That it couldIf it is what I suggest, then yes...and this is where your lock analogy breaks down.
If I use a bump key to exploit a bug in your lock, snoop around your house then send teams of door knockers around to target your specific needs, what you are saying is it's the lock companies fault for giving you a false sense of security and there is no problem with those who exploit it.
If I use a bump key to exploit a bug in your lock, snoop around your house then send teams of door knockers around to target your specific needs, what you are saying is it's the lock companies fault for giving you a false sense of security and there is no problem with those who exploit it.
Not really. I didn't say there's "no problem" with the exploiter. You seem to not be paying very close attention. Furthermore, this analogy you keep trying to use, like all analogies, has limits. At the point I think you've exceeded them. You may not even realize that I've actually even partly agreed with you. \
No it's not. Now can we stop with the rally shitty analogies?! \
I explained why your analogy was ridiculous, why don't you explain why this analogy doesn't apply - instead of simply saying that it isn't relevant?
You sure come off as a Google shill. So far, your only argument is that it's Apple's fault for not making a perfect system and that Google somehow inadvertently (and innocently) accessed private information and installed cookies on many computers. All of that is, of course, absurd.
Again, I have to wonder if this is a DMCA violation. The users selected "do not install tracking cookies" and Google did so, anyway.
First, "the internet" isn't some vague collection of public space...it is a collection of privately built and owned resources.
Take this site for example. It is privately owned and, so far as I know, not funded by any tax dollars. The owners of this site provide a great site, lot of free content and a forum to have these discussions. But, in a very fundamental way it is private property. If they want to ban you or me...well they can. They can make their own rules. They could require that I only post in haiku. Whatever. I agree to abide by their terms and assume they'll abide by what they say. Its a contract. Loose...informal I suppose. But it is their property. If I decide one day to block all tracking on this site...and they decide not to let anyone shoe does that to see their content...we're both within our rights. I could be really mad about it. Very frustrated and disappointed. Maybe even kick the dog over it. But, I don't have any right to their content and services.
There is a difference between describing the current situation, and expressing a desire for change, for protection or for an evolution from the status quo. Just because one understands the current situation does not mean one must agree with it, accept it or support it. I expect most people visiting this site understand the nature of our relationship with the site, most people understand that search engines make money with advertising. But I believe it is worthwhile to make people aware of what else search engines are doing, and what the long term consequences can be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
Shit! Are you kidding me?! With my political views I'd be one the first people hauled into a concentration camp.
really? how odd, considering your tone of cynical realism I am surprised you hold views that could get you into trouble with any powers. Not a personal attack, I do not know you or your views, but you seem very eager to explain that all is well as it is. Sorry if I have misread your tone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
As I said, you have more to fear from governments than private companies...and to the extent that the private companies buckle because the government has a gun to their head...the root problem there is the one with the gun.
Well... a government will only hold "a gun to the head" of a company which has something or does something which is useful to the owner of "the gun". And all too often companies do not require a gun held to their head, they are very eager to offer their services. One sees examples in all periods of history and all political systems.
There is a difference between describing the current situation, and expressing a desire for change, for protection or for an evolution from the status quo. Just because one understands the current situation does not mean one must agree with it, accept it or support it.
I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidT
I expect most people visiting this site understand the nature of our relationship with the site, most people understand that search engines make money with advertising. But I believe it is worthwhile to make people aware of what else search engines are doing, and what the long term consequences can be.
And I have no problem with that whatsoever. I say scream it from the mountain tops!
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidT
really? how odd, considering your tone of cynical realism I am surprised you hold views that could get you into trouble with any powers. Not a personal attack, I do not know you or your views, but you seem very eager to explain that all is well as it is. Sorry if I have misread your tone.
I think you have misread me. I'm not saying that all is well. First, I'm simply suggesting that if some privacy concerns from Google are people biggest concerns they might be looking the wrong direction. Second, I'm also saying that many people are getting tons of stuff for free and part of the reason they are is due to the advertising and corresponding tracking. I have no problem with lobbying companies like Google to stop it. To even hold them accountable for doing deceitful things. I have no problem with people encouraging everyone to use tools for blocking all over the place. Where I start having problem is in implementing one's aspirations with government force.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidT
Well... a government will only hold "a gun to the head" of a company which has something or does something which is useful to the owner of "the gun". And all too often companies do not require a gun held to their head, they are very eager to offer their services. One sees examples in all periods of history and all political systems.
True enough. But...still...the ones with the guns are the culprits to be primarily concerned with here.
