Google, Facebook working to undermine Do Not Track privacy protections - Page 5

First, "the internet" isn't some vague collection of public space...it is a collection of privately built and owned resources.

Take this site for example. It is privately owned and, so far as I know, not funded by any tax dollars. The owners of this site provide a great site, lot of free content and a forum to have these discussions. But, in a very fundamental way it is private property. If they want to ban you or me...well they can. They can make their own rules. They could require that I only post in haiku. Whatever. I agree to abide by their terms and assume they'll abide by what they say. Its a contract. Loose...informal I suppose. But it is their property. If I decide one day to block all tracking on this site...and they decide not to let anyone shoe does that to see their content...we're both within our rights. I could be really mad about it. Very frustrated and disappointed. Maybe even kick the dog over it. But, I don't have any right to their content and services.



We call that corporatism and the chief instigating culprit is the guys with the guns.



Shit! Are you kidding me?! With my political views I'd be one the first people hauled into a concentration camp.




As I said, you have more to fear from governments than private companies...and to the extent that the private companies buckle because the government has a gun to their head...the root problem there is the one with the gun.



Well, I'm not so sure about that.

If I use a bump key to exploit a bug in your lock, snoop around your house then send teams of door knockers around to target your specific needs, what you are saying is it's the lock companies fault for giving you a false sense of security and there is no problem with those who exploit it.

Not really. I didn't say there's "no problem" with the exploiter. You seem to not be paying very close attention. Furthermore, this analogy you keep trying to use, like all analogies, has limits. At the point I think you've exceeded them. You may not even realize that I've actually even partly agreed with you. \

I explained why your analogy was ridiculous, why don't you explain why this analogy doesn't apply - instead of simply saying that it isn't relevant?

You sure come off as a Google shill. So far, your only argument is that it's Apple's fault for not making a perfect system and that Google somehow inadvertently (and innocently) accessed private information and installed cookies on many computers. All of that is, of course, absurd.

Again, I have to wonder if this is a DMCA violation. The users selected "do not install tracking cookies" and Google did so, anyway.

There is a difference between describing the current situation, and expressing a desire for change, for protection or for an evolution from the status quo. Just because one understands the current situation does not mean one must agree with it, accept it or support it. I expect most people visiting this site understand the nature of our relationship with the site, most people understand that search engines make money with advertising. But I believe it is worthwhile to make people aware of what else search engines are doing, and what the long term consequences can be.




really? how odd, considering your tone of cynical realism I am surprised you hold views that could get you into trouble with any powers. Not a personal attack, I do not know you or your views, but you seem very eager to explain that all is well as it is. Sorry if I have misread your tone.



Well... a government will only hold "a gun to the head" of a company which has something or does something which is useful to the owner of "the gun". And all too often companies do not require a gun held to their head, they are very eager to offer their services. One sees examples in all periods of history and all political systems.

Do you always resort to insulting people who don't agree with you?

I agree.



And I have no problem with that whatsoever. I say scream it from the mountain tops!



I think you have misread me. I'm not saying that all is well. First, I'm simply suggesting that if some privacy concerns from Google are people biggest concerns they might be looking the wrong direction. Second, I'm also saying that many people are getting tons of stuff for free and part of the reason they are is due to the advertising and corresponding tracking. I have no problem with lobbying companies like Google to stop it. To even hold them accountable for doing deceitful things. I have no problem with people encouraging everyone to use tools for blocking all over the place. Where I start having problem is in implementing one's aspirations with government force.



True enough. But...still...the ones with the guns are the culprits to be primarily concerned with here.

fine, that is cleared up then


We will have to disagree about this, but that is for another day. Have a good day, wherever you are and take care.
-d

Same to you.

What insult? I simply told you how your 'arguments' came across.

I notice that you haven't answered the question, though. What's wrong with the analogy of a flaw in your home security system that allows a burglar to come into the house and spy on you? Why is the burglar not at fault? After all, he's simply taking advantage of a flaw in the security system.

First of all, this issue of "natural rights" is a complete red herring. The phrase "natural rights" is a meaningless phrase, no one can even give a definition of "natural rights" that holds up to any scrutiny, nor even enumerate these supposed "natural rights". There are no natural rights.

But there are many rights that have been established over centuries, some of them gained after hard fights and much blood spilled. And one of the most fundamental of those rights, one which the existence of free societies depends on, is privacy.

Yes, the 4th Amendment specifically addresses our right to privacy in relation to the government, but the idea that the people ought to have this right to be free of government intrusion into their private lives and their homes, while codified in this amendment, stems form the even more fundamental right expressed in the phrase, " A man's house is his castle."

