×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Woman Who's Making Your Privacy Her Business

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the never-disobey-mother dept.

Canada 120

davecb writes "The woman who faced down Facebook and was dissed by Silicon Valley business boys as 'an old-fashioned scold' is really one of the early advocates for using the internet for access to information, and to open up government. The Globe and Mail has an interview with Jennifer Stoddart, the privacy commissioner of Canada, who went up against Facebook for all of us, and made them back down."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

120 comments

"The Woman Who's Making Your Privacy Her Business" (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34529380)

My mom?

Re:"The Woman Who's Making Your Privacy Her Busine (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34530174)

If you put a lock on the basement door, she wouldn't be able to go through your things. That, or, y'know, get a place of your own.

For all of us? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34529382)

Really, even those of us who don't use Facebook and block its little widgets?

Re:For all of us? (5, Informative)

d6 (1944790) | more than 3 years ago | (#34529402)

All of us in Canada at least. She seems to take her mandate seriously.

Re:For all of us? (5, Informative)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#34529604)

Honestly? For a privacy commissioner she's done a hell of a job. Taking her mandate seriously? I'd say so. Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Green, Bloc, small business, big business, internet related. NGO's, and so on. If you break the privacy act, you'll have her breathing down your neck fast. She's about as non-partisan, and pro-privacy as you can get.

Re:For all of us? (1)

shoehornjob (1632387) | more than 3 years ago | (#34530608)

Sounds like someone who really knows her stuff. Can we get one of those here in the USA? That'll never happen. I'd move to Canada but I hate the cold.

Re:For all of us? (4, Insightful)

codegen (103601) | more than 3 years ago | (#34530636)

You first have to pass some privacy laws with teeth before someone like Ms. Stoddart can do her job.

Re:For all of us? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34532164)

We have this place up here called southern coastal BC .... kind warm for Canada but it rains a lot in winter.

Re:For all of us? (1)

ArcadeNut (85398) | more than 3 years ago | (#34530002)

If you don't use Facebook, why do you need to block it's widgets? ::confused::

Re:For all of us? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34530062)

If you don't use Facebook, why do you need to block it's widgets? ::confused::

For the same reason you block Doubleclick and Google Analytics traffic, even though these sites don't (necessarily) know your real-world name either.

Re:For all of us? (2)

jappleng (1805148) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531080)

Too bad, I really love using analytics. It lets me know where people are going on my site and for how long so I know what they like and don't like. This method is more accurate and less time consuming than bothering people about what they want to see next... I don't see IP addresses inside analytics so there is absolutely no personal information relating to this data. Has she ever used this app before? My ToS discusses about usage of anonymous data with Google Analytics so if someone didn't like it, they could not use the service. Additionally, analytic information provides good scoops on how to advertise to your visitors and if you can't find out information about your visitors in some way, then the age of "free internet" will be gone. I wouldn't mind if websites captured data about my gender, age, and even my favorite food so long as I can keep browsing websites for free. *puts on tinfoil hat* These suggestions about blocking Doubleclick, Analytics and so forth sounds more like people are trying to build a tiered internet system. What a shame.

Re:For all of us? (3, Informative)

markzip (1313025) | more than 3 years ago | (#34530168)

You need to block Facebook widgets because they track even without your being signed in (or even a member):
Facebook's 'Like This' button is tracking you (Whether you click it or not) [thinq.co.uk]
which is derived from this paper:
Facebook Tracks and Traces Everyone: Like This! [ssrn.com] (Social Science Research Network)
Assuming you are not a member of facebook and have no need of the "Share" and "Like" buttons, the hosts file is your friend. Just enter 127.0.0.1 for facebook.net, facebook.com, facebookcdn.com (there may be others but I can't be bothered to look for them right now)

Re:For all of us? (1)

BenoitRen (998927) | more than 3 years ago | (#34530668)

Looks like there's no problem if you don't allow cookies from them in the first place, as the tracking system is based on them.

Re:For all of us? (1)

ArcadeNut (85398) | more than 3 years ago | (#34532292)

Sure, if you USE Facebook. If you never go there (i.e. you don't USE it), then there is nothing to block... No?

Re:For all of us? (2)

markzip (1313025) | more than 3 years ago | (#34532374)

Nope, according to the paper, even if you don't USE Facebook, even if you have never visited Facebook, the like button appearing on other sites can gather data about your visit.

Re:For all of us? (4, Interesting)

Cruciform (42896) | more than 3 years ago | (#34530274)

With companies maintaining and sharing huge databases they can build a profile of you quite easily.

Consider the following situation, which parallels in in a way.

A friend's girlfriend loved to hang out in an IRC channel. She thought she was "stranger proof" because she limited the amount of information she shared in any one conversation. Some of the items she revealed were public, while others were revealed in "private" conversations. She (erroneously) assumed that some of the private conversations were with individuals sharing no connection with each other.
After hanging out in the channel for a couple of weeks she got a phone call -- from Australia. One of the channel members created profiles of other users and data mined their conversations in order to identify them. Coupled with the ability to search the net for the consistent use of handles that many become attached to, he was able to track down people rather easily.

For him it was a game. For others it's business.

We don't always know who owns the services we use, and rarely have any idea of who the data is shared with. If company A owns sites B and C, they have the data on you that both sites generate.

While he was working with a small group of people who were likely to share information with people they interacted with regularly, having a huge dataset encompassing thousands of your interactions with other sites is just as useful to a company with the means to examine the data.

And privacy policies don't mean squat without someone keeping them honest. Imagine how many sites out there use them as honey traps.

Re:For all of us? (3, Interesting)

davecb (6526) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531522)

Darn right all of us!

