising Initiative, is history stealing with unprecedented scale and sophistication. And Epic is snooping some remarkably sensitive information, including pages from the FTC, IRS, NIH, Mayo Clinic, and more. Epic has written a response defending its practices."
Adsense (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Adsense (Score:4, Interesting)
What?
Google does not have a monopoly. Facebook which is a monster does not use Google ads. Google does not have a monopoly on search. Bing and Yahoo which now uses Bing both serve ads and provide search so we can toss out your monopoly idea right there. Google plus has fewer users than Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and until recently Slashdot, so that isn't a monopoly in social networks.
So now that we know that the facts you are stating is false we can just toss the rest of the comment out.
They don't have to cheat to compete. Microsoft, Facebook, and Apple all have ad networks now. Apple is making a big push in the mobile ad space I would hope they are not history harvesting.
Re: (Score:1)
All that may help Google sell more ads at higher prices, but the existence of dozens of other ad networks demonstrates that there is plenty of room in that market.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting if really odd little rant.
What do you mean they can't compete there are many ad networks that fact that they exists proves that Google does not have a monoply.
As far as the rest goes I can fix all your problems for you.
"Before they "only" read your email," Use Hotmail, Yahoo mail AOL, Zoho mail, GMX mail, Gawab mail, or any of a number of free email systems sites, or use the POP account that cames with your ISP account, or run your own mail server.
"had your previous searches," Use Bing, Yahoo,
Re: (Score:2)
There is a clear end in sight if you're concerned about google knowing too much about your browsing history: QUIT USING GOOGLE. Don't search using google, don't use gmail, don't use google+, run noscript and don't allow google analytics. It really is that simple, no legislation needed.
As far as the monopoly on advertising, the end in sight
Re:unless some overreaching legislation comes in (Score:2)
Re:Adsense (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought it was more interesting when you did this post the first time [slashdot.org]. But I guess you can now copy and paste this in to anything Google related from here on out, right?
Now I'm wondering. Where does this copy-and-paste come from? When has an agent of Google said "privacy is not important"? And when does Google+, a "social network" service that not only features but stresses limiting communications to user-customizable groups and therefore controlling how public any given communications are, represent an example of privacy not being important?
Re: (Score:3)
Brand new account, copy-paste of some barely supported claims that are a little out there, to say the least.... my shill-o-meter is ringing.
Re: (Score:2)
When has an agent of Google said "privacy is not important"?
http://m.gawker.com/5419271/google-ceo-secrets-are-for-filthy-people
Some people use quotation marks for paraphrased quotes.
Re:Adsense (Score:4, Interesting)
Some people use quotation marks for paraphrased quotes.
Right. And some people don't know what they're talking about and like to put words in other people's mouths. If you're going to quote someone, quote them.
What was actually said in the oft-misquoted Schmidt interview:
Note that isn't a paraphrase. That's a real, gen-u-ine quote. I don't agree with him that the desire to maintain privacy is any way linked to whether I should or should not be doing something. But what I find even more interesting is that in the same breath, we're being warned about the Patriot Act. We're being told without actually being told (because that would be illegal) that Google is being served with Patriot Act requests. Nobody ever seems to key on that though.
Back on topic - nowhere does Schmidt say that privacy isn't important. I understand and share the concern over how much data and meta-data Google has access to. I'm even more concerned over the possibility of Google changing hands or Government access to data (i.e. Patriot Act). But let's limit criticism and concerns to real issues. The real issues are enough without making crap up.
Unless, of course, making crap up is part of a larger agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
there are stories of their employees going thru peoples emails and histories and pasting them to when IM'ing with them
Stories? Anecdotal evidence?!? Good god, THE HUMANITY!!! That's it, I'm calling my senator right now and demanding that he introduce harsh legislation to keep google employees from looking at e-mail and.or from going on IM!
