I think lots of these issues would be solved if lobbyists could be legally punished for lobbying for bad reasons. Say you lobby for a company that sells a cancer-inducing product. Ten years later, the product is finally forbidden, and then the DoJ rings at your bell "hey, it's about those 20 years in prison you're going to spend now for causing immense trouble to (inter)National Health Security".
(inter) is in that sentence because, after all, heavy lobbying in Washington also impacts the UNO, the WCO, and hence international trade and regulations... but keeping the process a purely US idea, lobbyism can be a good thing, or an evil thing, depending on the lobby.
Gun rights and the billions they represent are another good exemple of that... Maybe in 50 years, when some huge gunshooting in a posh school in the East Coast with a few Senator sons and daughters dead causes tighter gun laws (yeah, people understand better when it gets personal), gun rights lobbyists will be tried and convicted for the damage they did to America?
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.
There are things you're willing to pay for. However, you don't get a choice.
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.
No one has sent me a check yet an that is my big issue. I don't care at all that the government tracks me. I also don't care that private concerns track me online. I do care that these private companies don't pay me when they use my information. I waiting for a check from Google, Experian, Akamai or any other company that is profiting from my data. It's theft pure an simple.
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.
And the point that YOU keep ignoring is that in all the other cases (except the government), you have the right to say 'no'. You can tell your browser not to install cookies. You can refuse to send your location information to a vendor. It's your choice.
EXCEPT Google's insistence on ignoring your 'no' and installing tracking cookies, anyway.
The government is obviously a different issue and your continued insistence on using it to justify Google's criminal activity is ridiculous. Last time I checked, Google was not a governmental body and was bound by the laws of the country.
And the point that YOU keep ignoring is that in all the other cases (except the government), you have the right to say 'no'. You can tell your browser not to install cookies. You can refuse to send your location information to a vendor. It's your choice.
EXCEPT Google's insistence on ignoring your 'no' and installing tracking cookies, anyway.
The government is obviously a different issue and your continued insistence on using it to justify Google's criminal activity is ridiculous. Last time I checked, Google was not a governmental body and was bound by the laws of the country.
You accepted that Google and other ad providers placed cookies when you signed up at AI. You accepted that Verizon. ATT, Sprint, whoever could track you as well as record, store and share those results with 3rd parties. You didn't agree to share your personally identifiable information with either Facebook or Twitter when you downloaded those apps from Apple, yet they did so anyway.
Solutions? Don't visit websites that place cookies unless you see value there. Don't use internet service providers that place cookies or track your location or network devices unless you want the service more than the privacy. Don't sign a contract with a telco who says they reserve the right to use and share your subscriber details, text contents and location unless you think trading your privacy for it is worthwhile.
Try as much as you like. You can't turn off what the telcos gather from you even if location is turned off. You can't join AI or sign up with a service provider without agreeing to their terms either.
As I said, you've already shown a willingness to be whored. You just haven't agreed to everyone's price yet.
You accepted that Google and other ad providers placed cookies when you signed up at AI. You accepted that Verizon. ATT, Sprint, whoever could track you as well as record, store and share those results with 3rd parties. You didn't agree to share your personally identifiable information with either Facebook or Twitter when you downloaded those apps from Apple, yet they did so anyway.
Solutions? Don't visit websites that place cookies unless you see value there. Don't use internet service providers that place cookies or track your location or network devices unless you want the service more than the privacy. Don't sign a contract with a telco who says they reserve the right to use and share your subscriber details, text contents and location unless you think trading your privacy for it is worthwhile.
Try as much as you like. You can't turn off what the telcos gather from you even if location is turned off. You can't join AI or sign up with a service provider without agreeing to their terms either.
As I said, you've already shown a willingness to be whored. You just haven't agreed to everyone's price yet.
Wrong. I signed up for AI, but also had selected the setting in my browser that says that I do not allow cookies. So I did NOT agree to allow cookies. Google went around my desires.