An older example of transitive trust causing problems to innocent bystanders was a library system and a drugstore system running on the same time-shared mainframe.

The drugstore system had security up the wazoo, the library did not.

An evil operator did the equivalent of a join on names between the two systems, and selected female persons with prescriptions for birth control pills from one and for addresses from the other, then started stalking.

Neither system alone would have yielded the information, but the combination of the two did, and the results were as startling then as the first cross-site scripting attacks were more recently.

So she's looking out for all of us, even those that don't know the degree to which they're vulnerable.

--dave (I'm genuinely impressed by her) c-b

Idealist (1)

The Living Fractal (162153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34529502)

In TFA she is quoted as saying,

“Governments shouldn’t hoard information. The information is there and it belongs to the people,” she says. “Information and the manipulation of information is the key to power. Those who can control the information can influence society enormously. The more accurate the flow of information the more productive we can be.”

By her own logic, governments should hoard information, at least in the traditional sense, to keep it hidden from other national governments. Unless you think every nation in the word should have the same information as every other, then you agree with the general concept here.

And how exactly are governments supposed to not hoard information, keeping it hidden from even their own citizens, if they expect to be able to keep it hidden from other governments as well? I don't see how it's possible. Either the government hoards information and by necessity keeps some hidden from its people, or the government is completely transparent and every country in the world knows everything.

She's advocating an idealist point of view, one that is not tenable, at least not in terms of national security.

Re:Idealist (5, Insightful)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 3 years ago | (#34529564)

Except she doesn't want the government to have the power, she wants the people to have the power, since the government is supposed to receive power from the people. And this is Canada, we go for security through co-operation and support, rather than intimidation and manipulation.

Re:Idealist (3, Funny)

SIR_Taco (467460) | more than 3 years ago | (#34529596)

Eh-men my fellow Canadian!

(couldn't resist)

you people (0)

formfeed (703859) | more than 3 years ago | (#34529940)

fellow Canadian!

Looks like you outed yourself.
I just watched "How I met your mother" and they had a long section about canadian sexacts.

You people are sick!
I admit, I love toolgirl. But maple syrup? come on!

security through co-operation and support (3, Insightful)

RichMan (8097) | more than 3 years ago | (#34529606)

rather than intimidation and manipulation.

But how do the big multinational arms conglomerates make money off co-operation? Where are the backscatter-xray machine sales in that?

Re:Idealist (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34529882)

And this is Canada, we go for security through co-operation and support, rather than intimidation and manipulation.

No. What you're describing isn't security. Sure, you can feel "secure" by being Little Miss Popular, liked and admired by everyone. You won't have to worry about random bullies stuffing you in a locker, or stealing your lunch. But when the players on the football team say "bend over", there's dick all you can do to stop them. That's why here in Canada - much like they do in the US - we take the two-prong approach. Use cooperation and support when possible, while not hesitating to use force and manipulation when needed.

Re:Idealist (1)

Shark (78448) | more than 3 years ago | (#34530030)

As a Canadian, I have to say I can only agree on the surface. Our underbelly is just as dark if not darker than that of the US. We just seem to have better PR and a population so hooked on government-provided goodies that its general view of the government is that of benevolent (if childish) provider.

Re:Idealist (1)

whereiswaldo (459052) | more than 3 years ago | (#34530888)

Yes, I agree. I like our happy, maple-syrup-loving face but there's plenty of back-room politics going on here, too. Our current government has plenty of problems. Canadian border security can be pretty arsey, too.

Re:Idealist (1)

fyoder (857358) | more than 3 years ago | (#34530304)

And this is Canada, we go for security through co-operation and support, rather than intimidation and manipulation.

I would have agreed with you prior to the G20 in Toronto in June. But Canada is becoming just as fascist as any other western state, maybe more so, complete with intimidation, beatings, and groundless mass arrest. You may be thinking of the old Canada, where if they wanted to abrogate rights, they had to do so legally through an act like the War Measures Act. Now they don't even bother with the legal niceties.

How I Got Arrested and Abused at the G20 in Toronto, Canada [backofthebook.ca]

Re:Idealist (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531332)

s/Canada/Ontario

Re:Idealist (1)

fyoder (857358) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531418)

I don't think it would have been different in any other Canadian city. Say Calgary, for example. They sent their cops to the G20 in Toronto to help out:

The officers, who are from the Calgary police public safety unit, said the Toronto event was a chance for them to practise their crowd-control training.

"We just never have had to use those tactics to that degree in Calgary. It was a fantastic opportunity for us to test them out and show that yeah they really do work," said Pecksen.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/06/28/g20-calgary-g8-police-security-protest.html [www.cbc.ca]

I think it would have played out pretty much the same in any Canadian city. The times they are a-changin'.

Re:Idealist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34529626)

Spoken like a true victim. Do you work for the government or does the government work for you?

Land of the free indeed. More like the land of the frightened and unwilling.

Re:I, deal list (5, Informative)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34529650)

governments should hoard information, at least in the traditional sense, to keep it hidden from other national governments. Unless you think every nation in the word should have the same information as every other

Nah, Governments shouldn't hoard information at all.

They should only keep "vital" information under wraps for at most 2 years, then make it all public (not hording, hording = "never gonna give you up")

The only exception I can see is for long term military planning. Do we really need to use deceit in our diplomatic affairs? What's wrong with stating our goals and working to those ends? (It's not like we're really confounding our "enemies" by keeping diplomatic secrets).

Unfortunately, under such an "idealist" information policy, everything will just get categorized as "military planning."

You know... Just like nearly everything currently finds its way under the "national security" umbrella, even though most info is not. Hint: ACTA was held under the "national security" umbrella, now it's not; Guess it wasn't a matter of "national security" was it?