I think you have misread me. I'm not saying that all is well. First, I'm simply suggesting that if some privacy concerns from Google are people biggest concerns they might be looking the wrong direction. Second, I'm also saying that many people are getting tons of stuff for free and part of the reason they are is due to the advertising and corresponding tracking. I have no problem with lobbying companies like Google to stop it. To even hold them accountable for doing deceitful things. I have no problem with people encouraging everyone to use tools for blocking all over the place. Where I start having problem is in implementing one's aspirations with government force.
fine, that is cleared up then
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
True enough. But...still...the ones with the guns are the culprits to be primarily concerned with here.
We will have to disagree about this, but that is for another day. Have a good day, wherever you are and take care.
Do you always resort to insulting people who don't agree with you?
What insult? I simply told you how your 'arguments' came across.
I notice that you haven't answered the question, though. What's wrong with the analogy of a flaw in your home security system that allows a burglar to come into the house and spy on you? Why is the burglar not at fault? After all, he's simply taking advantage of a flaw in the security system.
Actually that is part of the point. People are acting as if it is natural right. This is a key point.
Regarding the 4th Amendment argument...that's not even relevant as that pertains to a contract between the people its government and how the government treats its citizens. And, as I stated before, people probably ought to have far more concern about that. All Google really wants to do is show you ads.
First of all, this issue of "natural rights" is a complete red herring. The phrase "natural rights" is a meaningless phrase, no one can even give a definition of "natural rights" that holds up to any scrutiny, nor even enumerate these supposed "natural rights". There are no natural rights.
But there are many rights that have been established over centuries, some of them gained after hard fights and much blood spilled. And one of the most fundamental of those rights, one which the existence of free societies depends on, is privacy.
Yes, the 4th Amendment specifically addresses our right to privacy in relation to the government, but the idea that the people ought to have this right to be free of government intrusion into their private lives and their homes, while codified in this amendment, stems form the even more fundamental right expressed in the phrase, " A man's house is his castle."
The right not to have people generally intrude into your life, into your home, to violate your privacy, was established as a basic and essential right long before the 4th Amendment was put on paper, and this even more fundamental right is protected by the 9th Amendment:
Quote:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Secondly, "going on the Internet" is not, in any way, analogous to driving a car, period. When we access the Internet, we don't go anywhere. We access the Internet from inside our homes, a place where there is, by long custom and well established law, an expectation of a high level of privacy. We aren't out on the street, we aren't at Google's server farm, we aren't at someone's colo, we are in our homes, we haven't gone anywhere.
Tracking people "on the Internet", at the level, and with the methods that Google employs, especially after we turned the key in the lock and hung the keep out sign, is most closely analogous to breaking and entering, or home invasion. It's as though Google snuck in through the open window in the bathroom, uninvited and unwelcome, and is hiding in the closet, watching our every move, taking notes, and phoning it all back to headquarters.
And, to use your phrase, Google has no "natural right" to do this. There is no long established "right" of, say retailers, allowing them to send private detectives to rummage through your closets. There is no established "right" of advertisers, to go through your health records. Google has no "right" to engage in wholesale cyberstalking of US citizens, including minors. Google doesn't even have a "right" to engage in any sort of business they choose to, so long as it's profitable.
But we have a long established right to privacy. A right not to have our homes invaded or our computers ransacked. A right not to be stalked wherever we go, but particularly not within the walls of our homes.
Secondly, "going on the Internet" is not, in any way, analogous to driving a car, period. When we access the Internet, we don't go anywhere. We access the Internet from inside our homes, a place where there is, by long custom and well established law, an expectation of a high level of privacy. We aren't out on the street, we aren't at Google's server farm, we aren't at someone's colo, we are in our homes, we haven't gone anywhere.
Yes, you have effectively gone somewhere else when you go on the internet. You're accessing someone else's property, someone else's servers located at some other location than your home. And as MJ1970 pointed out by quoting this site's Privacy Policy, you implicitly agree to being tracked by visiting and making use of this site.
It seems a lot of people here want a free lunch. If you cut off or drastically reduce the ad revenue that AppleInsider makes, how long do you think this website will be around? How many other sites will disappear if their ad revenue drops significantly?
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'.
You hit the nail right on the head. Ai and most other websites say they honor your privacy but they don't. Google is just the tip of the iceberg. Websites like AI forums are making money from tracking us talking about how bad it is to be tracked. Irony. There are 14 tracking devices attached to the article page of this thread and 4 tracking this forum page right now. Nobody is going give up their cash cow. We are the only ones (users) that care. Content providers are selling our participation to the highest bidder and not just one. All AI articles use 14 different tracking companies who pay AI for our usage data.