Re: (Score:2)
You can see the same change with all the "privacy is not important"
And which rock have you been living under, exactly? Google hasn't ever said "privacy is important". I'm getting a little sick of this idea that all your information, which you freely give to Google whenever you search/ sign of for G+/ whatever, should somehow be "private", i.e. Google shouldn't have it. Its one thing to complain if Google was sharing it freely with the world as Facebook tended/tends to do. But they're not: that would in fact undermine their business model. They don't want everyone having yo
This shows the efficacy of (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
...Actually Complying? Maybe, but Probably Not. (Score:4, Interesting)
Alright, I read the article on this one, and, there's a divergence of evidence here. Mainly..
"We applied the methodology from last week's study to examine Epic Marketplace's opt-out practices. (Epic Marketplace was one of the eleven NAI members not included in that study.) We found that Epic Marketplace leaves its tracking cookies in place after both opting out with the NAI mechanism and enabling Do Not Track. We also found that history stealing continues after using either choice mechanism." - This one's from the study.
"Furthermore, when the user opts out, all data collection efforts cease. The student erroneously concludes that users are unable to avoid participating in segment verification because the opt-out mechanism does not delete the cookie that exists on the user’s computer. Like many other networks have pointed out already in their responses, this is misleading and inaccurate. When a user opts-out, all further collection of behavioral data from that user stops and existing profile data is deleted, even though the cookie itself is not deleted. The reason for this is simple: these cookies provide important operational information necessary for the delivery of any ad, not just targeted ads. For example, Epic Marketplace needs this data to determine how many times a particular ad has been shown to a user, and to analyze whether fraudulent activity is taking place. Ironically, in order to give effect to a consumer’s decision to avoid data collection, the cookie has to remain, otherwise advertisers have no way of knowing that that particular consumer has elected to opt-out of that advertiser’s data collection practices." - and here's Epic's counter.
These two statements seem strictly at-odds to me; the study states that the History Stealing continues to run, not just that a cookie remains as Epic sems to be saying. Epic claims the data collection stops - straight conflict here. Someone either screwed up their study, or Epic is lying, or Epic is unaware that their 'stop stealing' code doesn't actually work. It looks like they're not gathering personally identifiable or geographical location, and so are in the clear there - but now you've got a pure 'He said, she said' in terms of continuing collection after opt-out. Anyone interested in trying to duplicate this study and add some more evidence to if it continues or not?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
rebuttle
Rebuttle is what happens when you watch Brazil twice in a row.
Rebuttal is the word you are looking for.
Re: (Score:1)
I've read the articles too, and it does seem rather difficult to disentangle. Epic says the data collection stops once the user opts-out. What they claim may be true, but I notice that they admit that the cookie established for tracking purposes remains after the user opts-out. Why? Why not delete the cookie too? They offer some seemingly-legitimate reasons, but if *anything* is left from the data collection/tracking process they aren't being thorough about implementing the "opt-out". There's a big fa
Re: (Score:1)
I also find a couple other things curious:
1) Epic starts by attacking the person not the argument
2) Epic goes on a random rant about there being no definition of "tracking"
Re: (Score:2)
Well, to summarize responses to all there of these:
Epic was certainly caught 'history stealing' - the contention is if they continue this practice even if you opt out, not that the practice occurs in the first place.
While it goes through your web history, it separates out into 'interest segments' rather than directly pulling URLs; in other words, while directly collecting them WOULD count as personally identifiable information, Epic isn't doing that. They don't read 'You went to groupon!', they read 'You we
I would be willing (Score:1)
to pay each advertiser one bitcoin EACH just to not target my IP address with advertisements.
"Surprising Results?" Really? (Score:2)
is this true? I'm not sure it is (Score:3)
TFA:
When a user opts-out, all further collection of behavioral data from that user stops and existing profile data is deleted, even though the cookie itself is not deleted. The reason for this is simple: these cookies provide important operational information necessary for the delivery of any ad, not just targeted ads. For example, Epic Marketplace needs this data to determine how many times a particular ad has been shown to a user, and to analyze whether fraudulent activity is taking place. Ironically, in order to give effect to a consumer’s decision to avoid data collection, the cookie has to remain, otherwise advertisers have no way of knowing that that particular consumer has elected to opt-out of that advertiser’s data collection practices.
its been a while since I did web programming, but isn't an opt-out better implemented as data stored on THEIR systems and not mine? am I missing something here?
