21–30 of 98 posts
They should be sued for that. There is no way most customers are informed and intentionally consenting to them tampering with the HTTP requests they send to include their customer ID. The obvious expectation of a customer of an ISP is that it sends the data through unchanged.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Zombie cookies in particular are insidious -- while you are actively trying to conceal your identity by proactively deleting cookies or using incognito mode, your ISP re-adds them without your consent. This kind of aggressive and underhanded behavior should be shamed as it violates the trust that users have in their ISPs.
A lot of this came about because of the "war" on the 3rd party cookie which was unfairly demonized. I get why zombie cookies are bad as it takes control away, but what is the issue surrounding plain tracking of behaviours? So what if a company knows the history of sites you've visited - what does this do against you?
I could invent many hypotheticals in this vain but privacy is something worth protecting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Zombie cookies in particular are insidious -- while you are actively trying to conceal your identity by proactively deleting cookies or using incognito mode, your ISP re-adds them without your consent. This kind of aggressive and underhanded behavior should be shamed as it violates the trust that users have in their ISPs.
A lot of this came about because of the "war" on the 3rd party cookie which was unfairly demonized. I get why zombie cookies are bad as it takes control away, but what is the issue surrounding plain tracking of behaviours? So what if a company knows the history of sites you've visited - what does this do against you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Zombie cookies in particular are insidious -- while you are actively trying to conceal your identity by proactively deleting cookies or using incognito mode, your ISP re-adds them without your consent. This kind of aggressive and underhanded behavior should be shamed as it violates the trust that users have in their ISPs.
A lot of this came about because of the "war" on the 3rd party cookie which was unfairly demonized. I get why zombie cookies are bad as it takes control away, but what is the issue surrounding plain tracking of behaviours? So what if a company knows the history of sites you've visited - what does this do against you?
Apple's already shown they don't like this behaviour with their randomised MAC addresses in iOS 8+. Obviously what this article references is done at the carrier level, not on open wifi networks. I expect them to do something about this carrier-level behaviour next iOS. From a technical perspective, what could they do to prevent this?
... if indeed I'm getting any privacy in return. Which I'm not at all sure about.
"I think in some ways it’s more privacy protective because it’s all within one company,” said Verizon’s (chief privacy officer) Zacharia"
Good to know she's looking out for our interests.
What exactly is the big aversion to tracking? The vast majority has shown (via actions, not internet noise) that they don't care so what exactly is the big downside? Not arguing for/against, just want to know reasons beyond "i just dont like it".
Now, imagine that it's happening in China.
You don't have to. They're actively building it.
Advertisers in the US would kill to get that kind of an individualized profile. So would insurance companies, credit card issuers, etc.
How long before you employer demands access? Because guaranteed that someone in Congress would agree that it's a good idea.
How long before Homeland Security becomes interested?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's things like this that drive people to want HTTPS everywhere, but even that is subject to subterfuge when the provider inserts their own "trusted" certificates to proxy that traffic. There really should be provisions in the telecom bill that data traffic is to remain absolutely untouched. Just imagine phone calls where mentioning the word "pizza" would trigger an advertisement being injected into it.
HTTPS is just transit data, they don't need to see that. They can still tell the sites you've visited and really they just want to ID you and optionally make that ID available to others who pay/participate in data syncing.
What exactly is the big aversion to tracking? The vast majority has shown (via actions, not internet noise) that they don't care so what exactly is the big downside? Not arguing for/against, just want to know reasons beyond "i just dont like it".
The "internet noise" is everyone who actually understands what's going on, and is rightfully upset.