Right. Whatever. But all of that is irrelevant to my position, contrary to multiple implications otherwise. :roll eyes:
It's yet another sideways attempt to suggest I'm a "shill."
There's nothing wrong with believing that companies should be able to data-mine. There's something incredibly wrong with pretending that people don't have the right to stop them from doing it on an individual basis. This, I can only conclude, comes from the conflict of interests you have from working for one of these companies. So yes, in that way, you are a shill.
Your arguments for your side are not. Your arguments against our side are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
. Furthermore, if the browser you use has a security hole which is being exploited by whomever for whatever reason, then use one of the others that does not have this problem.
"Hey, buddy, I dont know what to tell you. We're not going to stop doing illegal or immoral business practices; you should just do something else."
'It's the browser's problem' is not an argument. Try again.
There's something incredibly wrong with pretending that people don't have the right to stop them from doing it on an individual basis.
You're right, and if that's what I believed, you'd have a point. At this point, you're now arguing against a straw man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
This, I can only conclude, comes from the conflict of interests you have from working for one of these companies. So yes, in that way, you are a shill.
Whatever. If that makes you feel better.
If you have nothing more than straw men arguments, circumstantial ad hominems and name calling, I think we can conclude our discussion.
Where is the switch to turn off the 14 AI tracking elements? Why didn't AI tell me about them and give me the option? Why should I have to keep finding ways to block these companies from tracking me. And it's not just cookies. Now they are using local storage and server-side programming to do their evil. The tracking companies' scripts, cookies that won't expire until I turn 110 years-old, and other page devices, such as, FaceBook "like" buttons, Google, twitter, etc. etc. that are far worse than cookies.
These page elements have scripts telling the browser to send the data back without my permission. FB's server-side scripts don't give you any choice, even when you don't have a FB account and these buttons are everywhere now, so you can't avoid them anymore. You don't have to click a FB like button either. It'll send data back regardless. They are basically a key-logger script, not just simple location tracking, they not only know I'm here, but what I'm doing and where my cursor is hovering over. We are a long way pass simple cookie technology. This war goes on and on and on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Re the bolded - You can turn off cookies in the browser. Or you can install something like ghostery.
The problem is that Google is ignoring your efforts to turn off cookies in the browser and installing them, anyway.
As the user above tried to describe, it's not just cookies. And Ghostery and their ilk only handle certain subsets of the tracking technology in use today.
I appreciate some of the arguments you've made earlier on this thread, but you do want to be careful not to oversimplify. The many companies that pay their salaries and investors based on the amount of personal details they can extract from everyone (not just willing participants, as MJ1970 would have us think) are very, very smart, and very, very tech-savvy. Unlike most typical internet users.
Speaking as someone who is also very tech-savvy, and who spends an inordinate amount of time and effort to disallow this amoral behavior, I can barely keep up, and I continue to find more cracks that need to be filled all the time.
MJ1970 would have everyone think it's trivial to just not use the internet. Unfortunately that's just not the case in 2012. And virtually any internet use by someone who is not fairly sophisticated is constantly feeding various bits of personal data to the aggregators. It takes constant effort as well as technical understanding to fight this. There shouldn't be a need to fight at all.
I am far from the kind of personality that likes more gov't regulation - in fact I'd like to see less in general, but I don't see any other way this is going to get reigned in.
MJ1970 would have everyone think it's trivial to just not use the internet. Unfortunately that's just not the case in 2012.
No. It's just that the value you get is greater than going without.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64
I am far from the kind of personality that likes more gov't regulation - in fact I'd like to see less in general, but I don't see any other way this is going to get reigned in.
Not any longer according to Google. If they were lying about removing the offending code that permitted the bypass don't you think someone would have reported it by now? If there's another trick Google is using to bypass Safari preferences, do you honestly think someone wouldn't already be investigating it? They're obviously under a microscope.
No, if you're still seeing cookie's installed after turning it off in Safari, which you gave no indication was happening to you, they aren't being served by up by Google in all likelihood. Rather they're being installed by another party, perhaps an SEO service, marketer or ad service. Maybe they're even using Google analytics for reports to the website operator that he can then use to bring advertiser's to his site with proof of pageviews and such. But those offending cookie's aren't coming directly from Google. In fact Google is the only one mentioned in the original story that has publicly stated they put a fix to the problem in place.