I think you got it. When Google said "do no evil", they were talking to everyone else. They want to keep the evil all to themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo
You hit the nail right on the head. Ai and most other websites say they honor your privacy but they don't. Google is just the tip of the iceberg. Websites like AI forums are making money from tracking us talking about how bad it is to be tracked. Irony. There are 14 tracking devices attached to the article page of this thread and 4 tracking this forum page right now. Nobody is going give up their cash cow. We are the only ones (users) that care. Content providers are selling our participation to the highest bidder and not just one. All AI articles use 14 different tracking companies who pay AI for our usage data.
I think there's a huge difference.
I don't like tracking cookies, but it's perfectly legal and legitimate as long as there's a way to turn them off or block them.
In Google's case, though, they're circumventing the user's preference. Even when the user turns off tracking cookies, Google works around the system to install them on the user's system.
The use of tracking cookies is like offering a service where you will come into a customer's home and inspect their house and recommend purchases that they might like. If the customer is OK with it, that's a perfectly legitimate service.
What Google is doing is like entering the customer's home to inspect their house and recommend purchases EVEN AFTER THE CUSTOMER SAYS NO.
Yes, you have effectively gone somewhere else when you go on the internet. You're accessing someone else's property, someone else's servers located at some other location than your home. And as MJ1970 pointed out by quoting this site's Privacy Policy, you implicitly agree to being tracked by visiting and making use of this site.
No, it's like mailing a card requesting a brochure and then receiving it in the mail. You haven't gone anywhere, and you haven't invited anyone into your home. You aren't accessing their property any more than requesting information through the mails. This idea that you have "gone to their site" is based on people assigning literal meaning to loose language. It's a metaphor, you haven't gone anywhere, and just like the mail, the request and receipt of information are entirely out of your hands after it leaves your computer and until the reply arrives.
Your latter point represents a sort of catch 22, doesn't it. In order read their privacy policy you have to "go" to the site, where you are then informed that if you "use" the site you'll be tracked. So essentially, the whole privacy policy thing is obviously a failure as well since your privacy is violated before you are informed that it will be violated. This is why things like privacy policies and other "voluntary" measures are essentially worthless and simply don't and won't work. The answer is draconian legislation banning this entire tracking industry. If Google goes out of business as a result, so be it, the world won't miss them one bit.
Quote:
It seems a lot of people here want a free lunch. If you cut off or drastically reduce the ad revenue that AppleInsider makes, how long do you think this website will be around? How many other sites will disappear if their ad revenue drops significantly?
And, once again, another red herring scare. Advertising worked for years with out this sort of intrusive and involuntary tracking. It can go back to making money the old fashioned way, and except for a few sites that are worthless anyway, most will be just fine without violating our privacy, and if they aren't, that's fine, we don't need a business model that depends on us giving up our basic rights as citizens.
But, the most misleading thing about this comment is the implication that all this tracking is a) all from sites that are ad based, and b) that it's simply for targeting ads. As for point a, there are millions of sites out there that aren't even ad based that are tracking you with Google Analytics, simply because Google designed it as a Trojan to get it everywhere. As for point b, there isn't any reason to believe, or evidence to support, the idea that it will never be used for anything else.
I think you got it. When Google said "do no evil", they were talking to everyone else. They want to keep the evil all to themselves.
I think there's a huge difference.
I don't like tracking cookies, but it's perfectly legal and legitimate as long as there's a way to turn them off or block them.
In Google's case, though, they're circumventing the user's preference. Even when the user turns off tracking cookies, Google works around the system to install them on the user's system.
The use of tracking cookies is like offering a service where you will come into a customer's home and inspect their house and recommend purchases that they might like. If the customer is OK with it, that's a perfectly legitimate service.
What Google is doing is like entering the customer's home to inspect their house and recommend purchases EVEN AFTER THE CUSTOMER SAYS NO.
Jragosta, where was this outrage when you found that Apple examined and approved some of the biggest apps in the market that record and collect the names and personal details of the people you communicate with on your iDevice? Was that with your approval? It certainly passed muster with Apple.
Did you get this upset and vehement about your privacy being invaded when you found that Apple also approved apps that sent your location back to private servers, allowing your travels to be tracked, recorded and possibly sold? There's lots of other personal data that Apple is still allowing to be harvested from you, appearing to react only when the complaints reach the press. Yet a cookie on a website that happens to originate from someone who is not Apple is downright evil. I think you'd consider that at minimum disingenuous if it was someone else's posted attitude.