Now, it is entirely possible that AI could make their site inaccessible without cookies - and then I'd have to make a choice. But as it is, my choice was 'NO COOKIES' and Google violated it.
Wrong. I signed up for AI, but also had selected the setting in my browser that says that I do not allow cookies. So I did NOT agree to allow cookies. Google went around my desires.
Now, it is entirely possible that AI could make their site inaccessible without cookies - and then I'd have to make a choice. But as it is, my choice was 'NO COOKIES' and Google violated it.
Did they? You found evidence that Google themselves placed cookies on your computer when visiting AI after you asked they don't? Is it instead you read that it happened according to blogger reports? Since Google removed the workaround several weeks ago, are you still seeing cookies placed? If so, those aren't from Google.
According to what some others posted, Google changed their practice and it's others who still take advantage of the hole that Apple leaves open, whether intentional or not. Is "Apple's friend" Facebook part of that group ignoring your preferences?
Apparently not if you've blocked them in Safari and they're still being placed. It sounds like another source is using the Safari workaround to place a Google-analytics cookie for that site's benefit. Is that from here at AI?
Apparently not if you've blocked them in Safari and they're still being placed. It sounds like another source is using the Safari workaround to place a Google-analytics cookie for that site's benefit.
Did they? You found evidence that Google themselves placed cookies on your computer when visiting AI after you asked they don't? Is it instead you read that it happened according to blogger reports? Since Google removed the workaround several weeks ago, are you still seeing cookies placed? If so, those aren't from Google.
I read about it in the Wall Street Journal - and Google admitted it by changing their code:
Yes. You. Can. You just don't want to go to give up the benefits.
I'm sorry for offending the people this is going to offend.
That's a bit like telling someone enslaved, "if you don't want to be a slave, stop taking part in the benefits of being owned (food, shelter)"
In other words, you are an idiot! What we all want is HONESTY. If I'm told that by doing something, I can avoid being tracked, and I do that something, I SHOULD NOT BE TRACKED. There should NOT be a million hoops to jump through. These pond scum insist on attempting to circumvent my wishes, and being opaque about it, I say put the lot of them in prison.
Another thing, self regulation never works. EVER. You can not put a thief in charge of the money, you can not put a rat in charge of the cheese, and you can not put a liar in charge of the truth. We need government intervention (I HATE saying that) to protect (their actual job) the rights of the citizens. Sure, that may mean that websites need to find another way to monetize the services they provide us, and I'm not sure what that would be. But, it's only fair that a content creator be compensated for the content they create. There is no good reason that ads need to know who is clicking on them, there is no good reason that ads need to install trackers on MY computer, there is no good reason for companies to INTENTIONALLY attempt to circumvent the conditions I set for my browsing experience. EVER.
There is, of course, no guarantee that they don't have other methods. Furthermore, this is proof that Google was doing it until they got caught.
They don't claim they didn't, coming right out and admitting it happened. I was curious if you were a victim or simply speaking up for victim's rights.
If cookies are still being placed for Safari users who have cookies disabled (I noted you forget to answer that), I would expect it to be apparent to you that it's unlikely coming direct from Google with so many eyes watching for any evidence. Much more likely it's the site you're visiting or one of it's partners responsible, not Google.
No one has sent me a check yet an that is my big issue. I don't care at all that the government tracks me. I also don't care that private concerns track me online. I do care that these private companies don't pay me when they use my information. I waiting for a check from Google, Experian, Akamai or any other company that is profiting from my data. It's theft pure an simple.
You're being paid in services, apparently of enough value for you to continue trading privacy for them.
I'm sorry for offending the people this is going to offend.
That's a bit like telling someone enslaved, "if you don't want to be a slave, stop taking part in the benefits of being owned (food, shelter)"
In other words, you are an idiot! What we all want is HONESTY. If I'm told that by doing something, I can avoid being tracked, and I do that something, I SHOULD NOT BE TRACKED. There should NOT be a million hoops to jump through. These pond scum insist on attempting to circumvent my wishes, and being opaque about it, I say put the lot of them in prison.
