Exactly. Google's business model is to maintain exclusive access to its tracking and bugging data, so it can customize the Internet and the ads to your preferences.
There ya go. You pretty much get it (other than the part about customizing the internet)! Perhaps you can explain it to JR.
It only works well if they have their cookies in your browser. I'm not sure what the privacy setting in Safari means when they say block third parties and advertisers. Go look in your details and you'll probably see hundreds of cookies, local storage and cache from websites you have never knowingly visited. Google will probably have about ten or so in there.
Sonic.net is an ISP. What is the problem with its terms of service? I don't see anything prohibiting the customer from setting up their own servers. Question is whether a "home" customer can obtain a static IP or if a more expensive "business" account is necessary.
Same for megapath.
Ah. sorry about that.
:embarrass
Anyway, Sonic.net has different service levels for consumer service than for small business or enterprise don't they? I think they have a set quota for data transfers, capping the usage for consumers and pushing big users to enterprise service. https://wiki.sonic.net/wiki/Personal_Hosting
It's not worth looking for the exception to the rule in any case. It's certainly not a net neutrality issue when an ISP puts limits on certain account types so that other users of those lines aren't negatively impacted by one or two piggies eating up the bandwidth. It's a common restriction. I'm sure you'd agree it wouldn't be fair if your own residential service was affected by your neighbors' streaming video delivery service. You agree?
Cool I forgot about DSL about 10 years ago. What's the data cap and overage charges?
The static IP does you no good regarding a mail server though because no other mail server will accept your SMTP as it will be untrusted unless you can get Sonic to also give you a reverse look up for your domain. In fact many home user focused ISP will not allow SMTP traffic on the network forcing you to only use their mail server for concerns about spam.
Anyway, Sonic.net has different service levels for consumer service than for small business or enterprise don't they? I think they have a set quota for data transfers, capping the usage for consumers and pushing big users to enterprise service.
It's not worth looking for the exception to the rule in any case.
Google and Yahoo are not the rule. They're just companies who must abide by the laws and regulations. If the public doesn't hold them accountable, we can only blame ourselves for the consequences.
Check megapath.com, too, by the way--they're not Northern California-centric like sonic.net currently is.
Google and Yahoo are not the rule. They're just companies who must abide by the laws and regulations. If the public doesn't hold them accountable, we can only blame ourselves for the consequences.
Check megapath.com, too, by the way--they're not Northern California-centric like sonic.net currently is.
You avoided my question. Would you consider it OK if your neighbors residential data line running a streaming video server negatively affected your own service?
You avoided my question. Would you consider it OK if your neighbors residential data line running a streaming video server negatively affected your own service?
If it did, that would be a bother, but it's not likely to be significant when upstream data rates are as slow as they are.
Still it is strange that I'm not ok with Google being my ISP and feel perfectly fine that my ISP is monitoring my data for offensive or illegal material.
I was seriously confused by the net neutrality claims. Every ISP I have been with disallowed customers from using their bandwidth for serving data (e.g. web server).
My ISP (in The Netherlands) is fine with its customers running a mail- or webserver. Torrents work, too. In fact, it's not even illegal to download copyright material; it's just not allowed to upload. Still, I torrent Top Gear episodes and I'm sure that is copyright material.
Ads aren't evil. Many of us just don't care for them despite the fact we appreciate the valuable and free services we get that the advertisers pay for in our stead.
I'm weird; I don't like things that are free. I'd rather pay a subscription to this site and get an ad-free page on my iPad. At least I can block them on my Mac.
Never liked free stuff: somewhere, somehow, someone is paying for the products or services offered.
The static IP does you no good regarding a mail server though because no other mail server will accept your SMTP as it will be untrusted unless you can get Sonic to also give you a reverse look up for your domain.
What's the old saying, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink"?
Still it is strange that I'm not ok with Google being my ISP and feel perfectly fine that my ISP is monitoring my data for offensive or illegal material.
