Google, Facebook working to undermine Do Not Track privacy protections - Page 3

How is Google manipulating me? There is one thing I'm certain about: internet advertising is NEVER going away. Do you remember the internet a few years ago BEFORE the rise of Google and other major advertising networks? The internet was a crap pile of obnoxious blinking banner ads that generally had no relevance to you or the site you were visiting. I remember that fracking "punch the monkey" banner ad; I believe it popped up on this site all the time.

I know it's impossible to avoid advertising on the internet. So I have 2 choices: 1) Go back to the days when ads were pretty much randomly served up to me or 2) Get ads that are actually relevant to me and/or the site I'm visiting. Which do you think makes for a better end experience?

And no, I really don't care if Google knows the sites I visit. If it means I don't have to slog through sites covered in ads about Erectile Dysfunction and penile enhancement, that makes me a happy girl.

Google is getting blamed for their part in this, but what about the owners of the websites who are using analytics and Google ads? Even AI use it. Sites need to make money and seems that targeted ads have become the way for them to do this. And targeting is achieved through tracking and the like.

I mean, short of every website requiring a paywall, or membership scheme, what can be done? If Google/whatever other ad company stops tracking people, my guess is the data becomes less useful, which may mean an increase in quantity of content but surely not the quality.

You can.track someone without using cookies.

And DuckDuckGo.com is better than Google or Bing. With no tracking or bubbles.

There's a simple solution to illegal tracking by companies. It's called JAIL !! You throw one of 'em in jail and problem solved until their memory runs out then you throw another one in jail. Pretty soon they'll get the message. Illegal tracking = JAIL.

I believe it's possible to fight against tracking through information to users, so that it becomes a widespread concience topic. Apple didn't reduce the working hours in China because they care about workers rights, but because it gives them good marketing image, given that it's a widespread wish to have fair working regulations.

For example, if there was a web navigator with strong user quote, and such navigator had some kind of "ads ethical-meter" noticing you how ethical (tracking-wise) is being with you the website you're visiting, I'm sure companies will begin taking care of being ethical to users.

If you visit Google, and your navigator displays a message like "this site isn't being ethical with your privacy" in the status bar, the problem would become widespread concience, and companies would take care of it.

(EDIT: this would require implementing tracking-testing in the navigator, of course)

Couldn't tell it better myself. Quoting the full text for late readers.

Before AppleInsider runs another of these breathless Google-bashing "articles" from DED you might want to remove the Google Analytics cookies from your website.

Just sayin'.

I use Safari 5.1.5 with the 'Send Do Not Track HTTP Header' option ON along with:

1. Ghostery Safari extension to block tracking cookies
2. Visible alert bubble within Ghostery set to on to notify me who is setting up cookies and track my visits (I could enable some for example to get the site working e.g. on NFL.com website to enable the videos to load)
3. AdBlock extension to block website 3rd party adverts
4. ClickToFlash extension as a good measure
   

I don't know if that covers everything but I don't see adverts or Tweeter or FaceBook logo/login anymore not even on this site let alone those annoying flash.

That's the problem, it's almost impossible to use the web without some flavor of advanced tracking being applied to the user. So really, you're telling people to get off the internet while pretending to be polite about it. And then sticking it to them by implying that their only possible motivation is that they're freeloaders.

If you can't have your job datamining your users, maybe you need a different career. No other medium for advertising offered or needed datamining, and they've gotten along quite well.

Thanks guys!

Posters have provided at least 3 alternatives to Google in this thread not mention numerous tools and techniques for blocking cookies and other forms of tracking.

Actually, that is exactly what I'm saying. But evidently the benefits of using all of the free resources that are available are worth more than going to the work to block or avoid them. I think individuals should be free to use whatever means they wish to personally block cookies, etc. I also think that enough websites (like this one by the way) determine they can no longer monetize their traffic without the tracking (because everyone has chosen to do this blocking), they should be free to refuse service to anyone who has things like cookies blocked for them or switch to a paid subscription model.



That's not my career.


P.S. I just tried blocking on Google Chrome and Firefox. No cookies at all. Not from Google or anyone. Safari does appear to not respect the no cookies setting. So maybe Safari has a bug here.