Another thing, self regulation never works. EVER. You can not put a thief in charge of the money, you can not put a rat in charge of the cheese, and you can not put a liar in charge of the truth. We need government intervention (I HATE saying that) to protect (their actual job) the rights of the citizens. Sure, that may mean that websites need to find another way to monetize the services they provide us, and I'm not sure what that would be. But, it's only fair that a content creator be compensated for the content they create. There is no good reason that ads need to know who is clicking on them, there is no good reason that ads need to install trackers on MY computer, there is no good reason for companies to INTENTIONALLY attempt to circumvent the conditions I set for my browsing experience. EVER.
Joe
Then you should contact the administrators of this site and voice your concerns, and repeat as needed at other sites you value.
They don't claim they didn't, coming right out and admitting it happened. I was curious if you were a victim or simply speaking up for victim's rights.
If cookies are still being placed for Safari users who have cookies disabled (I noted you forget to answer that), I would expect it to be apparent to you that it's unlikely coming direct from Google with so many eyes watching for any evidence. Much more likely it's the site you're visiting or one of it's partners responsible, not Google.
How is it unlikely that a cookie from google analitics is not coming from google?
I'm pretty sure that if someone other than google was using a trademarked name for a service without permission, google would through it's legal staff make their displeasure known. As that hasn't happened, we can only assume that google, at the very least, condones this behavior, or they encourage it.
It's called logic, and while it might tax your mind, it won't kill you.
You should contact the administrators of this site, and any other's you visit, with your concerns then.
If I had cookies blocked, I would complain to the site admin about intentionally circumventing my personal settings. I just believe that if someone chooses to remain private, they should remain private.
How is it unlikely that a cookie from google analitics is not coming from google?
I'm pretty sure that if someone other than google was using a trademarked name for a service without permission, google would through it's legal staff make their displeasure known. As that hasn't happened, we can only assume that google, at the very least, condones this behavior, or they encourage it.
It's called logic, and while it might tax your mind, it won't kill you.
Apparently you have no experience with ad placement and data gathering services on commercial websites. A Google-analytics cookie doesn't need to placed by Google themselves. It's kinda like buying Quaker State oil. You know who made it, but they're not responsible for how it got in your engine.
BTW, I hate analogies and rarely will use one. I'm sure to be reminded why they work so poorly to demonstrate a point withing a post or two.
EDIT: It just came to me how Google Analytics came to my companies website. We partnered with a third party store who offered us a self-branded storefront. To show whether it was getting traffic and from where (along with a whole lot of other details I was surprised to find available) they set up a link for us. It was never something Google approached us about, nor that we had any direct dealings with Google to arrange for.
If I had cookies blocked, I would complain to the site admin about intentionally circumventing my personal settings. I just believe that if someone chooses to remain private, they should remain private.
Then you aren't blocking cookies, finding enough value (or not enough to be concerned about) to worry about disabling them?
They don't claim they didn't, coming right out and admitting it happened. I was curious if you were a victim or simply speaking up for victim's rights.
If cookies are still being placed for Safari users who have cookies disabled (I noted you forget to answer that), I would expect it to be apparent to you that it's unlikely coming direct from Google with so many eyes watching for any evidence. Much more likely it's the site you're visiting or one of it's partners responsible, not Google.
I'm going to save you and the other Google shills some trouble. Here are the responses any time Google violates a user's privacy. Instead of typing out the answer, you can simply enter the number.
1. Google never did anything like that.
2. Google did it, but it was Apple's fault because the browser had a bug (as if it's possible to have any software without a bug - and as if Apple forced them to take advantage of the bug).
3. Google did it, but they stopped.
4. Google did it, but it's the user's fault for wanting to use the Internet.
5. Google's partner did it. Sure, Google provided all the software and provided a way to get around the user's desire to block cookies, but it's still the partner's fault.