If some responding in this thread are so concerned about a website such as Engadget, Ars even AI tracking your visits, I would suggest you should be absolutely outraged at how your physical travels are still noted, reported and saved, even if you turn off location services indicating you don't want to be tracked. Your iPhone shouldn't ever be used if a website cookie gets you so upset.
If some responding in this thread are so concerned about a website such as Engadget, Ars even AI tracking your visits, I would suggest you should be absolutely outraged at how your physical travels are noted, reported and saved, even if you turn off location services indicating you don't want to be tracked. Your iPhone shouldn't ever be used if a website cookie gets you so upset.
The FUD continues. GG's argument is that in scenario B, the tracking is even worse than in scenario A, so just ignore scenario A. Well, scenario B may be something that should be outlawed too, but that doesn't make scenario A any better. And GG's employer, Google, is obviously a much more dangerous offender than anyone else because they are engaged in scenario A & B tracking.
Jragosta, where was this outrage when you found that Apple examined and approved some of the biggest apps in the market that record and collect the names and personal details of the people you communicate with on your iDevice? Was that with your approval? It certainly passed muster with Apple.
Did you get this upset and vehement about your privacy being invaded when you found that Apple also approved apps that sent your location back to private servers, allowing your travels to be tracked, recorded and possibly sold? There's lots of other personal data that Apple is still allowing to be harvested from you, appearing to react only when the complaints reach the press. Yet a cookie on a website that happens to originate from someone who is not Apple is downright evil. I think you'd consider that at minimum disingenuous if it was someone else's posted attitude.
There's a world of difference.
Apple has policies which are meant to ensure privacy and apps which access personal data without permission are not allowed. Apple missed a couple of them - which is not surprising, nor is it an indication of evil intent. They can't catch everything, and when they are informed that something slips through, they fix the problem by removing the app.
Android store, OTOH, doesn't have ANY such policies and harvesting information is completely fair game - so Apple is miles ahead from the start.
Then, moving even further up on the scale of privacy violations, Google intentionally sets out to harvest your private information, EVEN WHEN YOU TOLD THEM NOT TO by turning off cookies.
The information that Apple gathers for itself is only with the permission of the user.
It's really disingenuous to imply that the situations are even remotely related.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
If some responding in this thread are so concerned about a website such as Engadget, Ars even AI tracking your visits, I would suggest you should be absolutely outraged at how your physical travels are still noted, reported and saved, even if you turn off location services indicating you don't want to be tracked. Your iPhone shouldn't ever be used if a website cookie gets you so upset.
What does police activity have to do with Apple or Google? I guess you realize you don't have a logical argument so you'll just throw out as much FUD as you can and hope that something sticks.
Apple has policies which are meant to ensure privacy and apps which access personal data without permission are not allowed. Apple missed a couple of them - which is not surprising, nor is it an indication of evil intent. They can't catch everything, and when they are informed that something slips through, they fix the problem by removing the app.
Android store, OTOH, doesn't have ANY such policies and harvesting information is completely fair game - so Apple is miles ahead from the start.
Then, moving even further up on the scale of privacy violations, Google intentionally sets out to harvest your private information, EVEN WHEN YOU TOLD THEM NOT TO by turning off cookies.
The information that Apple gathers for itself is only with the permission of the user.
It's really disingenuous to imply that the situations are even remotely related.
What does police activity have to do with Apple or Google? I guess you realize you don't have a logical argument so you'll just throw out as much FUD as you can and hope that something sticks.
Saying that Apple didn't approve Twitter or Facebook harvesting contact info is simply guessing since the evidence leans more towards at least turning a blind eye. It's not reasonable to think a high profile app sending personal data to a private server didn't get noticed by anyone at Apple, if not when first approved at least within a few weeks. If that were true it says loads about Apple's lack of oversight. A curated market?
The question is still where was your outrage at those apps taking your data without permission? Is there outrage at Verizon or ATT sharing and perhaps selling data about you and your travels? That's at least as personal if not more so. I see it as quite related..
I'll wait for the outrage at Apple or your cell provider, and governments agencies who don't need to bother with "no stinkin' warrants" to see where you've been, what you texted and who you've been talking to. I'm sure your response will be vehement compared to your attitude towards a website cookie.
MJ1970 made an excellent point that you and a couple of others aren't acknowledging. You and othersw are quite willing to share the private details of your life if you're getting something you perceive to be more valuable. You're being paid for access to who you are by accepting cell service, allowed membership on a forum, or subscribe to news or television services.
We've all proved we're willing to be whored out by visiting AI or owning a smartphone. Now we're just negotiating a price.
Comments
That it couldIf it is what I suggest, then yes...and this is where your lock analogy breaks down.
