Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #54945 > unrolled thread
| Started by | John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-01-18 21:50 -0800 |
| Last post | 2014-01-20 14:57 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 93 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Being tracked on the web John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2014-01-18 21:50 -0800
Re: Being tracked on the web Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2014-01-18 22:27 -0800
Re: Being tracked on the web Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2014-01-19 00:09 -0800
Re: Being tracked on the web Joanna Shuttleworth <js@example.com> - 2014-01-19 09:58 +0000
Re: Being tracked on the web Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2014-01-19 12:17 -0800
Re: Being tracked on the web J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-01-19 04:59 -0500
Re: Being tracked on the web Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-19 19:30 +1300
Re: Being tracked on the web Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-01-19 15:32 -0600
Re: Being tracked on the web Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-20 13:12 +1300
Re: Being tracked on the web Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-20 00:14 +0000
Re: Being tracked on the web Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2014-01-19 19:12 -0800
Re: Being tracked on the web Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-20 18:15 +1300
Re: Being tracked on the web J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-01-20 00:29 -0500
Re: Being tracked on the web Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-20 19:14 +1300
Re: Being tracked on the web JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-20 01:25 -0500
Re: Being tracked on the web Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-21 09:13 +1300
Re: Being tracked on the web J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-01-20 15:22 -0500
Re: Being tracked on the web Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-21 13:25 +1300
Re: Being tracked on the web nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-20 19:28 -0500
Re: Being tracked on the web Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2014-01-20 18:13 -0800
Re: Being tracked on the web Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-21 16:29 +1300
Re: Being tracked on the web nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-21 00:10 -0500
Re: Being tracked on the web Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2014-01-20 22:57 -0800
Re: Being tracked on the web Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-22 09:12 +1300
Re: Being tracked on the web Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2014-01-21 23:13 -0800
Re: Being tracked on the web J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-01-20 21:51 -0500
Re: Being tracked on the web Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-21 16:33 +1300
Re: Being tracked on the web J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-01-20 22:48 -0500
Re: Being tracked on the web Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-21 18:43 +1300
Re: Being tracked on the web Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-21 18:56 +1300
Re: Being tracked on the web JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-21 01:10 -0500
Re: Being tracked on the web Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-21 19:35 +1300
Re: Being tracked on the web J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-01-21 03:29 -0500
Re: Being tracked on the web Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-22 09:11 +1300
Re: Being tracked on the web J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-01-21 16:13 -0500
Re: Being tracked on the web Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-22 13:14 +1300
Re: Being tracked on the web Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-21 21:22 +0000
Re: Being tracked on the web J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-01-21 16:22 -0500
Re: Being tracked on the web Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-22 13:14 +1300
Re: Being tracked on the web J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-01-21 19:40 -0500
Re: Being tracked on the web Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-22 16:53 +1300
Re: Being tracked on the web Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-22 16:30 +0000
Re: Being tracked on the web JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-21 23:48 -0500
Re: Being tracked on the web Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-22 18:11 +1300
Re: Being tracked on the web Tom Stiller <clusterfux.upmon@gmail.com> - 2014-01-22 13:21 +0000
Re: Being tracked on the web Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-23 08:56 +1300
Re: Being tracked on the web Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-22 12:35 -0800
Re: Being tracked on the web Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-22 22:24 +0000
Re: Being tracked on the web J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-01-22 17:47 -0500
Re: Being tracked on the web Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-23 13:02 +1300
Re: Being tracked on the web Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-01-22 19:45 -0800
Re: Being tracked on the web Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-23 18:19 +1300
Re: Being tracked on the web JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-22 23:34 -0500
Re: Being tracked on the web Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-23 18:26 +1300
Re: Being tracked on the web Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-23 12:35 +0000
Re: Being tracked on the web Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2014-01-23 05:48 -0800
Re: Being tracked on the web JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-22 16:09 -0500
Re: Being tracked on the web Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-23 13:08 +1300
