Report: Internet Users Feel Powerless To Protect Their Privacy From Corporations 236
Mark Wilson writes: A paper produced by a team at the University of Pennsylvania confirms something many people have probably thought true for some time: the notion that internet users are unhappy with the way their privacy is undermined by advertisers and online companies, yet feel there is nothing they can do about it. While marketing companies like to present an image of customers who are happy to hand over personal information in return for certain benefits, the truth is rather different. Rather than dedicating time and energy to trying to stop personal data from being exploited, people are instead taking it on the chin and accepting it as part and parcel of modern, online life. It's just the way things are.
Wait, what? (Score:1)
Is the article implying that there IS a way to protect our privacy? How?
DON'T PUT PICTURES OF YOUR COCK ONLINE! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to preserve your privacy, then DON'T PUT PICTURES OF YOUR COCK ONLINE!
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
That's only an issue if your penis can identify you, right? That is, if other people have seen it. This being slashdot, I don't think most of us have to worry about that.
However, if by cock you meant rooster, what's the big deal?
...Because it's NOT YOUR JOB! (Score:5, Funny)
If you want to preserve your privacy, then DON'T PUT PICTURES OF YOUR COCK ONLINE!
As we discovered in the John Oliver interview with Edward Snowden, it's the NSA's job to put pictures of your cock online, not yours!
Re:DON'T PUT PICTURES OF YOUR COCK ONLINE! (Score:5, Informative)
That's probably the least of your or my problem. It just shows that you are a narcissist, but if you want to make a fool out of yourself you are welcome.
A much larger problem is the ability for corporations without my consent track my patterns on the internet and can therefore be able to connect me to political opinions, sexual preferences and which bank(s) I use and possibly also my bank account number and credit card numbers.
Disabling of third-party cookies do help to some extent, enforcing session-based cookies as well, but not completely. AdBlock can also help a bit. At least it blurs the image of me on the net a bit for the information gatherers.
All those sites like "doubleclick", "tradedoubler" and similar - they don't provide me as a user with any benefits at all. And there are a massive amount of such sites and very few are in the default blocklist of AdBlock.
Re: (Score:1)
For the technically apt nerd, the solution is RequestPolicy [requestpolicy.com] which is a granular domain-based request control plugin for Firefox. You can set it to block all cross domain requests by default and then selectively enable those that are part of the site's functionality. Unfortunately, with the advent of CDNs and whatnot, most websites (such as Slashdot) will be entirely broken and making them work will require a fair bit of knowledge of how the web operates under the hood in some cases.
Also: NoScript (Score:1)
It is not primarily an ad blocker, but as most ads are served via JavaScript, not allowing domains like ad.doubleclick.something will greatly reduce the flood of unwanted ads and scripts.
The RequestPolicy website also recommends NoScript as additional measure BTW.
Re: (Score:2)
Initially I thought it'd be too much o
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you must refrain from exercising a right or priviledge in order to preserve that right or priviledge, then you don't have that right or priviledge.
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Realize that the Internet is not the web. Install an ad/tracking blocker. Avoid, or delete your accounts on Facebook/Google/Apple/"social media". Pay for a domain(s), and use different email addresses for different accounts. Use a VPN. Regularly clear cookies in your browser. Vote for politicians who "get it," and truly understand the Internet, surveillance and privacy.
Donate to the the EFF [eff.org].
There's more, which is left as an exercise for the reader.
Re: (Score:1)
Realize that the Internet is not the web.
How 90s of you. Nowadays it's "Facebook isn't the web".
Re: (Score:1)
Don't trust things that are free, as a given. If you can't play that nifty game/app of the month on your phone/tablet/computer with internet turned off, then you need to rethink your download.
TANSTAFL
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the point.
Consumers don't want to fuck with your suggestions. They just want to do their particular thing and be safe.
Re: (Score:2)
So, your sails have no wind.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Poor implementation on your part.
The other end offers much a more sustained volume of hot air.
So, fail.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
These methods are not effective, and ultimately they are doomed. The reasons are obvious:
1) Their incentive to track us is stronger than our incentive to resist.
