51–60 of 208 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your ISP adding a header containing your subscriber ID to every request.
Can you provide links? I only saw http://www.balough.com/internet-service-provider-must-disclo... in the case of an RIAA suit
Not uncommon in mobile carriers.
Firefox has a pretty neat feature I discovered recently: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Contextual_Identity_Projec... It lets you run multiple sessions in one window, where each tab belongs to a specific session with separated cookies and such. I've got a bunch of tabs where I'm logged in to Facebook, another set where I'm logged in to Google and the rest of them where I'm not logged in to either. Of course they c…
Proper English should have been: "Facebook may track your browsing even after...". The judge can rule about lawfulness, otherwise it looks like they are a investigative reporter that just found out about the technical capability to track users in such a way.
That's not all. In NY state, they ruled that can artist can take pictures of you in your home through your windows: https://fstoppers.com/photojournalistic/supreme-court-rules-...
I don't see any problem with that. It's not like people should have exclusivity over who has access to the photons that hit them...
I have a few questions. 1) “Facebook’s intrusion could have easily been blocked, but plaintiffs chose not to do so,” This seems like a dangerous precedent. So if we can block surveillance attempts and we don't try, then it's our fault? > “The fact that a user’s web browser automatically sends the same information to both parties does not establish that one party intercepted the user’s communication with the other,” T…
Actually, the problem is [add: after the website is created, and tracking code is put there by someone] that it all happens automatically.
See, there is another perspective into this. Not exactly correct (I admit, there is some stretching and it's not all solid), but just the general idea...
The semi-forgotten term for the browser is user agent. Point is, it really should act on behalf of the user. It's an automation that should be programmed to do what the user wants it to do (browsing the web, displaying the pages, etc), sparing user of mundane choices and gory technical details.
If the agent is configured to willingly accept and execute arbitrary third-party instructions, and provide detailed information - and it can be configured differently - isn't the problem with the agent configuration? If you didn't want that GET request, why agent did it? And it's not that the agent was tricked (hacked) into doing so - all the APIs (cookies, XHR, etc) are well-documented. Sure, there is some shady stuff sometimes going on - like browser fingerprinting, but it's not the core issue.
Maybe we should actually start blaming browser vendors for shipping badly pre-configured software with the defaults that consciously and willingly trade privacy for "not breaking" the web?
Remove the automation and just imagine users themselves would somehow connect to the web, and the site would tell "hey, now go talk to Facebook server and do whatever they say" - and they do. (And this is what actually happens!) Surely, the tracking would be a non-issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This makes no sense. Nothing happens "automatically", someone wrote the code for that to happen, in this case, Facebook. The website you are visiting has to deploy Facebook's code though. So the website owner has to allow it (assuming the know the implications of what they are doing).
> So the website owner has to allow it (assuming the know the implications of what they are doing). You could assume it but it's not necessary the same people who designed the web page that add those facebok "features". From my impression, often than not you have some "social media marketing expert" that does this. And they do not give a rats ass about any nefarious tracking and will continue to be blissfully ignoran…
If they employ some "social media marketing expert" who deploys tracking code, then that's still on them.
Facebook is a company, a superfluous one even, no need is forcing you to use it and there is no need for it. Don't like the don't use it. Don't like tracking configure your browser accordingly and get a blocker. It's easy and free.
Firefox has a pretty neat feature I discovered recently: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Contextual_Identity_Projec... It lets you run multiple sessions in one window, where each tab belongs to a specific session with separated cookies and such. I've got a bunch of tabs where I'm logged in to Facebook, another set where I'm logged in to Google and the rest of them where I'm not logged in to either. Of course they c…
I feel like my Linux user agent is nearly trackable across IP addresses, so few people I know run Linux with Firefox version whatever... but yeah same here: cookies are a non-issue for me. I use a different solution though: self-destructing cookies. Once you closed a tab for more than X seconds (I configured 90 seconds I think), it deletes all cookies (and localstorage etc.) from that domain.
Just a warning: not if you have enabled multiprocessing.
SDC (and other similar addons) can't monitor LocalStorage when e10s is on, only cookies. (Source: "Frequently Asked Questions and Common Problems" at https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/self-destruct...)