So Apple broke into Google's servers and changed their code so that Google could take advantage of the bug?
Oh dear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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.
Possibly they did or possibly they merely benefited from it. Either way its likely the bug will get fixed as more attention is brought to it. Then those who wish to use Safari browse with anonymity can turn that stuff off on Safari and go on their way. In the mean time, those concerned with this can do two things:
1) Alert Apple to the hole.
2) Use one of the two other browsers (and possibly IE also if you use Windows...though changing settings in IE is always a pain compared to the others which are stupid simple) that don't have this problem.
Possibly they did or possibly they merely benefited from it. Either way its likely the bug will get fixed as more attention is brought to it. Then those who wish to use Safari browse with anonymity can turn that stuff off on Safari and go on their way. In the mean time, those concerned with this can do two things:
1) Alert Apple to the hole.
2) Use one of the two other browsers (and possibly IE also if you use Windows...though changing settings in IE is always a pain compared to the others which are stupid simple) that don't have this problem.
How does any of your speculation change the facts?
Google found a way around the user's preferences and installed tracking cookies in situations where the user had specifically requested that they not be used.
There's absolutely no way to spin that as an innocent error.
2. Turn off cookies on your browser(s)...completely or just for Google and FB.
No laws. No special tokens. Nothing. And...you can start right this minute!
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.
Wrong. You simply don't want to give up any of the sites or the benefits from visiting them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bolskevite
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.
How does any of your speculation change the facts?
Google found a way around the user's preferences and installed tracking cookies in situations where the user had specifically requested that they not be used.
There's absolutely no way to spin that as an innocent error.
I'm not trying to "spin" it. I'm simply pointing out there are two possibilities:
1. The found the hole and exploited it.
2. They benefited from a hole without explicitly exploiting it.*
Given that there were other sites besides Google for which this happens it suggest the possibility of #2 (for Google among others.)
*I'm not saying this IS what happened, only that it is possible in the absence of other corroborating evidence.
I'm not trying to "spin" it. I'm simply pointing out there are two possibilities:
1. The found the hole and exploited it.
2. They benefited from a hole without explicitly exploiting it.
Given that there were other sites besides Google for which this happens it suggest the possibility of #2 (for Google among others.)
How do you imagine that they could benefit from the hole without explicitly exploiting it? Are you back to believing that Apple installed the code on their servers?
How do you imagine that they could benefit from the hole without explicitly exploiting it? Are you back to believing that Apple installed the code on their servers?
Wow. No. Do you know anything about software? This is a serious question the answer to which will help me explain it better.
Wow. No. Do you know anything about software? This is a serious question the answer to which will help me explain it better.
Do you have anything new to say? At this point, you're just repeating, over and over, arguments that have already been shredded. Just rewording them isn't going to pump any life into them.
Do you have anything new to say? At this point, you're just repeating, over and over, arguments that have already been shredded. Just rewording them isn't going to pump any life into them.
You're free to ignore me. The forum has a function for that if you like.
Well...I'm not saying the same thing in different ways. I'm addressing the specific issue of the Safari hole/bug...and the issues about how it might be used. But, whatever...
If my comments frustrate you so much, perhaps you need to ignore them.
You're free to ignore me. The forum has a function for that if you like.
I'm sick of the ignore feature being bandied as an end-all be-all do-all for arguments. Frigging sick of it. Personally, I don't understand why we have it active at all.
"Just ignore me, your problems will go away," generally seems to be code for "Just ignore me; I have no real argument and continue to press the same points, despite them being long since disproven. Ignoring me will allow me to continue my tirade and spread of lies unchecked and unchallenged because everyone (except the guests that read this forum that don't have the luxury of doing so, and therefore won't be able to tell that I'm getting away with lying) that knows better and has disproven me has chosen not to waste their time with my tripe."
The number of posters that mention they're putting someone on ignore (as someone who has won an argument and just doesn't want to see trolling or lying anymore) seems to be the minority.
Heaven forbid it ever gets easier to ignore people in the future. We'll have nothing left but dozens of groups of ~fifteen people each, only listening to what they want to hear. The forum'll be in… DANG WHAT IS IT FRIGGING ALZHEIMER'S… from how it is now.
I'm sick of the ignore feature being bandied as an end-all be-all do-all for arguments. Frigging sick of it. Personally, I don't understand why we have it active at all.
"Just ignore me, your problems will go away," generally seems to be code for "Just ignore me; I have no real argument and continue to press the same points, despite them being long since disproven. Ignoring me will allow me to continue my tirade and spread of lies unchecked and unchallenged because everyone (except the guests that read this forum that don't have the luxury of doing so, and therefore won't be able to tell that I'm getting away with lying) that knows better and has disproven me has chosen not to waste their time with my tripe."