"we can't be sure you dont' want our shit, so we send you a cookie so we can know you don't want our shit."
WHAT???
do they expect technical people to say 'oh, ok, you are right' ?
so, unless I'm missing something, they should look at their LOCAL database of do-not-track ip addrs and users and not even TRY to write data to their disks (cookies). and if the user denies cookies (as I do on all sites that are not already whitelisted)? their 'design' doesn't allow for THAT case, does it?
these guys should be sued into negative oblivion. bottom feeding fuckwads.
Re: (Score:2)
If any of their tracking actually works in the case of user cookies being denied or not kept, then yes. If they choose to still do tracking for such users, they also need to honor do-not-track for those users.
Re: (Score:1)
So you have a permanent IP assigned to you, and you want that the advertisers always know and keep track (no matter if you clear cookies, or if you enter Private browsing) that it's you the one visiting some pages?
Well, that might work for you, but the rest of the world doesn't have such luxuries and the IP is temporary so in order for them to keep such preferences, they must store the preferences in your computer.
Re: (Score:2)
IP addresses don't opt out of things; people do. There has to be some way of associating a request that they want to track, with an earlier opt-out request. Cookies are the implementation that people have come up with so far, at least until you start sending some kind of global user id in all http headers (an idea that people would hate even more).
Re: (Score:1)
Cookies are the implementation that people have come up with so far, at least until you start sending some kind of global user id in all http headers (an idea that people would hate even more).
Not to mention that a do-not-track cookie and a do-not-track HTTP header member essentially have the same effect from a practical perspective (in that they both modify the HTTP header). However, an HTTP header would work across all domains, not just the domain that set it which might be a disadvantage to those who want to pick and choose who can and cannot track them.
Re: (Score:2)
IP addresses don't opt out of things; people do. There has to be some way of associating a request that they want to track, with an earlier opt-out request. Cookies are the implementation that people have come up with so far, at least until you start sending some kind of global user id in all http headers (an idea that people would hate even more).
All fine and good, but why should I HAVE to opt out of something like this just to protect my privacy? What makes these marketing troglodytes think they have a right to track my browsing habits by default?
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of reasons:
1. We speak of "do not track" instead of "ok to track." The debate is already framed to their advantage.
2. You're ok with it. Almost everyone is ok with it. Otherwise, they wouldn't send the requests (complete with the cookies they asked you to send, the last time you communicated with t
Re: (Score:2)
The right solution is probably the browser ignoring actions based on domain. Another solution is to ignore sending cookies based on domain and also ensuring JS from that domain can't read certain data. It would require a black list, but if they aren't going to play ball, then we can play hard ball.
Re: (Score:2)
They can't be sure it's you without a cookie to verify it. IP addresses change, and so do browser agents.
If they stored they data on their side, you'd have to re-opt-in every time your ISP gave you a new IP, or you upgraded your browser.
It sounds like they're storing additional data on it, however, and that's not acceptable.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, you're missing something. Imagine you opt out of tracking and the company erases all information about you (including their cookies). What happens the next time you hit their system? You look like somebody they've never seen before. In most systems, that means they give you a cookie and start tracking you. But you just asked them not to track you...
The only way they can comply is to know that you fall into the group of people who don't want to be tracked. In general, they can do this with a gener
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
good point. my work pc has firefox set to clear cookies and history at shutdown. so, my do not track request can't be respected after a reboot?
Re:is this true? I'm not sure it is (Score:4)
You're over thinking things. What if you were allowed to tick a checkbox in your browser, and thereafter it would state clearly in every HTTP request header DO NOT TRACK ME. This enables notification that we do not want any tracking to be performed, and is delivered in the same set of headers that they are already parsing to read the "Cookies" they set. [donottrack.us]
It looks like this:
DNT: 1
Firefox4 and IE9 Support this, last I heard Chrome didn't (I hear there is a 3rd party plugin now). All those advertising bastards need do is not track people with those settings. Additionally, use a plugin like CookieMonster [mozilla.org] to manage your cookie settings.