The right not to have people generally intrude into your life, into your home, to violate your privacy, was established as a basic and essential right long before the 4th Amendment was put on paper, and this even more fundamental right is protected by the 9th Amendment:


Secondly, "going on the Internet" is not, in any way, analogous to driving a car, period. When we access the Internet, we don't go anywhere. We access the Internet from inside our homes, a place where there is, by long custom and well established law, an expectation of a high level of privacy. We aren't out on the street, we aren't at Google's server farm, we aren't at someone's colo, we are in our homes, we haven't gone anywhere.

Tracking people "on the Internet", at the level, and with the methods that Google employs, especially after we turned the key in the lock and hung the keep out sign, is most closely analogous to breaking and entering, or home invasion. It's as though Google snuck in through the open window in the bathroom, uninvited and unwelcome, and is hiding in the closet, watching our every move, taking notes, and phoning it all back to headquarters.

And, to use your phrase, Google has no "natural right" to do this. There is no long established "right" of, say retailers, allowing them to send private detectives to rummage through your closets. There is no established "right" of advertisers, to go through your health records. Google has no "right" to engage in wholesale cyberstalking of US citizens, including minors. Google doesn't even have a "right" to engage in any sort of business they choose to, so long as it's profitable.

But we have a long established right to privacy. A right not to have our homes invaded or our computers ransacked. A right not to be stalked wherever we go, but particularly not within the walls of our homes.

do ALL the evil!

Yes, you have effectively gone somewhere else when you go on the internet. You're accessing someone else's property, someone else's servers located at some other location than your home. And as MJ1970 pointed out by quoting this site's Privacy Policy, you implicitly agree to being tracked by visiting and making use of this site.

It seems a lot of people here want a free lunch. If you cut off or drastically reduce the ad revenue that AppleInsider makes, how long do you think this website will be around? How many other sites will disappear if their ad revenue drops significantly?

Fascism is what happens.

You hit the nail right on the head. Ai and most other websites say they honor your privacy but they don't. Google is just the tip of the iceberg. Websites like AI forums are making money from tracking us talking about how bad it is to be tracked. Irony. There are 14 tracking devices attached to the article page of this thread and 4 tracking this forum page right now. Nobody is going give up their cash cow. We are the only ones (users) that care. Content providers are selling our participation to the highest bidder and not just one. All AI articles use 14 different tracking companies who pay AI for our usage data.

I think you got it. When Google said "do no evil", they were talking to everyone else. They want to keep the evil all to themselves.


I think there's a huge difference.

I don't like tracking cookies, but it's perfectly legal and legitimate as long as there's a way to turn them off or block them.

In Google's case, though, they're circumventing the user's preference. Even when the user turns off tracking cookies, Google works around the system to install them on the user's system.

The use of tracking cookies is like offering a service where you will come into a customer's home and inspect their house and recommend purchases that they might like. If the customer is OK with it, that's a perfectly legitimate service.

What Google is doing is like entering the customer's home to inspect their house and recommend purchases EVEN AFTER THE CUSTOMER SAYS NO.

No, it's like mailing a card requesting a brochure and then receiving it in the mail. You haven't gone anywhere, and you haven't invited anyone into your home. You aren't accessing their property any more than requesting information through the mails. This idea that you have "gone to their site" is based on people assigning literal meaning to loose language. It's a metaphor, you haven't gone anywhere, and just like the mail, the request and receipt of information are entirely out of your hands after it leaves your computer and until the reply arrives.

Your latter point represents a sort of catch 22, doesn't it. In order read their privacy policy you have to "go" to the site, where you are then informed that if you "use" the site you'll be tracked. So essentially, the whole privacy policy thing is obviously a failure as well since your privacy is violated before you are informed that it will be violated. This is why things like privacy policies and other "voluntary" measures are essentially worthless and simply don't and won't work. The answer is draconian legislation banning this entire tracking industry. If Google goes out of business as a result, so be it, the world won't miss them one bit.



And, once again, another red herring scare. Advertising worked for years with out this sort of intrusive and involuntary tracking. It can go back to making money the old fashioned way, and except for a few sites that are worthless anyway, most will be just fine without violating our privacy, and if they aren't, that's fine, we don't need a business model that depends on us giving up our basic rights as citizens.

But, the most misleading thing about this comment is the implication that all this tracking is a) all from sites that are ad based, and b) that it's simply for targeting ads. As for point a, there are millions of sites out there that aren't even ad based that are tracking you with Google Analytics, simply because Google designed it as a Trojan to get it everywhere. As for point b, there isn't any reason to believe, or evidence to support, the idea that it will never be used for anything else.

Jragosta, where was this outrage when you found that Apple examined and approved some of the biggest apps in the market that record and collect the names and personal details of the people you communicate with on your iDevice? Was that with your approval? It certainly passed muster with Apple.