Apple's friend Facebook made no claim to remove the workaround they were using, as least that I had seen. Perhaps they're the big offender ignoring Safari user's preferences, with a few dozen ( or hundreds) of other ad providers, SEO's and website operators also taking advantage of a well-known Safari hole. You'd think Apple would have closed it by now, unless they have other reasons for still letting it linger.
Yes, those are all responses you've been given before. Which of those probably weren't true and why?
They're not responses I gave. Rather, I was simply summarizing all the responses from the Google shills to save you the trouble of having to type them out every time.
They're not responses I gave. Rather, I was simply summarizing all the responses from the Google shills to save you the trouble of having to type them out every time.
So again, which of the answers I gave and you referenced were likely untrue and why? Or perhaps they're all likely true but you'd rather not say so.
See this Gatorguy? If you disagree, the only possible explanation is that you're shilling for Google.
Oh I just generally ignore those. It usually means I'm winning.
I've been much more forthcoming and honest about who I am than most anyone else here, altho Mel has been good about letting us know his background and business experience as has Sunilraman. Anyone who would accuse me of being paid by Google is either new, on the losing end of a discussion and running out of material, or simply dishonest.
See this Gatorguy? If you disagree, the only possible explanation is that you're shilling for Google.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Oh I just generally ignore those. It usually means I'm winning.
I've been much more forthcoming and honest about who I am than most anyone else here, altho Mel has been good about letting us know his background and business experience as has Sunilraman. Anyone who would accuse me of being paid by Google is either new, on the losing end of a discussion and running out of material, or simply dishonest.
Let's see, MJ1970 admitted he was here shilling for some unnamed company, and we know GG doesn't have time to do anything else for a living, even if he isn't paid directly by Google, and pointing all this out means we're the one's being dishonest and "losing" in the discussion? Now that's what I call spin.
Let's see, MJ1970 admitted he was here shilling for some unnamed company
Wow. Now you've moved onto lying.
I have not said any such thing, because to do so would be to lie. I have, however, been accused of "shilling"...multiple times...by individuals who appear to have nothing left in their bags of tricks but ad hominem attacks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
and we know GG doesn't have time to do anything else for a living, even if he isn't paid directly by Google, and pointing all this out means we're the one's being dishonest and "losing" in the discussion? Now that's what I call spin.
Well, since you're the one doing the name calling and (now) lying about what people have said, I'd say you've just lost any and all credibility you might have previously had.
I have not said any such thing, because to do so would be to lie. I have, however, been accused of "shilling"...multiple times...by individuals who appear to have nothing left in their bags of tricks but ad hominem attacks.
Well, since you're the one doing the name calling and (now) lying about what people have said, I'd say you've just lost any and all credibility you might have previously had.
I'm afraid you do. That post does not say anything about "shilling" for anyone whatsoever. That comment, in context, was a discussion about cookies and browser security constraints and the basis of my knowledge about those topics.
You are lying.
Show some self-respect and admit it, apologize and move on.
Re the bolded - You can turn off cookies in the browser. Or you can install something like ghostery.
The problem is that Google is ignoring your efforts to turn off cookies in the browser and installing them, anyway.
I do have them blocked but with DNT+ instead of Ghostery. I had Gostery but trackers got its number and won't give the content when Gostery is enabled. Even UI element at Verizon (myVerizon) won't work anymore with Ghostery. I fear it's only a matter of time before tracking companies do the same to DNT+. For now DNT+ is working great, even better than Ghostery ever was.
I use ClicktoFlash but Flash is finding its way around it. I was just trying to watch a news video at Yahoo News. The video played but a flash dialog opened covering most of the video. It was asking to allow or deny local storage (I have it shut down). I click deny but it ignored the click!! The dialog couldn't be moved out of the way either making the video unwatchable. Tracking is a war that we will be fighting for a long time. Most people give up and just allow this bull crap. I don't blame people for giving up. It's very hard to always fight this battle. So I'm in the minority in this war. I'm not giving up though.
I'm afraid you do. That post does not say anything about "shilling" for anyone whatsoever. That comment, in context, was a discussion about cookies and browser security constraints and the basis of my knowledge about those topics.