Heaven forbid it ever gets easier to ignore people in the future. We'll have nothing left but dozens of groups of ~fifteen people each, only listening to what they want to hear. The forum'll be indistinguishable from how it is now.
Sure, that's on perspective.
Another is that posters (such as anonymouse) who appear, at this point, to be badgering either out of frustration that someone disagrees with them and won't see things their way. Posters in that situation should consider using the ignore feature if the other poster frustrates them so deeply. I have no problem reading their posts. However, they've devolved to simply mocking on-liners. I expect name-calling soon. He seems uncomfortable with simply having a difference of opinion. He must prove he's "right" and must prove I am "wrong" when the matter we are discussing is largely one of opinion.
I'm sick of the ignore feature being bandied as an end-all be-all do-all for arguments. Frigging sick of it. Personally, I don't understand why we have it active at all
"Ignoring me will allow me to continue my tirade and spread of lies unchecked and unchallenged because everyone (except the guests that read this forum that don't have the luxury of doing so, and therefore won't be able to tell that I'm getting away with lying) that knows better and has disproven me has chosen not to waste their time with my tripe."
Heaven forbid it ever gets easier to ignore people in the future. We'll have nothing left but dozens of groups of ~fifteen people each, only listening to what they want to hear. The forum'll be indistinguishable from how it is now.
I've tried saying the same a few times recently, but I don't think the message gets thru. Perhaps I'm on too many ignore lists myself to make a difference with the regulars.
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.
Web admins don't need to change a thing. Google just needs to back off tracking. Users will still get ads to click. Ads can still be selected for delivery based on the site being viewed (the user's "location").
OK. Is Google's way of making money evil? If so, why?
Yes, because it violates the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution...You know, the one that says that people have "the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects....
Yes, because it violates the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution...You know, the one that says that people have "the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects....
He's arguing the Internet is not a natural right, and legally it isn't. You can certainly live without using the Internet in any fashion whatsoever.
But that's not the point of this argument at all, so it's moot.
Comments
That's bull.
So Apple broke into Google's servers and changed their code so that Google could take advantage of the bug?
Oh dear.
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.
Possibly they did or possibly they merely benefited from it. Either way its likely the bug will get fixed as more attention is brought to it. Then those who wish to use Safari browse with anonymity can turn that stuff off on Safari and go on their way. In the mean time, those concerned with this can do two things:
1) Alert Apple to the hole.
2) Use one of the two other browsers (and possibly IE also if you use Windows...though changing settings in IE is always a pain compared to the others which are stupid simple) that don't have this problem.
... Possibly they did or possibly they merely benefited from it. Either way its [sic]...
... called an exploit, and Google went black hat on this one.
... Possibly they did or possibly they merely benefited from it. Either way its [sic]...
Pettiness in it is purest form.
Possibly they did or possibly they merely benefited from it. Either way its likely the bug will get fixed as more attention is brought to it. Then those who wish to use Safari browse with anonymity can turn that stuff off on Safari and go on their way. In the mean time, those concerned with this can do two things:
1) Alert Apple to the hole.
2) Use one of the two other browsers (and possibly IE also if you use Windows...though changing settings in IE is always a pain compared to the others which are stupid simple) that don't have this problem.
How does any of your speculation change the facts?
Google found a way around the user's preferences and installed tracking cookies in situations where the user had specifically requested that they not be used.
There's absolutely no way to spin that as an innocent error.
There's an even simpler option (two actually):
1. Never go to or user their site(s).
2. Turn off cookies on your browser(s)...completely or just for Google and FB.
No laws. No special tokens. Nothing. And...you can start right this minute!
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.
1. Not possible.
Wrong. You simply don't want to give up any of the sites or the benefits from visiting them.
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.
So the benefits outweigh the costs?
How does any of your speculation change the facts?
Google found a way around the user's preferences and installed tracking cookies in situations where the user had specifically requested that they not be used.
There's absolutely no way to spin that as an innocent error.
I'm not trying to "spin" it. I'm simply pointing out there are two possibilities:
1. The found the hole and exploited it.
2. They benefited from a hole without explicitly exploiting it.*
Given that there were other sites besides Google for which this happens it suggest the possibility of #2 (for Google among others.)
*I'm not saying this IS what happened, only that it is possible in the absence of other corroborating evidence.
I'm not trying to "spin" it. I'm simply pointing out there are two possibilities:
1. The found the hole and exploited it.
2. They benefited from a hole without explicitly exploiting it.
Given that there were other sites besides Google for which this happens it suggest the possibility of #2 (for Google among others.)