2) Not enough people will do these things, so tracking will continue to be profitable, hence will continue to be done.
3) You have no moral nor legal right to privacy when engaging in business transactions.
4) Their lobbyists are better funded than yours.
You can create some friction by resisting, but mostly the only one feeling the heat will be you.
Re: (Score:2)
"How?"
Realize that the Internet is not the web. Install an ad/tracking blocker. Avoid, or delete your accounts on Facebook/Google/Apple/"social media". Pay for a domain(s), and use different email addresses for different accounts. Use a VPN. Regularly clear cookies in your browser. Vote for politicians who "get it," and truly understand the Internet, surveillance and privacy.
Donate to the the EFF [eff.org].
There's more, which is left as an exercise for the reader.
Add 'HTTPS Everywhere' extension to the list also.
A list of tracker blockers:
Disconnect
Blur
Ghostery
A 'public' VPN like privateinternetaccess.com will give you more anonymity than a VPN you run yourself.
Fingerprinting is an issue that I don't believe any of the above extensions address. Techies like us can have pretty unique browser fingerprints due to Linux and unusual plugins. These two extensions mask the unique information about browser software:
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I would assume it's their way of combating spambots but they're too heavy-handed with that approach.
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your use of the word "sheep" is the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
When is Hillary heading to Gitmo?
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Funny)
Is the article implying that there IS a way to protect our privacy? How?
(1) Hack the company's servers
(2) Delete the data they have collected
(3) Hope the do not detect the intrusion before their rolling backups overwrite their pervious backups which include your data
(4) ???
(5) Profit!
Not that this is really recommended; they are bigger than you, legally speaking.
Re: (Score:3)
But those only work in FireFox. If you really want to increase your privacy, add those hostnames to your hosts file. Mine contains ~131k tracker/adserver hosts mapped to 0.0.0.0 (there's even about a dozen for facebook). This doesn't just drop the served mal-content, it prevents requests to those hosts at the system level for all browsers or other software.
As a consequence I rarely see any ads on the internet and my browser ad-blocking/privacy plugins have a very light workload.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Someone with a solution for your problem will be here shortly. Please hold.
Re: (Score:3)
The list I use [github.com] is the result of merging three separate adserver blacklists about a decade ago. It honestly doesn't require all that much maintenance... if I see an ad, I find the hostname it came from and add it to the hosts file. I think I've made 3 such edits in the past year or so.
Re: (Score:1)
This IS a browser issue on the surface. I can't see why a strengthened browser can't be available with full privacy default settings, spoofing 3rd party cookies to enable websites dependent on them to work.
death/taxes (Score:2)
I just never give them my info. (Score:2, Insightful)
Herman Munster at 1313 Mockingbird Lane is probably less than pleased with me though.
Re: (Score:2)
I notice the ads on Slashdot in the the "AdChioces"/Google slots are recommending my local bank and other sites I've been exploring recently... that's more effective than the Web 1.0 sponsors.
Slashdot used to have tech companies in those slots, now it runs general interest or your interest ads.
Re: (Score:1)
The correct answer is Rusty Shakleford.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you mean "Internet Products", right ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Do you mean "Internet Products", right ? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are plenty of paid products where you, the consumer and purchaser, are still treated like a commodity. Just because you handed over money for it doesn't mean you won't be sold to the highest bidder. It's easy to just say "wake up", but I suspect that you missed the point.
Re: (Score:1)
Yea, when my ISP is selling out my data even if I don't use any of those services, and most marketplaces I may buy at share data and sell it, it really just does seem pretty tough to stay away. Even on a new computer that I haven't logged into anything on, a simple serach for a product an Amazon will show in banner ads to months. You definitely get the feeling that without going fairly far out of your way with VPN, destructing cookies, special browsers, etc that you're pretty well tracked. I can do that
Re: (Score:2)
Oh your doctor's office might not be doing it directly, but whatever service they signed up with to manage their data sure as hell is.
Re:Do you mean "Internet Products", right ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Everybody expect free services. Nobody want to pay for anything, and they all expect privacy. Maybe it's time to wake up. Facebook, Google, Amazon or Apple are not charities, they are for-profit companies. They must find way to monetize their users' data. At the same time, Facebook probably wouldn't have been if it had been paywall'ed.