Them: "Without cookies how will we know if you want to opt out?!"
Us: "Problem Solved. Read the DNT header fool."
Them: "We need cookies to makes sure people aren't fraudulently clicking ads, and to count clicks"
Us: "Not our problem; Besides, Cookies can be cleared -- Store your clicks & hits in YOUR OWN damn database!"
Them: "... [under breath] But we don't have to, and we won't comply sanely without mandatory regulation."
They'll cry us a river when it comes down to strict regulations -- The only bad thing is that the law writers don't understand technology enough to just say: "Advertisers must honor the 'DNT: 1' (do not track header) as if the user had followed the advertiser's opt-out procedure, and [insert other shit they should do like delete user records and not set cookies -- though I can manage my own damn cookies, but thanks]."
Re: (Score:2)
You're spot on.
They claim that a click on an "I accept" button constitutes a binding contract. But a checkbox in the configuration that I don't want to be tracked doesn't?
Frankly, stop treating corporations like responsible citizens. They aren't. They are cheaters, liars and frauds. Their only purpose is profit. If they were humans, they would qualify as psychopaths.
Treat them like that.
Re: (Score:1)
Web users are anonymous. You can't identify them, if you don't store something unique on their machine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, of course they have to track you to know that you have opted out of tracking.
How else do think it would work?
This pattern is depressingly similar to how the whole legal system is going.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, of course they have to track you to know that you have opted out of tracking.
Here's an idea. Maybe they could, you know, have people opt-in to tracking, and then the only people being tracked would be the ones who had asked the company to track them.
Of course as we all know, almost no-one would volunteer to be tracked unless there are financial benefits (e.g. supermarket store card discounts) and only inertia prevents most people from 'opting out' of online ad tracking.
Re: (Score:2)
they should look at their LOCAL database of do-not-track ip addrs
So I need to opt out of tracking at home. And at work (blocking other people sharing the same outbound NAT who want to be tracked for some odd reason, possibly involving incentive programs). And at the coffee shop. And in motels. And in libraries. And every time my DHCP lease changes. Basically, every IP I'll ever occupy - however temporarily - I'll need to re-opt-out from.
so, unless I'm missing something
Yes, I think you're missing something.
This is why you should always adblock (Score:1)
I don't care if that hits a site renevue stream enough that they will require paid registration (I will just register and pay). You either do something to block all ad network-supplied crap, or you are at a much increased risk of damage.
ad networks have, in the past:
1. distributed viruses and trojans (PNG exploits, for example)
2. distributed criminal matter (hate speech, k1dd13 p0rn, etc)
3. distributed content to mislead the user into visiting damaging sites
4. attacked the user browser to mine information
E
Re: (Score:3)
if only there was a loosely associated group of computer hackers sometimes following the activist mindset and settling on particular targets of interest...
Ok. (Score:2)
Well they claim that what they are doing is not an issue. So I simply want to know what sites use them and what advertisers use them along with the name of the script.
That way I can have the freedom to choose if I want to go to those sites or not and let the site owners and advertisers that I don't like it. Not that it is ilegal or not but I don't like and don't want it to happen to me. That is all they have to do.
Stanford "biased", Epic "analyzing fraud" (Score:1)
From Epic Marketing's Fine Rebuttal:
followed by
Hmmmm ...
Re: (Score:2)
What I like is that in their response they not once referred to him by his name (Jonathan Mayer), but only by "the student." I would say that was a pretty pejorative use of that word.
To me, their response comes off sounding like (I'll let you read it with your favorite exaggerated accent): "Stealing? That is such an ugly word. We prefer to call it 'segment verification'."
Computer fraud? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? The user's browser has, on behalf of the user, explicitly contacted Epic's webserver, requested a copy of the javascript from their site, and run it. It's not like Epic's servers attempted to connect to the user's computer, hacked a firewall, cracked a password or anything. The user (via their browser) has initiated the entire thing here.