Corrupt governments will always hide under the "national security" blanket, even if you rename it to "military planning" or "diplomatic privacy".

Re:I, deal list (1)

The Living Fractal (162153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34530146)

From Dictionary.com:
"hoard"
–verb (used without object)
3.
to accumulate money, food, or the like, in a hidden or carefully guarded place for preservation, future use, etc.

To hoard does not imply to never use.

And of course there are exceptions. This is the reason I called her an idealist in the first place. Idealists see no room for exceptions. They don't live in the real world where perfection is defined not as something with no flaws but as something with as few flaws as we can practicably achieve.

Re:Idealist (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 3 years ago | (#34529676)

By her own logic, governments should hoard information, at least in the traditional sense, to keep it hidden from other national governments. Unless you think every nation in the word should have the same information as every other, then you agree with the general concept here.

You seem to have misunderstood what she was saying.
Try reading it this way: "Those who can control the [flow of] information can influence society enormously."

If everyone has access to the same information, no one [entity] can use it to manipulate the public.
Like how frequently [government agency] will prepare a report that gets buried because it conflicts with [other entity]'s agenda.

Re:Idealist (1)

The Living Fractal (162153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34530166)

For certain kinds of information, perhaps mostly of the civil kind, I would agree wholeheartedly. But we cannot simply say "information" like we intend to mean all information. We must qualify the statement, define the scope, or we're simply being too ambiguous...

Four-Star General John Example has just learned of some vital strategic or tactical information in an ongoing conflict. He has two obvious choices: He can keep this information secure and not tell everyone, for however long it takes, or, he can tell everyone and render his information useless.

Which one do you expect him to choose?

Re:Idealist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34530886)

When he writes this information down and sends it to HQ it'd start a clock ticking on the classification, based on the need to release documents and the fact that it's not guaranteed to stay secret anyways.

Anything else is wishful thinking. As shown, millions of people had access to that 'secret' information when common sense shows no more than two can keep a secret in real life. All the leaking does is make everything a matter of public record.

Military security (1)

davecb (6526) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531678)

Military information already has a very short lifespan. Famously, "Flash" messages are sent UNCLAS, because it's more important they arrive now than be kept from the enemy.

Field Marshal Example already makes his information known to the enemy the moment he acts on it. That's why it was such a terrible decision for Winston Churchill to (putatively) consider keeping secret the German plans to bomb Coventry.

Unit war diaries are released a few years after the war is over, and even the anal British unclassify the rest of the material after fifty years or so. I can now read all sorts of stuff about the "funnys", which were top secret before the invasion of Europe.

The political equivalent of a flash message may stay secret a bit longer, but they probably only need stay secret until the crisis of the day is over. So give them a week instead of an hour.

The longest one should keep any secret is until all the participants are dead, and can't get in trouble. Which is approximately what the Census does (or did, since my government is in the process of eliminating same)

--dave (from Canada, eh?) c-b

Re:Idealist (1)

davecb (6526) | more than 3 years ago | (#34529928)

No, by her logic we all should have the same information, and have the same ability to manipulate and resist manipulation.

I'd class it along with normal business assumption of "a level playing field", rather than an idealist assumption.

To be fair, it can be arbitrarily hard to level a playing field, especially when one side owns a bulldozer, but one does try.

--dave

Re:Idealist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34530014)

Fuck "National Security".
The US doesn't seem to have had much benefit from it.
North Korea hasn't either, it's most certainly secure, but not exactly good in any other respect.

Re:Idealist (1)

The Living Fractal (162153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34530134)

The benefit of national security is a null hypothesis. If it's working you won't 'see' it, because the result is zero action. What you do see, in effect, could have been a result of lack of security, but that is the juxtapose of the original hypothesis and is therefore irrelevant.

Re:Idealist (1)

angus77 (1520151) | more than 3 years ago | (#34530544)

Most of the information the government hoards has nothing to do with national security. Most of the information the Canadian government has would be pretty boring stuff to anyone who's not Canadian.

Stoddart is right on Utopian Solutions (2)

BoRegardless (721219) | more than 3 years ago | (#34529504)

They start out looking good, until some entity comes along and starts wringing profit or control (one & the same?) out of a new 'utopian innovation'.

That is what happened for a long time with Windows where Microsoft essentially dictated a lot of what and how things were done in personal computing or how FAST they progressed.

Level playing fields are hard to maintain in anarchistic society. The same can be said for all powerful central government or dictators.

Competition on a 'level playing field' seems to be one of the best antidotes to monopolies. But is isn't easy to decide what is fair. Luckily we have some solid heads in government that realize they have the responsibility to do the right thing for the average citizen rather than the labor unions and powerful corp. lobbies.

really? for ALL of us? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34529506)

Or just for those who voluntarily gave their information to facebook in the first place?

Facebook knows nothing about me. I don't have an account and I blackwhole their domains. It isn't that hard. I still seem perfectly able to communicate with all my friends without using some proprietary service to do so that will sell all my personal info.

I'm not sure this culture of having to save people from themselves is a wise one. It breeds a society of people who are helpless on their own.

Re:really? for ALL of us? (2)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 3 years ago | (#34529548)

She's done more than just the Facebook thing. That's really just the most prominent example. And yes, for all of us. She's not concerned with just protecting a certain segment of the population, or even "just Canadians." If she sees an issue that she can try and do something about, she actually tries to do something, and that something is usually in the interests of "the little guy," rather than corporations.

