AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Google, Facebook working to undermine Do Not Track privacy protections
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google, Facebook working to undermine Do Not Track privacy protections - Page 6

post #201 of 265
4/1/12 at 9:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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.

I'm going to save you and the other Google shills some trouble. Here are the responses any time Google violates a user's privacy. Instead of typing out the answer, you can simply enter the number.

1. Google never did anything like that.

2. Google did it, but it was Apple's fault because the browser had a bug (as if it's possible to have any software without a bug - and as if Apple forced them to take advantage of the bug).

3. Google did it, but they stopped.

4. Google did it, but it's the user's fault for wanting to use the Internet.

5. Google's partner did it. Sure, Google provided all the software and provided a way to get around the user's desire to block cookies, but it's still the partner's fault.

6. Privacy is overrated.

Did I miss any?
Reply
Reply
post #202 of 265
4/1/12 at 10:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I'm going to save you and the other Google shills some trouble. Here are the responses any time Google violates a user's privacy. Instead of typing out the answer, you can simply enter the number.

1. Google never did anything like that.

2. Google did it, but it was Apple's fault because the browser had a bug (as if it's possible to have any software without a bug - and as if Apple forced them to take advantage of the bug).

3. Google did it, but they stopped.

4. Google did it, but it's the user's fault for wanting to use the Internet.

5. Google's partner did it. Sure, Google provided all the software and provided a way to get around the user's desire to block cookies, but it's still the partner's fault.

6. Privacy is overrated.

Did I miss any?

"We reached out to Apple (MS/Nokia/Yahoo) for a response but haven't received a reply"

Those are all pulled from this issue aren't they? There's lots of other reasons Google might use in an explanation. But they do usually try rather than ignoring it.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #203 of 265
4/1/12 at 10:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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

That is correct. However, that is a choice I made. Intentionally. If someone else makes a different choice intentionally, that choice too should be respected. Companies are fine with honoring choices that favor them (as are most individuals), but they (also like people) trnd to flat out ignore or attempt to circumvent choices that are not in their favor.

I'm off to enjoy the weather today, have a great day.
Joe
Reply
Reply
post #204 of 265
4/1/12 at 10:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimwit View Post

In other words, you are an idiot!

More name calling. Nice.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimwit View Post

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

If you were, you wouldn't post it...at least not in the way you have.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimwit View Post

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)"

Wow. No. It's not even a little bit like being a slave. Please refrain from diminishing the wickedness and evil that is slavery by making such comparisons.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimwit View Post

Another thing, self regulation never works. EVER.

No one is even saying that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimwit View Post

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.

Oh the irony.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimwit View Post

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.

And it will probably mean that many will simply go out of business and disappear...and most likely the smallest most independent ones while the biggest, richest ones will easily survive creating and even more monopolistic situation.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #205 of 265
4/1/12 at 10:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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

Gatorguy gets it! +1

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #206 of 265
4/1/12 at 10:41am
I saw this article and the number of posts and anticipated some thought-provoking discussions.

Instead, 3/4 of the thread is dominated by one troll (and one minor colluder) and a whole bunch of people responding repeatedly to what are mostly silly argue-for-the-sake-of-arguing posts. Like arguing with a child that keeps saying "So what?!" and "No you don't!"

However, the nice thing, and I need to thank MJ1970 for this, is that you're helping raise awareness of the evils of stealth user-profiling by bringing more people into the conversation. As more people consider the problems and the inherent "evil", they will help spread the word. The only way this stuff is going to get shut down (or more likely, constrained) is by education, awareness, and the slow evolution of public sentiment through that awareness.

So thank you for that much.
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
post #207 of 265
4/1/12 at 10:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post

Instead, 3/4 of the thread is dominated by one troll (and one minor colluder)

And look...still more name calling.

At the point the other side of this argument appears to consist of those whose greatest skill is name calling (shill, troll, idiot, child, etc.)

That at least appears to be the default tactic when someone disagrees and won't capitulate to faulty, illogical arguments.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post

However, the nice thing, and I need to thank MJ1970 for this, is that you're helping raise awareness of the evils of stealth user-profiling by bringing more people into the conversation. As more people consider the problems and the inherent "evil", they will help spread the word. The only way this stuff is going to get shut down (or more likely, constrained) is by education, awareness, and the slow evolution of public sentiment through that awareness.