Re: Being tracked on the web JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-22 23:37 -0500
Re: Being tracked on the web Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-23 18:24 +1300
Re: Being tracked on the web JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-23 01:04 -0500
Re: Being tracked on the web Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-23 19:15 +1300
Re: Being tracked on the web J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-01-23 03:16 -0500
Re: Being tracked on the web Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-22 22:19 +0000
Re: Being tracked on the web Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-23 02:15 +0000
Re: Being tracked on the web Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-22 18:16 +1300
Re: Being tracked on the web "Thomas R. Kettler" <tkettler@blownfuse.net> - 2014-01-22 09:43 -0500
Re: Being tracked on the web J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-01-21 17:22 -0500
Re: Being tracked on the web Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-22 13:14 +1300
Re: Being tracked on the web JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-20 23:25 -0500
Re: Being tracked on the web nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-21 00:10 -0500
Re: Being tracked on the web Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2014-01-20 16:10 -0800
Re: Being tracked on the web Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-21 16:34 +1300
Re: Being tracked on the web JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-20 23:36 -0500
Re: Being tracked on the web Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-21 18:48 +1300
Re: Being tracked on the web nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-21 00:10 -0500
Re: Being tracked on the web JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-21 00:56 -0500
Re: Being tracked on the web JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-19 03:37 -0500
Re: Being tracked on the web dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-01-19 20:25 +1100
Re: Being tracked on the web Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-01-19 14:20 -0500
Re: Being tracked on the web Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2014-01-19 12:26 -0800
Re: Being tracked on the web Tom Stiller <clusterfux.upmon@gmail.com> - 2014-01-19 13:27 +0000
Re: Being tracked on the web Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-01-19 11:02 -0500
Re: Being tracked on the web me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-01-19 16:08 +0000
Re: Being tracked on the web John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2014-01-19 08:24 -0800
Re: Being tracked on the web Earl Grey <earl@t.net> - 2014-01-19 12:43 -0500
Re: Being tracked on the web Joe Wolf Dee <joedid@email.com> - 2014-01-19 12:46 -0500
Re: Being tracked on the web Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-19 18:54 +0000
Re: Being tracked on the web J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-01-19 18:06 -0500
Re: Being tracked on the web Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-20 00:03 +0000
Re: Being tracked on the web John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2014-01-19 13:49 -0500
Re: Being tracked on the web J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-01-19 18:12 -0500
Re: Being tracked on the web John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2014-01-20 14:57 -0500
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-21 16:29 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <210120141629199523%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #55125 |
In article <mcmurtrie-68441A.18133120012014@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>, Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> wrote: > In article <210120141325599944%YourName@YourISP.com>, > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > > In article <lbk0j3$sru$1@dont-email.me>, J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> > > wrote: > > > On 1/20/14, 3:13 PM, Your Name wrote: > > > > > > > > As always, most of the misinformation spread about "privacy being > > > > invaded" is done so solely by the moronic tin-foil hat nutters. > > > > > > Like the NYT? Epic quotes them, saying tracking data is merged with > > > personal data and sold to employers and insurance companies, among others. > > > http://www.epicbrowser.com/#two > > > > Someone who "sells" a supposedly secure browser is telling you lies and > > misinformation to help promote their own product. Wow, who'd have thunk > > it. What a shocking surprise. :-\ > > > > Simple fact: You do a Google search - Google doesn't have any personal > > detaiils about you to pass on, even if they wanted to. At best they > > have your IP address and what you search for or clicked on. > > > > Somewhere like Amazon will have personal details if you sign up for an > > account, but then that's no different to signing up for an account with > > any real world store, bank account, credit card, etc., etc., etc. > > Ha, you have no idea how many tracking companies Google owns and how > much data is sent to tracking companies when you log into any site. > Your tracking will be re-associated with your identity even if you clear > cookies. I bet even your bank tells Google who you are. > > Try browsing pages for an unusual product. Now see how many web sites > advertise related products. But that's not even remotely tracking *YOU* personally. It doesn't have a clue who you are or where you are (other than vaguely what IP address it thinks you're using). It's simply seeing what you searched for and showing simlar things. If you use a different computer, you won't see those same adverts. If you use a public computer, for example in a library, you'll see adverts for things previous uers have searched for. Google does not and cannot know who you are personally ... the exception posibly being when you are logged into your own Google account (for GMail, Google Groups, etc.), and the fix is easy: click LOGOUT. :-\
