191–200 of 208 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Several private windows share the cookies. Try logging into a website in a private window and open that website in another private window and you will be logged in.
In Chrome. Not in Safari.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you provide links? I only saw http://www.balough.com/internet-service-provider-must-disclo... in the case of an RIAA suit
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8500131 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but they can be trivially blocked or discarded. My main point is that no advanced fingerprinting tactics can be used so the simple means work in the case of most site-breaking things. Privacy Badger eats CDN cookies - that's actually one of its main features, so it will prevent this kind of thing quite nicely without breaking websites.
The vast majority of people correlate 1:1 with IP address alone, so I'm not sure how effective this is. Nonetheless, that's pretty cool.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but they can be trivially blocked or discarded. My main point is that no advanced fingerprinting tactics can be used so the simple means work in the case of most site-breaking things. Privacy Badger eats CDN cookies - that's actually one of its main features, so it will prevent this kind of thing quite nicely without breaking websites.
The vast majority of people correlate 1:1 with IP address alone, so I'm not sure how effective this is. Nonetheless, that's pretty cool.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a large number of people on Facebook that I interact with that I don't have email / sms / whatever for. There's also a non-negligible number that I'm happy interacting with on Facebook but not on anything more personal.
> There's a large number of people on Facebook that I interact with that I don't have email / sms / whatever for. You can ask said email/sms/whatever. If the communication matters, you should have them anyway. If not, then those persons are not that important. > There's a large number of people on Facebook that I interact with that I don't have email / sms / whatever for. There you go ! Here is one of the other reaso…
Oh, I'd agree they're "not that important" but that doesn't mean "...and therefore I should cut them out of my life."
> Not the "those people I can only reach through facebook" bullshit.
It's not "bullshit" just because you disagree.
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…
Users can easily block cookies themselves, but that is no excuse for the cookie intrusion, so every single website must display a pop-up warning that it uses cookies.
Imagine that: every single website you visit shows a pop-over or an extra top bar that you have to close. Every website.
That's the online life of the European netizen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think they were forced. Google is based in the U.S. where it is legal to photograph people in public, yet Google still blurs the faces of those on sidewalks. That and things like license plates seems to me to be them preemptively trying to appease privacy concerns so that support to censor them legally doesn't form.
I believe the principle of the expectation of privacy forced them to blur the faces.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe the principle of the expectation of privacy forced them to blur the faces.
Not in the US at least. Expectation of privacy is an element of the test for determining whether a government search subject to the Fourth Amendment has occurred. As such, it only applies to government actors, not private parties like Google. And in any case, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place such as a road.
http://www.detectiveservices.com/2012/02/state-by-state-reco...