While we can disagree about the "inherent evil" of this activity, I do agree that it is fine, even great for more people to be aware of it. Nothing wrong with that at all. And if change to to be made, that is the way it should be made...awareness, education and voluntary action.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #208 of 265
4/1/12 at 10:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

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.

I'm not seeing the difference

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.
Reply
Reply
post #209 of 265
4/1/12 at 10:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bolskevite View Post

1. Not possible. Most major sites have ads and they all track you.

2. Turning off cookies causes all kinds of other problems, mainly that you get logged out of everything every time you reopen your browser. This is especially annoying on sites like Gmail and FB where you want to remain logged in.

If you use gmail or facebook, I'm not sure why you would bother to block cookies or pay attention to any privacy settings whatsoever. Anywhere. Between those two "services", you are already giving away more personal information than you could possibly imagine, and you are giving it to 2 companies whose sole intent is to gather as much possible personal information about you as possible, for their own profit motives.

Even still, what they do with that data today is not nearly as important as the simple fact that such an incredible amount of personal details about individuals exists, and is available in one place to be used, misused, abused and eventually bought and sold. Throughout the history of humanity this type of "intel" has been fought against repeatedly because of the inherent danger. Now, millions of clueless people think it's okay because "it's fun!" or because some fleeting "value proposition" seems to make sense to them.

Oh well, if people can't learn from history, it's unlikely I'm going to help by posting here on a Mac forum. But in aggregate, maybe. I am hopeful that more people are "getting it" now, based on changing attitudes in posts on forums like this and even mainstream articles. It will take a long time, but I do see changes coming.
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
post #210 of 265
4/1/12 at 10:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

While we can disagree about the "inherent evil" of this activity, I do agree that it is fine, even great for more people to be aware of it.

Just not that people have the right to be protected against it. Because you work for one of these companies and wouldn't want to see it go under.
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #211 of 265
4/1/12 at 11:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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.

The outrage was rightly directed at Path, if that's what you are referring to.
I think you're confusing Apple approving an app approving of what the app did. Apple did not approve of what the app did, and they put controls in place to prevent another incident, right after Tim Cook chewed out Path's co-founder. And sure, we're outraged at bugs in Apple's software or App Store approval process that allow violations of user privacy, but not to the same level, because we don't confuse bugs for condoning the practice of. There's a difference between "Safari has a bug that lets sites subvert user's privacy settings" vs. "Sites exploit this bug to track users against their wishes."

Apple is philosophically opposed to the Googles and Facebooks out there on the issue of data privacy. It's not tracking of personal data per se that is objectionable (all companies have to collect data to provide you service), it's the philosophy that companies can and should do whatever they want with your data without giving you knowledge of, and control over that.
"And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about." --addabox
Reply
"And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about." --addabox
Reply
post #212 of 265
4/1/12 at 11:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo View Post

I'm not seeing the difference

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.
Reply
Reply
post #213 of 265
4/1/12 at 2:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

The outrage was rightly directed at Path, if that's what you are referring to.

If it was just path then it might have been a simple oversight by Apple. . . but Path is far from the only one, nor even the most downloaded.

"...Foursquare, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and Voxer send some or all of a user's address book data back to their respective servers. Google+, Apple's own Find My Friends, Skype, Yahoo Messenger, Quora, Textfree, and AIM, on the other hand, do not.

The Verge did its own testing and discovered other apps that access and send a user's contact data to their servers, including LinkedIn, Gowalla, Foodspotting, Angry Birds, and Cut the Rope. The worst offender, however, is Hipster—the app not only uploads contact information without user notification, but does so without any kind of secure connection at all."
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...n-security.ars

I'm sure all of those offenders have since been removed from the App Store, correct?

Is it reasonable that no one at Apple ever became aware that these very high-profile and among the most used apps they had approved also sent your personal details off to private servers out of Apple's control? Not in my opinion. I don't think there's any way someone at Apple didn't took notice, if not when initially approved then within days or weeks at least. Yet they weren't removed from the App Store. Either Apple is incredibly lax at curating their marketplace, putting all app users in danger of acquiring malware and spyware or they chose to look the other way, the more likely explanation IMHO.

Which do you think the likely explanation is?