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-21 00:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <210120140010312140%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55129 |
In article <210120141629199523%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > > > Simple fact: You do a Google search - Google doesn't have any personal > > > detaiils about you to pass on, even if they wanted to. At best they > > > have your IP address and what you search for or clicked on. > > > > > > Somewhere like Amazon will have personal details if you sign up for an > > > account, but then that's no different to signing up for an account with > > > any real world store, bank account, credit card, etc., etc., etc. > > > > Ha, you have no idea how many tracking companies Google owns and how > > much data is sent to tracking companies when you log into any site. > > Your tracking will be re-associated with your identity even if you clear > > cookies. I bet even your bank tells Google who you are. > > > > Try browsing pages for an unusual product. Now see how many web sites > > advertise related products. > > But that's not even remotely tracking *YOU* personally. It doesn't have > a clue who you are or where you are (other than vaguely what IP address > it thinks you're using). It's simply seeing what you searched for and > showing simlar things. If you use a different computer, you won't see > those same adverts. If you use a public computer, for example in a > library, you'll see adverts for things previous uers have searched for. > > Google does not and cannot know who you are personally ... the > exception posibly being when you are logged into your own Google > account (for GMail, Google Groups, etc.), and the fix is easy: click > LOGOUT. :-\ they can easily figure it out, unless you've never given your name to *any* site, ever.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-20 22:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <mcmurtrie-B7BA88.22572120012014@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au> |
| In reply to | #55129 |
In article <210120141629199523%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > In article > <mcmurtrie-68441A.18133120012014@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>, > Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> wrote: > > In article <210120141325599944%YourName@YourISP.com>, > > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > > > In article <lbk0j3$sru$1@dont-email.me>, J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> > > > wrote: > > > > On 1/20/14, 3:13 PM, Your Name wrote: > > > > > > > > > > As always, most of the misinformation spread about "privacy being > > > > > invaded" is done so solely by the moronic tin-foil hat nutters. > > > > > > > > Like the NYT? Epic quotes them, saying tracking data is merged with > > > > personal data and sold to employers and insurance companies, among > > > > others. > > > > http://www.epicbrowser.com/#two > > > > > > Someone who "sells" a supposedly secure browser is telling you lies and > > > misinformation to help promote their own product. Wow, who'd have thunk > > > it. What a shocking surprise. :-\ > > > > > > Simple fact: You do a Google search - Google doesn't have any personal > > > detaiils about you to pass on, even if they wanted to. At best they > > > have your IP address and what you search for or clicked on. > > > > > > Somewhere like Amazon will have personal details if you sign up for an > > > account, but then that's no different to signing up for an account with > > > any real world store, bank account, credit card, etc., etc., etc. > > > > Ha, you have no idea how many tracking companies Google owns and how > > much data is sent to tracking companies when you log into any site. > > Your tracking will be re-associated with your identity even if you clear > > cookies. I bet even your bank tells Google who you are. > > > > Try browsing pages for an unusual product. Now see how many web sites > > advertise related products. > > But that's not even remotely tracking *YOU* personally. It doesn't have > a clue who you are or where you are (other than vaguely what IP address > it thinks you're using). It's simply seeing what you searched for and > showing simlar things. If you use a different computer, you won't see > those same adverts. If you use a public computer, for example in a > library, you'll see adverts for things previous uers have searched for. > > Google does not and cannot know who you are personally ... the > exception posibly being when you are logged into your own Google > account (for GMail, Google Groups, etc.), and the fix is easy: click > LOGOUT. :-\ Like I said, you have no idea how many web sites provide your exact identity to Google. Google will help you analyze your site if you give them customer data. A zillion other web sites are probably doing it by accident by putting customer information in the URL where scripts can see it. Your bank or favorite online shop is probably telling Google who you are when you log in. At that moment, data collected while you had an anonymous cookie is merged into your profile.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-22 09:12 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <220120140912189625%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #55151 |
In article <mcmurtrie-B7BA88.22572120012014@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>, Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> wrote: > > Like I said, you have no idea how many web sites provide your exact > identity to Google. Google will help you analyze your site if you give > them customer data. A zillion other web sites are probably doing it by > accident by putting customer information in the URL where scripts can > see it. Your bank or favorite online shop is probably telling Google > who you are when you log in. At that moment, data collected while you > had an anonymous cookie is merged into your profile. The queue for tin-foil hats and back-woods cabins with no electricity starts over there ... just past the flock of levitating porcines. :-\
