71–80 of 130 posts
I want to know what's on sale at the nearest grocery store, and I wouldn't be too creeped out if you knew where I was geographically. But maybe that's just me.
I still can't figure out why my browsing data being sold is objectively a bad thing. I don't see how it makes my day-to-day worse in any way. There are plenty of smart people who feel that it's bad, so maybe I'm just missing something, and I'm open to sound logic that convinces me that it's going to make my life worse. Also, the example they make at the bottom asking the reader to imagine hundreds of people following…
Because it it gives companies advantage over you. For example banks and insurance companies want to know everything possible about you. So do potential employers. Profiling people and putting them into categories and calculating their risk profiles makes their position weaker. For example: Google "lump in the testicles" and browse medical sites. Then wait one week and try to get mortgage or insurance.
I still can't figure out why my browsing data being sold is objectively a bad thing. I don't see how it makes my day-to-day worse in any way. There are plenty of smart people who feel that it's bad, so maybe I'm just missing something, and I'm open to sound logic that convinces me that it's going to make my life worse. Also, the example they make at the bottom asking the reader to imagine hundreds of people following…
It's about control and regaining control of your browsing habits, namely giving users the capability of opting out of global surveillance networks. Many advertisers screamed (and are still screaming) bloody murder over Do Not Track settings being on by default, and this is a message to send to them: your screams are irrelevant and you have no right to track me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it it gives companies advantage over you. For example banks and insurance companies want to know everything possible about you. So do potential employers. Profiling people and putting them into categories and calculating their risk profiles makes their position weaker. For example: Google "lump in the testicles" and browse medical sites. Then wait one week and try to get mortgage or insurance.
Except companies like Mozilla and Google (even Microsoft) don't give that data to those companies, and have no incentive to do so. Indeed, to a company like Google that would be corporate suicide as it would undermine their main source of revenue. Google's money comes from being a middle man, they want to keep their competitive advantage (your data to target ads) secret more than you do. So your scenario doesn't exis…
2) "[they] have no incentive to do so". They have no incentive in trumpeting that they are doing it. But without having read their ToS, I'm sure they got that covered.
Of course this is pure speculation and I have exactly zero proof that this is the case. I would actually never have believed those claims 6 months ago, but today, I wouldn't be surprised.
I find it a little suspicious that a browser that purports to be private gives a unique fingerprint on panopticlick... https://panopticlick.eff.org
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except companies like Mozilla and Google (even Microsoft) don't give that data to those companies, and have no incentive to do so. Indeed, to a company like Google that would be corporate suicide as it would undermine their main source of revenue. Google's money comes from being a middle man, they want to keep their competitive advantage (your data to target ads) secret more than you do. So your scenario doesn't exis…
1) "Google [...] doesn't give that data to those companies". What about selling that data? That's in line with what you call "being a middle man" I think. 2) "[they] have no incentive to do so". They have no incentive in trumpeting that they are doing it. But without having read their ToS, I'm sure they got that covered. Of course this is pure speculation and I have exactly zero proof that this is the case. I would a…
As the person who originally replied to you mentioned: it'd be political suicide for Google to provide the information they use for their own ad targeting to others, even for a fee, beyond users' explicit consent. It'd also be business suicide, given that it would allow people to cut Google out of the loop, rather than using Google as the advertising platform.
cURL - the most secure way to browse the internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there any evidence that your example could impact somebody today? Sure, it's just a matter of the right (wrong) people connecting the dots... but is anyone currently doing that?
Isn't the fact that such a vulnerability exists reason enough to not allow it to happen? I mean, at that point, you're basically trusting the Bad Guys to not do bad things. Look at internet security circa late 1990's to get an idea of how that works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Additionally it's based on Chromium, so there's not much source code to hide as many of us have a good idea of what the source code would look like.
Coming soon!! Write us if you want to see anything now!!