It's a sad sign of how much corporate interests control the government that the Feds even waste their time with this "voluntary" shit. So, the tracking industry's "understanding" of "Do No Track" is that it means, "don't let the user know they are being tracked." If this doesn't tell everyone that nothing but necessarily draconian legislation to outlaw this wholesale cyberstalking will stop it and protect our privacy, I don't know what will. This isn't an issue of the right or the left, this is an issue for anyone who believes in freedom, and it is not hyperbole to state that Google and the rest of the cyberstalkers are the enemies of privacy and thus of freedom.

Freedom and privacy go hand in hand, and without one, we do not have the other. The government Total Information Awareness program was shut down because it was rightly recognized the threat this loss of privacy posed to freedom. What Google and others are doing here is no different, but even more insidious because of the bias of many to only see threats to liberty when they come from the government. But corporations who abuse your privacy erode your freedom just as much as the same actions would if undertaken by the government and, in fact, these corporate databases represent simple, one stop shopping for the government when they want information on an individual or group, information that the government is forbidden by law to collect, but not forbidden to use when it's collected by others.

Everyone, liberal or conservative, should let their elected representatives, including the White House, whether you voted for the current President or not, know that allowing this threat to privacy to persist and grow represents a threat to our freedom and our democracy, and that, we, as citizens, demand that it stop now. No corporation has a right to profits at the expense of the fundamental values of our society, and activities that threaten those values ought not be tolerated.

Of course they've data-mined, and for years before the internet. They're just getting progressively better at it. The Cable/sat providers absolutely track your preferences, knowing just what you watch and for how long. Combined with other personal information known about you it offers a lot to say about your family, your income, your political leanings or your leisure interests. I've no doubt that mined data makes it to advertisers or even political fundraisers. Newspapers and magazines have collected subscriber information probably since they began. No doubt that they started years ago combining with stats from other sources (credit providers such as Visa or reporting agencies like TransUnion as examples) to see where to focus their promotion dollars, and for the advertiser's good advice where to spend their budgets most effectively.

With the internet the difference is they no longer have to depend so much on your responses to surveys, contest entries, credit card purchases and applications or statistical studies. All in all it's just a faster, more accurate and wider net to catch the same things they've collected for years and for guidance to promoters, marketers and advertisers on where best to spend their dollars for the biggest bang.

Magazines, billboards and newspapers just didn't have this information. It's not necessary to datamine the audience to make money.

You work for an internet ad agency, and you're using their resources to defend their business model on a discussion board. What is your career then?

This is a joke, right? Those elected "representatives" and the White House are a far bigger threat your privacy than Google is or ever will be.

Not my problem. My computer should be secure from intrusion from companies that I don't want to have there. Google has no right to my information and there should be a way to shut them out without having to worry about which loophole they're going to use tomorrow.

If that makes ads on web pages far less valuable and means that Google can pay less, that's OK with me.


Correction. You THINK it's working. Google has found ways around many of the processes in place that are supposed to ensure your privacy.


Congratulations. You win the stupid analogy of the week award.

I'm not specifically defending any one company's business model. But I am defending the model generally. I would do that no matter where I worked or who I worked for.

My career is not data mining.

Sounds to me like a lame attempt at a circumstantial ad hominem.

P.S. You are also working for an organization (this site) which is using this tracking to support itself.

Congratulations. You win the opportunity to explain why it is stupid.

Exactly, I'm implying that your career might be in shilling. The main people that defend this sort of activity generally draw financial benefit from it.


I don't work for them, I don't like it and I'm not defending it. And they don't, to my knowledge, turn it into a huge database for sale.

So you're admitting that you're making a lame attempt at a circumstantial ad hominem?



And you are wrong.



Do you have some data to support this claim?



But you are a moderator. You actively do things to support the site. You are, in effect, working for them and supporting them regardless of whether you receive any compensation.



No, you're opposed to but but actively working with an organization that does it:




It does not mention that it is also using Google AdSense and Google Analytics, et al.



So it's the size of the database that matters? That they're selling it (or not) to someone else vs. using it for their own personal gain?

Fact is that AI is partnering with Google also.

P.S. You might review this sites stated guidelines. since you seem to have come close to stepping over the line #6.