If the user does not want their browser to retrieve and run javascript from every third-party server mentioned by websites they choose to visit, maybe they should get
Re:Computer fraud? (Score:4, Interesting)
No. The end user requested information from the web site they were visiting. That a third party is running software on their computer is not an implied or expressed condition of that request.
While it's common for sites to display ads from ad networks, and the simply displaying of an ad could be considered an implied contract of using most web sites, displaying an ad and running software (even javascript) is not an implied contract. In this case, the software goes out of it's way to ensure that it runs without any indication to the user, thus the user is completely unaware that there is even anything to which he should have be asked to consent.
Re: (Score:2)
Your analogy is flawed, as is your conclusion. In a game of tug of war, you have willing entered into a contest with another team.
In the case of Epic Marketplace, you visited web site X, which could be implied consent to run code from that web site on your computer, so long as that code isn't malicious and doesn't upload information you didn't give it. However, without your knowledge or consent (and likely without the knowledge of the web site operator either), a third party (Epic) runs code on your compute
Re: (Score:2)
To make your tug-o-war analogy valid, you have to add a third party searching through your stuff:
For example, you engage in a tug-o-war with another team. While you're busy pulling, their sponsor sends someone to search your duffle bags and car to see what kinds of products you use, what medicines you have, what books and newspapers you read, what radio stations you listen to, etc. and report a summary of that back to the sponsor. All without your knowledge or consent (and probably without the other team's
Re: (Score:2)
Then why do you run a web browser that does that? The web browser is your agent. That's why they call it a "user agent". As your agent, it does (or should do) what you tell it to, and acts on your behalf. Your agent is simply doing what you told it to do, namely download JavaScript and run it. If you don't want it to do that, as the OP said, you can get an agent that gives you control, namely Firefox+noscript.
Maybe that's a little harsh, but I don't want to think about a future where my user agent isn'
Re: (Score:2)
You make a good point. And as I reflect on it, maybe a more crucial question is "am I trying to solve a social problem with a technical solution?" Using my argument, someone could justify cracking a system, since that daemon that gave back a root shell when asked in the right way is acting as the server owner's agent. But we find that argument unacceptable. So, is a web site doing the equivalent by running unwanted JavaScript on our systems? I can't think that it makes any difference that the web brows
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't that theory criminalize any Javascript that: 1) the user did not explicitly consent to execute; and 2) did anything the user found objectionable? I don't like this practice, but that cure seems worse than the disease.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But you did ask for it! It's not like they came to your house and installed on your computer software that would: 1) request Javascript from their servers; and 2) execute it. You installed software on your own computer that did that!
If anyone's at fault, perhaps it's Firefox for having JS retrieval and execution enabled by default.
Re: (Score:2)
I went to the two websites listed as examples in TFA and I couldn't find the iframe or javascript that they claim is checking on your browsing history.
Can anyone pastebin the relevant snippets of html or javascript links from http://www.flixster.com/ [flixster.com] or http://charter.net/ [charter.net]?
MadMan's Response (Score:2)
Read a response from a professional advertisement and marketing agency? Why don't we just throw the idea of objective assessment out the window altogether.
Salesmen (Score:2)
they do anything they can to get you to buy some shit you dont want including lying and stealing, then get all offended when you call them on it
Not "Stealing", it's just "Verification" (Score:2)
Did you read the response? What a classic case of corporate misdirection. They redefine history stealing as "segment verification", which presumably means that they are using this technique to verify that a visitor is part of a particular segment of people that advertisers are trying to reach.
Clue: It doesn't matter what you do with the information, if your process involves checking to see whether a user has visited any of a list of sites in the past, that technique is known as history stealing and it is wr
Advertising Network Caught History Stealing (Score:2)
bahahaha (Score:2)
"self-regulatory"
Well there's your problem.
wrong (Score:2)
Epic has written a response defending its practices."
If you still don't see what's wrong with these people, that sentence is all you need. Get caught with the hands in the cookie jar and then go about explaining why it was an ok thing to do.