If I use a bump key to exploit a bug in your lock, snoop around your house then send teams of door knockers around to target your specific needs, what you are saying is it's the lock companies fault for giving you a false sense of security and there is no problem with those who exploit it.
If I use a bump key to exploit a bug in your lock, snoop around your house then send teams of door knockers around to target your specific needs, what you are saying is it's the lock companies fault for giving you a false sense of security and there is no problem with those who exploit it.
Not really. I didn't say there's "no problem" with the exploiter. You seem to not be paying very close attention.
I explained why your analogy was ridiculous, why don't you explain why this analogy doesn't apply - instead of simply saying that it isn't relevant?
You sure come off as a Google shill. So far, your only argument is that it's Apple's fault for not making a perfect system and that Google somehow inadvertently (and innocently) accessed private information and installed cookies on many computers. All of that is, of course, absurd.
Again, I have to wonder if this is a DMCA violation. The users selected "do not install tracking cookies" and Google did so, anyway.
First, "the internet" isn't some vague collection of public space...it is a collection of privately built and owned resources.
Take this site for example. It is privately owned and, so far as I know, not funded by any tax dollars. The owners of this site provide a great site, lot of free content and a forum to have these discussions. But, in a very fundamental way it is private property. If they want to ban you or me...well they can. They can make their own rules. They could require that I only post in haiku. Whatever. I agree to abide by their terms and assume they'll abide by what they say. Its a contract. Loose...informal I suppose. But it is their property. If I decide one day to block all tracking on this site...and they decide not to let anyone shoe does that to see their content...we're both within our rights. I could be really mad about it. Very frustrated and disappointed. Maybe even kick the dog over it. But, I don't have any right to their content and services.
There is a difference between describing the current situation, and expressing a desire for change, for protection or for an evolution from the status quo. Just because one understands the current situation does not mean one must agree with it, accept it or support it. I expect most people visiting this site understand the nature of our relationship with the site, most people understand that search engines make money with advertising. But I believe it is worthwhile to make people aware of what else search engines are doing, and what the long term consequences can be.
Shit! Are you kidding me?! With my political views I'd be one the first people hauled into a concentration camp.
really? how odd, considering your tone of cynical realism I am surprised you hold views that could get you into trouble with any powers. Not a personal attack, I do not know you or your views, but you seem very eager to explain that all is well as it is. Sorry if I have misread your tone.
As I said, you have more to fear from governments than private companies...and to the extent that the private companies buckle because the government has a gun to their head...the root problem there is the one with the gun.
Well... a government will only hold "a gun to the head" of a company which has something or does something which is useful to the owner of "the gun". And all too often companies do not require a gun held to their head, they are very eager to offer their services. One sees examples in all periods of history and all political systems.
You sure come off as a Google shill.
Do you always resort to insulting people who don't agree with you?
There is a difference between describing the current situation, and expressing a desire for change, for protection or for an evolution from the status quo. Just because one understands the current situation does not mean one must agree with it, accept it or support it.
I agree.
I expect most people visiting this site understand the nature of our relationship with the site, most people understand that search engines make money with advertising. But I believe it is worthwhile to make people aware of what else search engines are doing, and what the long term consequences can be.
And I have no problem with that whatsoever. I say scream it from the mountain tops!
really? how odd, considering your tone of cynical realism I am surprised you hold views that could get you into trouble with any powers. Not a personal attack, I do not know you or your views, but you seem very eager to explain that all is well as it is. Sorry if I have misread your tone.
I think you have misread me. I'm not saying that all is well. First, I'm simply suggesting that if some privacy concerns from Google are people biggest concerns they might be looking the wrong direction. Second, I'm also saying that many people are getting tons of stuff for free and part of the reason they are is due to the advertising and corresponding tracking. I have no problem with lobbying companies like Google to stop it. To even hold them accountable for doing deceitful things. I have no problem with people encouraging everyone to use tools for blocking all over the place. Where I start having problem is in implementing one's aspirations with government force.
Well... a government will only hold "a gun to the head" of a company which has something or does something which is useful to the owner of "the gun". And all too often companies do not require a gun held to their head, they are very eager to offer their services. One sees examples in all periods of history and all political systems.
True enough. But...still...the ones with the guns are the culprits to be primarily concerned with here.