A. Apple really doesn't curate the App Store
B. They've very poor at it depending more on users and bloggers to report problems, putting users at risk or
C. They chose to ignore obvious breaking of the rules (perhaps because the apps were also cooperating with Apple?)

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #214 of 265
4/1/12 at 2:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

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.

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.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #215 of 265
4/1/12 at 2:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Just not that people have the right to be protected against it.

Not at all. I think you should "protect" yourself.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Because you work for one of these companies and wouldn't want to see it go under.

Where I work (private information that was revealed by a moderator on the forum who was arguing in favor of privacy protection BTW) is completely irrelevant to my position. Your "argument" is nothing more than a circumstantial ad hominem.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #216 of 265
4/1/12 at 2:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Where I work (private information that was revealed by a moderator on the forum who was arguing in favor of privacy protection BTW)

Could have sworn you said it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I work for a company that does this kind of stuff. Browser security limits actually constrain us quite a bit.

But that must be private information you posted publicly, there.

I'll give yet another analogy. You're arguing for the equivalent of not having the option to stop people from looking into the windows of your house. You don't think that being able to have curtains is a valid option. All you can parrot is "Well, then, just don't have windows in your house."
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #217 of 265
4/1/12 at 2:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Could have sworn you said it.



But that must be private information you posted publicly, there.

I was specifically referring to dealing with cookies and browser security and limitations.

I was referring to another post in which one of the forum moderators in his great respect for privacy revealed some information from their logs, I presume, I can only assume in order to demonstrate this site's respect for privacy and his personal concerns about it.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #218 of 265
4/1/12 at 2:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I was specifically referring to dealing with cookies and browser security and limitations.

Okay.

… and? Nothing more was said or implied than you had already intimated. So now you're simply reconfirming that you work where you work.
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #219 of 265
4/1/12 at 2:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Okay.

… and? Nothing more was said or implied than you had already intimated. So now you're simply reconfirming that you work where you work.

Right. Whatever. But all of that is irrelevant to my position, contrary to multiple implications otherwise.

It's yet another sideways attempt to suggest I'm a "shill."

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #220 of 265
4/1/12 at 2:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

OK. Is Google's way of making money evil? If so, why?

Yes because I don't want to have to manage a personal information economy. Just choosing not to use their software is no longer a legitimate option because of their dominant position in the market makes it impossible for other companies to offer an equivalent level of service.
Reply
Reply
post #221 of 265
4/1/12 at 2:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

You don't think that being able to have curtains is a valid option.

Wrong. That statement either reveals a complete misunderstanding of what I've said or a deliberate misrepresentation.

I have specifically said that I believe everyone absolutely has the right to block tracking in their browsers and should do so using the variety of tools available to them including those built right into the browsers themselves if this concerns them. 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.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #222 of 265
4/1/12 at 2:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

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 View Post

. 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.
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #223 of 265
4/1/12 at 2:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

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 View Post

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.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #224 of 265
4/1/12 at 3:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo View Post

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 View Post

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.
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
post #225 of 265
4/1/12 at 3:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

arguments

As you never had one, I think that's best.
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #226 of 265
4/1/12 at 3:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

As you never had one, I think that's best.

Whatever makes you feel better.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #227 of 265
4/1/12 at 3:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post

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 View Post

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.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #228 of 265
4/1/12 at 4:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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.
Reply
Reply
post #229 of 265
4/1/12 at 5:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

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?

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #230 of 265
4/1/12 at 6:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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.
Reply
Reply
post #231 of 265
4/1/12 at 6:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

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.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #232 of 265
4/1/12 at 6:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

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.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #233 of 265
4/1/12 at 6:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

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.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #234 of 265
4/1/12 at 8:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

See this Gatorguy? If you disagree, the only possible explanation is that you're shilling for Google.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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.
Reply
Reply
post #235 of 265
4/1/12 at 9:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

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 View Post

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.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #236 of 265
4/1/12 at 9:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

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.
Reply
Reply
post #237 of 265
4/1/12 at 9:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

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.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #238 of 265
4/1/12 at 10:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

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.
Reply
Reply
post #239 of 265
4/2/12 at 4:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

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.
Reply
Reply
post #240 of 265
4/2/12 at 5:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

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.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Google, Facebook working to undermine Do Not Track privacy protections