Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

cancel ×

110 comments

On no (-1, Troll)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#41913707)

Get the tar and feathers! How dare they not follow industry standards once again ...

Oh wait we are not talking about IE?!

Awesome Google good job

Re:On no (3, Insightful)

HJED (1304957) | about a year and a half ago | (#41916915)

Um, actually they are following industry standards, as much as I hate to say it. IE turns it on automatically which is against industry standards (and basically makes it useless because buissness will only follow it if a minority of users are using it, they can't afford to do otherwise).

Re:On no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41917895)

It was demanded by advertising industry that it is opt-in and not opt-out as Microsoft did it. Thats why at July the advertising industry said they are not going to follow DNT standard at all.

Short version: Microsoft fucked everyone and caused that at least something good coming does not work out.

Re:On no (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#41918999)

IE is correct to go against industry standards in this case.
Not that it matters, becasue everyone will turn it on and industry will ignore it becasue they have exactly ZERO reason to do what it says.

Re:On no (2)

neonKow (1239288) | about a year and a half ago | (#41920817)

No, they're not. This is a protocol, and those only work when you don't have a large portion of participants abusing the protocol. IE still represents a very significant chunk of the browser population, and it's completely irresponsible for breaking the protocol. Industry initially agreed to play by the rules, but obviously if a major player is going to ignore the agreement, industry has no incentive to keep their word.

IF every single person opt-ed in, that is far more significant than everyone just leaving the default.

Re:On no (1)

mejogid (1575619) | about a year and a half ago | (#41922721)

The only power that Do Not Track is as a means of making it clear that a user has a particular desire not to be tracked. An advertiser can chose to respect this choice, and will do so if a minority of motivated and technically inclined users make their desire clear - they don't lose out on much information, and they get substantial goodwill for it.

If Do Not Track is the default, it is no different than not having the bit at all - it's just a useless header that has no meaning. If an advertiser has a stance on tracking, they're not suddenly going to change it because browser vendors have stated they don't intend for their users to be tracked.

do not track or do not serve target ads? (1, Interesting)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year and a half ago | (#41913709)

does google mean "do not track" or "do not serve targeted ads (but still track)"? my understanding was they were saying the latter.

Re:do not track or do not serve target ads? (4, Informative)

GiganticLyingMouth (1691940) | about a year and a half ago | (#41913759)

Assuming this is a serious question, as I understand it, the browser, when requesting a page, will set a flag denoting your "do not track" status. It's up to the site to honor the request or not (which more often they don't). Of course, if you were being facetious, then feel free to ignore this.

Re:do not track or do not serve target ads? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41913865)

The beautiful thing is that it is one more bit that they can use to identify and track you!

Re:do not track or do not serve target ads? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41913965)

The issue is that major ad networks have stated that do not track means do not serve targeted ads. The ad networks will still collect and aggregate the user info to sell to advertisers.

Re:do not track or do not serve target ads? (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year and a half ago | (#41915047)

more to the point, this was google's party line as well. i wonder if they changed their tune or not?

Re:do not track or do not serve target ads? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41913763)

Why is this modded down? It simply doesn't make sense for a company to give something away for free and cut off their product. Google will always extract as much user info as they can from all of their software products. It's their entire business model!

Re:do not track or do not serve target ads? (1)

i_ate_god (899684) | about a year and a half ago | (#41914709)

and they won't waste their time on the small minority that are savvy enough to enable the feature and instead milk the majority for all its worth.

Re:do not track or do not serve target ads? (1)

yoshi_mon (172895) | about a year and a half ago | (#41915563)

I think that this is a nod to the idea that BGP is still the foundation of the internet.

If the real world knew how the inet worked and that trust between actual human beings was a factor they would freak out.

So is Google trying to slowly try to tell the populace that BGP is real? I would say yes.