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-21 23:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <mcmurtrie-FCAB51.23131221012014@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au> |
| In reply to | #55168 |
In article <220120140912189625%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > In article > <mcmurtrie-B7BA88.22572120012014@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>, > Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> wrote: > > > > Like I said, you have no idea how many web sites provide your exact > > identity to Google. Google will help you analyze your site if you give > > them customer data. A zillion other web sites are probably doing it by > > accident by putting customer information in the URL where scripts can > > see it. Your bank or favorite online shop is probably telling Google > > who you are when you log in. At that moment, data collected while you > > had an anonymous cookie is merged into your profile. > > The queue for tin-foil hats and back-woods cabins with no electricity > starts over there ... just past the flock of levitating porcines. :-\ OK, whatever. It's not like you've had a CEO of failing dot-com or two screaming at you, demanding that you do something very illegal with personal information for millions of people to make a quick buck.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-20 21:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <lbknaq$m9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55109 |
On 1/20/14, 7:25 PM, Your Name wrote: > In article <lbk0j3$sru$1@dont-email.me>, J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> > wrote: >> On 1/20/14, 3:13 PM, Your Name wrote: >>> >>> As always, most of the misinformation spread about "privacy being >>> invaded" is done so solely by the moronic tin-foil hat nutters. >> >> Like the NYT? Epic quotes them, saying tracking data is merged with >> personal data and sold to employers and insurance companies, among others. >> http://www.epicbrowser.com/#two > > Someone who "sells" a supposedly secure browser is telling you lies and > misinformation to help promote their own product. Wow, who'd have thunk > it. What a shocking surprise. :-\ > The NYT is part of the conspiracy? I'm going to have to start wearing a tinfoil hat. What brand do you recommend?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-21 16:33 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <210120141633073168%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #55128 |
In article <lbknaq$m9$1@dont-email.me>, J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> wrote: > On 1/20/14, 7:25 PM, Your Name wrote: > > In article <lbk0j3$sru$1@dont-email.me>, J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> > > wrote: > >> On 1/20/14, 3:13 PM, Your Name wrote: > >>> > >>> As always, most of the misinformation spread about "privacy being > >>> invaded" is done so solely by the moronic tin-foil hat nutters. > >> > >> Like the NYT? Epic quotes them, saying tracking data is merged with > >> personal data and sold to employers and insurance companies, among others. > >> http://www.epicbrowser.com/#two > > > > Someone who "sells" a supposedly secure browser is telling you lies and > > misinformation to help promote their own product. Wow, who'd have thunk > > it. What a shocking surprise. :-\ > > The NYT is part of the conspiracy? I'm going to have to start wearing a > tinfoil hat. What brand do you recommend? You're assuming that the quote is legitimate and not being misused out of context, and that the NYT writer wasn't themselves a tin-foil hat looney.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-20 22:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <lbkqn5$eul$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55130 |
On 1/20/14, 10:33 PM, Your Name wrote: > In article <lbknaq$m9$1@dont-email.me>, J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> > wrote: >> On 1/20/14, 7:25 PM, Your Name wrote: >>> In article <lbk0j3$sru$1@dont-email.me>, J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> >>> wrote: >>>> On 1/20/14, 3:13 PM, Your Name wrote: >>>>> >>>>> As always, most of the misinformation spread about "privacy being >>>>> invaded" is done so solely by the moronic tin-foil hat nutters. >>>> >>>> Like the NYT? Epic quotes them, saying tracking data is merged with >>>> personal data and sold to employers and insurance companies, among others. >>>> http://www.epicbrowser.com/#two >>> >>> Someone who "sells" a supposedly secure browser is telling you lies and >>> misinformation to help promote their own product. Wow, who'd have thunk >>> it. What a shocking surprise. :-\ >> >> The NYT is part of the conspiracy? I'm going to have to start wearing a >> tinfoil hat. What brand do you recommend? > > You're assuming that the quote is legitimate and not being misused out > of context, and that the NYT writer wasn't themselves a tin-foil hat > looney. > They put quotation marks around the NYT quotes. Huffington Post says the NYT privacy policy says they will sell the user's name and address along with other user data. The NYT sets a lot of tracking cookies. That's one way to connect browsing with personal identification. Any site that gets your name could do that even if they said they wouldn't. Privacy policies can change.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-21 18:43 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <210120141843015771%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #55135 |