I think you have misread me. I'm not saying that all is well. First, I'm simply suggesting that if some privacy concerns from Google are people biggest concerns they might be looking the wrong direction. Second, I'm also saying that many people are getting tons of stuff for free and part of the reason they are is due to the advertising and corresponding tracking. I have no problem with lobbying companies like Google to stop it. To even hold them accountable for doing deceitful things. I have no problem with people encouraging everyone to use tools for blocking all over the place. Where I start having problem is in implementing one's aspirations with government force.
fine, that is cleared up then
True enough. But...still...the ones with the guns are the culprits to be primarily concerned with here.
We will have to disagree about this, but that is for another day. Have a good day, wherever you are and take care.
-d
Have a good day, wherever you are and take care.
Same to you.
Do you always resort to insulting people who don't agree with you?
What insult? I simply told you how your 'arguments' came across.
I notice that you haven't answered the question, though. What's wrong with the analogy of a flaw in your home security system that allows a burglar to come into the house and spy on you? Why is the burglar not at fault? After all, he's simply taking advantage of a flaw in the security system.
Actually that is part of the point. People are acting as if it is natural right. This is a key point.
Regarding the 4th Amendment argument...that's not even relevant as that pertains to a contract between the people its government and how the government treats its citizens. And, as I stated before, people probably ought to have far more concern about that. All Google really wants to do is show you ads.
First of all, this issue of "natural rights" is a complete red herring. The phrase "natural rights" is a meaningless phrase, no one can even give a definition of "natural rights" that holds up to any scrutiny, nor even enumerate these supposed "natural rights". There are no natural rights.
But there are many rights that have been established over centuries, some of them gained after hard fights and much blood spilled. And one of the most fundamental of those rights, one which the existence of free societies depends on, is privacy.
Yes, the 4th Amendment specifically addresses our right to privacy in relation to the government, but the idea that the people ought to have this right to be free of government intrusion into their private lives and their homes, while codified in this amendment, stems form the even more fundamental right expressed in the phrase, " A man's house is his castle."
The right not to have people generally intrude into your life, into your home, to violate your privacy, was established as a basic and essential right long before the 4th Amendment was put on paper, and this even more fundamental right is protected by the 9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Secondly, "going on the Internet" is not, in any way, analogous to driving a car, period. When we access the Internet, we don't go anywhere. We access the Internet from inside our homes, a place where there is, by long custom and well established law, an expectation of a high level of privacy. We aren't out on the street, we aren't at Google's server farm, we aren't at someone's colo, we are in our homes, we haven't gone anywhere.
Tracking people "on the Internet", at the level, and with the methods that Google employs, especially after we turned the key in the lock and hung the keep out sign, is most closely analogous to breaking and entering, or home invasion. It's as though Google snuck in through the open window in the bathroom, uninvited and unwelcome, and is hiding in the closet, watching our every move, taking notes, and phoning it all back to headquarters.
And, to use your phrase, Google has no "natural right" to do this. There is no long established "right" of, say retailers, allowing them to send private detectives to rummage through your closets. There is no established "right" of advertisers, to go through your health records. Google has no "right" to engage in wholesale cyberstalking of US citizens, including minors. Google doesn't even have a "right" to engage in any sort of business they choose to, so long as it's profitable.
But we have a long established right to privacy. A right not to have our homes invaded or our computers ransacked. A right not to be stalked wherever we go, but particularly not within the walls of our homes.
Secondly, "going on the Internet" is not, in any way, analogous to driving a car, period. When we access the Internet, we don't go anywhere. We access the Internet from inside our homes, a place where there is, by long custom and well established law, an expectation of a high level of privacy. We aren't out on the street, we aren't at Google's server farm, we aren't at someone's colo, we are in our homes, we haven't gone anywhere.
Yes, you have effectively gone somewhere else when you go on the internet. You're accessing someone else's property, someone else's servers located at some other location than your home. And as MJ1970 pointed out by quoting this site's Privacy Policy, you implicitly agree to being tracked by visiting and making use of this site.
It seems a lot of people here want a free lunch. If you cut off or drastically reduce the ad revenue that AppleInsider makes, how long do you think this website will be around? How many other sites will disappear if their ad revenue drops significantly?
what happens when governments and companies combine forces?
Fascism is what happens.
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'.
You hit the nail right on the head. Ai and most other websites say they honor your privacy but they don't. Google is just the tip of the iceberg. Websites like AI forums are making money from tracking us talking about how bad it is to be tracked. Irony. There are 14 tracking devices attached to the article page of this thread and 4 tracking this forum page right now. Nobody is going give up their cash cow. We are the only ones (users) that care. Content providers are selling our participation to the highest bidder and not just one. All AI articles use 14 different tracking companies who pay AI for our usage data.
do ALL the evil!
I think you got it. When Google said "do no evil", they were talking to everyone else. They want to keep the evil all to themselves.