And yet Facebook/Google make most their profits on users data. Apple sells hardware/software mainly and Amazon is just trying to be the goto place for everything.
I think the problem is, we aren't getting a good enough return on the data we are giving them. I don't feel my data has done anything to improve my life or online services, but I sure as fuck know there are a lot of people living the cushy life by selling mine & others user data.
While google does provide some services, not exactly sure anyone is getting there money's worth using them.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon lowers the market price on things without you noticing. They recently announced that they're getting a better deal on shipping wires and such, so they can lower the prices of wires at Amazon Prime, and that should result in Best Buy lowering their prices similarly because their $10 minimum wire cost is based on Amazon's price.
You might not feel like you're beating the market, but you're beating the past prices on a lot of things there.
Re: (Score:3)
Amazon lowers the market price on things without you noticing. They recently announced that they're getting a better deal on shipping wires and such, so they can lower the prices of wires at Amazon Prime, and that should result in Best Buy lowering their prices similarly because their $10 minimum wire cost is based on Amazon's price.
You might not feel like you're beating the market, but you're beating the past prices on a lot of things there.
Yes, because they're screwing over their "partners." They make agreements not to poach certain products and then go in and come in right under their partners' prices on every other product. They're chasing margins, which is good short-term for value but forces all competition out of business. Ebay is the only competitor to amazon out there and they're not even trying to put themselves in the same class.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon sells new, eBay is mostly used/refurbished stuff. They don't really compete.
Re: (Score:3)
The only answer is to actively poison you data with things like 'Track Me Not' https://cs.nyu.edu/trackmenot/ [nyu.edu]. Plus false information in social media (obviously good not bad false information), run public and private social media and public real name, private only a nick name close friends and some family members know. It is way easier to poison undesirable information about you than to get rid of it. So don't forget a specific junk mail web site as a trial period for new registers and have fun with fictit
Re: (Score:3)
I think we need clearer language for talking about this. Does Google actually sell your user data? Well, kinda, depending on your definition...
They sell advertising based on your web searches and the content of your email. They don't sell your actual data, they sell access to keywords that they extract from it but don't give to the advertisers. So I'd say that isn't selling your personal data, in the same way that if I visit any random web site they can look at the search terms I used (from the referrer hea
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody expect free services. Nobody want to pay for anything, and they all expect privacy. Maybe it's time to wake up. Facebook, Google, Amazon or Apple are not charities, they are for-profit companies. They must find way to monetize their users' data.
Technically, there is no "must" there. They must find a way to monetize their users in order to remain in business, and yes, this often involves monetization through advertising. But non-targeted advertising, while less valuable than targeted, still has a non-zero value. Targeting is just a means of maximizing the profits that they will be getting from their advertisers.
Re: Do you mean "Internet Products", right ? (Score:1)
Restricting it to people that sign up would be a huge step in the right direction. Realizing that there needs to be actual consent and ability to control the data used would help as well.
Right now it's an arms race and ads wind up blocked completely in part because of the spying.
Targeted ads to the content should be sufficient. Tracking where I go ensures that I will never willingly click on an ad.
Re: (Score:2)
But non-targeted advertising, while less valuable than targeted, still has a non-zero value. Targeting is just a means of maximizing the profits that they will be getting from their advertisers.
Not really. Targeting is harder and more expensive to do well than non-targeting. Advertisers really don't care whether they're buying targeted or untargeted advertising, they just want a good return for their advertising spend... it's the same to them whether their dollar of ad spend that generates two dollars of revenue is doing it by displaying a dozen carefully targeted ads or ten thousand untargeted ads.
All of this means that advertisers and on-line ad services are just as happy to use and deliver, r
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize the FBI can lock you up in jail, or even kill you if you "resist" arrest, right?
Your software analyzer can't do that. I'd say that's a fairly huge difference.
I think so (Score:1)
Re:I think so (Score:5, Funny)
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but I use Firefox with the following add-ons: AdBlock (no whitelist), Better Privacy, Google Analytics Opt Out, HTTPS-Everywhere, Noscript, Privacy Badger and Self-Destructing Cookies.