In article <lbkqn5$eul$1@dont-email.me>, J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> wrote: > On 1/20/14, 10:33 PM, Your Name wrote: > > In article <lbknaq$m9$1@dont-email.me>, J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> > > wrote: > >> On 1/20/14, 7:25 PM, Your Name wrote: > >>> In article <lbk0j3$sru$1@dont-email.me>, J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>> On 1/20/14, 3:13 PM, Your Name wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> As always, most of the misinformation spread about "privacy being > >>>>> invaded" is done so solely by the moronic tin-foil hat nutters. > >>>> > >>>> Like the NYT? Epic quotes them, saying tracking data is merged with > >>>> personal data and sold to employers and insurance companies, among > >>>> others. > >>>> http://www.epicbrowser.com/#two > >>> > >>> Someone who "sells" a supposedly secure browser is telling you lies and > >>> misinformation to help promote their own product. Wow, who'd have thunk > >>> it. What a shocking surprise. :-\ > >> > >> The NYT is part of the conspiracy? I'm going to have to start wearing a > >> tinfoil hat. What brand do you recommend? > > > > You're assuming that the quote is legitimate and not being misused out > > of context, and that the NYT writer wasn't themselves a tin-foil hat > > looney. > > They put quotation marks around the NYT quotes. <snip> Woop-de-doo ... quotation marks ... well that proves it's true. :-\ By the way: "Americans are idiots," says J Burns It must be true, it's got quotation marks around it. Half the advertising you see is made-up crap by a marketing department, or trimmed / out of context quotes to fool people. For example, late last year there was a lot of complaints from New Zealand celebrities because their images were being used in Facebook adverts for products they had never even heard of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-21 18:56 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <210120141856153392%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #55135 |
In article <lbkqn5$eul$1@dont-email.me>, J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> wrote: > On 1/20/14, 10:33 PM, Your Name wrote: > > In article <lbknaq$m9$1@dont-email.me>, J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> > > wrote: > >> On 1/20/14, 7:25 PM, Your Name wrote: > >>> In article <lbk0j3$sru$1@dont-email.me>, J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>> On 1/20/14, 3:13 PM, Your Name wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> As always, most of the misinformation spread about "privacy being > >>>>> invaded" is done so solely by the moronic tin-foil hat nutters. > >>>> > >>>> Like the NYT? Epic quotes them, saying tracking data is merged with > >>>> personal data and sold to employers and insurance companies, among > >>>> others. > >>>> http://www.epicbrowser.com/#two > >>> > >>> Someone who "sells" a supposedly secure browser is telling you lies and > >>> misinformation to help promote their own product. Wow, who'd have thunk > >>> it. What a shocking surprise. :-\ > >> > >> The NYT is part of the conspiracy? I'm going to have to start wearing a > >> tinfoil hat. What brand do you recommend? > > > > You're assuming that the quote is legitimate and not being misused out > > of context, and that the NYT writer wasn't themselves a tin-foil hat > > looney. > > They put quotation marks around the NYT quotes. Huffington Post says > the NYT privacy policy says they will sell the user's name and address > along with other user data. The NYT sets a lot of tracking cookies. > That's one way to connect browsing with personal identification. Any > site that gets your name could do that even if they said they wouldn't. > Privacy policies can change. Simply visiting the NYT website (or Google, nor *any* other website) doesn't give them any personal details, unless you actually login to an account, in which case you already gave them your details. Websites cannot get your personal details from cookies. If you set-up and account, then, whether you not you bothered to read it all, you agreed to the terms and conditions, including their privacy policy. The simple answer is usually to just make sure you logout of the account.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-21 01:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <52de0f3a$0$17142$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #55147 |
On 14-01-21 00:56, Your Name wrote: > Simply visiting the NYT website (or Google, nor *any* other website) > doesn't give them any personal details, unless you actually login to an > account, in which case you already gave them your details. Websites > cannot get your personal details from cookies. If NYT uses Google to place ads, then when you access NYT, there is a transaction that goes to Google to fill an iframe with an ad. That transaction contains a google cookie that identifies "you", so that Google then serves ads that apply to "you" based on all of your browsing history google has accumulated from you. If you are a registered subscriber to NYT, that transaction that goes to google may also include some reference to your NYT subscription, but likely not identifiable by Google. Google may not be able to put a name to "you", but they don't need to, because the cookies allow them to track "you" by a number/ID. This type of stuff is not new. In the 1980s, Readers' Digest did the same. They would track your purchases of various magazines/books and mail you offers that were targetted at their interpretation of your needs/interests. (and yes, they would purchase history and mailing lists for one time use from other companies, and send those people an irrestible offer (such as sweepstakes) . Once these people responded, their name/address became part of the Readers Digest own mailing list.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-21 19:35 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <210120141935083395%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #55149 |