How do you imagine that they could benefit from the hole without explicitly exploiting it? Are you back to believing that Apple installed the code on their servers?
How do you imagine that they could benefit from the hole without explicitly exploiting it? Are you back to believing that Apple installed the code on their servers?
Wow. No. Do you know anything about software? This is a serious question the answer to which will help me explain it better.
Wow. No. Do you know anything about software? This is a serious question the answer to which will help me explain it better.
Do you have anything new to say? At this point, you're just repeating, over and over, arguments that have already been shredded. Just rewording them isn't going to pump any life into them.
Do you have anything new to say? At this point, you're just repeating, over and over, arguments that have already been shredded. Just rewording them isn't going to pump any life into them.
You're free to ignore me. The forum has a function for that if you like.
You're free to ignore me. The forum has a function for that if you like.
So, no, you don't?
So, no, you don't?
Well...I'm not saying the same thing in different ways. I'm addressing the specific issue of the Safari hole/bug...and the issues about how it might be used. But, whatever...
If my comments frustrate you so much, perhaps you need to ignore them.
You're free to ignore me. The forum has a function for that if you like.
I'm sick of the ignore feature being bandied as an end-all be-all do-all for arguments.
"Just ignore me, your problems will go away," generally seems to be code for "Just ignore me; I have no real argument and continue to press the same points, despite them being long since disproven. Ignoring me will allow me to continue my tirade and spread of lies unchecked and unchallenged because everyone (except the guests that read this forum that don't have the luxury of doing so, and therefore won't be able to tell that I'm getting away with lying) that knows better and has disproven me has chosen not to waste their time with my tripe."
The number of posters that mention they're putting someone on ignore (as someone who has won an argument and just doesn't want to see trolling or lying anymore) seems to be the minority.
Heaven forbid it ever gets easier to ignore people in the future. We'll have nothing left but dozens of groups of ~fifteen people each, only listening to what they want to hear. The forum'll be in… DANG WHAT IS IT FRIGGING ALZHEIMER'S… from how it is now.
http://google-latlong.blogspot.fr/20...aps-8-bit.html
I'm sick of the ignore feature being bandied as an end-all be-all do-all for arguments.
"Just ignore me, your problems will go away," generally seems to be code for "Just ignore me; I have no real argument and continue to press the same points, despite them being long since disproven. Ignoring me will allow me to continue my tirade and spread of lies unchecked and unchallenged because everyone (except the guests that read this forum that don't have the luxury of doing so, and therefore won't be able to tell that I'm getting away with lying) that knows better and has disproven me has chosen not to waste their time with my tripe."
Heaven forbid it ever gets easier to ignore people in the future. We'll have nothing left but dozens of groups of ~fifteen people each, only listening to what they want to hear. The forum'll be indistinguishable from how it is now.
Sure, that's on perspective.
Another is that posters (such as anonymouse) who appear, at this point, to be badgering either out of frustration that someone disagrees with them and won't see things their way. Posters in that situation should consider using the ignore feature if the other poster frustrates them so deeply. I have no problem reading their posts. However, they've devolved to simply mocking on-liners. I expect name-calling soon. He seems uncomfortable with simply having a difference of opinion. He must prove he's "right" and must prove I am "wrong" when the matter we are discussing is largely one of opinion.
I'm sick of the ignore feature being bandied as an end-all be-all do-all for arguments. Frigging sick of it. Personally, I don't understand why we have it active at all
"Ignoring me will allow me to continue my tirade and spread of lies unchecked and unchallenged because everyone (except the guests that read this forum that don't have the luxury of doing so, and therefore won't be able to tell that I'm getting away with lying) that knows better and has disproven me has chosen not to waste their time with my tripe."
Heaven forbid it ever gets easier to ignore people in the future. We'll have nothing left but dozens of groups of ~fifteen people each, only listening to what they want to hear. The forum'll be indistinguishable from how it is now.
I've tried saying the same a few times recently, but I don't think the message gets thru. Perhaps I'm on too many ignore lists myself to make a difference with the regulars.
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.
Web admins don't need to change a thing. Google just needs to back off tracking. Users will still get ads to click. Ads can still be selected for delivery based on the site being viewed (the user's "location").
Google is fully to blame.
OK. Is Google's way of making money evil? If so, why?
Yes, because it violates the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution...You know, the one that says that people have "the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects....
Yes, because it violates the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution...You know, the one that says that people have "the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects....
He's arguing the Internet is not a natural right, and legally it isn't. You can certainly live without using the Internet in any fashion whatsoever.
But that's not the point of this argument at all, so it's moot.