So you're admitting that you're making a lame attempt at a circumstantial ad hominem?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
I'm implying that your career might be in shilling.
And you are wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
The main people that defend this sort of activity generally draw financial benefit from it.
Do you have some data to support this claim?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
I don't work for them, I don't like it
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
and I'm not defending it.
No, you're opposed to but but actively working with an organization that does it:
Quote:
AppleInsider does, however, automatically collect certain non-personally-identifiable information about you, such as your browser type and the IP address that your ISP designates to your machine (which, with dial-up accounts, usually changes every time you connect). This is standard practice for web sites, and is not used for any purpose other than to evaluate how we can design the site to best serve your needs. This information is not sold to any third parties, or available to anybody outside of the AppleInsider staff.
Quote:
AppleInsider, along with thousands of other Web sites, uses cookies to enhance your experience. Cookies are used in the AppleInsider discussion forums to keep track of which messages have been posted since your last visit, easing the navigation of the forums. Cookies can also store your user name and password so that you do not have to log in each time you want to post a message, though you must specifically request that this feature be turned on. You can do this by clicking on "prefs" in the AppleInsider discussion forums toolbar. Cookie data is not stored on the server, and therefore, not available for viewing by AppleInsider staff or any third parties. However, it is possible that security flaws exist in some browsers that would allow other site administrators to write malicious scripts that would collect this data without AppleInsider's knowledge, though this is quite unlikely.
Browsers or third-party software can allow you to block the use of cookies while you surf AppleInsider. Additionally, there are several mechanism available by which you could opt out of such use and placement of cookies and IP address information, such as the NAI Opt-out Tool.
Quote:
A portion of the advertisements displayed on the AppleInsider are served by third-party advertisers, including TribalFusiob.com, Advertising.com, DoubleClick, and other sites. These companies may use information (not including your name, address, email address or telephone number) about your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements on this site and other sites about goods and services that may be of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by MAXOnline, please click here.
It does not mention that it is also using Google AdSense and Google Analytics, et al.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
And they don't, to my knowledge, turn it into a huge database for sale.
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.
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.
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.
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. ...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
... I do value liberty (far more than most that I've seen) and I am not and enemy of freedom at all. ...
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.
You should avoid commenting on things when you really have no idea what you are talking about.
Enlighten me. (Or are you just going to toss out a general accusation of ignorance?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Oh, and, by the way, in case you didn't notice, JeffDM is a moderator.
I know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
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.
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.
Congratulations. You win the opportunity to explain why it is stupid.
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
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.
... Actually I never said I don't value privacy. ...
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.
Sure you did. Tracking destroys privacy. You support tracking. Therefore, you don't care about the destruction of privacy, or freedom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
It's really quite simple, and it's not my opinion, it's just the way things are.
It must make arguments easier when you just get to declare your opinion and view of the world as fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
So you didn't even read the article you're responding to?
Here, let me quote one of the relevant sections:
Quote:
Google was found to be subverting the privacy settings of Safari browser on the desktop and mobile devices, which Apple has configured to opt users out of third party and advertising tracking cookies by default.
When the consumer sets the browser to reject tracking cookies, Google has no business going around the user's preferences.
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?
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?
That's bull.
So Apple broke into Google's servers and changed their code so that Google could take advantage of the bug?
Obviously, that's not the case. Google must have intentionally taken advantage of the bug. The bug shouldn't be there - and will presumably be fixed - but that doesn't give Google the right to take advantage of it.
And the same thing applies to others, but Google is about 95% of the problem.
Comments
Exactly
So you're admitting that you're making a lame attempt at a circumstantial ad hominem?
I'm implying that your career might be in shilling.
And you are wrong.
The main people that defend this sort of activity generally draw financial benefit from it.
Do you have some data to support this claim?
I don't work for them, I don't like it
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.
and I'm not defending it.
No, you're opposed to but but actively working with an organization that does it:
AppleInsider does, however, automatically collect certain non-personally-identifiable information about you, such as your browser type and the IP address that your ISP designates to your machine (which, with dial-up accounts, usually changes every time you connect). This is standard practice for web sites, and is not used for any purpose other than to evaluate how we can design the site to best serve your needs. This information is not sold to any third parties, or available to anybody outside of the AppleInsider staff.
AppleInsider, along with thousands of other Web sites, uses cookies to enhance your experience. Cookies are used in the AppleInsider discussion forums to keep track of which messages have been posted since your last visit, easing the navigation of the forums. Cookies can also store your user name and password so that you do not have to log in each time you want to post a message, though you must specifically request that this feature be turned on. You can do this by clicking on "prefs" in the AppleInsider discussion forums toolbar. Cookie data is not stored on the server, and therefore, not available for viewing by AppleInsider staff or any third parties. However, it is possible that security flaws exist in some browsers that would allow other site administrators to write malicious scripts that would collect this data without AppleInsider's knowledge, though this is quite unlikely.
Browsers or third-party software can allow you to block the use of cookies while you surf AppleInsider. Additionally, there are several mechanism available by which you could opt out of such use and placement of cookies and IP address information, such as the NAI Opt-out Tool.
A portion of the advertisements displayed on the AppleInsider are served by third-party advertisers, including TribalFusiob.com, Advertising.com, DoubleClick, and other sites. These companies may use information (not including your name, address, email address or telephone number) about your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements on this site and other sites about goods and services that may be of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by MAXOnline, please click here.
It does not mention that it is also using Google AdSense and Google Analytics, et al.
And they don't, to my knowledge, turn it into a huge database for sale.
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.
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.
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.
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. ...
You should mention this to Mr. H
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.
That's the fallacy.
How so?
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.
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.
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.
... I do value liberty (far more than most that I've seen) and I am not and enemy of freedom at all. ...
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?)
Oh, and, by the way, in case you didn't notice, JeffDM is a moderator.
I know.
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.
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.
Congratulations. You win the opportunity to explain why it is stupid.
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
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.
Your position on privacy speaks for itself.
In your opinion.
If you don't value privacy, you don't value freedom, despite what you may say to the contrary.
Actually I never said I don't value privacy.
You can assert that you do value freedom all you want, but that doesn't make it so.
And you can say I don't all you want, and that doesn't make it so.
It's clear you do not.
Thanks for your opinion.
This isn't something I need to prove
Right, because it is an opinion.
... Actually I never said I don't value privacy. ...
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.
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.
It must make arguments easier when you just get to declare your opinion and view of the world as fact.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
So you didn't even read the article you're responding to?
Here, let me quote one of the relevant sections:
Google was found to be subverting the privacy settings of Safari browser on the desktop and mobile devices, which Apple has configured to opt users out of third party and advertising tracking cookies by default.
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.
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?
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?
That's bull.
So Apple broke into Google's servers and changed their code so that Google could take advantage of the bug?
Obviously, that's not the case. Google must have intentionally taken advantage of the bug. The bug shouldn't be there - and will presumably be fixed - but that doesn't give Google the right to take advantage of it.
And the same thing applies to others, but Google is about 95% of the problem.