How are we supposed to know what add-ons you use?
Re: (Score:2)
How are we supposed to know what add-ons you use?
Work for the NSA?
Re: (Score:2)
Just let the EFF compute the entropy in your browser fingerprint [eff.org] for ya.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure I do. But not with my accounts, I'm not crazy. There's thousands out there, protected with weak passwords...
Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why would they feel powerless... When they are already essentially willingly giving out their personal information on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other social media services...
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Willingly? Hardly. But it gets increasingly hard to avoid these things.
By now you have companies that check your FB account. And if you don't have one and they can't find anything about you, they won't even consider you. Because, hey, if you don't have FB, you probably have to hide something, and we don't want you!
It's also getting increasingly hard to sign up for anything without FB because companies offload the work of holding an account for you to FB or other such "services".
And it's getting worse.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Willingly? Hardly. But it gets increasingly hard to avoid these things.
By now you have companies that check your FB account. And if you don't have one and they can't find anything about you, they won't even consider you. Because, hey, if you don't have FB, you probably have to hide something, and we don't want you!
So glad I don't live in your country. I don't have FB - because I cannot be bothered. I have other uses for my time! Still, a company googling my name will find lots of information, as I don't live anonymously on the Internet. I usually use my full name, no nicknames/handles. And if they don't find what they want - they can ask during the interview.
I honestly cannot understand why a facebook account could be important during hiring. (Other than NOT having something really dubious there.) If "no facebook" me
Re: (Score:2)
What? You didn't like Facebook? What kind of antisocial weirdo are you? We don't want you in our company!
Memo: People hate paying bills. (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course government spying is a whole different ball of wax, nobody signed up for that!
Re: Memo: People hate paying bills. (Score:1, Insightful)
Spoken like somebody that is a complete loser.
I've paid a huge price personally and professionally over the years for not having an Internet presence. Most networking is done online and most people can't be bothered to keep in contact by anything other than Facebook.
Yes nobody is technically forced to, but there is an ever increasing cost of opting out and I'm not sure how long I'm going to be able to afford to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course government spying is a whole different ball of wax, nobody signed up for that!
The majority claim to want change, but the incumbent is re-elected the majority of the time. Either every election is massively fraudulent, which seems unlikely, or the majority is full of shit — and very much did sign up for government spying, bringing the rest of us with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Either every election is massively fraudulent, which seems unlikely, or the majority is full of shit — and very much did sign up for government spying, bringing the rest of us with
Except for the elections where there are only two candidates and both are pro spying, so you're fucked no matter who you choose.
You are setting up a false dichotomy here that implies that the majority could in fact vote for someone who would stop the spying. Alas, that just doesn't seem to be true these days.
When both sides are invested in propping up the status quo, everybody loses.
Re: (Score:2)
The parent said Facebook is becoming a condition for employment. Employment is not voluntary in this economic system. It's not "willpower" in a "toy store" that's the issue, it's being able to pay for food and rent.
Re: (Score:2)
If it was just for convenience. But we're getting to the point where companies use FB in their hiring process. No FB account, no job. A more apt comparison of your claim people don't like paying bills is someone bitching about the rising gas prices while driving to and from work. He CANNOT do without the car. He has no alternative. He could move closer to his working place. Or he could find a job closer to home. But if that is your answer, I have an answer to end government spying on you effectively: Find a
Re: (Score:2)
No, but it's trivial to give them something to think about when you show up everywhere and nowhere. Which reminds me, I should finally get that app finished that collects pages that have some kind of FB (or other tracker asshats' tools) built in, distributes it among the users of the app and has everyone randomly load the relevant FB tracking junk to poison their data...
in other news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Internet users by the hundreds of millions give all their personal communications to online ad companies, including Google and Facebook. They have cheerfully gone from running their own mail programs to using Gmail or Ymail for everything. They gladly blab the private details of their lives, with photos, to Facebook and Twitter. They kept visiting signs once banner ads started... and then ran javascript from ad companies. They fall all over themselves every time there's a new service that vacuums up all their data, when there's no reason for that data to leave their own computer.