Re:really? for ALL of us? (1)

jappleng (1805148) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531108)

I think "the little guy" would benefit more with keeping the privacy level as it is, unless "the little guy" is willing to spend money each month on current "free to use" websites and services. Granted, I don't agree about spying on what people are talking about unless you could easily opt-in and opt-out but anonymous tracking shouldn't be against the law. There's no harm by it and people get rewarded at the same time by using a website for free like youtube or slashdot.

Re:really? for ALL of us? (1)

bfree (113420) | more than 3 years ago | (#34529682)

Facebook knows nothing about me.

Are you that sure that nobody you know has given them your email address or in any other way shared information about you with them? Tagging photos of you seems to be the next most popular way to give them information about you but there may be more.

Re:really? for ALL of us? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34529718)

> Are you that sure that nobody you know has given them your email address...

Of course. My friends are not idiots!

Re:really? for ALL of us? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34529870)

Tagging photos of you seems to be the next most popular way to give them information about you

I was assured by an idiot that there is no way to tag a photo of me if I don't have an account already.. truth?

Re:really? for ALL of us? (1)

jappleng (1805148) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531120)

User:
Facebook knows nothing about me.

Advertising Algorythm:
"This user seems to love getting Poked and seems pretty ignorant, let's display advertisements about poking osama bin laden and how many triangle ads"

I'm starting to hate the internet (4, Insightful)

Ozlanthos (1172125) | more than 3 years ago | (#34529534)

I'm starting to hate the internet. More and more it seems like the internet is turning into one big bug in the ass. I have to specifically opt out of fucking invasive bullshit toolbars that I didn't ask for, had no interest in, and no desire to have corrupting my machine. I got an idea for all you assholes who think that is the way to make money....HOWS ABOUT YOU WORK ON PROJECTS THAT MAKE US FREER RATHER THAN FURTHER CONFINE OR TRACK US??? Is it really so much to ask to be able to scan, upload, download, chat, skype, mud, "be on the web" without fear of being constantly surveiled? I'm not a tree. My psychological profile, shopping habits, surfing habits, political interests, are not "fruit" to be picked and sold on the market, and as such ARE NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS!!! If I want your shit, I will use the most powerful investigatory tool humankind has ever invented, find it myself, and possibly even buy it! If what you had to offer was worth having I might even buy it again. But, until that point, LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE!

-Oz

Get a custom HOSTS file, it helps... apk (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34529608)

"I'm starting to hate the internet. More and more it seems like the internet is turning into one big bug in the ass. I have to specifically opt out of fucking invasive bullshit toolbars that I didn't ask for, had no interest in, and no desire to have corrupting my machine. I got an idea for all you assholes who think that is the way to make money....HOWS ABOUT YOU WORK ON PROJECTS THAT MAKE US FREER RATHER THAN FURTHER CONFINE OR TRACK US??? Is it really so much to ask to be able to scan, upload, download, chat, skype, mud, "be on the web" without fear of being constantly surveiled? I'm not a tree. My psychological profile, shopping habits, surfing habits, political interests, are not "fruit" to be picked and sold on the market, and as such ARE NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS!!! If I want your shit, I will use the most powerful investigatory tool humankind has ever invented, find it myself, and possibly even buy it! If what you had to offer was worth having I might even buy it again. But, until that point, LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE!

-Oz" -

Ok, then YOU of all people, want to read this (not selling anything here, HOSTS files free & you already have one (you just have to fill your OS' copy of your HOSTS file w/ the right data to stop a lot of the problems you complain of online, & reputable + reliable sources for currently updated HOSTS files are below)):

16++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:

1.) Adblock blocks ads in only 1 browser family (Disclaimer: Opera now has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc.).

2.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html [networkworld.com] for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions via PINGS &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

6.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders [slashdot.org]

7.) AdBlock doesn't let you block out known bad sites or servers that are known to be maliciously scripted, hosts can and many reputable lists for this exist:

GOOD INFORMATION ON MALWARE BEHAVIOR LISTING BOTNET C&C SERVERS + MORE (AS WELL AS REMOVAL LISTS FOR HOSTS):

http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
http://www.malware.com.br/lists.shtml [malware.com.br]
http://www.stopbadware.org/ [stopbadware.org]
http://blog.fireeye.com/ [fireeye.com]
http://mtc.sri.com/ [sri.com]
http://news.netcraft.com/ [netcraft.com]
http://www.shadowserver.org/ [shadowserver.org]

REGULARLY UPDATED HOSTS FILES SITES (reputable/reliable sources):

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org]
http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ [someonewhocares.org]
http://hostsfile.org/hosts.html [hostsfile.org]
http://hostsfile.mine.nu/downloads/ [hostsfile.mine.nu]
http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download [hosts-file.net]
https://zeustracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php?filter=online [abuse.ch]
Spybot "Search & Destroy" IMMUNIZE feature (fortifies HOSTS files with KNOWN bad servers blocked)

And yes: Even SLASHDOT &/or The Register help!

(Via articles on security (when the source articles they use are "detailed" that is, & list the servers/sites involved in attempting to bushwhacker others online that is... not ALL do!)).

2 examples thereof in the past I have used, & noted it there, are/were:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1898692&cid=34473398 [slashdot.org]
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1896216&cid=34458500 [slashdot.org]

8.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server & back to you).

9.) AdBlock & DNS servers are programs, and subject to bugs programs can get. Hosts files are merely a filter and not a program, thus not subject to bugs of the nature just discussed.

10.) Hosts files don't eat up CPU cycles like AdBlock does while it parses a webpages' content, nor as much as a DNS server does while it runs.

11.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org] ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)

12.) You don't have the sourcecode to Adblock. With hosts you don't even need source to control it (edit, update, delete, insert of new entries via a text editor).