You are lying.
Show some self-respect and admit it, apologize and move on.
Oh, right, sorry, you didn't actually call yourself a shill. Wow, I really blew it there, you only work for a company that does this stuff and happen to be posting here on the topic defending the practice.
I'm afraid you do. That post does not say anything about "shilling" for anyone whatsoever. That comment, in context, was a discussion about cookies and browser security constraints and the basis of my knowledge about those topics.
You are lying.
Show some self-respect and admit it, apologize and move on.
Don't bother. He's proven to me to be dishonest and will probably continue to accuse you of being paid to post here no matter what you say.
He asked me point blank last year if I worked for Google. I told him no, and not for the first time either, and even went so far as to tell him I served as a moderator at three other sites and what I did for a living (Note: He's not willing to do the same). Did that stop him from continuing to claim I worked for Google? Of course not so I gave up responding to him months ago as it serves no purpose. You should do the same.
IMO he's a one trick pony when it comes to disputing what you might write. He won't argue that I'm wrong but instead claim that I have an advantage over him since I'm paid to do it. So ignore him. Otherwise the thread gets derailed by personal problems rather than holding intelligent discussion/disagreements on real issues.
At the very least, it is possible to globally disable all cookies for all web sites. If cookies are globally disabled, then tracking cookies (of which Google's IFrame hack is just one example) would also be disabled, despite all Google's protestations to the contrary.
Your web browsing experience will be severely compromised, but it is most definitely possible.
If you really wanted to take it to the extreme, you could take one of the open-source web browsers, and expunge all the code relating to inserting cookie data in the headers of outgoing HTTP requests. Having done that, you'd end up with a web browser that was literally incapable of satisfying Google's attempts to send you any tracking cookies.
Comments
Right. Whatever. But all of that is irrelevant to my position, contrary to multiple implications otherwise. :roll eyes:
It's yet another sideways attempt to suggest I'm a "shill."
There's nothing wrong with believing that companies should be able to data-mine. There's something incredibly wrong with pretending that people don't have the right to stop them from doing it on an individual basis. This, I can only conclude, comes from the conflict of interests you have from working for one of these companies. So yes, in that way, you are a shill.
Your arguments for your side are not. Your arguments against our side are.
. Furthermore, if the browser you use has a security hole which is being exploited by whomever for whatever reason, then use one of the others that does not have this problem.
"Hey, buddy, I dont know what to tell you. We're not going to stop doing illegal or immoral business practices; you should just do something else."
'It's the browser's problem' is not an argument. Try again.
There's something incredibly wrong with pretending that people don't have the right to stop them from doing it on an individual basis.
You're right, and if that's what I believed, you'd have a point. At this point, you're now arguing against a straw man.
This, I can only conclude, comes from the conflict of interests you have from working for one of these companies. So yes, in that way, you are a shill.
Whatever.
If you have nothing more than straw men arguments, circumstantial ad hominems and name calling, I think we can conclude our discussion.
Where is the switch to turn off the 14 AI tracking elements? Why didn't AI tell me about them and give me the option? Why should I have to keep finding ways to block these companies from tracking me. And it's not just cookies. Now they are using local storage and server-side programming to do their evil. The tracking companies' scripts, cookies that won't expire until I turn 110 years-old, and other page devices, such as, FaceBook "like" buttons, Google, twitter, etc. etc. that are far worse than cookies.
These page elements have scripts telling the browser to send the data back without my permission. FB's server-side scripts don't give you any choice, even when you don't have a FB account and these buttons are everywhere now, so you can't avoid them anymore. You don't have to click a FB like button either. It'll send data back regardless. They are basically a key-logger script, not just simple location tracking, they not only know I'm here, but what I'm doing and where my cursor is hovering over. We are a long way pass simple cookie technology. This war goes on and on and on.
Re the bolded - You can turn off cookies in the browser. Or you can install something like ghostery.
The problem is that Google is ignoring your efforts to turn off cookies in the browser and installing them, anyway.
As the user above tried to describe, it's not just cookies. And Ghostery and their ilk only handle certain subsets of the tracking technology in use today.