Re:do not track or do not serve target ads? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41913805)

honestly i hate those targeted ads always trying to sell me something i already bought last week lmao get rid of those and i couldn't care less if they track me or not really

Re:do not track or do not serve target ads? (1)

Dr Max (1696200) | about a year and a half ago | (#41917047)

So you don't mind if i keep a file on all your likes, dislikes and habits as long as i don't show you the depth?

Re:do not track or do not serve target ads? (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#41919021)

Do Not Track doe snot stop them form gathering information. Just stops targeted ads. It's useless in any privacy way of thinking.

Enabling ‘Do Not Track’ means that a request will be included with your browsing traffic. Any effect depends on whether a website responds to the request, and how the request is interpreted. For example, some websites may respond to this request by showing you ads that aren't based on other websites you've visited. Many websites will still collect and use your browsing data - for example to improve security, to provide content, services, ads and recommendations on their websites, and to generate reporting statistics.

Still no bookmark sidebar? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41913711)

no chrome for me

Re:Still no bookmark sidebar? (2, Insightful)

flimflammer (956759) | about a year and a half ago | (#41914969)

If you were serious, you could use one of a million extensions for it. It's not as though updating chrome ever really breaks extensions.

But you weren't being serious. You were just being spiteful by showing your negativity towards a browser you don't have any intention of using.

Re:Still no bookmark sidebar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41916677)

Posting as anonymous to not zap my moderations. Actually, as far as I'm aware, there aren't a "million extensions" for this. There's nothing for Chrome that replicates the complete functionality of the bookmarks sidebar in Firefox. I fully use Chrome now, but still miss the convenience of the bookmarks sidebar in Firefox. Admittedly only for reading my daily comics.... /andrewa

Just like other browsers (-1, Troll)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year and a half ago | (#41913731)

... other than IE.

Re:Just like other browsers (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41913953)

I would prefer to not have to find this setting and turn it on every time I do a clean OS install - and yes it happens a lot when you work in IT setting up PC's for new Users. The fact that it is on by default in IE is great for users, obviously not good for the likes of advertisers who have said they will ignore the setting from IE. Google are obviously not going to have this enabled by default because tracking you is what they do best.

Re:Just like other browsers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41914341)

But the odds are if you're using IE10 to surf websites being hosted with apache, be prepared to get ignored and tracked.
http://arstechnica.com/security/2012/09/apache-webserver-updated-to-ignore-do-not-track-settings-in-ie-10/

Re:Just like other browsers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41916949)

That commit has already been reverted.

Re:Just like other browsers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41916837)

How is it great for users, that IE does not follow the standard, and because of that has no way to indicate that the user selected "do not track"?

Do you like being tracked?

Re:Just like other browsers (1)

HJED (1304957) | about a year and a half ago | (#41916927)

No, its not great for users. No one has any reason to follow this standard if it is on all the time because they make money off tracking people - it akin to telling all the ad networks that the new standard is to not track anyone at all, are they going to lose money and do that? No, they are not.

Yeah right. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41913739)

Google would never, ever cut off their product, which is user data and patterns. It doesn't make any business sense at all.

All this can possibly do is turn of targeted ads to give the illusion of not being tracked.

Re:Yeah right. (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#41913787)

Google would never, ever cut off their product, which is user data and patterns. It doesn't make any business sense at all.

All this can possibly do is turn of targeted ads to give the illusion of not being tracked.

They do not have too. At least not at the browser level. Why do you think Google introduced Google DNS? All Google needs is a DNS record at your IP address on what you do by IP address. This way Google's ad network is covered while competitors are not ;-)

So they can still put DNT and it is good as least you have 1 stalker Google. No one else.

Re:Yeah right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41913933)

True, but I figure, between them, the governments, ISP's and all other corpses making a mint from selling my data, Google is the only one actually giving something back.

Anyway, I don't understand why anyone in their right mind would use Chrome and say they care one whit about their privacy. If Amazon would make their own browser, it would probably be identical to Chrome in every aspect.

Re:Yeah right. (1)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#41914135)

They do have their own browser.