13.) Hosts files are easily secured via using MAC/ACL &/or Read-Only attributes applied.

14.) Custom HOSTS files also speed you up, unlike anonymous proxy servers systems variations (like TOR, or other "highly anonymous" proxy server list servers typically do, in the severe speed hit they often have a cost in).

15.) HOSTS files usage lets you avoid being charged on some ISP/BSP's (OR phone providers) "pay as you use" policy http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/08/2012243/FCC-Approving-Pay-As-You-Go-Internet-Plans [slashdot.org] , because you are using less bandwidth (& go faster doing so no less) by NOT hauling in adbanner content and processing it (which can lead to infestation by malware/malicious script, in & of itself -> http://apcmag.com/microsoft_apologises_for_serving_malware.htm [apcmag.com] ).

16.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - you might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own (such as has been seen with the RBN (Russian Business Network) lately though it was considered "dead", other malwares are using its domains/hostnames now, & this? This stops that cold, too - Bonus!)...

* MINOR "CAVEATS/CATCH-22's" - things to be aware of for "layered security" + HOSTS file performance - easily overcome, or not a problem at all:

A.) HOSTS files don't function under PROXY SERVERS - Which is *the "WHY"* of why I state in my "P.S." section below to use both AdBlock type browser addon methods (or even built-in block lists browsers have such as Opera's URLFILTER.INI file, & FireFox has such as list as does IE also) in combination with HOSTS, for the best in "layered security" (alongside .pac files + custom cascading style sheets that can filter off various tags such as scripts or ads etc.) - but proxies, especially "HIGHLY ANONYMOUS" types, generally slow you down to a CRAWL online (& personally, I cannot see using proxies "for the good" typically - as they allow "truly anonymous posting" & have bugs (such as TOR has been shown to have & be "bypassable/traceable" via its "onion routing" methods)).

B.) HOSTS files do NOT protect you vs. javascript (this only holds true IF you don't already have a bad site blocked out in your HOSTS file though, & the list of sites where you can obtain such lists to add to your HOSTS are above (& updated daily in many of them)).

C.) HOSTS files (relatively "largish ones") require you to turn off Windows' native "DNS local client cache service" (which has a problem in that it's designed with a non-redimensionable/resizeable list, array, or queue (DNS data loads into a C/C++ structure actually/afaik, which IS a form of array)) - mvps.org covers that in detail and how to easily do this in Windows (this is NOT a problem in Linux, & it's 1 thing I will give Linux over Windows, hands-down). Relatively "smallish" HOSTS files don't have this problem (mvps.org offers 2 types for this).

D.) HOSTS files, once read/loaded, once GET CACHED, for speed of access/re-access (@ system startup in older MS OS' like 2000, or, upon a users' 1st request that's "Webbound" via say, a webbrowser) gets read into either the DNS local caching client service (noted above), OR, if that's turned off? Into your local diskcache (like ANY file is), so it reads F A S T upon re-reads/subsequent reads (until it's changed in %WinDir%\system32\drivers\etc on Windows, which marks it "Dirty" & then it gets re-read + reloaded into the local diskcache again). This may cause a SMALL lag upon reload though, depending on the size of your HOSTS file.

Still - It's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock, &/or NoScript (especially this one, as it covers what HOSTS files can't in javascript which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security"...

APK

P.S.=> Some more notes on DNS servers & their problems, very recent + ongoing ones:

BIND vs. what the Chinese are doing to DNS lately? See here:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders [slashdot.org]

---

SECUNIA HIT BY DNS REDIRECTION HACK THIS WEEK:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/26/secunia_back_from_dns_hack/ [theregister.co.uk]

(Yes, even "security pros" are helpless vs. DNS problems in code bugs OR redirect DNS poisoning issues, & they can only try to "set the DNS record straight" & then, they still have to wait for corrected DNS info. to propogate across all subordinate DNS servers too - lagtime in which folks DO get "abused" in mind you!)

---

DNS vs. the "Kaminsky DNS flaw", here (and even MORE problems in DNS than just that):

http://www.scmagazineus.com/new-bind-9-dns-flaw-is-worse-than-kaminskys/article/140872/ [scmagazineus.com]

(Seems others are saying that some NEW "Bind9 flaw" is worse than the Kaminsky flaw ALONE, up there, mind you... probably corrected (hopefully), but it shows yet again, DNS hassles (DNS redirect/DNS poisoning) being exploited!)

---

Moxie Marlinspike's found others (0 hack) as well...

Nope... "layered security" truly IS the "way to go" - hacker/cracker types know it, & they do NOT want the rest of us knowing it too!...

(So until DNSSEC takes "widespread adoption"? HOSTS are your answer vs. such types of attack, because the 1st thing your system refers to, by default, IS your HOSTS file (over say, DNS server usage). There are decent DNS servers though, such as OpenDNS, ScrubIT, or even GOOGLE DNS, & because I cannot "cache the entire internet" in a HOSTS file? I opt to use those, because I have to (& OpenDNS has been noted to "fix immediately", per the Kaminsky flaw, in fact... just as a sort of reference to how WELL they are maintained really!)

---

Then, there is also the words of respected security expert, Mr. Oliver Day, from SECUNIA.COM to "top that all off" as well:

A RETURN TO THE KILLFILE:

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491 [securityfocus.com]

Some "PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS" to back up my points with (for starters):

---

"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet -- particularly browsing the Web -- is actually faster now."

Speed, and security, is the gain... others like Mr. Day note it as well!

---

"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."