That's the fallacy. In fact, they represent exactly the same threat when engaged in the same activity. If you were truly worried about the government threatening privacy, you'd recognize that this is just TIA by proxy. But, if you don't value liberty, or are an enemy of freedom, then, like you, you won't care, or actively seek to undermine privacy and freedom.

You should mention this to Mr. H

Why?!

Because I'm making arguments and statements that you (even many posters in this thread) don't agree with or like...I'm a shill and should be reported to the moderators?



You want me banned for this?

If so, now who is an enemy of freedom?

Someone spouts an unpopular opinion that you don't like...let's report him to the authorities that govern this forum. Maybe he'll get banned! Fine, if they chose to do that...it is their absolute right to do so. I believe they should have the freedom and right to do that with their property. This is their property and I will respect their decision to exclude people (including me) from it. I also try to do my best to respect the rules they've set for their property. That's what people who love freedom actually do.

How so?



I do value liberty (far more than most that I've seen) and I am not and enemy of freedom at all.

Furthermore, I'm not convinced that companies like Google are undermining or restraining my freedom (or anyone else's) at all. No one here has yet made a compelling enough argument to convince me of that. It is quite clear how my government is though.

You should avoid commenting on things when you really have no idea what you are talking about. Oh, and, by the way, in case you didn't notice, JeffDM is a moderator.


You may pay lip service to it, but, at best, assuming you actually believe what you are writing here, you actually don't give a damn, despite what you may assert, or even think you believe in. Your statements here contradict your profession of love for liberty and freedom.

Enlighten me. (Or are you just going to toss out a general accusation of ignorance?)



I know.



Only in your interpretation of my statements and your definition of liberty and freedom. And on the subject of commenting on things one doesn't know what they're talking about, your comments on what I believe and care about is in that category.

Because common sense says that if you don't have curtains that people can look in your windows.

There is no such expectation that anyone in the world can look into your computer without permission. In fact, the typical expectation would be that your computer files are private.

Your position on privacy speaks for itself. If you don't value privacy, you don't value freedom, despite what you may say to the contrary. You can assert that you do value freedom all you want, but that doesn't make it so. It's clear you do not. This isn't something I need to prove, you've already proven it for us by showing us your mind on privacy.

Actually, they aren't really looking into your computer. They are tracking sites you visit. There's actually little they can do to "look into your computer." Plus, all the main browsers offer the ability to quickly and easily "close the curtains." It takes about 30 seconds to do.

In your opinion.



Actually I never said I don't value privacy.



And you can say I don't all you want, and that doesn't make it so.




Thanks for your opinion.



Right, because it is an opinion.

Sure you did. Tracking destroys privacy. You support tracking. Therefore, you don't care about the destruction of privacy, or freedom.

It's really quite simple, and it's not my opinion, it's just the way things are. Everyone has to make a choice. Support privacy and freedom, or support tracking. There is no having it both ways. To claim otherwise is mere sophistry.

It must make arguments easier when you just get to declare your opinion and view of the world as fact.



The sophistry exists in your own statement here. You don't even see it!


I'm sorry that my disagreeing with you has cause such consternation for you.

Actually, it makes them easy when you apply logic and the facts are on your side. Unfortunately, your argument and position have neither of those advantages.

I believe you're mistaken.

You've not provided a compelling enough argument to change my mind. Clearly I have not for you either. We clearly both think the other is wrong and we are right ourselves.

It seems we're at an impasse. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm fine with that.

I don't expect to change your mind. My only interest is in pointing out how pernicious your ideas are.

Have fun then.

Given the poor reasoning I see from so many, I'm sure you'll have great success convincing many people of it.

So you didn't even read the article you're responding to?

Here, let me quote one of the relevant sections:

When the consumer sets the browser to reject tracking cookies, Google has no business going around the user's preferences.

In fact, I wonder if that's a DMCA violation.

I agree. However, from my tests, it is not just Google. When I turn off everything on Safari, there are several cookies from several places and that still get set. Not Google alone. This suggests a bug in Safari actually. And it wouldn't be the first time Apple has denied the existence of a bug and/or deflected blame elsewhere. But this is not happening at all in Chrome or Firefox which also suggests it is a bug in Safari. I mean Google would certainly just do this with their own browser wouldn't they?