Comments
(inter) is in that sentence because, after all, heavy lobbying in Washington also impacts the UNO, the WCO, and hence international trade and regulations... but keeping the process a purely US idea, lobbyism can be a good thing, or an evil thing, depending on the lobby.
Gun rights and the billions they represent are another good exemple of that... Maybe in 50 years, when some huge gunshooting in a posh school in the East Coast with a few Senator sons and daughters dead causes tighter gun laws (yeah, people understand better when it gets personal), gun rights lobbyists will be tried and convicted for the damage they did to America?
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.
There are things you're willing to pay for. However, you don't get a choice.
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.
No one has sent me a check yet an that is my big issue. I don't care at all that the government tracks me. I also don't care that private concerns track me online. I do care that these private companies don't pay me when they use my information. I waiting for a check from Google, Experian, Akamai or any other company that is profiting from my data. It's theft pure an simple.
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.
And the point that YOU keep ignoring is that in all the other cases (except the government), you have the right to say 'no'. You can tell your browser not to install cookies. You can refuse to send your location information to a vendor. It's your choice.
EXCEPT Google's insistence on ignoring your 'no' and installing tracking cookies, anyway.
The government is obviously a different issue and your continued insistence on using it to justify Google's criminal activity is ridiculous. Last time I checked, Google was not a governmental body and was bound by the laws of the country.
And the point that YOU keep ignoring is that in all the other cases (except the government), you have the right to say 'no'. You can tell your browser not to install cookies. You can refuse to send your location information to a vendor. It's your choice.
EXCEPT Google's insistence on ignoring your 'no' and installing tracking cookies, anyway.
The government is obviously a different issue and your continued insistence on using it to justify Google's criminal activity is ridiculous. Last time I checked, Google was not a governmental body and was bound by the laws of the country.
You accepted that Google and other ad providers placed cookies when you signed up at AI. You accepted that Verizon. ATT, Sprint, whoever could track you as well as record, store and share those results with 3rd parties. You didn't agree to share your personally identifiable information with either Facebook or Twitter when you downloaded those apps from Apple, yet they did so anyway.
Solutions? Don't visit websites that place cookies unless you see value there. Don't use internet service providers that place cookies or track your location or network devices unless you want the service more than the privacy. Don't sign a contract with a telco who says they reserve the right to use and share your subscriber details, text contents and location unless you think trading your privacy for it is worthwhile.
Try as much as you like. You can't turn off what the telcos gather from you even if location is turned off. You can't join AI or sign up with a service provider without agreeing to their terms either.
As I said, you've already shown a willingness to be whored. You just haven't agreed to everyone's price yet.
You accepted that Google and other ad providers placed cookies when you signed up at AI. You accepted that Verizon. ATT, Sprint, whoever could track you as well as record, store and share those results with 3rd parties. You didn't agree to share your personally identifiable information with either Facebook or Twitter when you downloaded those apps from Apple, yet they did so anyway.
Solutions? Don't visit websites that place cookies unless you see value there. Don't use internet service providers that place cookies or track your location or network devices unless you want the service more than the privacy. Don't sign a contract with a telco who says they reserve the right to use and share your subscriber details, text contents and location unless you think trading your privacy for it is worthwhile.
Try as much as you like. You can't turn off what the telcos gather from you even if location is turned off. You can't join AI or sign up with a service provider without agreeing to their terms either.
As I said, you've already shown a willingness to be whored. You just haven't agreed to everyone's price yet.
Wrong. I signed up for AI, but also had selected the setting in my browser that says that I do not allow cookies. So I did NOT agree to allow cookies. Google went around my desires.
Now, it is entirely possible that AI could make their site inaccessible without cookies - and then I'd have to make a choice. But as it is, my choice was 'NO COOKIES' and Google violated it.
Wrong. I signed up for AI, but also had selected the setting in my browser that says that I do not allow cookies. So I did NOT agree to allow cookies. Google went around my desires.
Now, it is entirely possible that AI could make their site inaccessible without cookies - and then I'd have to make a choice. But as it is, my choice was 'NO COOKIES' and Google violated it.
