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

Facebook doesn't like privacy countermeasures

jwz.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 109 posts

Re: Facebook doesn't like privacy countermeasures

#91

Post by unfasten »

spc476 wrote: post #79
blahedo wrote: post #18

I'm glad this came up to make me think about it more; I'd already gotten in the habit of logging out of FB except when actively viewing the feed, for precisely this reason---I didn't want FB tracking me across browsing other sites. (The FB-hosted comment systems were actually the proximate worry, as well as the Like button.) But that was my half-thought-through answer. Of course they're perfectly able to track me eve…

I used to do that. I also started deleting any Facebook cookies before logging into Facebook, and after logging out of Facebook. I then realized that was stupid, because I have a static IP address (helps with my job, which requires remotely logging into servers). With Facebook cookies everywhere, you don't need to be logged in for them to track you. And in my case, even if I used a different browser for logging into…

>[...] and now, I see ads for casinos on about a third of the webpages I visit.

You should be able to remove that from your ad targeting here: http://www.google.com/ads/preferences/ It lists all the categories Google thinks you're interested in and allows you to add or remove categories.

Re: Facebook doesn't like privacy countermeasures

#92

Post by jaekwon »

It's the visitor's choice to visit a webpage. It's the developer's choice to choose widgets. Do you really think it's fair to say, "I want to use your widget, FB, which happens through your servers, and I want to use them my way without your consent." The default option (not choosing the widget) is always fair.

My point is that to make such widgets illegal, widgets that service three consenting parties, is completely retarded.

Re: Facebook doesn't like privacy countermeasures

#93

Post by jaekwon »

jaekwon wrote: post #92

It's the visitor's choice to visit a webpage. It's the developer's choice to choose widgets. Do you really think it's fair to say, "I want to use your widget, FB, which happens through your servers, and I want to use them my way without your consent." The default option (not choosing the widget) is always fair. My point is that to make such widgets illegal, widgets that service three consenting parties, is completely…

I take that back. If people don't understand the natural laws of the Internet, it may stand to reason that blocking widgets is a matter of national security.

However, I think a better approach is to educate each other on how the Internet works, so that blanket measures can be avoided.

Re: Facebook doesn't like privacy countermeasures

#94

Post by cpeterso »

rjd wrote: post #82
ristretto wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TBH, i would like to see all the like/+1/tweet/digg buttons gone, they are a big privacy hazard. This functionality should be included in the browser or available from extensions.

I use a few plugins to handle this, check out: http://www.ghostery.com/ http://open-bits.com/shellfish/ http://webgraph.com/resources/facebookblocker/ With ad block it cleans pages up like you wouldn't believe. Many sites actually become readable :O

What does Facebook Blocker do that Ghostery (combined with AdBlock Plus) doesn't? Are these redundant extensions?

Re: Facebook doesn't like privacy countermeasures

#95

Post by gurkendoktor »

jeza wrote: post #12

Apparently it's more of a copyright issue than the 2-click process. They don't like their logo being used on a locally hosted image. So heise.de made the button more generic and it's all good now.

Are you pointing out that this is what they are saying, or do you believe that? The worst thing that could happen before is that Facebook would change their CI and the button would be outdated, looking dated. Now the button looks crappy from the start.

Re: Facebook doesn't like privacy countermeasures

#96

Post by hollerith »

alexqgb wrote: post #44
_delirium wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To some extent, though we've been less active in doing anything about it. In part we tend to be less keen than Europeans on having the government regulate these kinds of things, but the various private-sector and non-profit initiatives (like TRUSTe) that are supposed to fill the gap have been fairly ineffectual.

Unlike Germans - who had the Statsi to contend with, and before that the SS - Americans have never been exposed to a genuine, law-unto-itself, every-phoneline-tapped, free-to-kidnap-torture-and-kill secret police force. One of the clearest lessons learned is that once these things take root, they are incredibly hard to dislodge. When they do go, it's only due to truly cataclysmic change. What naive Americans may rega…

You mean Gestapo, not SS.

Re: Facebook doesn't like privacy countermeasures

#97

Post by nikcub »

waqf wrote: post #52
nikcub wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am working on it here: http://www.github.com/nikcub/parley I will have a new version out at the end of this weekend I think it is time to kill all third-party requests. If you want to show users an ad, host it from your own server.

Thanks! The only reason I am still using Firefox instead of Chromium is the availability of RequestPolicy.

I have heard that a lot - which is why I want to get a release out asap

Re: Facebook doesn't like privacy countermeasures

#98

Post by rjd »

cpeterso wrote: post #94
rjd wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use a few plugins to handle this, check out: http://www.ghostery.com/ http://open-bits.com/shellfish/ http://webgraph.com/resources/facebookblocker/ With ad block it cleans pages up like you wouldn't believe. Many sites actually become readable :O

What does Facebook Blocker do that Ghostery (combined with AdBlock Plus) doesn't? Are these redundant extensions?

Probably, I just had a look what I was currently running and noted them down. Could probably do with uninstalling it ;)

Re: Facebook doesn't like privacy countermeasures

#99

Post by slowpoke »

cpeterso wrote: post #94
rjd wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use a few plugins to handle this, check out: http://www.ghostery.com/ http://open-bits.com/shellfish/ http://webgraph.com/resources/facebookblocker/ With ad block it cleans pages up like you wouldn't believe. Many sites actually become readable :O

What does Facebook Blocker do that Ghostery (combined with AdBlock Plus) doesn't? Are these redundant extensions?

Ghostery is a general tracker blocker. FBB only blocks, as the name implies, Facebook related stuff - at least that's what I infer from a quick skim through the description.

So, if you only want Facebook gone, by all means use FBB. If you don't want trackers in general (Google Analytics etc), use Ghostery.

Re: Facebook doesn't like privacy countermeasures

#100

Post by v21 »

orijing wrote: post #51
cletus wrote: post #35

This is a non-story for the reasons stated but a story for other reasons. It's standard that widget publishers require to use their widget "as is". That's basically what Facebook is saying. Not only do you not know what any custom modifications will necessarily do but it's a completely valid argument that you want a consistent user experience with your widget. As for user tracking, this is basically an inevitable byp…

> Facebook's track record seems to be to befuddle the user and trick or opt them into sharing things wider than they understand or want. Are you saying that the product designers at Facebook want to design interfaces and settings that intentionally confuse users into laxer privacy settings? Turning this discussion into a rather presumptuous smear at Facebook in the face of many privacy failures by Google is rather ch…

Google knows about my Twitter account because I gave them my homepage, which has semantic markup that exposes my FOAF data, linking to that account (and others). I was actually quite impressed by it...
Post reply on HN