In article <52de0f3a$0$17142$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 14-01-21 00:56, Your Name wrote: > > > Simply visiting the NYT website (or Google, nor *any* other website) > > doesn't give them any personal details, unless you actually login to an > > account, in which case you already gave them your details. Websites > > cannot get your personal details from cookies. > > > If NYT uses Google to place ads, then when you access NYT, there is a > transaction that goes to Google to fill an iframe with an ad. That > transaction contains a google cookie that identifies "you", so that > Google then serves ads that apply to "you" based on all of your browsing > history google has accumulated from you. No, it "identifies" (in the very vaguest sense of the word) your device ... or more precisely what you device has been doing. > If you are a registered subscriber to NYT, that transaction that goes to > google may also include some reference to your NYT subscription, but > likely not identifiable by Google. > > Google may not be able to put a name to "you", but they don't need to, > because the cookies allow them to track "you" by a number/ID. Nope, they are following what is being done on the device ... if that device is used by multiple people, then obviously it can't be tracking "you". If you use a computer in the library, then you may well get adverts for poodles because the previous person was looking for information on poodles. Which is still beside the point that "you" are not tracked individually, nor are you individually identifiable, and nor is any personal data being obtained nor sold to anyone else ... such things are simply a load of nonsense and scare tactics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-21 03:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <lblb5a$lln$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55150 |
On 1/21/14, 1:35 AM, Your Name wrote: > In article <52de0f3a$0$17142$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com>, JF > Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > >> Google may not be able to put a name to "you", but they don't need to, >> because the cookies allow them to track "you" by a number/ID. > > Nope, they are following what is being done on the device ... if that > device is used by multiple people, then obviously it can't be tracking > "you". If you use a computer in the library, then you may well get > adverts for poodles because the previous person was looking for > information on poodles. > > Which is still beside the point that "you" are not tracked > individually, nor are you individually identifiable, and nor is any > personal data being obtained nor sold to anyone else ... such things > are simply a load of nonsense and scare tactics. > Wikipedia says the internet has made it easier to collect PII through breaches in internet security, network security, and web browser security, leading to a profitable market. If you have a social networking page, your browser's referrer header could make your name available. If any site has your name, I imagine there could be a way for a snoop to get your name and tie it to your browsing. Not long ago, it was discovered that snoops were extracting browsing histories from some browsers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-22 09:11 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <220120140911336957%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #55152 |
In article <lblb5a$lln$1@dont-email.me>, J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> wrote: > On 1/21/14, 1:35 AM, Your Name wrote: > > In article <52de0f3a$0$17142$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com>, JF > > Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > > >> Google may not be able to put a name to "you", but they don't need to, > >> because the cookies allow them to track "you" by a number/ID. > > > > Nope, they are following what is being done on the device ... if that > > device is used by multiple people, then obviously it can't be tracking > > "you". If you use a computer in the library, then you may well get > > adverts for poodles because the previous person was looking for > > information on poodles. > > > > Which is still beside the point that "you" are not tracked > > individually, nor are you individually identifiable, and nor is any > > personal data being obtained nor sold to anyone else ... such things > > are simply a load of nonsense and scare tactics. > > > Wikipedia says the internet has made it easier to collect PII through > breaches in internet security, network security, and web browser > security, leading to a profitable market. > > If you have a social networking page, your browser's referrer header > could make your name available. If any site has your name, I imagine > there could be a way for a snoop to get your name and tie it to your > browsing. Not long ago, it was discovered that snoops were extracting > browsing histories from some browsers. The queue for tin-foil hats and back-woods cabins with no electricity starts over there ... just past the flock of levitating porcines. :-\
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-21 16:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <lbmnuo$lu8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55167 |
On 1/21/14, 3:11 PM, Your Name wrote: > In article <lblb5a$lln$1@dont-email.me>, J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> > wrote: >> On 1/21/14, 1:35 AM, Your Name wrote: >>> In article <52de0f3a$0$17142$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com>, JF >>> Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >>> >>>> Google may not be able to put a name to "you", but they don't need to, >>>> because the cookies allow them to track "you" by a number/ID. >>> >>> Nope, they are following what is being done on the device ... if that >>> device is used by multiple people, then obviously it can't be tracking >>> "you". If you use a computer in the library, then you may well get >>> adverts for poodles because the previous person was looking for >>> information on poodles. >>> >>> Which is still beside the point that "you" are not tracked >>> individually, nor are you individually identifiable, and nor is any >>> personal data being obtained nor sold to anyone else ... such things >>> are simply a load of nonsense and scare tactics. >>> >> Wikipedia says the internet has made it easier to collect PII through >> breaches in internet security, network security, and web browser >> security, leading to a profitable market. >> >> If you have a social networking page, your browser's referrer header >> could make your name available. If any site has your name, I imagine >> there could be a way for a snoop to get your name and tie it to your >> browsing. Not long ago, it was discovered that snoops were extracting >> browsing histories from some browsers. > > The queue for tin-foil hats and back-woods cabins with no electricity > starts over there ... just past the flock of levitating porcines. :-\ > http://www2.research.att.com/~bala/papers/wosn09.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-22 13:14 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <220120141314327878%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #55172 |