Did they? You found evidence that Google themselves placed cookies on your computer when visiting AI after you asked they don't? Is it instead you read that it happened according to blogger reports? Since Google removed the workaround several weeks ago, are you still seeing cookies placed? If so, those aren't from Google.
According to what some others posted, Google changed their practice and it's others who still take advantage of the hole that Apple leaves open, whether intentional or not. Is "Apple's friend" Facebook part of that group ignoring your preferences?
Since Google removed the workaround several weeks ago, are you still seeing cookies placed? If so, those aren't from Google.
A Google Analytics cookie isn't from Google?
A Google Analytics cookie isn't from Google?
Apparently not if you've blocked them in Safari and they're still being placed. It sounds like another source is using the Safari workaround to place a Google-analytics cookie for that site's benefit. Is that from here at AI?
Apparently not if you've blocked them in Safari and they're still being placed. It sounds like another source is using the Safari workaround to place a Google-analytics cookie for that site's benefit.
For the record, that would be this site.
Did they? You found evidence that Google themselves placed cookies on your computer when visiting AI after you asked they don't? Is it instead you read that it happened according to blogger reports? Since Google removed the workaround several weeks ago, are you still seeing cookies placed? If so, those aren't from Google.
I read about it in the Wall Street Journal - and Google admitted it by changing their code:
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/...jExNDYyWj.html
There is, of course, no guarantee that they don't have other methods. Furthermore, this is proof that Google was doing it until they got caught.
Yes. You. Can. You just don't want to go to give up the benefits.
I'm sorry for offending the people this is going to offend.
That's a bit like telling someone enslaved, "if you don't want to be a slave, stop taking part in the benefits of being owned (food, shelter)"
In other words, you are an idiot! What we all want is HONESTY. If I'm told that by doing something, I can avoid being tracked, and I do that something, I SHOULD NOT BE TRACKED. There should NOT be a million hoops to jump through. These pond scum insist on attempting to circumvent my wishes, and being opaque about it, I say put the lot of them in prison.
Another thing, self regulation never works. EVER. You can not put a thief in charge of the money, you can not put a rat in charge of the cheese, and you can not put a liar in charge of the truth. We need government intervention (I HATE saying that) to protect (their actual job) the rights of the citizens. Sure, that may mean that websites need to find another way to monetize the services they provide us, and I'm not sure what that would be. But, it's only fair that a content creator be compensated for the content they create. There is no good reason that ads need to know who is clicking on them, there is no good reason that ads need to install trackers on MY computer, there is no good reason for companies to INTENTIONALLY attempt to circumvent the conditions I set for my browsing experience. EVER.
Joe
I read about it in the Wall Street Journal - and Google admitted it by changing their code:
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/...jExNDYyWj.html
There is, of course, no guarantee that they don't have other methods. Furthermore, this is proof that Google was doing it until they got caught.
They don't claim they didn't, coming right out and admitting it happened. I was curious if you were a victim or simply speaking up for victim's rights.
If cookies are still being placed for Safari users who have cookies disabled (I noted you forget to answer that), I would expect it to be apparent to you that it's unlikely coming direct from Google with so many eyes watching for any evidence. Much more likely it's the site you're visiting or one of it's partners responsible, not Google.
No one has sent me a check yet an that is my big issue. I don't care at all that the government tracks me. I also don't care that private concerns track me online. I do care that these private companies don't pay me when they use my information. I waiting for a check from Google, Experian, Akamai or any other company that is profiting from my data. It's theft pure an simple.
You're being paid in services, apparently of enough value for you to continue trading privacy for them.
I'm sorry for offending the people this is going to offend.
That's a bit like telling someone enslaved, "if you don't want to be a slave, stop taking part in the benefits of being owned (food, shelter)"
In other words, you are an idiot! What we all want is HONESTY. If I'm told that by doing something, I can avoid being tracked, and I do that something, I SHOULD NOT BE TRACKED. There should NOT be a million hoops to jump through. These pond scum insist on attempting to circumvent my wishes, and being opaque about it, I say put the lot of them in prison.