Per my points exactly, no less... & guess who was posting about HOSTS files a 14++ yrs. or more back & Mr. Day was reading & now using? Yours truly (& this is one of the later ones, from 2001 http://www.furtherleft.net/computer.htm [furtherleft.net] (but the example HOSTS file with my initials in it is FAR older, circa 1998 or so) or thereabouts, and referred to later by a pal of mine who moderates NTCompatible.com (where I posted on HOSTS for YEARS (1997 onwards)) -> http://www.ntcompatible.com/thread28597-1.html [ntcompatible.com] !

---

"Shared host files could be beneficial for other groups as well. Human rights groups have sought after block resistant technologies for quite some time. The GoDaddy debacle with NMap creator Fyodor (corrected) showed a particularly vicious blocking mechanism using DNS registrars. Once a registrar pulls a website from its records, the world ceases to have an effective way to find it. Shared host files could provide a DNS-proof method of reaching sites, not to mention removing an additional vector of detection if anyone were trying to monitor the use of subversive sites. One of the known weaknesses of the Tor system, for example, is direct DNS requests by applications not configured to route such requests through Tor's network."

There you go: AND, it also works vs. the "KAMINSKY DNS FLAW" & DNS poisoning/redirect attacks, for redirectable weaknesses in DNS servers (non DNSSEC type, & set into recursive mode especially) and also in the TOR system as well (that lends itself to anonymous proxy usage weaknesses I noted above also) and, you'll get to sites you want to, even IF a DNS registrar drops said websites from its tables as shown here Beating Censorship By Routing Around DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/09/1840246/Beating-Censorship-By-Routing-Around-DNS [slashdot.org] ... apk

Re:Get a custom HOSTS file, it helps... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34529636)

tl;dr

i sell my penis for loose change

Re:Get a custom HOSTS file, it helps... apk (1)

dogsbreath (730413) | more than 3 years ago | (#34529672)

... and of course, one good rant deserves another.

Albeit an interesting and informative rant.

And long. With emphasis.

Good-o!

The Book of Eli, from "The Lord of HOSTS", lol! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34529848)

See my subject-line above... it may be as long as "the Book of Eli" as you say in what I interpret as protest/a rib on the length & detail of my initial posting on HOSTS files you have responded to here, but it says a LOT (and does a lot for you, especially someone like Oz whom I replied to here with said data on HOSTS files benefits in doubled SPEED online, greater "layered security", better "anonymity", & just a better surfing experience free of some of the bugs he complained of).

APK

P.S.=> To the trolls that will probably "down mod" my post for no reasons at all, as they usuall do, in their "down mod & hit and run" truly COWARDLY technique?

(Simply because they can't make any valid technical objections to the points in my "Book of Eli" about the HOSTS file above & all they have as "weapons" are effete moddowns, because they sure haven't taken down a single one of the points I noted in my "rant" as you called it many times here before - I suspect them to be malware makers/malicious scripting site owners, or online advertisers (sorry, it's MY money online here, I won't pay for downloading adbanners & processing them to my dismay possibly also, because they can infect you AND CERTAINLY EAT UP YOUR BANDWIDTH too)).

I can only quote Denzel Washington as Eli, to them:

"Cursed be the ground - For our sake. Both thorns & thistles it shall bring, for us. For out of the ground we were taken for the dust we are... & to the dust we shall return" - Eli (Denzel Washington), from 'THE BOOK OF ELI'

That's for the trolls to think about, because I love it when they try to disprove ANY of the points in my "rant" as you called it - they make me look good, and HOSTS files like something folks can use for their benefit in speed, security, & even anonymity to an extent online + more!

(Just due to the trollers of my HOSTS posts constant utter failures in attempting to disprove any of the points I make in my posts on HOSTS files... As they always end up like that scene does vs. the points in my HOSTS file + myself, or the bridge "hijack" scene from that film also, lmao... everytime!)... apk

Re:The Book of Eli, from "The Lord of HOSTS", lol! (3, Informative)

dogsbreath (730413) | more than 3 years ago | (#34530456)

You certainly have something to say... with all respect, why don't you login? I post AC sometimes when it's best for me but I find its best to attach an account to my statements. IMHO.

Re:The Book of Eli, from "The Lord of HOSTS", lol! (0)

ToasterMonkey (467067) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531410)

You certainly have something to say... with all respect, why don't you login? I post AC sometimes when it's best for me but I find its best to attach an account to my statements. IMHO.

What the hell does logging into Slashdot prove? Why don't you tell us your real name an address? Then I guess we'll need to see some financial records, and do a quick background check, you know, to make sure you are legit and not on the take.

Attach your account... now that's some real authenticity. So we can judge based post history whether to label an account "good" or "bad"? Rich.

Because if _anything_ can lend more weight to my words, it's what I wanted you to hear me say yesterday. [voice of Cartman talking to minority students] Theeeeeeeeeeeeeenk.

Re:The Book of Eli, from "The Lord of HOSTS", lol! (2)

dogsbreath (730413) | more than 3 years ago | (#34532282)

Wow. Touchy touchy. I didn't put AC down, or insult AC; I just asked why not login? Easy question. A good answer would be "too lazy", and I would certainly think that was valid. Another great answer would be "I just like posting AC". Of course, frothing and ranting is always an excellent response that is readily accepted for entertainment value if nothing else.

Logging in doesn't prove anything. It's just a community thing and helps to put into context what you say by indexing other comments.

No need for home address, real name, financials etc unless you feel a desire to provide those details.

I wouldn't recommend it though.

Cheers, and have a better day tomorrow!