You hit the nail right on the head. Ai and most other websites say they honor your privacy but they don't. Google is just the tip of the iceberg. Websites like AI forums are making money from tracking us talking about how bad it is to be tracked. Irony. There are 14 tracking devices attached to the article page of this thread and 4 tracking this forum page right now. Nobody is going give up their cash cow. We are the only ones (users) that care. Content providers are selling our participation to the highest bidder and not just one. All AI articles use 14 different tracking companies who pay AI for our usage data.
I think there's a huge difference.
I don't like tracking cookies, but it's perfectly legal and legitimate as long as there's a way to turn them off or block them.
In Google's case, though, they're circumventing the user's preference. Even when the user turns off tracking cookies, Google works around the system to install them on the user's system.
The use of tracking cookies is like offering a service where you will come into a customer's home and inspect their house and recommend purchases that they might like. If the customer is OK with it, that's a perfectly legitimate service.
What Google is doing is like entering the customer's home to inspect their house and recommend purchases EVEN AFTER THE CUSTOMER SAYS NO.
Yes, you have effectively gone somewhere else when you go on the internet. You're accessing someone else's property, someone else's servers located at some other location than your home. And as MJ1970 pointed out by quoting this site's Privacy Policy, you implicitly agree to being tracked by visiting and making use of this site.
No, it's like mailing a card requesting a brochure and then receiving it in the mail. You haven't gone anywhere, and you haven't invited anyone into your home. You aren't accessing their property any more than requesting information through the mails. This idea that you have "gone to their site" is based on people assigning literal meaning to loose language. It's a metaphor, you haven't gone anywhere, and just like the mail, the request and receipt of information are entirely out of your hands after it leaves your computer and until the reply arrives.
Your latter point represents a sort of catch 22, doesn't it. In order read their privacy policy you have to "go" to the site, where you are then informed that if you "use" the site you'll be tracked. So essentially, the whole privacy policy thing is obviously a failure as well since your privacy is violated before you are informed that it will be violated. This is why things like privacy policies and other "voluntary" measures are essentially worthless and simply don't and won't work. The answer is draconian legislation banning this entire tracking industry. If Google goes out of business as a result, so be it, the world won't miss them one bit.
It seems a lot of people here want a free lunch. If you cut off or drastically reduce the ad revenue that AppleInsider makes, how long do you think this website will be around? How many other sites will disappear if their ad revenue drops significantly?
And, once again, another red herring scare. Advertising worked for years with out this sort of intrusive and involuntary tracking. It can go back to making money the old fashioned way, and except for a few sites that are worthless anyway, most will be just fine without violating our privacy, and if they aren't, that's fine, we don't need a business model that depends on us giving up our basic rights as citizens.
But, the most misleading thing about this comment is the implication that all this tracking is a) all from sites that are ad based, and b) that it's simply for targeting ads. As for point a, there are millions of sites out there that aren't even ad based that are tracking you with Google Analytics, simply because Google designed it as a Trojan to get it everywhere. As for point b, there isn't any reason to believe, or evidence to support, the idea that it will never be used for anything else.
I think you got it. When Google said "do no evil", they were talking to everyone else. They want to keep the evil all to themselves.
I think there's a huge difference.
I don't like tracking cookies, but it's perfectly legal and legitimate as long as there's a way to turn them off or block them.
In Google's case, though, they're circumventing the user's preference. Even when the user turns off tracking cookies, Google works around the system to install them on the user's system.
The use of tracking cookies is like offering a service where you will come into a customer's home and inspect their house and recommend purchases that they might like. If the customer is OK with it, that's a perfectly legitimate service.
What Google is doing is like entering the customer's home to inspect their house and recommend purchases EVEN AFTER THE CUSTOMER SAYS NO.
Jragosta, where was this outrage when you found that Apple examined and approved some of the biggest apps in the market that record and collect the names and personal details of the people you communicate with on your iDevice? Was that with your approval? It certainly passed muster with Apple.
Did you get this upset and vehement about your privacy being invaded when you found that Apple also approved apps that sent your location back to private servers, allowing your travels to be tracked, recorded and possibly sold? There's lots of other personal data that Apple is still allowing to be harvested from you, appearing to react only when the complaints reach the press. Yet a cookie on a website that happens to originate from someone who is not Apple is downright evil. I think you'd consider that at minimum disingenuous if it was someone else's posted attitude.