I appreciate some of the arguments you've made earlier on this thread, but you do want to be careful not to oversimplify. The many companies that pay their salaries and investors based on the amount of personal details they can extract from everyone (not just willing participants, as MJ1970 would have us think) are very, very smart, and very, very tech-savvy. Unlike most typical internet users.
Speaking as someone who is also very tech-savvy, and who spends an inordinate amount of time and effort to disallow this amoral behavior, I can barely keep up, and I continue to find more cracks that need to be filled all the time.
MJ1970 would have everyone think it's trivial to just not use the internet. Unfortunately that's just not the case in 2012. And virtually any internet use by someone who is not fairly sophisticated is constantly feeding various bits of personal data to the aggregators. It takes constant effort as well as technical understanding to fight this. There shouldn't be a need to fight at all.
I am far from the kind of personality that likes more gov't regulation - in fact I'd like to see less in general, but I don't see any other way this is going to get reigned in.
?arguments?
As you never had one, I think that's best.
As you never had one, I think that's best.
Whatever makes you feel better.
MJ1970 would have everyone think it's trivial to just not use the internet. Unfortunately that's just not the case in 2012.
No. It's just that the value you get is greater than going without.
I am far from the kind of personality that likes more gov't regulation - in fact I'd like to see less in general, but I don't see any other way this is going to get reigned in.
Keep looking.
Not any longer according to Google. If they were lying about removing the offending code that permitted the bypass don't you think someone would have reported it by now? If there's another trick Google is using to bypass Safari preferences, do you honestly think someone wouldn't already be investigating it? They're obviously under a microscope.
That's response #3 that I gave you.
No, if you're still seeing cookie's installed after turning it off in Safari, which you gave no indication was happening to you, they aren't being served by up by Google in all likelihood. Rather they're being installed by another party, perhaps an SEO service, marketer or ad service. Maybe they're even using Google analytics for reports to the website operator that he can then use to bring advertiser's to his site with proof of pageviews and such. But those offending cookie's aren't coming directly from Google. In fact Google is the only one mentioned in the original story that has publicly stated they put a fix to the problem in place.
That's response #4.
Apple's friend Facebook made no claim to remove the workaround they were using, as least that I had seen. Perhaps they're the big offender ignoring Safari user's preferences, with a few dozen ( or hundreds) of other ad providers, SEO's and website operators also taking advantage of a well-known Safari hole. You'd think Apple would have closed it by now, unless they have other reasons for still letting it linger.
Response #5.
You earned your money from Google this time.
That's response #3 that I gave you.
That's response #4.
Response #5.
You earned your money from Google this time.
Yes, those are all responses you've been given before. Which of those probably weren't true and why?
Yes, those are all responses you've been given before. Which of those probably weren't true and why?
They're not responses I gave. Rather, I was simply summarizing all the responses from the Google shills to save you the trouble of having to type them out every time.
You earned your money from Google this time.
See this Gatorguy? If you disagree, the only possible explanation is that you're shilling for Google.
They're not responses I gave. Rather, I was simply summarizing all the responses from the Google shills to save you the trouble of having to type them out every time.
So again, which of the answers I gave and you referenced were likely untrue and why? Or perhaps they're all likely true but you'd rather not say so.
See this Gatorguy? If you disagree, the only possible explanation is that you're shilling for Google.
Oh I just generally ignore those. It usually means I'm winning.
I've been much more forthcoming and honest about who I am than most anyone else here, altho Mel has been good about letting us know his background and business experience as has Sunilraman. Anyone who would accuse me of being paid by Google is either new, on the losing end of a discussion and running out of material, or simply dishonest.
See this Gatorguy? If you disagree, the only possible explanation is that you're shilling for Google.
Oh I just generally ignore those. It usually means I'm winning.
I've been much more forthcoming and honest about who I am than most anyone else here, altho Mel has been good about letting us know his background and business experience as has Sunilraman. Anyone who would accuse me of being paid by Google is either new, on the losing end of a discussion and running out of material, or simply dishonest.
Let's see, MJ1970 admitted he was here shilling for some unnamed company, and we know GG doesn't have time to do anything else for a living, even if he isn't paid directly by Google, and pointing all this out means we're the one's being dishonest and "losing" in the discussion? Now that's what I call spin.