How long until we as a society finally realize that corporations do not have ethics ? They are, almost by definition, psychopaths. We need to start treating them like the dangerous criminals they are.
No, I'm not a communist. I do, however, strongly advocate seing things the way they are, and not fool yourself with delusion
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes it's almost like slashdot is not in fact a homogeneous group of readers with a common opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, it's my turn with The Opinion!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The difference is that piracy costs the US 750 million jobs and over $30T each year, whereas "enhanced sharing" of "sensitive" information is good for the economy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
ooo - can I have some of this magic money that appears out of thin air?
Re: (Score:1)
Sure...use BitCoin
Re: (Score:2)
Those numbers seem a bit low. But you have a good argument!
Perhaps you should run for Congress.
*This post does not follow your rule.*
Re: (Score:1)
ROFL, please tell me your joking about those numbers? Please?
You can't ACTUALLY be saying stopping half of the current "piracy" and we would could pay off the ENTIRE national debt?
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for getting it:-) I was about to post this in reply: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&client=ubuntu&channel=cs&ie=UTF-8&q=population+of+the+united+states [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I have to laugh at the responses you have gotten in spite of the dead-giveaway signature of yours. Bravo!
Re: (Score:2)
Does not compute. How can it be costing the USA of twice the population of the country (hint: USA has a population of 300 million), in term of jobs? Add to that the percentage of people impacted by this is far smaller than the real population. I am guessing that it is even below 5% (I don't have figures to validate that estimate)?
Clearly from the Master of Bullshit Arts line of education?
Re: (Score:2)
Let me award you a well-deserved "whoosh".
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I thought that was a bird. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Does not compute. How can it be costing the USA of twice the population of the country (hint: USA has a population of 300 million),
Compute better then. I think the AIs are gaining on you.
It's sad if AIs pass the Turing test because the humans have become stupider ;).
Re: (Score:2)
Who is this "Slashdot" you are referring to?
Your comment is particularly ironic given your sig.
Re: (Score:2)
It can be argued that both sides use hyperbole and rhetorical speech to enflame the masses.
If you want to be pedantic, you could say that file sharing has the consent of both parties in the sharing (but excludes the third party of the content creation side). The content was, at some point, legally purchased from the creator.
The collecting of history data by the advertiser is non-consensual. They're not claiming the third parties who purchase this information are stealing data, but rather the actual collect
Re:So this is theft? but downloading music isn't? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So this is theft? but downloading music isn't? (Score:5, Insightful)
I realise this is going to be confusing for you, but just try and stay with me:
Slashdot is not an individual. Slashdot is a collection of people of differing views and opinions.
Some people who read and post on slashdot think that downloading music without approval of the copright is not theft. Some people who read and post on slashdot think that downloading music without approval of the copyright holder is theft. Some people who read and post on slashdot think that getting someone's browser history is not theft. Some people who read and post on slashdot think that getting someone's browser history is theft.
Some people who read and post on slashdot think that there's a difference between private data and public data. Some people who read and post on slashdot think that there is no difference between private and public data and that "all information wants to be free".
Some people who read and post on slashdot think that Obama is the best President in all of history. Some people who read and post on slashdot think that Bush was the best President in all of history. Some people who read and post on slashdot think that Bush and Obama are both reptilian aliens in disguise.
Thus you can't expect to get a consistent opinion. Slashdot itself has no opinion, the people involved in it have opinions.
You might seem to get a majority opinion shining through, but you can't compare them across areas. "Majority" may really just mean "loudest", the point remains the same.
For your example, a perfectly reasonable explanation would be that the "majority opnion" of people on slashdot who care enough about downloading music to be involved in a discussion about that topic is that it is not theft. And the "majority opinion" of the people on slashdot who care enough about data snooping by web based advertising networks to be involved in a discussion about that topic is that such snooping is theft of private data. This makes perfect sense, because *they are not the same people*. Or alternatively the "theft" being referred to in the data snooping case is that of privacy. In the music distribution case if someone downloads a copy of a song the original owner of the song has lost nothing - they still have their copy. In the data snooping case the original owner of the history has lost something - they no longer their privacy.