If some responding in this thread are so concerned about a website such as Engadget, Ars even AI tracking your visits, I would suggest you should be absolutely outraged at how your physical travels are still noted, reported and saved, even if you turn off location services indicating you don't want to be tracked. Your iPhone shouldn't ever be used if a website cookie gets you so upset.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/bu...26privacy.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/us...acy-fears.html
If some responding in this thread are so concerned about a website such as Engadget, Ars even AI tracking your visits, I would suggest you should be absolutely outraged at how your physical travels are noted, reported and saved, even if you turn off location services indicating you don't want to be tracked. Your iPhone shouldn't ever be used if a website cookie gets you so upset.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/bu...26privacy.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/us...acy-fears.html
The FUD continues. GG's argument is that in scenario B, the tracking is even worse than in scenario A, so just ignore scenario A. Well, scenario B may be something that should be outlawed too, but that doesn't make scenario A any better. And GG's employer, Google, is obviously a much more dangerous offender than anyone else because they are engaged in scenario A & B tracking.
Jragosta, where was this outrage when you found that Apple examined and approved some of the biggest apps in the market that record and collect the names and personal details of the people you communicate with on your iDevice? Was that with your approval? It certainly passed muster with Apple.
Did you get this upset and vehement about your privacy being invaded when you found that Apple also approved apps that sent your location back to private servers, allowing your travels to be tracked, recorded and possibly sold? There's lots of other personal data that Apple is still allowing to be harvested from you, appearing to react only when the complaints reach the press. Yet a cookie on a website that happens to originate from someone who is not Apple is downright evil. I think you'd consider that at minimum disingenuous if it was someone else's posted attitude.
There's a world of difference.
Apple has policies which are meant to ensure privacy and apps which access personal data without permission are not allowed. Apple missed a couple of them - which is not surprising, nor is it an indication of evil intent. They can't catch everything, and when they are informed that something slips through, they fix the problem by removing the app.
Android store, OTOH, doesn't have ANY such policies and harvesting information is completely fair game - so Apple is miles ahead from the start.
Then, moving even further up on the scale of privacy violations, Google intentionally sets out to harvest your private information, EVEN WHEN YOU TOLD THEM NOT TO by turning off cookies.
The information that Apple gathers for itself is only with the permission of the user.
It's really disingenuous to imply that the situations are even remotely related.
If some responding in this thread are so concerned about a website such as Engadget, Ars even AI tracking your visits, I would suggest you should be absolutely outraged at how your physical travels are still noted, reported and saved, even if you turn off location services indicating you don't want to be tracked. Your iPhone shouldn't ever be used if a website cookie gets you so upset.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/bu...26privacy.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/us...acy-fears.html
What does police activity have to do with Apple or Google? I guess you realize you don't have a logical argument so you'll just throw out as much FUD as you can and hope that something sticks.
There's a world of difference.
Apple has policies which are meant to ensure privacy and apps which access personal data without permission are not allowed. Apple missed a couple of them - which is not surprising, nor is it an indication of evil intent. They can't catch everything, and when they are informed that something slips through, they fix the problem by removing the app.
Android store, OTOH, doesn't have ANY such policies and harvesting information is completely fair game - so Apple is miles ahead from the start.
Then, moving even further up on the scale of privacy violations, Google intentionally sets out to harvest your private information, EVEN WHEN YOU TOLD THEM NOT TO by turning off cookies.
The information that Apple gathers for itself is only with the permission of the user.
It's really disingenuous to imply that the situations are even remotely related.
What does police activity have to do with Apple or Google? I guess you realize you don't have a logical argument so you'll just throw out as much FUD as you can and hope that something sticks.
Saying that Apple didn't approve Twitter or Facebook harvesting contact info is simply guessing since the evidence leans more towards at least turning a blind eye. It's not reasonable to think a high profile app sending personal data to a private server didn't get noticed by anyone at Apple, if not when first approved at least within a few weeks. If that were true it says loads about Apple's lack of oversight. A curated market?
The question is still where was your outrage at those apps taking your data without permission? Is there outrage at Verizon or ATT sharing and perhaps selling data about you and your travels? That's at least as personal if not more so. I see it as quite related..
I'll wait for the outrage at Apple or your cell provider, and governments agencies who don't need to bother with "no stinkin' warrants" to see where you've been, what you texted and who you've been talking to. I'm sure your response will be vehement compared to your attitude towards a website cookie.
MJ1970 made an excellent point that you and a couple of others aren't acknowledging. You and othersw are quite willing to share the private details of your life if you're getting something you perceive to be more valuable. You're being paid for access to who you are by accepting cell service, allowed membership on a forum, or subscribe to news or television services.
We've all proved we're willing to be whored out by visiting AI or owning a smartphone. Now we're just negotiating a price.