<div class="quote-container">
<span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">
Originally Posted by <strong>Gatorguy</strong> <a href="/t/158830/google-to-become-official-starbucks-isp-as-critics-claim-net-neutrality-backpedal#post_2372200"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
ATT already did that, monetizing your data and location even if Google wasn't.<br /> http://adworks.att.com/<br />
<br />
Ads aren't evil. Many of us just don't care for them despite the fact we appreciate the valuable and free services we get that the advertisers pay for in our stead.</div>
</div>
<p>
</p>
<p>
"Ads aren't evil"</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
Let's talk about this for a minute, because it gets to the crux of the matter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
Ads by themselves are not evil. And even contextual ads are not evil. Contextual ads have been used for at least 50 years on television, radio, magazines, newspapers, etc. It only makes sense to advertise toys during a kids show, and pickup trucks during football games. But NONE OF THIS REQUIRES ANY STORED KNOWLEDGE ABOUT INDIVIDUALS. That is the difference. General ads and contextual ads do not stomp on personal privacy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
On the other hand, what Google excels at is not just advertising, but capturing individual, personal data. Virtually everywhere on the internet, always. Schmidt admitted that Google doesn't just want to serve ads, but they want to understand where you go, what you do, what you THINK, and they want to be able to predict what you're going to do in the future at a give time or place. Many other companies try to do this as well, but there is no organization on the planet that is as good at it as Google, which makes them the most dangerous, and arguably "the most evil". What they are doing is incredibly invasive, totally unregulated (but slowly, this will change), and is not even restricted to only those people who have chosen to use their services. This last part is perhaps the most troubling of all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
Ads themselves are not evil, but creating profiles of individuals IS evil, especially when so much of the data collection is covert and/or not well understood by those who are being surveilled.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
Please admit this fact, and perhaps some of the things you say will make better sense in context.</p>
Let's talk about this for a minute, because it gets to the crux of the matter.
Ads by themselves are not evil. And even contextual ads are not evil. Contextual ads have been used for at least 50 years on television, radio, magazines, newspapers, etc. It only makes sense to advertise toys during a kids show, and pickup trucks during football games. But NONE OF THIS REQUIRES ANY STORED KNOWLEDGE ABOUT INDIVIDUALS. That is the difference. General ads and contextual ads do not stomp on personal privacy.
On the other hand, what Google excels at is not just advertising, but capturing individual, personal data. Virtually everywhere on the internet, always. Schmidt admitted that Google doesn't just want to serve ads, but they want to understand where you go, what you do, what you THINK, and they want to be able to predict what you're going to do in the future at a give time or place. Many other companies try to do this as well, but there is no organization on the planet that is as good at it as Google, which makes them the most dangerous, and arguably "the most evil". What they are doing is incredibly invasive, totally unregulated (but slowly, this will change), and is not even restricted to only those people who have chosen to use their services. This last part is perhaps the most troubling of all.
Ads themselves are not evil, but creating profiles of individuals IS evil, especially when so much of the data collection is covert and/or not well understood by those who are being surveilled. Or perhaps you're saying that Apple won't be evil too until they are demonstrably successful with ad targeting based on user data?
Please admit this fact, and perhaps some of the things you say will make better sense in context.
I'm sorry but I just can't get as worked up as you when, unlike the credit reporting agencies or even some of the service providers, they don't sell any of that data to others to do with as they see fit. Unless of course you can pinpoint some nefarious use Google makes of what they know. Targeted ads are hardly a nefarious use. Afterall even Apple does it and we already know they only have the best interests of their users at heart. Or perhaps what you're saying is a company like Apple won't be truly evil until they're demonstrably successful with targeted apps using their customers profiles? That success may be right around the corner. With iRadio and some other recent Apple initiatives they may be making some headway in monetizing their userbase.
I'm weird; I don't like things that are free. I'd rather pay a subscription to this site and get an ad-free page on my iPad. At least I can block them on my Mac.
Never liked free stuff: somewhere, somehow, someone is paying for the products or services offered.
It may be weird, but you're not alone. I'll take it a step further: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FREE! Period. Not just on the internet, but anywhere.
Just because something does not require payment of money, doesn't mean it's free. Thankfully, at least some small portion of the population is very slowly becoming aware of this.
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Still it is strange that I'm not ok with Google being my ISP and feel perfectly fine that my ISP is monitoring my data for offensive or illegal material.
I certainly don't feel fine with the latter, but the reason it feels so dirty with Google is because they are literally everywhere. They have their fingers in more of most peoples' orifices than even their users understand. With your ISP, at least they're only listening to everything on your home connection. Unless you take very active measures, Google is listening to you at home, on your mobile, at work, at the coffee shop, and soon at the parks and anywhere else they can.