Re:Get a custom HOSTS file, it helps... apk (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34530982)

you see this time your host file trick was posted at the right place and it got modded up. There is no conspirator against you, you just suck at choosing the right post to reply to

We don't feed trolls here, sorry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34532014)

We don't feed trolls here, sorry

Re:Get a custom HOSTS file, it helps... apk (1)

Tacvek (948259) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531170)

12.) You don't have the sourcecode to Adblock.

That's absurd. If you are running Adblock, then you do have the source to Adblock. The by design the XPI format is just a form of a zip file (specifically it is based on the jar specification, in that it has a META-INF folder with metadata, much like the ODF format).

Inside an XPI file is almost always[1] a collection of HTML, XML, and JavaScript files, along with a few images, and maybe a DTD or two. That is the source code of the extension[2]. Adblock is no exception to that.

Footnotes:
[1] It is possible to have compiled files in an xpi file, but it not common, and Adblock does not utilize that.
[2] Of course the JavaScript could be obfuscated or minified, such that it could no longer be considered the actual source, but once again adblock does not do that.

You don't need sourcecode for hosts files though (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34532046)

Hosts files are just text, and you don't need the ability to code to deal with them. With adblock you do. Decent hosts files out there have documentation with examples (even the stock one Microsoft ships in Windows has some). Hosts files are simple to understand and edit in Windows using notepad. You think everyone knows how to code out there who are users of adblock? No, not everyone codes, much less specifically in javascript either. You're acting as if doing code alterations without a knowledge of coding is easier to do than editing a text file like a hosts file. I'd say it's not easier hacking code versus editing a hosts file personally. That's 1 point of the 16 noted in favor of hosts files over adblock or dns servers alone, only, and there are 15 more that apparently are unassailable if that is all you have.

Re:Get a custom HOSTS file, it helps... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34531814)

OMG- just install something based on a mostly free software already or completely free software. You won't have this problem. Seriously. I have never been asked to install a toolbar. You can buy computers with a mostly free OS like Ubuntu or OpenSUSE.

http://www.open-pc.com/
http://thinkpenguin.com/

and I forget.. another company is coming out with laptops with GNewSense supposedly although I'm doubtful about it. If it were feasible ThinkPenguin would be doing it. ThinkPenguin already designs systems based on free drivers/firmware so is thus compatible with GNewSense. GNewSense's kernel/drivers are all very old so the hardware is not supported with most if any new computers shipping though. If GNewSense were able to quickly remove non-free components faster then new computers could be shipped with a truly free OS.

Re:I'm starting to hate the internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34529630)

"I have to specifically opt out of fucking invasive bullshit toolbars that I didn't ask for,"

You do? Toolbars? I've been using the internet since the fall of 1984 - over 26 years now - and I've never once that that happen. Not one single time. And I use computers and the internet a LOT.

What are you doing wrong? How is that you seem to get these things all the time, while I've never had this experience?

Re:I'm starting to hate the internet (1)

whitehaint (1883260) | more than 3 years ago | (#34529746)

I would think he is referring to installing some programs that by default want to install X brand toolbar. It's small, but irritating as heck when I just want ONE thing that I downloaded, not X Y and Z products too.

Re:I'm starting to hate the internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34529656)

LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE!
-Oz

Wow. Hand this fellow a weapon and point 'im at the post office.

Feeling a little irritated are we?

Re:I'm starting to hate the internet (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#34529818)

Yeah I think for the Average Joe, using something running iOS or a barely-maintained copy of Windows instead of a tightly secured OS and browser, the negatives of using the Internet at all will soon only be slightly overshadowed by the positives, enough to keep them surfing and buying.

It's what happens in any oligopolistic industry, and look at what's happened in the affected areas - there are one or two big players and a bunch of little also-rans. Google for search and advertising, Facebook for social networking, Hulu and Google for online video, Apple and Google for mobile media consumption.

Re:I'm starting to hate the internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34529820)

I'm starting to hate the internet. More and more it seems like the internet is turning into one big bug in the ass. I have to specifically opt out of fucking invasive bullshit toolbars that I didn't ask for, had no interest in, and no desire to have corrupting my machine. I got an idea for all you assholes who think that is the way to make money....HOWS ABOUT YOU WORK ON PROJECTS THAT MAKE US FREER RATHER THAN FURTHER CONFINE OR TRACK US??? Is it really so much to ask to be able to scan, upload, download, chat, skype, mud, "be on the web" without fear of being constantly surveiled? I'm not a tree. My psychological profile, shopping habits, surfing habits, political interests, are not "fruit" to be picked and sold on the market, and as such ARE NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS!!! If I want your shit, I will use the most powerful investigatory tool humankind has ever invented, find it myself, and possibly even buy it! If what you had to offer was worth having I might even buy it again. But, until that point, LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE!

-Oz

I deeply sympathize. For now, at least we can try to use Linux, which aside from Ubuntu (to some extent) is highly customizable, and fairly secure. If were not for Linux, I would also be disgusted with the internet. I think there is still some hope. But I do concur.

Re:I'm starting to hate the internet (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34530010)

Ubuntu is as customizable as any other distro, it just isn't designed with it in mind, like eg. Arch is.

Re:I'm starting to hate the internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34529846)

Oz, if you haven't completed your holiday shopping yet, you're in luck! Working with a patented system of custom personality analysis, our shopping experts have found a perfect gift item just for people like you. [walmart.com]

Re:I'm starting to hate the internet (4, Interesting)

shadowofwind (1209890) | more than 3 years ago | (#34529906)

I think the problem is a lot bigger than the internet. It looks to me that the whole cultural vision that started with the European enlightenment has largely run its course, at least in North America. I can't comment on Europe, since I haven't been there recently. Its not that we don't have freedom - in many ways we have more now than ever. Its that the fire has gone out somehow, and its just momentum that's carrying us forward. The ideal of freedom was always pretty corrupt, a matter of freedom to enslave other people or steal their land. Now that corruption has overtaken it.

