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

Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector

themarkup.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 106 posts

Re: Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector

#81

Post by clairity »

ziml77 wrote: post #29
iruoy wrote: post #5

I tried some sites I thought might get a high score. Mostly news sites and webstores since they like to know a lot about you. Fox News [1] and Breitbart [2] got scarily high scores [1] https://themarkup.org/blacklight/?url=foxnews.com [2] https://themarkup.org/blacklight/?url=breitbart.com

First one I tried was https://themarkup.org/blacklight/?url=nytimes.com 12 trackers and 6 third-party cookies I'm surprised that they're not bad with tracking given how bad news sites tend to be. I thought maybe it could be explained by them being a paid site, but the WSJ is too and their analysis was abysmal with 32 trackers, 53 third-party cookies, fingerprinting, and session recording.

> "12 trackers and 6 third-party cookies ... they're not bad ..."

that's still bad, and nytimes uses a bunch of first-party tracking as well. it's just not as bad as the worst ones, but in no way should you excuse them for their own bad behavior.

Re: Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector

#82

Post by sandworm101 »

fxtentacle wrote: post #11

I feel like we should unify the copyright and privacy laws. If I copy a Disney movie without their knowledge and then extract value from it, for example by watching the movie without paying, everyone agrees that this is theft. And punishment is generally strong to excessive. If a website copies my private data without my knowledge or even after I decline permission by sending DNT headers, that is somehow considered c…

>> for example by watching the movie without paying, everyone agrees that this is theft.

No. Very few would equate this to theft, especially lawyers. There is even a debate to be had as to what "watching a movie" even means. How about a youtube review of the movie? What about a clip incorporated into something else? What about my IronMan costume for halloween? Intellectual property is not like land or objects. That is why it is subject to very special and very specific limitations on when and where it can be applied.

There are even a few disney movies that, soon, will be out of copyright. Steamboat Willy falls out in 2024. Superman in 2031. 'Sherlock Holmes' fell out of UK copyright in 2000, so too 'Gone With the Wind'. Brits can print those books all they want. Americans ... will have to wait a few decades. Copyright violates are a totally different game than traditional understandings of "theft".

Re: Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector

#83

Post by DanBC »

fxtentacle wrote: post #17
Semaphor wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> everyone agrees that this is theft No.

I'm not aware of any court case where downloading and watching movies without the rights owner's permission was considered OK. Instead, the downloader always had to pay a fine.

> Instead, the downloader always had to pay a fine.

No. In many places simple copyright violation is not a crime, and so there are no fines. The rights holders can sue for losses. But this isn't a criminal case between the state and an alleged criminal, it's a case between two citizens (although one of them may be a corporate person).

There are things that tip copyright violation into a criminal offence: doing it as part of business (selling the DVDs that you've downloaded), doing it so much it materially affects the rights holders.

Re: Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector

#84

Post by hinkley »

I forget sometimes how much happier I am in my philistine pig-ignorance of what really goes on.

The title reminds me of two things. The blacklight sketch on SNL where everything had gross stuff all over it, and a week ago when I was trying to figure out why a button on a website wasn't working in Firefox, and so I opened the network tab.

Every time I even moused over anything there were four network requests. To so many different origins. I did not want to see this (like the joke of turning your lights on in NYC so the roaches have a chance to scatter before you walk into the kitchen.) I kinda miss when we had a visual indicator that network traffic was going on. I might still not want to know but the social pressure of it would at least slow their roll a little bit. Maybe 1 request per mouseover.

Re: Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector

#85

Post by matkoniecz »

fxtentacle wrote: post #17
Semaphor wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> everyone agrees that this is theft No.

I'm not aware of any court case where downloading and watching movies without the rights owner's permission was considered OK. Instead, the downloader always had to pay a fine.

> I'm not aware of any court case where downloading and watching movies without the rights owner's permission was considered OK. Instead, the downloader always had to pay a fine.

In Poland downloading music, movies and images is legal. (software is treated specially and just downloading may be illegal)

And I suspect that "always" is untrue also after limiting to USA.