With your ISP, at least they're only listening to everything on your home connection. Unless you take very active measures, Google is listening to you at home, on your mobile, at work, at the coffee shop, and soon at the parks and anywhere else they can.
Are you talking about using free WiFi? As you said, there's no such thing as "free".
I never use WiFi for sensitive stuff outside of my own home or work. Everywhere else I use LTE.
As for Google, they don't worry me. They don't sell my personal info to anyone. They just sell ad slots.
I usually like that they know my location and preferences so I get the best results. Plus I have a level of control over what they keep, via the Dashboard. And when I don't think that's enough, I sign out and go anonymous.
--
What I do worry about, are all the other ad networks that don't have any transparency at all, or as much incentive to keep info safe. No idea who they sell info to.
For one, I'll welcome decent speeds and better network management. Most Starbucks offer what is essentially dial-up. Either the networks aren't being properly managed (e.g. ensuring one user can't gobble up the whole pipe with his Hulu or whatever) or the WAN connections are very slow. I was working in a Starbucks in DC earlier in the week and SpeedTest had me at about 10kb/sec with a 500+ms ping to the nearest server. In other words, barely worth using.
I'm sorry but I just can't get as worked up as you when, unlike the credit reporting agencies or even some of the service providers, they don't sell any of that data to others to do with as they see fit. Unless of course you can pinpoint some nefarious use Google makes of what they know. Targeted ads are hardly a nefarious use. Afterall even Apple does it and we already know they only have the best interests of their users at heart. Or perhaps what you're saying is a company like Apple won't be truly evil until they're demonstrably successful with targeted apps using their customers profiles? That success may be right around the corner. With iRadio and some other recent Apple initiatives they may be making some headway in monetizing their userbase.
So once again your "argument", if you can call it that, is that other companies do it too, so it must be okay. But that's wrong. Other companies do it too, and it's just as bad. The big difference is that they're not as good at it, and no one has fingers that go nearly as deep in as many places. Facebook and Apple have deep reach in certain pockets, if you use their services, but they are much easier to avoid. Think about it, Apple doesn't have hosted code sitting on tens of millions of independent web sites around the world, but Google does. Facebook as well. Waaaaay more than people understand.
Frankly, I see you do this over and over and over. We point out something bad about what Google is doing, and the only thing you can come up with is that others do it as well. Two wrongs don't make a right, neither do three or four wrongs. Really, really weak argument.
It's not okay for ANY company or organization (or government) to have the amount of personal, locational and behavioral information that Google has on as many people as they do. Ever. Probably a literal majority of internet users, regardless of whether they "subscribe" to Google services or not. If you don't understand or believe this is bad, then there's not much point in conversing.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro
Exactly. Google's business model is to maintain exclusive access to its tracking and bugging data, so it can customize the Internet and the ads to your preferences.
There ya go. You pretty much get it (other than the part about customizing the internet)! Perhaps you can explain it to JR.
It only works well if they have their cookies in your browser. I'm not sure what the privacy setting in Safari means when they say block third parties and advertisers. Go look in your details and you'll probably see hundreds of cookies, local storage and cache from websites you have never knowingly visited. Google will probably have about ten or so in there.
Ah. sorry about that.
:embarrass
Anyway, Sonic.net has different service levels for consumer service than for small business or enterprise don't they? I think they have a set quota for data transfers, capping the usage for consumers and pushing big users to enterprise service.
https://wiki.sonic.net/wiki/Personal_Hosting
It's not worth looking for the exception to the rule in any case. It's certainly not a net neutrality issue when an ISP puts limits on certain account types so that other users of those lines aren't negatively impacted by one or two piggies eating up the bandwidth. It's a common restriction. I'm sure you'd agree it wouldn't be fair if your own residential service was affected by your neighbors' streaming video delivery service. You agree?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro
DSL is almost always an option.
Check this out: http://www.sonic.net/solutions/home/internet/fusion/
Get one static IP at no extra cost.
Cool I forgot about DSL about 10 years ago. What's the data cap and overage charges?
The static IP does you no good regarding a mail server though because no other mail server will accept your SMTP as it will be untrusted unless you can get Sonic to also give you a reverse look up for your domain. In fact many home user focused ISP will not allow SMTP traffic on the network forcing you to only use their mail server for concerns about spam.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Ah. sorry about that.