Sorry, internet users, but fuck you. The internet didn't used to be like this. You are the ones who supported turning the fucking thing from a true peer to peer network into a centralized, data-mined clusterfuck of overcommercialization and profiling. I don't want to hear how you don't like it. You made all the choices that led here.
OK, to be fair: not every last one of you. But enough that those who didn't were a rounding error and could be ignored.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly, however it seems the acceptable business model is to sell eyeballs, not product. The first company that can provide me the same product as Gmail (ubiquitous email across multiple devices, all updated in real time), without the tracking and forced advertising gets my money. But anyone coming to a VC meeting with a pay-for-play product is going to be laughed out of the room.
Free and IoT (Score:3)
So the Facebook generation that demands every online service be priced at how-fucking-dare-you-charge-me-for-this is now claiming there's nothing that can be done about the privacy they blindly signed away 473 EULAs ago.
Oh, that's rich.
Don't worry though. If you thought this was bad, I'm certain IoT will make these privacy concerns look like a 12-year old boy with a telescope.
Re: (Score:2)
Connecting the dots... (Score:2, Interesting)
It's one thing that your supermarket knows what food stuffs you bought recently. And a local sports store knows what socks & running shoes you bought recently. And a local electronics store knows what multimeter you bought the other day. But all these stores normally don't have that data from each other. They can't connect the dots, unless they are all part of the same company AND you used your frequent shopper card.
So each store only gets a limited 'view' of your habits. Only the place(s) where you
Re:Connecting the dots... (Score:4, Interesting)
My local grocery store once explained to me why they didn't use a discount card, they already recognized me as I walked through the door, and knew the receipt was mine because I was the only one going though three packages of Vanilla Oreos per week. See, when big stores exist in lightly populated areas, the manager knows who the good customers are. My father and I had a good idea what prices were going to lower two weeks ahead because we saw the sale prices at the printing and database companies we worked for, and were sure our store had the deepest discounts in the chain.
BTW, former next door neighbors... the two of you were on the cover of a magazine there the last time I visited that store... with a story that can't possibly be true!
Re: (Score:1)
It's one thing that your supermarket knows what food stuffs you bought recently. And a local sports store knows what socks & running shoes you bought recently. And a local electronics store knows what multimeter you bought the other day. But all these stores normally don't have that data from each other. They can't connect the dots, unless they are all part of the same company AND you used your frequent shopper card.
That was the 90s. Now your supermarket, sports store, and electronic shop all sell your purchase history to a broker like ChoicePoint or Acxiom, and in turn buy back more bits and pieces about you that they want to know. Some of them sell (or give) your purchase history to the government to use as part of some nebulous anti-terror profiling.
Each of those stores might also be crunching their own data and making inferences about you, and selling those *inferences* on to other companies. Remember the guy who w
Hmm (Score:1)
I think this must affect younger users more, having been around when there were no cell phones or computers I don't feel as trapped.
This powerlessness I don't understand though, all you have to do is not use the stuff.
Just how brainwashed are we?
Re: (Score:2)
"all you have to do is not use the stuff."
Some of the "stuff" is just too damned useful. If you belong to any club, organization, political group or whatever, FB has become a very handy planning and organizing tool. Nobody really wants to manage lists of e-mail addresses anymore, let alone a telephone calling tree like we did in the past.
Having a portable device that gives you at least internet access, a telephone, calendar, GPS and camera is also extremely useful.
I think that being cognizant of exactly w
Tricky dilemma: but there are things you can do. (Score:2)
Two easy steps (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Step 1: Don't use a so-called "smart" so-called "phone."
How are you going to use any phone without involving a corporation, and inserting them into a position to capture both data and metadata and pass them along to law enforcement for misuse, or just abuse them on their own?
Re: (Score:2)
Acxiom is a bigger threat than FB or Google (Score:3)
Replace Corporations with Government (Score:1)
And the dynamic is the same. People have yielded control over their lives in exchange for perceived benefits, and now they've got buyers' remorse.
Re: (Score:1)
Not the same, we had the illusion we controlled over the Government.