Let's see, MJ1970 admitted he was here shilling for some unnamed company
Wow. Now you've moved onto lying.
I have not said any such thing, because to do so would be to lie. I have, however, been accused of "shilling"...multiple times...by individuals who appear to have nothing left in their bags of tricks but ad hominem attacks.
and we know GG doesn't have time to do anything else for a living, even if he isn't paid directly by Google, and pointing all this out means we're the one's being dishonest and "losing" in the discussion? Now that's what I call spin.
Well, since you're the one doing the name calling and (now) lying about what people have said, I'd say you've just lost any and all credibility you might have previously had.
Wow. Now you've moved onto lying.
I have not said any such thing, because to do so would be to lie. I have, however, been accused of "shilling"...multiple times...by individuals who appear to have nothing left in their bags of tricks but ad hominem attacks.
Well, since you're the one doing the name calling and (now) lying about what people have said, I'd say you've just lost any and all credibility you might have previously had.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...3&postcount=23
I don't think I need to say anything more.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...3&postcount=23
I don't think I need to say anything more.
I'm afraid you do. That post does not say anything about "shilling" for anyone whatsoever. That comment, in context, was a discussion about cookies and browser security constraints and the basis of my knowledge about those topics.
You are lying.
Show some self-respect and admit it, apologize and move on.
Re the bolded - You can turn off cookies in the browser. Or you can install something like ghostery.
The problem is that Google is ignoring your efforts to turn off cookies in the browser and installing them, anyway.
I do have them blocked but with DNT+ instead of Ghostery. I had Gostery but trackers got its number and won't give the content when Gostery is enabled. Even UI element at Verizon (myVerizon) won't work anymore with Ghostery. I fear it's only a matter of time before tracking companies do the same to DNT+. For now DNT+ is working great, even better than Ghostery ever was.
I use ClicktoFlash but Flash is finding its way around it. I was just trying to watch a news video at Yahoo News. The video played but a flash dialog opened covering most of the video. It was asking to allow or deny local storage (I have it shut down). I click deny but it ignored the click!! The dialog couldn't be moved out of the way either making the video unwatchable. Tracking is a war that we will be fighting for a long time. Most people give up and just allow this bull crap. I don't blame people for giving up. It's very hard to always fight this battle. So I'm in the minority in this war. I'm not giving up though.
I'm afraid you do. That post does not say anything about "shilling" for anyone whatsoever. That comment, in context, was a discussion about cookies and browser security constraints and the basis of my knowledge about those topics.
You are lying.
Show some self-respect and admit it, apologize and move on.
Oh, right, sorry, you didn't actually call yourself a shill. Wow, I really blew it there, you only work for a company that does this stuff and happen to be posting here on the topic defending the practice.
I'm afraid you do. That post does not say anything about "shilling" for anyone whatsoever. That comment, in context, was a discussion about cookies and browser security constraints and the basis of my knowledge about those topics.
You are lying.
Show some self-respect and admit it, apologize and move on.
Don't bother. He's proven to me to be dishonest and will probably continue to accuse you of being paid to post here no matter what you say.
He asked me point blank last year if I worked for Google. I told him no, and not for the first time either, and even went so far as to tell him I served as a moderator at three other sites and what I did for a living (Note: He's not willing to do the same). Did that stop him from continuing to claim I worked for Google? Of course not so I gave up responding to him months ago as it serves no purpose. You should do the same.
IMO he's a one trick pony when it comes to disputing what you might write. He won't argue that I'm wrong but instead claim that I have an advantage over him since I'm paid to do it. So ignore him. Otherwise the thread gets derailed by personal problems rather than holding intelligent discussion/disagreements on real issues.
I already said that's not possible.
At the very least, it is possible to globally disable all cookies for all web sites. If cookies are globally disabled, then tracking cookies (of which Google's IFrame hack is just one example) would also be disabled, despite all Google's protestations to the contrary.
Your web browsing experience will be severely compromised, but it is most definitely possible.
If you really wanted to take it to the extreme, you could take one of the open-source web browsers, and expunge all the code relating to inserting cookie data in the headers of outgoing HTTP requests. Having done that, you'd end up with a web browser that was literally incapable of satisfying Google's attempts to send you any tracking cookies.