Anyway, Sonic.net has different service levels for consumer service than for small business or enterprise don't they? I think they have a set quota for data transfers, capping the usage for consumers and pushing big users to enterprise service.
https://wiki.sonic.net/wiki/Personal_Hosting
It's not worth looking for the exception to the rule in any case.
Google and Yahoo are not the rule. They're just companies who must abide by the laws and regulations. If the public doesn't hold them accountable, we can only blame ourselves for the consequences.
Check megapath.com, too, by the way--they're not Northern California-centric like sonic.net currently is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
You avoided my question. Would you consider it OK if your neighbors residential data line running a streaming video server negatively affected your own service?
If it did, that would be a bother, but it's not likely to be significant when upstream data rates are as slow as they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
There ya go. You pretty much get it (other than the part about customizing the internet)! Perhaps you can explain it to JR.
Re: customizing the Internet, Google personalizes search results and news listings, not just ads.
Wait until Amazon, Apple, Microsoft and a host of other competitors services are throttled or denied access.
Good for 'Google' & the customers. Existing Att wifi at the three local Starbucks is weak.
As for privacy, don't be too concerned.
If you've been using a cellphone, or any other web connected device without encryption, assume you've being sniffed and/or tracked.
At least Google is upfront with how they collect and use the customer data.
What's your home ISP provider collecting? They get to see everything.
Still it is strange that I'm not ok with Google being my ISP and feel perfectly fine that my ISP is monitoring my data for offensive or illegal material.
My ISP (in The Netherlands) is fine with its customers running a mail- or webserver. Torrents work, too. In fact, it's not even illegal to download copyright material; it's just not allowed to upload. Still, I torrent Top Gear episodes and I'm sure that is copyright material.
I'm weird; I don't like things that are free. I'd rather pay a subscription to this site and get an ad-free page on my iPad. At least I can block them on my Mac.
Never liked free stuff: somewhere, somehow, someone is paying for the products or services offered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
The static IP does you no good regarding a mail server though because no other mail server will accept your SMTP as it will be untrusted unless you can get Sonic to also give you a reverse look up for your domain.
What's the old saying, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink"?
http://corp.sonic.net/status/2005/01/27/new-dsl-reverse-dns-tool-1764/
My recollection is Megapath also provides reverse DNS but I don't know if it's directly user-configurable or if it requires a phone call to support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Still it is strange that I'm not ok with Google being my ISP and feel perfectly fine that my ISP is monitoring my data for offensive or illegal material.
Perhaps because of this?
<span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">
Originally Posted by <strong>Gatorguy</strong> <a href="/t/158830/google-to-become-official-starbucks-isp-as-critics-claim-net-neutrality-backpedal#post_2372200"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
ATT already did that, monetizing your data and location even if Google wasn't.<br />
http://adworks.att.com/<br />
<br />
Ads aren't evil. Many of us just don't care for them despite the fact we appreciate the valuable and free services we get that the advertisers pay for in our stead.</div>
</div>
<p>
</p>
<p>
"Ads aren't evil"</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
Let's talk about this for a minute, because it gets to the crux of the matter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
Ads by themselves are not evil. And even contextual ads are not evil. Contextual ads have been used for at least 50 years on television, radio, magazines, newspapers, etc. It only makes sense to advertise toys during a kids show, and pickup trucks during football games. But NONE OF THIS REQUIRES ANY STORED KNOWLEDGE ABOUT INDIVIDUALS. That is the difference. General ads and contextual ads do not stomp on personal privacy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
On the other hand, what Google excels at is not just advertising, but capturing individual, personal data. Virtually everywhere on the internet, always. Schmidt admitted that Google doesn't just want to serve ads, but they want to understand where you go, what you do, what you THINK, and they want to be able to predict what you're going to do in the future at a give time or place. Many other companies try to do this as well, but there is no organization on the planet that is as good at it as Google, which makes them the most dangerous, and arguably "the most evil". What they are doing is incredibly invasive, totally unregulated (but slowly, this will change), and is not even restricted to only those people who have chosen to use their services. This last part is perhaps the most troubling of all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
Ads themselves are not evil, but creating profiles of individuals IS evil, especially when so much of the data collection is covert and/or not well understood by those who are being surveilled.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
Please admit this fact, and perhaps some of the things you say will make better sense in context.</p>
I'm sorry but I just can't get as worked up as you when, unlike the credit reporting agencies or even some of the service providers, they don't sell any of that data to others to do with as they see fit. Unless of course you can pinpoint some nefarious use Google makes of what they know. Targeted ads are hardly a nefarious use. Afterall even Apple does it and we already know they only have the best interests of their users at heart. Or perhaps what you're saying is a company like Apple won't be truly evil until they're demonstrably successful with targeted apps using their customers profiles? That success may be right around the corner. With iRadio and some other recent Apple initiatives they may be making some headway in monetizing their userbase.
