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

Who wants to be tracked?

quantable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 273 posts

Re: Who wants to be tracked?

#251

Post by alkonaut »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #223

I'm more curious about the question of 'who wants free content'. Because that's really the question here. Would I prefer everything in my life was free with no strings attached? Obviously. But youtube/news/reddit/facebook/literally any website needs to make money somehow, and non tracked ads pay rediculously lower amounts(90+%). So the real question is, would you trade what is essentially anonymous tracking (literall…

I’m happy to enter any sort of transparent business transaction of information-for—content or money-for-content.

But that’s not what the adtech web is, and that’s why it needs to die.

I’d be absolutely delighted to see 99% of ad funded content and services wiped off the face of the web tomorrow, even if a lot of it is stuff I use and enjoy. Which is why I’m bullish on “nuclear options” for regulation such as binding DNT to GDPR, or making opt out default and not even allowing pop-up opt in, or suing a few large companies into bankruptcy for using consent dark pattens or other slight violations, just to make an example.

Because it’s not that ads would be banned by that. It’s tracking and micro targeted ads. And while ads may be necessary to provide “free” services, we need to get away from the idea that the only ads worth showing are ones with precise targeting and advance led fraud countermeasures.

Re: Who wants to be tracked?

#252

Post by jalk »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #250
reaperman wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of us remember when cookies were purely a utility-add for end users and were restricted only to the domain which set them. Thanks for inventing that.

Who can take credit for lifting that restriction. Some popular browsers are supposedly "open source" yet it appears no browser user longing for saner times has ever tried reversed this change and recompiling the browser for their own use. No third party cookies by default . The most fascinating thing IMO about so-called "modern" browsers is that even when their vendors publish source code, "99.9%" of people will not…

Seems a bit overkill to recompile to get "no third party cookies by default" when you can just open the settings and disable it when you first install the browser. The setting is kept between updates (in Firefox at least) and if you are paranoid you can always check with Dev tools or a dumping proxy that 3rd party cookies are still disabled after an update

Re: Who wants to be tracked?

#253

Post by ricktdotorg »

todd8 wrote: post #241
EvanAnderson wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to put my guess in as Tivoli.

Yes

i did a consulting gig rolling out Tivoli at Dell in the mid-90s, i think pre-IBM merger! loved the software, hated the [flat] network Dell had in Round Rock at the time! thanks for your detailed comment. love reading tech history stories.

Re: Who wants to be tracked?

#254

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

jalk wrote: post #252
1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who can take credit for lifting that restriction. Some popular browsers are supposedly "open source" yet it appears no browser user longing for saner times has ever tried reversed this change and recompiling the browser for their own use. No third party cookies by default . The most fascinating thing IMO about so-called "modern" browsers is that even when their vendors publish source code, "99.9%" of people will not…

Seems a bit overkill to recompile to get "no third party cookies by default" when you can just open the settings and disable it when you first install the browser. The setting is kept between updates (in Firefox at least) and if you are paranoid you can always check with Dev tools or a dumping proxy that 3rd party cookies are still disabled after an update

This undervalues convenience. The convenience of not having to worry about privacy-hostile default settings. Also, this will not work where the user is running applications from read-only media, or using something like "Guest mode" on a Chromebook where changes to settings are either not possible or ephemeral.

This sort of argument in defense of so-called "tech" company "default settings" shenanigans has been called out in recent litigation. Courts are becoming aware of the power and significance of "default settings".

It's this idea of "overkill", or other simialr rationales, that I am referring to in the original comment. Just enough "friction" to stop people from changing things. Not worth the trouble, people may think. And this works year after year. Amazing. Browser vendors were not the first in the computer industry to utilise this type of tactic, but it's a fine example.

Not sure who "you" refers to in the parent comment: me or a hypothetical person. If it's the former, I use a text-only browser that neither auto-load resources nor runs Javascript, along a localhost-bound proxy that strips or adds cookies. This is perfect for me. Both software I can change and quickly re-compile at any time. If it's the later, and "you" refers to a hypothetical person, then I cannot comment on behalf of such persons.

What I do know is that most users do not change default settings.

Re: Who wants to be tracked?

#255

Post by abdullahkhalids »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #250
reaperman wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of us remember when cookies were purely a utility-add for end users and were restricted only to the domain which set them. Thanks for inventing that.

Who can take credit for lifting that restriction. Some popular browsers are supposedly "open source" yet it appears no browser user longing for saner times has ever tried reversed this change and recompiling the browser for their own use. No third party cookies by default . The most fascinating thing IMO about so-called "modern" browsers is that even when their vendors publish source code, "99.9%" of people will not…

Firefox rolls out Total Cookie Protection by default to more users worldwide

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/firefox-rolls-out-total-...

Finally, just last month.

Re: Who wants to be tracked?