Did you get this upset and vehement about your privacy being invaded when you found that Apple also approved apps that sent your location back to private servers, allowing your travels to be tracked, recorded and possibly sold? There's lots of other personal data that Apple is still allowing to be harvested from you, appearing to react only when the complaints reach the press. Yet a cookie on a website that happens to originate from someone who is not Apple is downright evil. I think you'd consider that at minimum disingenuous if it was someone else's posted attitude.

If some responding in this thread are so concerned about a website such as Engadget, Ars even AI tracking your visits, I would suggest you should be absolutely outraged at how your physical travels are still noted, reported and saved, even if you turn off location services indicating you don't want to be tracked. Your iPhone shouldn't ever be used if a website cookie gets you so upset.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/bu...26privacy.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/us...acy-fears.html

The FUD continues. GG's argument is that in scenario B, the tracking is even worse than in scenario A, so just ignore scenario A. Well, scenario B may be something that should be outlawed too, but that doesn't make scenario A any better. And GG's employer, Google, is obviously a much more dangerous offender than anyone else because they are engaged in scenario A & B tracking.

There's a world of difference.

Apple has policies which are meant to ensure privacy and apps which access personal data without permission are not allowed. Apple missed a couple of them - which is not surprising, nor is it an indication of evil intent. They can't catch everything, and when they are informed that something slips through, they fix the problem by removing the app.

Android store, OTOH, doesn't have ANY such policies and harvesting information is completely fair game - so Apple is miles ahead from the start.

Then, moving even further up on the scale of privacy violations, Google intentionally sets out to harvest your private information, EVEN WHEN YOU TOLD THEM NOT TO by turning off cookies.

The information that Apple gathers for itself is only with the permission of the user.

It's really disingenuous to imply that the situations are even remotely related.


What does police activity have to do with Apple or Google? I guess you realize you don't have a logical argument so you'll just throw out as much FUD as you can and hope that something sticks.

Saying that Apple didn't approve Twitter or Facebook harvesting contact info is simply guessing since the evidence leans more towards at least turning a blind eye. It's not reasonable to think a high profile app sending personal data to a private server didn't get noticed by anyone at Apple, if not when first approved at least within a few weeks. If that were true it says loads about Apple's lack of oversight. A curated market?

The question is still where was your outrage at those apps taking your data without permission? Is there outrage at Verizon or ATT sharing and perhaps selling data about you and your travels? That's at least as personal if not more so. I see it as quite related..

I'll wait for the outrage at Apple or your cell provider, and governments agencies who don't need to bother with "no stinkin' warrants" to see where you've been, what you texted and who you've been talking to. I'm sure your response will be vehement compared to your attitude towards a website cookie.

MJ1970 made an excellent point that you and a couple of others aren't acknowledging. You and othersw are quite willing to share the private details of your life if you're getting something you perceive to be more valuable. You're being paid for access to who you are by accepting cell service, allowed membership on a forum, or subscribe to news or television services.

We've all proved we're willing to be whored out by visiting AI or owning a smartphone. Now we're just negotiating a price.

I think lots of these issues would be solved if lobbyists could be legally punished for lobbying for bad reasons. Say you lobby for a company that sells a cancer-inducing product. Ten years later, the product is finally forbidden, and then the DoJ rings at your bell "hey, it's about those 20 years in prison you're going to spend now for causing immense trouble to (inter)National Health Security".

(inter) is in that sentence because, after all, heavy lobbying in Washington also impacts the UNO, the WCO, and hence international trade and regulations... but keeping the process a purely US idea, lobbyism can be a good thing, or an evil thing, depending on the lobby.

Gun rights and the billions they represent are another good exemple of that... Maybe in 50 years, when some huge gunshooting in a posh school in the East Coast with a few Senator sons and daughters dead causes tighter gun laws (yeah, people understand better when it gets personal), gun rights lobbyists will be tried and convicted for the damage they did to America?

There are things you're willing to pay for. However, you don't get a choice.

No one has sent me a check yet an that is my big issue. I don't care at all that the government tracks me. I also don't care that private concerns track me online. I do care that these private companies don't pay me when they use my information. I waiting for a check from Google, Experian, Akamai or any other company that is profiting from my data. It's theft pure an simple.

And the point that YOU keep ignoring is that in all the other cases (except the government), you have the right to say 'no'. You can tell your browser not to install cookies. You can refuse to send your location information to a vendor. It's your choice.

EXCEPT Google's insistence on ignoring your 'no' and installing tracking cookies, anyway.

The government is obviously a different issue and your continued insistence on using it to justify Google's criminal activity is ridiculous. Last time I checked, Google was not a governmental body and was bound by the laws of the country.

You accepted that Google and other ad providers placed cookies when you signed up at AI. You accepted that Verizon. ATT, Sprint, whoever could track you as well as record, store and share those results with 3rd parties. You didn't agree to share your personally identifiable information with either Facebook or Twitter when you downloaded those apps from Apple, yet they did so anyway.