In article <lbmnuo$lu8$1@dont-email.me>, J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> wrote: > On 1/21/14, 3:11 PM, Your Name wrote: > > In article <lblb5a$lln$1@dont-email.me>, J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> > > wrote: > >> On 1/21/14, 1:35 AM, Your Name wrote: > >>> In article <52de0f3a$0$17142$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com>, JF > >>> Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Google may not be able to put a name to "you", but they don't need to, > >>>> because the cookies allow them to track "you" by a number/ID. > >>> > >>> Nope, they are following what is being done on the device ... if that > >>> device is used by multiple people, then obviously it can't be tracking > >>> "you". If you use a computer in the library, then you may well get > >>> adverts for poodles because the previous person was looking for > >>> information on poodles. > >>> > >>> Which is still beside the point that "you" are not tracked > >>> individually, nor are you individually identifiable, and nor is any > >>> personal data being obtained nor sold to anyone else ... such things > >>> are simply a load of nonsense and scare tactics. > >>> > >> Wikipedia says the internet has made it easier to collect PII through > >> breaches in internet security, network security, and web browser > >> security, leading to a profitable market. > >> > >> If you have a social networking page, your browser's referrer header > >> could make your name available. If any site has your name, I imagine > >> there could be a way for a snoop to get your name and tie it to your > >> browsing. Not long ago, it was discovered that snoops were extracting > >> browsing histories from some browsers. > > > > The queue for tin-foil hats and back-woods cabins with no electricity > > starts over there ... just past the flock of levitating porcines. :-\ > > > http://www2.research.att.com/~bala/papers/wosn09.pdf The queue for tin-foil hats and back-woods cabins with no electricity starts over there ... just past the flock of levitating porcines. :-\
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-21 21:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bk86o3FnphcU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55167 |
On 2014-01-21, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > In article <lblb5a$lln$1@dont-email.me>, J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> > wrote: >> On 1/21/14, 1:35 AM, Your Name wrote: >> > In article <52de0f3a$0$17142$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com>, JF >> > Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >> > >> >> Google may not be able to put a name to "you", but they don't need to, >> >> because the cookies allow them to track "you" by a number/ID. >> > >> > Nope, they are following what is being done on the device ... if that >> > device is used by multiple people, then obviously it can't be tracking >> > "you". If you use a computer in the library, then you may well get >> > adverts for poodles because the previous person was looking for >> > information on poodles. >> > >> > Which is still beside the point that "you" are not tracked >> > individually, nor are you individually identifiable, and nor is any >> > personal data being obtained nor sold to anyone else ... such things >> > are simply a load of nonsense and scare tactics. >> > >> Wikipedia says the internet has made it easier to collect PII through >> breaches in internet security, network security, and web browser >> security, leading to a profitable market. >> >> If you have a social networking page, your browser's referrer header >> could make your name available. If any site has your name, I imagine >> there could be a way for a snoop to get your name and tie it to your >> browsing. Not long ago, it was discovered that snoops were extracting >> browsing histories from some browsers. > > The queue for tin-foil hats and back-woods cabins with no electricity > starts over there ... just past the flock of levitating porcines. :-\ Keep that head firmly buried in the sand! -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-21 16:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <lbmoeh$oo5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55167 |
On 1/21/14, 3:11 PM, Your Name wrote: > In article <lblb5a$lln$1@dont-email.me>, J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> > wrote: >> On 1/21/14, 1:35 AM, Your Name wrote: >>> In article <52de0f3a$0$17142$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com>, JF >>> Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >>> >>>> Google may not be able to put a name to "you", but they don't need to, >>>> because the cookies allow them to track "you" by a number/ID. >>> >>> Nope, they are following what is being done on the device ... if that >>> device is used by multiple people, then obviously it can't be tracking >>> "you". If you use a computer in the library, then you may well get >>> adverts for poodles because the previous person was looking for >>> information on poodles. >>> >>> Which is still beside the point that "you" are not tracked >>> individually, nor are you individually identifiable, and