Re:Yeah right. (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about a year and a half ago | (#41917645)

Google DNS can only tell the domain, not the specific page you were looking at, so it's much less useful than other kinds of trackers. Yeah, they might know you've been to e.g. Amazon, but they have no idea what products have you looked at.

Considering that the number of people who block tracking is ridiculously low, I think the data from DNS is hardly useful.

Re:Yeah right. (1)

farble1670 (803356) | about a year and a half ago | (#41913939)

Google would never, ever cut off their product, which is user data and patterns. It doesn't make any business sense at all.

not that simple. consider chrome users that care about being tracked ....

1. google doesn't support "do not track". people that care use some other browser.
2. google supports "do not track". people that care continue to use chrome, and disable tracking.

in this simple scenario, they don't lose anything by supporting do no track. in reality, they gain, because,

a. it's better to have more people tied in to their browser, even if they aren't being tracked
b. many people will reject the browser outright because of bad PR resulting from #1, even if they don't really care about being tracked

Don't give up your proxy! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41913797)

Cuz "Do Not Track" is a farce.

Just ask Mark Zuckerburg. He's worth billions because FaceBook's technology is designed to slice and dice your online existence.

And what about the gub'ment? You think they're gonna stop monitoring electronic communications just because Chrome gives you a feel-good button to click?

No one cares that you want privacy. Just as Scott "Get Over IT" McNeally.

At least he was honest about it.

Re:Don't give up your proxy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41913911)

true, especially since user-agent string still exists

Re:Don't give up your proxy! (2)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year and a half ago | (#41913925)

Cuz "Do Not Track" is a farce.

Oh I don't know about that, I have a feeling that DNT works fine, the problem is advertisers not respecting it more than anything as we all know. I have a feeling that the Chromium [chromium.org] will implement something that makes DNT work...properly.

Funny enough, that whole privacy thing? People do. Enough so that various privacy commissioners do get involved like they do here in Canada and Germany, a few other places too. And in most cases they're not toothless either. Maybe that's just an American thing.

Re:Don't give up your proxy! (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | about a year and a half ago | (#41914277)

Oh I don't know about that, I have a feeling that DNT works fine, the problem is advertisers not respecting it more than anything as we all know. I have a feeling that the Chromium [chromium.org] will implement something that makes DNT work...properly.

You mean like this? [adblockplus.org]

Re:Don't give up your proxy! (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#41919049)

You are making VAST ASSUMPTION about what 'Do Not Track' is. Have you read anything about it. Here:

Enabling ‘Do Not Track’ means that a request will be included with your browsing traffic. Any effect depends on whether a website responds to the request, and how the request is interpreted. For example, some websites may respond to this request by showing you ads that aren't based on other websites you've visited. Many websites will still collect and use your browsing data - for example to improve security, to provide content, services, ads and recommendations on their websites, and to generate reporting statistics.

So they still gather everything, they just don't show you ads based on what the gathered. They will still show you ads, just random ones.

Re:Don't give up your proxy! (1)

GargamelSpaceman (992546) | about a year and a half ago | (#41918657)

Some sites will honor it. I don't see the harm. Especially the sites I use chrome for: All my non pseudonymous stuff like my Gmail account and my credit union. Actually I can't use chrome for some features at my bank because I can't find a way to enable popups for even a whitelisted site. I don't really hope Chrome will change. I would rather my bank change to not require popups. I notice chrome asks me for my gnome keyring password. I am not sure what that is but I believe it's some data stored in my home directory in a dot folder where chrome stores my passwords in encrypted form. I haven't looked into it. Maybe that's not what it's doing. Still I don't think google is going to raid my bank account. I used to use opera for my on the up and up browsing and online purchases, but I'm trying chrome. I very well may go back to opera.

