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

Epic, The Privacy Browser

epicbrowser.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 130 posts

Re: Epic, The Privacy Browser

#91

Post by millstone »

kllrnohj wrote: post #54
hannibal5 wrote: post #50

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…

Google gives it to the government. Over 33k user accounts last year alone.

http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/

Re: Epic, The Privacy Browser

#92

Post by nrivadeneira »

alan_cx wrote: post #86
nrivadeneira wrote: post #11

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…

1) You data has value and it belongs to you. If it is taken with out permission, that is stealing. Bad thing. 2) Taking one cent from your back account every day wont make your day to day life worse. Day to day being worse is not a standard that is useful.

1) I don't agree with this. If I walk into (or around) a Best Buy and they capture my movement on a security camera, are they stealing from me? Technically, they are recording data of my movement. Also, stealing generally infers that the victim is left without the stolen item. That's why we don't call piracy stealing. So, if anything, trackers are 'pirating' my browsing information and possibly reselling it. Truthfully, I wasn't doing anything with that information before, so my life hasn't changed for better or worse because of this. No proof of bad thing here.

2) It is a useful standard. I avoid being nit-picky about the little things, and so I like to make a distinction between things that are worth worrying about. If ~$273 is taken from my bank account over my entire lifetime (based on average lifetime), I'm really not going to worry about it. If data tracking is on the same side of the distinction as taking 1 cent from my bank account, I'm fine with that.

Re: Epic, The Privacy Browser

#93

Post by nrivadeneira »

Zuider wrote: post #89
nrivadeneira wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have control of my browsing habits. That's my point - I'm not terribly worried about if companies see what I do, so it doesn't change my behavior. Thus, I don't see how this point shows that tracking makes my life worse.

>I'm not terribly worried about if companies see what I do, so it doesn't change my behavior. It sounds like you are saying: "I'm not doing anything wrong, so why do I need any privacy".

And if I am? Everyone has varying degrees of privacy preference. Who's to say that any end of the spectrum is wrong or right? Mine just happens to fall on the more liberal end.

Re: Epic, The Privacy Browser

#94

Post by user2 »

Companies are trying capture as much information about you as possibly by casting a wide net of "trackers".

The truth is companies don't know what to do with all of your data.

Re: Epic, The Privacy Browser

#95

Post by hannibal5 »

jbigelow76 wrote: post #87
hannibal5 wrote: post #50

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.

>For example: Google "lump in the testicles" and browse medical sites. Then wait one week and try to get mortgage or insurance. I'm calling bullshit on this one unless you can provide a concrete example.

http://verdict.justia.com/2012/01/03/will-insurers-begin-to-...

Re: Epic, The Privacy Browser

#96

Post by InXorWeTrust »

nrivadeneira wrote: post #93
Zuider wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm not terribly worried about if companies see what I do, so it doesn't change my behavior. It sounds like you are saying: "I'm not doing anything wrong, so why do I need any privacy".

And if I am? Everyone has varying degrees of privacy preference. Who's to say that any end of the spectrum is wrong or right? Mine just happens to fall on the more liberal end.

You're right, there is a spectrum of preference. But just because some are ok with it, doesn't mean all of us. Why encapsulate everyone under the same policy of track everything?

On the Do Not Track, I think turning it on by default is a bad idea. It gives companies no incentive to follow it and abide by it. (Yes, they have no reason to abide by it right now either). There is no law that says they have to abide by it, but it seems to me they might be more willing to abide by DNT if those that are tracking conscious were to turn it on, rather than it to be turned on by itself. They wouldn't lose as many people to track if it was opt in instead of opt out.

Re: Epic, The Privacy Browser

#97

Post by plg »

nrivadeneira wrote: post #11

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 I didn't consent to it.

Re: Epic, The Privacy Browser

#98

Post by autodidakto »

jfasi wrote: post #65

I find it a little suspicious that a browser that purports to be private gives a unique fingerprint on panopticlick... https://panopticlick.eff.org

It mentions fingerprinting as a threat, but doesn't do anything specific against it. Probably because no one is quite sure how to stop it. From the FAQ:

How does Epic protect against browser fingerprinting?

There is no agreed-upon way to prevent browser fingerprinting or device fingerprinting at this point. There are many fingerprinting techniques which a solution would need to protect against. While we are working on a more thorough solution [...]

I imagine it could send the default plugin/header/user agent of IE/Chrome/Firefox, or random stuff each time...

Re: Epic, The Privacy Browser

#99

Post by kllrnohj »

abraxasz wrote: post #74
kllrnohj wrote: post #54

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…

> 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.

1) Nobody really actually wants to buy that data in the first place. Companies that buy ads just want to sell you shit, they really, really don't care about you in the slightest. Sorry, but your personal information by itself isn't actually worth a damn thing. Hell, if companies were willing to pay for my browsing history I'd sell it to them myself.

2) Why on earth would Google sell one of its advantages? If Google sold data Facebook or Microsoft would buy all of it in a snap and Google would be screwed.

Re: Epic, The Privacy Browser

#100

Post by kllrnohj »

millstone wrote: post #91
kllrnohj wrote: post #54

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…

Google gives it to the government. Over 33k user accounts last year alone. http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/

s/gives/court ordered to produce/

And how is that relevant anyway? Do you think the government then turns around and hands it to other companies for shits and giggles?

Post reply on HN