Not to be all gloom and doom: there will be another enlightenment. But I don't see it happening immediately. In America, the most ambitious and talented people seem to be recent immigrants from Asia and Eastern Europe. And it doesn't seem that most of the Asians think or care very much about freedom, at least not yet.

Re:I'm starting to hate the internet (1)

rekees (1420453) | more than 3 years ago | (#34530150)

Right on, baby, that's the spirit. And I doubt we'll be starving without the big mama internet 'freeing' all about infinite growth Amazon-Google-Facebook trilogy.

Re:I'm starting to hate the internet (2)

Andtalath (1074376) | more than 3 years ago | (#34530672)

So then you would like to pay for the free services you use instead?
You know, people need money to survive.

Re:I'm starting to hate the internet (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 3 years ago | (#34530808)

Hows about you work on projects that make use freer rather than further confine or track us???

There's not as much easy money in our freedom and privacy.

(Decapitalized to get around the stupid filter...)

Re:I'm starting to hate the internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34530934)

While I may not agree with the whole internet being a pain in the ass, I see what you mean. I also would like to add how much I ABHOR social networking sites which automatically sign you up just by visiting a website. (Cough, cough FANBOX and FANIQ!!!)

fawning article (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34529540)

Every interview subject should hope for a reporter as fawning as the Globe and Mail's.... ooooh! Ms. Stoddart insisted on picking up her own lunch tab! I'll make that the opening four paragraphs. Then I'll talk about how unintimidated she was facing down the crusty old tycoon Mark Zuckerburg.

Re:fawning article (1)

davecb (6526) | more than 3 years ago | (#34529896)

Fair criticism, and it's unusual for the business section, which normally fawns over characters like Lord Black... --dave

Not private enough? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34529554)

I've always thought that our privacy commisioner's identity should be unknown. Maybe he/she could appear on TV in a hood, speaking through a voice scrambler.

can we drop the misandry, and gender commentary? (0)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 3 years ago | (#34529660)

The woman who faced down Facebook and was dissed by Silicon Valley business boys as 'an old-fashioned scold'

What's with the cheap ad hominem that wasn't in the original article? Unless they were under 18, they're not boys, just like she's not a "girl".

Also, why does it matter that she's a woman, and they're men? Again, it wasn't in the article.

Re:can we drop the misandry, and gender commentary (2)

garcia (6573) | more than 3 years ago | (#34529690)

Unless they were under 18, they're not boys, just like she's not a "girl".

Regardless of the coaching Zuck has received recently on how to act in an interview, based on his actions in public he is most definitely a "boy" even if his age is over 18.

Re:can we drop the misandry, and gender commentary (2)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 3 years ago | (#34529736)

What's with the poor reading comprehension?

Paragraph 9, words 20 through 23.

Re:can we drop the misandry, and gender commentary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34529748)

Did you read the summary?

Re:can we drop the misandry, and gender commentary (1)

davecb (6526) | more than 3 years ago | (#34529874)

"biz boy" is an derogatory term for MBA students, who are roughly 50% female these days. I typo'd and wrote "business boy", and inadvertently insulted fellow members of my sex instead of the people I meant to insult (;-)) --dave

Re:can we drop the misandry, and gender commentary (2)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 3 years ago | (#34530988)

I didn't even notice it until someone called attention to it. Even before reading your reply I just figured it for a little alliteration and not some sexist attack. Hell, there are plenty of other colloquialisms such as "boys' night out" or "boy toy" that aren't considered offensive for their use of the word boy. The second might offend a person, but not for the reason's SuperBanana pointed out.

There's malicious intent and there's loose English. Unless there's some reason to suspect that the wording is intentional, let's leave the political correctness in a box.

Re:can we drop the misandry, and gender commentary (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 3 years ago | (#34530184)

Funny how our cultural blinders obscure facts from us. Such as, only in America is a woman considered such when she attains the age of 18. Hint: different countries have different standards. But go ahead and say that 18 is a "universal" standard, because God forbid anyone think differently from us, the good people.

the article was about people in AMERICA, dipshit (1)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 3 years ago | (#34530512)

The term was used to refer to AMERICAN men. Drop the hyper-anti-US bullshit.

Re:the article was about people in AMERICA, dipshi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34531636)

the article was about people in AMERICA, dipshit

From TFS:

an interview with Jennifer Stoddart, the privacy commissioner of Canada

So, NOT about people in America, but people in CANADA.

I guess details & facts don't matter to a mighty & righteous gender warrior such as yourself.

"went up against Facebook for all of us" (0)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#34529700)

No. Not for all of us.

Re:"went up against Facebook for all of us" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34529956)

^ This. She went up against Facebook for *those who voluntarily gave their personal data to Facebook*.

Re:"went up against Facebook for all of us" (1)

davecb (6526) | more than 3 years ago | (#34531690)

Actually for anyone who's friends gave up personal data on facebook, and thereby exposed them to snooping. See "transitive trust" (;-))

--dave

So, is she married to the reporter or what? (0)

russotto (537200) | more than 3 years ago | (#34530306)

This isn't an interview, it's a publicity piece for Ms. Stoddart. Ick.

Re:So, is she married to the reporter or what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34530664)

While same-sex marriages are legal is Canada, they're not married. The interview you're reading is in The Lunch [theglobeandmail.com], a Globe section specifically meant to be people pieces.

For a little more background, the Globe is "Toronto's national newspaper", a business rag primarily aimed at our version of Wall Street, hence a specific connotation on Lunch here.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...