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
I'm weird; I don't like things that are free. I'd rather pay a subscription to this site and get an ad-free page on my iPad. At least I can block them on my Mac.
Never liked free stuff: somewhere, somehow, someone is paying for the products or services offered.
It may be weird, but you're not alone. I'll take it a step further: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FREE! Period. Not just on the internet, but anywhere.
Just because something does not require payment of money, doesn't mean it's free. Thankfully, at least some small portion of the population is very slowly becoming aware of this.
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Still it is strange that I'm not ok with Google being my ISP and feel perfectly fine that my ISP is monitoring my data for offensive or illegal material.
I certainly don't feel fine with the latter, but the reason it feels so dirty with Google is because they are literally everywhere. They have their fingers in more of most peoples' orifices than even their users understand. With your ISP, at least they're only listening to everything on your home connection. Unless you take very active measures, Google is listening to you at home, on your mobile, at work, at the coffee shop, and soon at the parks and anywhere else they can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64
With your ISP, at least they're only listening to everything on your home connection. Unless you take very active measures, Google is listening to you at home, on your mobile, at work, at the coffee shop, and soon at the parks and anywhere else they can.
Are you talking about using free WiFi? As you said, there's no such thing as "free".
I never use WiFi for sensitive stuff outside of my own home or work. Everywhere else I use LTE.
As for Google, they don't worry me. They don't sell my personal info to anyone. They just sell ad slots.
I usually like that they know my location and preferences so I get the best results. Plus I have a level of control over what they keep, via the Dashboard. And when I don't think that's enough, I sign out and go anonymous.
--
What I do worry about, are all the other ad networks that don't have any transparency at all, or as much incentive to keep info safe. No idea who they sell info to.
For one, I'll welcome decent speeds and better network management. Most Starbucks offer what is essentially dial-up. Either the networks aren't being properly managed (e.g. ensuring one user can't gobble up the whole pipe with his Hulu or whatever) or the WAN connections are very slow. I was working in a Starbucks in DC earlier in the week and SpeedTest had me at about 10kb/sec with a 500+ms ping to the nearest server. In other words, barely worth using.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I'm sorry but I just can't get as worked up as you when, unlike the credit reporting agencies or even some of the service providers, they don't sell any of that data to others to do with as they see fit. Unless of course you can pinpoint some nefarious use Google makes of what they know. Targeted ads are hardly a nefarious use. Afterall even Apple does it and we already know they only have the best interests of their users at heart. Or perhaps what you're saying is a company like Apple won't be truly evil until they're demonstrably successful with targeted apps using their customers profiles? That success may be right around the corner. With iRadio and some other recent Apple initiatives they may be making some headway in monetizing their userbase.
So once again your "argument", if you can call it that, is that other companies do it too, so it must be okay. But that's wrong. Other companies do it too, and it's just as bad. The big difference is that they're not as good at it, and no one has fingers that go nearly as deep in as many places. Facebook and Apple have deep reach in certain pockets, if you use their services, but they are much easier to avoid. Think about it, Apple doesn't have hosted code sitting on tens of millions of independent web sites around the world, but Google does. Facebook as well. Waaaaay more than people understand.
Frankly, I see you do this over and over and over. We point out something bad about what Google is doing, and the only thing you can come up with is that others do it as well. Two wrongs don't make a right, neither do three or four wrongs. Really, really weak argument.
It's not okay for ANY company or organization (or government) to have the amount of personal, locational and behavioral information that Google has on as many people as they do. Ever. Probably a literal majority of internet users, regardless of whether they "subscribe" to Google services or not. If you don't understand or believe this is bad, then there's not much point in conversing.