Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trackers

jacquesmattheij.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 216 posts

Re: Trackers

#61

Post by mike-cardwell »

WA wrote: post #48
wouterinho wrote: post #37

It is funny how things change when you use the physical world metaphor. There was a campaign recently by the Dutch regulatory agency that made people aware of the implications of allowing permissions in "free" apps. They made an (anecdotal) video by promising a free cup of coffee in exchange for your contact list on your phone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYXM56YJWSo (Dutch unfortunately)

Nice video. My wife has an Android phone, I have an iPhone. Recently, I wanted to install some app on her phone and it is still beyond my understanding, why Google still doesn't allow to deny certain permissions. It's all or nothing. And no, a fucking video editor shouldn't require access to my contacts, my browsing history and the accounts on my phone. Android imho is unusable until they let me deny certain permissi…

Install Cyanogenmod, or buy a phone with it pre-installed like a OnePlus, then you get "Privacy Guard" in the settings which lets you specify exactly what data apps can access.

Android isn't the problem. Google is the problem.

[edit] As in, you can restrict access to things like location, contacts, calendar etc.

Re: Trackers

#62

Post by timr »

S4M wrote: post #55
watty wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's already possible, any physical lock or home or safe can be opened with a warrant. The fact that we're almost at a point where we can hide something from the government (even with a warrant) is groundbreaking.

It's perfectly fine that the FBI or the police can open a physical lock with a warrant. The warrant is supposed to be delivered by someone representing the Justice department, which is (theoretically) independent from the police. What would be unacceptable is that they could just bypass that authority and enter to anybody's home on a whim. Which is what they are trying to achieve when they asked Apple to put a backdo…

"The warrant is supposed to be delivered by someone representing the Justice department, which is (theoretically) independent from the police."

I hate to break it to you, but the FBI is part of the Department of Justice. I think you mean that a warrant needs to be issued by the judiciary, which (as far as I know) is a truism. Courts issue warrants, there is a warrant in the Apple case, and it in no way involves a "backdoor" being placed in all Apple phones.

You really might want to look up some of the facts about this case. It's not nearly as general as you think it is.

Re: Trackers

#63

Post by TravisLS »

gglitch wrote: post #46
karmacondon wrote: post #32

Where this analogy breaks down is that the people sent to track you are invisible and can't be seen without the aid of special technology. So what you end up telling people is that they are being followed everywhere by invisible ghosts, who's only desire is to change what ads appear in their newspaper. And it appears that the reaction of most people is about what you'd expect. If a store has policy of "If you come in…

If ad-supported sites posted terms of use that precisely defined what info is to be collected, how long it's to be retained, and who will be able to access it, consumers would be able to make an informed decision about what sites to visit. As it is now, without defensive software, one is asked to just blindly trust the sites one visits.

In the analogy (and online), the newspaper with blank spaces (aka the ad-supported site) is a small and insignificant data player. It's mostly advertisers that are collecting and retaining the data, and not just on websites but in all kinds of ways. The profiles are kept by advertisers, and sold on data exchanges, completely out of the reach and control of the ad-supported site. So unfortunately, ad-supported sites that offer up their ad inventory via real-time bidding can't provide the information you'd want. You would really need to opt-in at every point where data is collected, which is everywhere.

Re: Trackers

#64

Post by xuhu »

blfr wrote: post #26

I'm all for blocking ads, tracking or non-tracking, analytics, etc. and wish swift bankruptcy on the propaganda-advertising industrial complex but this is silly. The analogy between physical world and the Internet is not valid or insightful, just like it isn't in case of piracy/stealing. Collecting info on what you read online is nothing like breaking into your house.

Picture your insurer scrolling through your browser history when you're renewing your health plan.

Re: Trackers

#65

Post by dhimes »

adsche wrote: post #21
Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #15

Believe it or not, some stores sympathise with you. They might actually be run by people like you, people who read your story. They still want to know how you proceed round the store, because that helps them optimise shelf layout, identify hard-to-find items, and so on. So yes, they might use the standard in-store CCTV to observe your journeys, and when they figure that you and people like you always have difficulty…

A little obscure? :) > hurt them if you have to > they smashed the CCTV cameras What? Nope. Not at all. You can still track everybody without a blocker, can you not? Or what harm do you incur that translates into harm or property damage in your metaphor?

They cry that they are hurt when you block ads. Forbes.com may be the worst of them, but even if I allow ads they block content if I don't allow the trackers. I was going to email them to voice my concern about this, but there wasn't a contact page easily accessible (they really blocked their pages!).

Re: Trackers

#66

Post by kp25 »

For the first few seconds, i thought you're talking about real people who're tracking you. Later i realized.. Great writeup. So, true.

Re: Trackers

#67

Post by dhimes »

jacquesm wrote: post #36
karmacondon wrote: post #32

Where this analogy breaks down is that the people sent to track you are invisible and can't be seen without the aid of special technology. So what you end up telling people is that they are being followed everywhere by invisible ghosts, who's only desire is to change what ads appear in their newspaper. And it appears that the reaction of most people is about what you'd expect. If a store has policy of "If you come in…

If that's all you got from it then I should really do my best to write better. One of the key parts - to me - is that the data silos start trading your data as if it is theirs to whoever pays for it, and that goes a lot further than a real time bidding on ad space, even if that was the initial drive to collect that data.

Maybe an allegory about how, based on the tracking data, the price you pay for something (say airline tickets) changes. Or the availability of health insurance for your kids? I don't have any facts on which to base the latter, however, but I suspect it's either happening or only a matter of time.

Re: Trackers

#68

Post by dhimes »

gglitch wrote: post #46
karmacondon wrote: post #32

Where this analogy breaks down is that the people sent to track you are invisible and can't be seen without the aid of special technology. So what you end up telling people is that they are being followed everywhere by invisible ghosts, who's only desire is to change what ads appear in their newspaper. And it appears that the reaction of most people is about what you'd expect. If a store has policy of "If you come in…

If ad-supported sites posted terms of use that precisely defined what info is to be collected, how long it's to be retained, and who will be able to access it, consumers would be able to make an informed decision about what sites to visit. As it is now, without defensive software, one is asked to just blindly trust the sites one visits.

The problem is that people still don't understand what it is they are trading for a "free" web. It really takes a story like Jacques wrote to drive it home. It has to touch them emotionally, because what we are asking them to be wary of touches them with very strong emotions (facebook, for example).

Re: Trackers

#69

Post by hoopsho »

I got tired of seeing a drill show up on a bunch of sites after I just searched for it on Home Depot... I block ads on my workstation, but with tablets I just could not find an easy way to block trackers for my whole family.

So Metiix Blockade was born out of this frustration... Now I have "bouncers" protecting my whole network for every one of my devices.

I hate when a web page decides what ads and trackers it wants to pull down from the Internet. With Blockade, I have taken back control of that process and I get to dictate when and where I want to provide my information.

I love feeling like I have the real internet back. No more of these ads and trackers taking over every place I go.

Re: Trackers

#70

Post by matt4077 »

gglitch wrote: post #38
Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #15

Believe it or not, some stores sympathise with you. They might actually be run by people like you, people who read your story. They still want to know how you proceed round the store, because that helps them optimise shelf layout, identify hard-to-find items, and so on. So yes, they might use the standard in-store CCTV to observe your journeys, and when they figure that you and people like you always have difficulty…

What is meant by "populist" in this critique?

It means roughly the same as when the term is applied to politicians when they promise lower taxes: A popular measure that actually has detrimental effects in the long term (with the possible connotation that the politician should/does know this and is just exploiting some base emotions).
Post reply on HN