So there's two reasonable explanations of our observation, and there will be plenty more. So why are you confused by such a simple phenomenon?
Re: (Score:1)
Slashdot is not an individual. Slashdot is a collection of people of differing views and opinions. Thus you can't expect to get a consistent opinion.
You can't get a consensus opinion. The slashdot crowd does have consistent opinions on things, despite the dynamic nature of the population. It is not nonsense to talk about usual slasdotter opinions. Nearly any parameter you can measure of nearly any natural population has a distribution, but you can still make statements about the mean. Most clovers in a field have 3 leaves. Yes, some have 4 and some have less, but 3 is the usual number. Most slashdotters are opposed to the RIAA's crackdown on music
Re: (Score:2)
Why not try reading what I wrote?
You know the bit which talked about exactly that point and how you can't compare them because not everybody cares about the same things equally.
Please show the evidence for that. All I see is that "most slashdotters who comment on articles about the RIAA's craskdown on music sharing are opposed to it", which is a very different claim.
Yes in articles about the RIAA cracking down on music sharing the most p
Re: (Score:2)
You know the bit which talked about exactly that point and how you can't compare them because not everybody cares about the same things equally.
I'm not getting how that dictates you can't generalize the prevailing opinion on a subject. Some people care more and some less about the RIAA, but most people are opposed to it.
Most slashdotters are opposed to the RIAA's crackdown on music sharing
Please show the evidence for that. All I see is that "most slashdotters who comment on articles about the RIAA's craskdown on music sharing are opposed to it", which is a very different claim.
I'm afraid I don't see much distinction. Those that comment on articles about the RIAA crackdown would be a sample of slashdotters at large. It's going to be skewed towards people with strong opinions either way, yes, but I think it's a safe assumption that the lurkers on such stories are not significantly different from the comm
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The good readers of Slashdot got caught up in their own rhetoric when it comes to the "data as property" debate. Here's how it works in reality: data in my possession is my property. I can edit it, delete it, share it, or horde it; because it belongs to me. If I give you a copy of that data, that copy is now your property. You can edit it, delete it, share it, or horde it; I have no say over what you do. That doesn't imply that you can take a copy from me without my permission, it means that by giving
Re:So this is theft? but downloading music isn't? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is isn't theft. What it is is invasion of privacy and ignoring 'contractual' requirements of 'do not track'. This is why sometimes we need regulation. It is also why the best privacy protection is for the browser to protect itself.
The analogy here is asking the server not to put tomato sauce in in your hamburger and instead they decide to spit in it, with a big "f*@k you" attitude.
Re: (Score:2)
Unauthorized access to a computer system is a much more serious offense than copyright violation. There are good arguments that copyright itself is unethical and counterproductive, but none to suggest that unauthorized computer access is.
Re: (Score:1)
Getting someone's browser history is spying, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is closer to the category of filming someone in a shower, then stealing their wallets.
Incidentally, that's my favorite type of voyeur porn...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Taking someone's browser history is theft. It's theft of privacy. If I go into a store should I expect to have to tell them every place I stopped on my way there so they can sell that info. I would think not. Are stores allowed to put tracking devices on my car to see the other places I visit or other stores I go to? No.
Checkout workers are almost uniformly asking for zipcodes now. I decline, but might not be able to in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
Not in California [creditinfocenter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What a great idea! Let's make facts copyrightable. What could possibly go wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
I also didn't say all facts.
Please explain how the great plan is consititutional in the first place. Given the consitutional basis of copyright law how does the copyrighting of some subset of facts come under the powers of the Government?
I don't need to have a solution to a problem in order to point out that some proposed solution is stupid.
"We should fix the problem of not being able to travel faster than the speed of light by murdering all the blue eyed people" - are you going to argue that in order to di
Re: (Score:1)
If you have moral compunctions about blocking ads in general, Noscript is the way to go. Normal ads will get right through while flash and javascript ads won't be executed unless you whitelist it.