Yep. I'd pay money. (Score:4, Interesting)
But, of course, if someone were to try to make Cashbook, they'd end up having the community split between themselves and Facebook. And who knows, Facebook might sue over a patent.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with this idea is, they would take your money and and give you privacy...for a while. But eventually, the lure of big bucks would make them cave, and they would sell your data anyway. All this would be allowed by unannounced changes to the TOS document, which would be hidden away on the site somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
FYI, you're conflating several things.
NSLs cannot compel turning over keys, or even data. The law that authorizes NSLs limits them to metadata (granted that metadata is still important data).
Lavabit was not compelled to turn over its keys by a NSL, but by a court order (not a secret one, either). Whether or not that order was justified is a subject of debate, but the FBI got the order by successfully convincing the judge that Lavabit was being deliberately obstructionist by failing to comply with previo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd also pay money to Microsoft for a Windows 10 without any of their services (Bing, Onedrive, Store, Cortana)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd pay money for a Facebook or GMail that didn't sell/give my info to others.
Google (including GMail) doesn't sell or give your info to others. So if that's all you want, you don't even have to pay to get it.
LOL (Score:1)
Utter Rubbish (Score:1)
This is utter rubbish. If you don't give personal information, then they have none. I post this as (AC). I'm not on FB or Twit or Pin or any of the others. I don't own a cell phone. I have worked for a 3 letter government agency (so it stands to reason, I know better). I do own equipment to do signal acquisition and analysis. It might sound anti-social, but the corporations haven't started blackmailing people (yet). If anything bad happens to a social networking company with a lot of data, there are
GIGO (Score:2)
Keep feeding an ever changing pile of garbage into the databases.
Never give any accurate data.
And saying this, I know that the data breach in Washington DC the other day has info from up to 30 years ago.
They had all my information and I am surprised it was in a system that had network access to the internet !
I need a new tinfoil hat !
Quality (Score:2)
And after all the abuse of privacy, the outcomes aren't even that good.
I searched for one item, went to a store and bought it the same day, and for months I'm being shown adverts for an item I am no longer searching for. It doesn't 'know' something about me, it's taking a guess and it's wrong.
Corporate tit (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That sounds like the first part of that twelve step bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't. It tells people bullshit. What the 12step junk keeps telling people has been pretty aptly lampooned by South Park.
They are NOT powerless. They are NOT helpless. And most of all they don't need the "aid" of an imaginary friend. For fuck's sake, what people need is getting their act together. Find someone you trust, talk to him, realize that it's your life and that you HAVE the power, that you CAN overcome the crap and that YOUR LIFE IS YOURS. And YOURS alone.
That also requires one huge step, and
Re:They aren't even trying (Score:5, Insightful)
But you don't have to use Facebook... ...to be tracked.
You know all those "share via social media" buttons you see everywhere? Do you think they just exist to make it easy for users to repost content? No, they're for tracking anyone and everyone who goes to those sites (i.e., all) who don't have the trackers filtered through the likes of PrivacyBadger and ad-blockers.
And the ratio of users that use those is minuscule enough that the users of the blockers themselves (like me) can be tracked via browser fingerprinting ridiculously easily anyway.
The general population is powerless against the corporations unless they simply give up entirely and go dark. What a nifty fucking choice, eh?
Get down off your high-horse, Lord Farquaad.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm gonna summon APK, but blocking Facebook's tracking (and Google's, which is even more pervasive) is not difficult, at least for now. If hosts files and privacy-enhanced DNS servers are too much to ask, there are browser plugins. You mentioned some. My point is that the people who feel so powerless now are exactly the ones who got us into this mess, because they were and are so complacent about every invasion into their privacy if they can only avoid learning anything about anything. If people treated sho
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Says the people that use their real name onlin (Score:1)
Not everyone does that. I don't and im concerned. The problem is that it's not really an option as they are always inventing new ways of spying on people that are trying to opt out.
Re: (Score:1)
I will just climb to the top of the mountain and yell out, at the top of my lungs, "Help me Anonymous Coward!"
I do not think "hitting you up" is probable or, even, possible.