nor is any >>> personal data being obtained nor sold to anyone else ... such things >>> are simply a load of nonsense and scare tactics. >>> >> Wikipedia says the internet has made it easier to collect PII through >> breaches in internet security, network security, and web browser >> security, leading to a profitable market. >> >> If you have a social networking page, your browser's referrer header >> could make your name available. If any site has your name, I imagine >> there could be a way for a snoop to get your name and tie it to your >> browsing. Not long ago, it was discovered that snoops were extracting >> browsing histories from some browsers. > > The queue for tin-foil hats and back-woods cabins with no electricity > starts over there ... just past the flock of levitating porcines. :-\ > Hmmm... the AARP... <http://www.aarp.org/technology/privacy-security/info-10-2011/many-websites-leak-personal-data.html>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-22 13:14 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <220120141314529079%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #55175 |
In article <lbmoeh$oo5$1@dont-email.me>, J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> wrote: > On 1/21/14, 3:11 PM, Your Name wrote: > > In article <lblb5a$lln$1@dont-email.me>, J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> > > wrote: > >> On 1/21/14, 1:35 AM, Your Name wrote: > >>> In article <52de0f3a$0$17142$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com>, JF > >>> Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Google may not be able to put a name to "you", but they don't need to, > >>>> because the cookies allow them to track "you" by a number/ID. > >>> > >>> Nope, they are following what is being done on the device ... if that > >>> device is used by multiple people, then obviously it can't be tracking > >>> "you". If you use a computer in the library, then you may well get > >>> adverts for poodles because the previous person was looking for > >>> information on poodles. > >>> > >>> Which is still beside the point that "you" are not tracked > >>> individually, nor are you individually identifiable, and nor is any > >>> personal data being obtained nor sold to anyone else ... such things > >>> are simply a load of nonsense and scare tactics. > >>> > >> Wikipedia says the internet has made it easier to collect PII through > >> breaches in internet security, network security, and web browser > >> security, leading to a profitable market. > >> > >> If you have a social networking page, your browser's referrer header > >> could make your name available. If any site has your name, I imagine > >> there could be a way for a snoop to get your name and tie it to your > >> browsing. Not long ago, it was discovered that snoops were extracting > >> browsing histories from some browsers. > > > > The queue for tin-foil hats and back-woods cabins with no electricity > > starts over there ... just past the flock of levitating porcines. :-\ > > > Hmmm... the AARP... > <http://www.aarp.org/technology/privacy-security/info-10-2011/many-websites-leak-personal-data.html> The queue for tin-foil hats and back-woods cabins with no electricity starts over there ... just past the flock of levitating porcines. :-\
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-21 19:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <lbn420$v1f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55180 |
On 1/21/14, 7:14 PM, Your Name wrote: > In article <lbmoeh$oo5$1@dont-email.me>, J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> > wrote: >> On 1/21/14, 3:11 PM, Your Name wrote: >>> In article <lblb5a$lln$1@dont-email.me>, J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> >>> wrote: >>>> On 1/21/14, 1:35 AM, Your Name wrote: >>>>> In article <52de0f3a$0$17142$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com>, JF >>>>> Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Google may not be able to put a name to "you", but they don't need to, >>>>>> because the cookies allow them to track "you" by a number/ID. >>>>> >>>>> Nope, they are following what is being done on the device ... if that >>>>> device is used by multiple people, then obviously it can't be tracking >>>>> "you". If you use a computer in the library, then you may well get >>>>> adverts for poodles because the previous person was looking for >>>>> information on poodles. >>>>> >>>>> Which is still beside the point that "you" are not tracked >>>>> individually, nor are you individually identifiable, and nor is any >>>>> personal data being obtained nor sold to anyone else ... such things >>>>> are simply a load of nonsense and scare tactics. >>>>> >>>> Wikipedia says the internet has made it easier to collect PII through >>>> breaches in internet security, network security, and web browser >>>> security, leading to a profitable market. >>>> >>>> If you have a social networking page, your browser's referrer header >>>> could make your name available. If any site has your name, I imagine >>>> there could be a way for a snoop to get your name and tie it to your >>>> browsing. Not long ago, it was discovered that snoops were extracting >>>> browsing histories from some browsers. >>> >>> The queue for tin-foil hats and back-woods cabins with no electricity >>> starts over there ... just past the flock of levitating porcines. :-\ >>> >> Hmmm... the AARP... >> <http://www.aarp.org/technology/privacy-security/info-10-2011/many-websites-leak-personal-data.html> > > The queue for tin-foil hats and back-woods cabins with no electricity > starts over there ... just past the flock of levitating porcines. :-\ > In the study they referred to, Stanford University Law School found that of the 185 most popular sites, 120 leaked personal information, and 60 leaked it to 4 or more or more outside parties. http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/6740 You say they need tin-foil hats. Gosh, I don't know who to believe!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web