Solutions? Don't visit websites that place cookies unless you see value there. Don't use internet service providers that place cookies or track your location or network devices unless you want the service more than the privacy. Don't sign a contract with a telco who says they reserve the right to use and share your subscriber details, text contents and location unless you think trading your privacy for it is worthwhile.

Try as much as you like. You can't turn off what the telcos gather from you even if location is turned off. You can't join AI or sign up with a service provider without agreeing to their terms either.

As I said, you've already shown a willingness to be whored. You just haven't agreed to everyone's price yet.

Wrong. I signed up for AI, but also had selected the setting in my browser that says that I do not allow cookies. So I did NOT agree to allow cookies. Google went around my desires.

Now, it is entirely possible that AI could make their site inaccessible without cookies - and then I'd have to make a choice. But as it is, my choice was 'NO COOKIES' and Google violated it.

Did they? You found evidence that Google themselves placed cookies on your computer when visiting AI after you asked they don't? Is it instead you read that it happened according to blogger reports? Since Google removed the workaround several weeks ago, are you still seeing cookies placed? If so, those aren't from Google.

According to what some others posted, Google changed their practice and it's others who still take advantage of the hole that Apple leaves open, whether intentional or not. Is "Apple's friend" Facebook part of that group ignoring your preferences?

A Google Analytics cookie isn't from Google?

Apparently not if you've blocked them in Safari and they're still being placed. It sounds like another source is using the Safari workaround to place a Google-analytics cookie for that site's benefit. Is that from here at AI?

For the record, that would be this site.

I read about it in the Wall Street Journal - and Google admitted it by changing their code:
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/...jExNDYyWj.html

There is, of course, no guarantee that they don't have other methods. Furthermore, this is proof that Google was doing it until they got caught.

I'm sorry for offending the people this is going to offend.

That's a bit like telling someone enslaved, "if you don't want to be a slave, stop taking part in the benefits of being owned (food, shelter)"

In other words, you are an idiot! What we all want is HONESTY. If I'm told that by doing something, I can avoid being tracked, and I do that something, I SHOULD NOT BE TRACKED. There should NOT be a million hoops to jump through. These pond scum insist on attempting to circumvent my wishes, and being opaque about it, I say put the lot of them in prison.

Another thing, self regulation never works. EVER. You can not put a thief in charge of the money, you can not put a rat in charge of the cheese, and you can not put a liar in charge of the truth. We need government intervention (I HATE saying that) to protect (their actual job) the rights of the citizens. Sure, that may mean that websites need to find another way to monetize the services they provide us, and I'm not sure what that would be. But, it's only fair that a content creator be compensated for the content they create. There is no good reason that ads need to know who is clicking on them, there is no good reason that ads need to install trackers on MY computer, there is no good reason for companies to INTENTIONALLY attempt to circumvent the conditions I set for my browsing experience. EVER.

Joe

They don't claim they didn't, coming right out and admitting it happened. I was curious if you were a victim or simply speaking up for victim's rights.

If cookies are still being placed for Safari users who have cookies disabled (I noted you forget to answer that), I would expect it to be apparent to you that it's unlikely coming direct from Google with so many eyes watching for any evidence. Much more likely it's the site you're visiting or one of it's partners responsible, not Google.

You're being paid in services, apparently of enough value for you to continue trading privacy for them.

Then you should contact the administrators of this site and voice your concerns, and repeat as needed at other sites you value.

How is it unlikely that a cookie from google analitics is not coming from google?
I'm pretty sure that if someone other than google was using a trademarked name for a service without permission, google would through it's legal staff make their displeasure known. As that hasn't happened, we can only assume that google, at the very least, condones this behavior, or they encourage it.

It's called logic, and while it might tax your mind, it won't kill you.

If I had cookies blocked, I would complain to the site admin about intentionally circumventing my personal settings. I just believe that if someone chooses to remain private, they should remain private.

Apparently you have no experience with ad placement and data gathering services on commercial websites. A Google-analytics cookie doesn't need to placed by Google themselves. It's kinda like buying Quaker State oil. You know who made it, but they're not responsible for how it got in your engine.

BTW, I hate analogies and rarely will use one. I'm sure to be reminded why they work so poorly to demonstrate a point withing a post or two.

EDIT: It just came to me how Google Analytics came to my companies website. We partnered with a third party store who offered us a self-branded storefront. To show whether it was getting traffic and from where (along with a whole lot of other details I was surprised to find available) they set up a link for us. It was never something Google approached us about, nor that we had any direct dealings with Google to arrange for.

Then you aren't blocking cookies, finding enough value (or not enough to be concerned about) to worry about disabling them?