Re: Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector

#86

Post by ignoramous »

arp242 wrote: post #69
fxtentacle wrote: post #11

I feel like we should unify the copyright and privacy laws. If I copy a Disney movie without their knowledge and then extract value from it, for example by watching the movie without paying, everyone agrees that this is theft. And punishment is generally strong to excessive. If a website copies my private data without my knowledge or even after I decline permission by sending DNT headers, that is somehow considered c…

What is "private data"? Is your hair colour private data? Is the browser you use private data? Why? Or why not? Does it matter if I only record hair colour and the browser you use, or if I combine it with other data? These kind of things may sound okay superficially, but once you start defining things clearly in a way that can be incorporated in a workable law things get very hard very fast. Copyright, on the other h…

There are two different privacy issues at play.

1. You consent to being tracked in exchange for services consumed (Google Maps Navigation, for example).

2. You don't consent to it but you're still being tracked. Not only that, the data is then sold to any and every buyer. For example: https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2019/07/superhuman-i...

OP has problems with #2.

> Copyright, on the other hand, is much easier.

Sure, no reason why privacy can't be too. Here's a simple framework to think about Privacy online: Provide an opt-out for tracking, selling / sharing data etc etc.

Re: Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector

#87

Post by fxtentacle »

ignoramous wrote: post #86
arp242 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is "private data"? Is your hair colour private data? Is the browser you use private data? Why? Or why not? Does it matter if I only record hair colour and the browser you use, or if I combine it with other data? These kind of things may sound okay superficially, but once you start defining things clearly in a way that can be incorporated in a workable law things get very hard very fast. Copyright, on the other h…

There are two different privacy issues at play. 1. You consent to being tracked in exchange for services consumed (Google Maps Navigation, for example). 2. You don't consent to it but you're still being tracked. Not only that, the data is then sold to any and every buyer. For example: https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2019/07/superhuman-i... OP has problems with #2. > Copyright, on the other hand, is much easie…

Actuall, I feel most strongly about those cases where data about me is being saved and I don't even know about it. Because those data collectors who don't even dare to ask for permission are probably the worst ones.

Re: Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector

#88

Post by fxtentacle »

kube-system wrote: post #24
fxtentacle wrote: post #11

I feel like we should unify the copyright and privacy laws. If I copy a Disney movie without their knowledge and then extract value from it, for example by watching the movie without paying, everyone agrees that this is theft. And punishment is generally strong to excessive. If a website copies my private data without my knowledge or even after I decline permission by sending DNT headers, that is somehow considered c…

Copyright protects the creator of a work, not the subject of it. Additionally, it applies to creative works, not bare facts. The fact that "John Smith's IP address is 127.0.0.1" is neither creative, nor something John Smith created.

If I take a photograph of any part of reality, I have copyright on the image. I'd say most images contain not much more than a reproduction of reality.

If I type my name into a computer, isn't that a reproduction of reality just live a photograph of me would be?

And I agree with you that pure facts are not copyrightable, but how about Facebook making a guess that I like cats based on my previous click behavior? Isn't that an artistic interpretation of reality which should be copyrightable?

Re: Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector

#89

Post by chris_f »

Amorymeltzer wrote: post #73

As always, it is truly amazing that Wikipedia, a top-10 global website, has none of this stuff: https://themarkup.org/blacklight/?url=en.wikipedia.org

Another refreshing site is Craigslist: https://themarkup.org/blacklight/?url=craigslist.org

Re: Blacklight – A Real-Time Website Privacy Inspector

#90

Post by kube-system »

fxtentacle wrote: post #88
kube-system wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright protects the creator of a work, not the subject of it. Additionally, it applies to creative works, not bare facts. The fact that "John Smith's IP address is 127.0.0.1" is neither creative, nor something John Smith created.

If I take a photograph of any part of reality, I have copyright on the image. I'd say most images contain not much more than a reproduction of reality. If I type my name into a computer, isn't that a reproduction of reality just live a photograph of me would be? And I agree with you that pure facts are not copyrightable, but how about Facebook making a guess that I like cats based on my previous click behavior? Isn't…

Your name alone is a fact, and wouldn't be subject to copyright. For example, I can say "Donald Trump" in this comment without infringing on any copyright laws.

> how about Facebook making a guess that I like cats based on my previous click behavior? Isn't that an artistic interpretation of reality which should be copyrightable?

Once they record it somewhere, it is!

I'll give you an example:

Take for instance this string value: "fxtentacle is likes cats and I know it because he posted it on HN"

I have generated this string, and under US (and many other countries) copyright laws, I automatically own copyright to it, because it is my artistic interpretation of what I have observed.

You have no copyright to it, because it was my artistic interpretation, despite the fact that you are the subject of the art.

Post reply on HN