Another thing, self regulation never works. EVER. You can not put a thief in charge of the money, you can not put a rat in charge of the cheese, and you can not put a liar in charge of the truth. We need government intervention (I HATE saying that) to protect (their actual job) the rights of the citizens. Sure, that may mean that websites need to find another way to monetize the services they provide us, and I'm not sure what that would be. But, it's only fair that a content creator be compensated for the content they create. There is no good reason that ads need to know who is clicking on them, there is no good reason that ads need to install trackers on MY computer, there is no good reason for companies to INTENTIONALLY attempt to circumvent the conditions I set for my browsing experience. EVER.
Joe
Then you should contact the administrators of this site and voice your concerns, and repeat as needed at other sites you value.
They don't claim they didn't, coming right out and admitting it happened. I was curious if you were a victim or simply speaking up for victim's rights.
If cookies are still being placed for Safari users who have cookies disabled (I noted you forget to answer that), I would expect it to be apparent to you that it's unlikely coming direct from Google with so many eyes watching for any evidence. Much more likely it's the site you're visiting or one of it's partners responsible, not Google.
How is it unlikely that a cookie from google analitics is not coming from google?
I'm pretty sure that if someone other than google was using a trademarked name for a service without permission, google would through it's legal staff make their displeasure known. As that hasn't happened, we can only assume that google, at the very least, condones this behavior, or they encourage it.
It's called logic, and while it might tax your mind, it won't kill you.
You should contact the administrators of this site, and any other's you visit, with your concerns then.
If I had cookies blocked, I would complain to the site admin about intentionally circumventing my personal settings. I just believe that if someone chooses to remain private, they should remain private.
How is it unlikely that a cookie from google analitics is not coming from google?
I'm pretty sure that if someone other than google was using a trademarked name for a service without permission, google would through it's legal staff make their displeasure known. As that hasn't happened, we can only assume that google, at the very least, condones this behavior, or they encourage it.
It's called logic, and while it might tax your mind, it won't kill you.
Apparently you have no experience with ad placement and data gathering services on commercial websites. A Google-analytics cookie doesn't need to placed by Google themselves. It's kinda like buying Quaker State oil. You know who made it, but they're not responsible for how it got in your engine.
BTW, I hate analogies and rarely will use one. I'm sure to be reminded why they work so poorly to demonstrate a point withing a post or two.
EDIT: It just came to me how Google Analytics came to my companies website. We partnered with a third party store who offered us a self-branded storefront. To show whether it was getting traffic and from where (along with a whole lot of other details I was surprised to find available) they set up a link for us. It was never something Google approached us about, nor that we had any direct dealings with Google to arrange for.
If I had cookies blocked, I would complain to the site admin about intentionally circumventing my personal settings. I just believe that if someone chooses to remain private, they should remain private.
Then you aren't blocking cookies, finding enough value (or not enough to be concerned about) to worry about disabling them?
They don't claim they didn't, coming right out and admitting it happened. I was curious if you were a victim or simply speaking up for victim's rights.
If cookies are still being placed for Safari users who have cookies disabled (I noted you forget to answer that), I would expect it to be apparent to you that it's unlikely coming direct from Google with so many eyes watching for any evidence. Much more likely it's the site you're visiting or one of it's partners responsible, not Google.
I'm going to save you and the other Google shills some trouble. Here are the responses any time Google violates a user's privacy. Instead of typing out the answer, you can simply enter the number.
1. Google never did anything like that.
2. Google did it, but it was Apple's fault because the browser had a bug (as if it's possible to have any software without a bug - and as if Apple forced them to take advantage of the bug).
3. Google did it, but they stopped.
4. Google did it, but it's the user's fault for wanting to use the Internet.
5. Google's partner did it. Sure, Google provided all the software and provided a way to get around the user's desire to block cookies, but it's still the partner's fault.
6. Privacy is overrated.
Did I miss any?