#256

Post by anecdotal1 »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #254
jalk wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems a bit overkill to recompile to get "no third party cookies by default" when you can just open the settings and disable it when you first install the browser. The setting is kept between updates (in Firefox at least) and if you are paranoid you can always check with Dev tools or a dumping proxy that 3rd party cookies are still disabled after an update

This undervalues convenience. The convenience of not having to worry about privacy-hostile default settings. Also, this will not work where the user is running applications from read-only media, or using something like "Guest mode" on a Chromebook where changes to settings are either not possible or ephemeral. This sort of argument in defense of so-called "tech" company "default settings" shenanigans has been called…

I think most will agree that we should focus on making browsers by default limit the amount of private and identifying information sent to anywhere that didn't explicitly get authorized for it.

Re: Who wants to be tracked?

#257

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

anecdotal1 wrote: post #256
1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This undervalues convenience. The convenience of not having to worry about privacy-hostile default settings. Also, this will not work where the user is running applications from read-only media, or using something like "Guest mode" on a Chromebook where changes to settings are either not possible or ephemeral. This sort of argument in defense of so-called "tech" company "default settings" shenanigans has been called…

I think most will agree that we should focus on making browsers by default limit the amount of private and identifying information sent to anywhere that didn't explicitly get authorized for it.

TBH, with today's web the only way I have found to limit the information sent is to either not use a browser to make HTTP requests (e.g., use TCP client instead) or use a browser that (a) does not auto-load resources, e.g., images, Javascript files, etc, and (b) does not run Javascript inside tags. Of course no other silly stuff like automatic "DNS prefetch" either. This way I know that the only information I am sending is the information I the web user actually sent, i.e., the HTTP request. Otherwise, there is no way to know what other HTTP requests will be made to accomplish auto-loading images, fonts, etc. or what other HTTP requests will be made by auto-loaded or inlined JS when the browser automatically runs it.

When the user types or clicks on https://hostx.com/1.htm, the user knows she has sent a request for filepath "/1.htm" at hostx.com. That's straightforward and easy to understand. Her intent is clear. She wants the file named "1.htm" from hostx.com.

However, what if she uses a browser that auto-loads remote files and auto-runs JS, and, e.g., the file 1.htm instricts the browser to auto-load the file "1.js", the browser automatically runs 1.js without any input from the user, and then 1.js makes more HTTP requests. Has the user "authorised" that information to be sent. Imagine she does not know the contents of file 1.js. How can she authorise sending information, i.e., an HTTP request, if she does not know what is the information, i.e., the request, and where it is being sent.

Re: Who wants to be tracked?

#258

Post by SanderNL »

mediascreen wrote: post #118
SanderNL wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get the feeling. But to make things very simple, it's again like law enforcement tracking everything you say and do. Let's say it's a single agency, with a single employee doing the tracking to keep it easy. How is that hurting you? How is your every movement being tracked by a single agency such an issue? They said they would keep it private, pinky promise.

Law enforcement tracking everyone can have serious and unintended consequences in away that a SaaS tracking visits are unlikely to have. An extreme case is on the other side, is to compare simple site limited tracking to a coffee shop being able to see who enters the door. Why should they track how I look and the way I'm dressed? Does it make service harder if you have to work blindfolded? Though luck, my privacy is…

“Unlikely” being the keyword here. I know it’s unlikely, but just the act of collecting all this data makes it dangerous. IMO the benefits are small compared to the longterm risks so I lean towards, don’t track, just deliver “good coffee”. No need for hyperoptimalization of the coffee experience.

In your example they are only looking. It would be different if they were recording their observations in a structured manner (aka cameras). Even writing it down by hand would raise flags, would it not? Sure, being a human means looking at me and my coffee to brew it, but recording everything I do in (semi)permanent storage? Is that human? Is that necessary to brew coffee?

Re: Who wants to be tracked?

#259

Post by avgcorrection »

todd8 wrote: post #191
dylan604 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great, so when time travel becomes a thing, I'll add you to the list of people to have a chat with about needing to envision longer term visions for how nefarious people can be. I love that at one point in a not so distant galaxy, er time, that there was a thing of innocence. Now, that innocence can no longer be tolerated and every new thing must have more time invested on how the new thing can be abused rather than…

Really? I didn't invent it for browsers, I invented it for distributed file systems before the "World Wide Web" had even been invented. You might as well have a talk with William Shockley or Vint Cerf.

- I invented cookies. They’re my baby.

- Why didn’t you have the foresight to predict that it could be used for what it is used for now?

- Whoah there. Kind of out of left field. I had nothing to do with WWW cookies.

?

Seems like you can just tell those friends that you invented the great-grandfather or the fifth cousin once removed on the uncle’s side to the modern cookie and be done with the conversation a lot quicker.

Re: Who wants to be tracked?

#260

Post by kuratkull »

kuschku wrote: post #23
kuratkull wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the best ones (as in actually working) is the browser addon: https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/

That doesn't turn them off, that just consents to everything, including types of tracking that cookie blockers can't get rid of. Please use consent-o-matic instead.

From their site: "In most cases, it just blocks or hides cookie related pop-ups. When it's needed for the website to work properly, it will automatically accept the cookie policy for you (sometimes it will accept all and sometimes only necessary cookie categories, depending on what's easier to do). It doesn't delete cookies."

I was assuming they do a lot more hiding (which means declining) than accepting (if at all in practice). Do you have more information about this?

Post reply on HN