Most of my browsing is pseudonymous with convienience placed higher on the priority list than privacy, and is done with firefox. I have ghostery, abp, betterprivacy, smartreferrer, maskingagent, and use polipo as a proxy ( no tor, cache off, just remove identifying info ). Some of this is probably redundant. I also had the RequestPolicy add on to deal with webbugs, but it broke too much stuff, so I disabled it. Using it for a while reminds you just how buggable you are. Real privacy even from random sites ( not talking about the government here ) seems almost lost cause unless you're going to use Tor, but you can still try to be in the 10% they don't bother with because it's a slight pain. It's easy to show up in reports, but it's easier to be missing some key and be ommited from a query. If there's a serious effort to finger you, your're probably hosed, but if there's a casual sweep, you might get lucky be missed.

I think I like firefox sync's password store better than whatever chrome is doing as it's stored off my hard drive 'in the cloud'. I haven't wiped my hard drive since using chrome, but I have a feeling I would lose my chrome passwords if I wiped my drive without backing up my gnome keyring. I wrote down my firefox recovery key and have already used it to recover my firetox passwords. The stuff is supposedly stored in encrypted form. I trust that it's true. The only thing I wish is that you could add annotations to the passwords you store such as eg; passphrases. Some sites ask you for additional information the first time you log in, often on a different screen. I also wish you could write yourself private text notes of stuff to be stored encypted in the cloud with your firefox passwords, maybe a MB of space or so. Maybe you can, and I haven't run into it.

Google has a pretty piss poor track record (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year and a half ago | (#41913825)

I trust this feature works as advertised as much as I trust them with my data.

Re:Google has a pretty piss poor track record (1)

p0p0 (1841106) | about a year and a half ago | (#41913975)

[citation needed]
Seriously, I have trouble thinking of any real problems that Google has had with personal data aside from the Google cars collecting WiFi info.

Re:Google has a pretty piss poor track record (3, Interesting)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year and a half ago | (#41914093)

Problems I've had with Google:

1.) I use PicasaWeb a lot. The URLs have always been obfuscated so that your user name and real name don't show up (it's not my Slashdot user name btw). I did a google search for my real name and found out that Google had indexed my REAL name with my photo albums which showed up under any google search for me. My real name probably comes from using the Google payment service or my email display name. No attempts to alter my Google account name will change my real name as displayed by Google.

2.) I had some emails on sensitive topic that I had a negligible internet footprint with otherwise. Shortly after, I was getting spammed with ads related to that issue through Google.

3.) I had a separate YouTube account from my Google account. Google offered to share the logins of the two which I did not seeing the problem. Immediately, I started seeing people from my address book showing up under my YouTube profile pages and I'm sure that eventually they'll start seeing mine.

4.) A minor issue, but part of my problem with Google TIA. I did a job search at home on my own time. While at work, I'm now spammed with career search links with my job search criteria.

Yeah, I can just delete my account and log out of Google mail, but these are the type of problems I have with them.

Re:Google has a pretty piss poor track record (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41914325)

Here is why you are full of shit:

Picasaweb photos show up for *only you* when *you* search for something related. It does not show up for anyone else unless you explicitly share with them or make them publicly visible.

Ads show up only for you based on your content. Nothing is being leaked to others again.

It's getting tiring how Google is the one company doing the right thing in general as opposed to evil companies like Microsoft and Apple and those company shills just cannot bear it and try to promote so much FUD. It's pathetic.

Re:Google has a pretty piss poor track record (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41915157)

It's getting tiring how Google is the one company doing the right thing in general as opposed to evil companies like Microsoft and Apple and those company shills just cannot bear it and try to promote so much FUD. It's pathetic.

Pot meet Kettle

Re:Google has a pretty piss poor track record (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41915651)

Ads show up only for you based on your content. Nothing is being leaked to others again.

Bullshit. Go read Google's privacy policy and you will see that they explicitly allow themselves to share your information with anyone they want to. It is written underhandedly so as to not be clear, but legally it is completely sound.

Re:Google has a pretty piss poor track record (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41918705)

You are so full of shit you could be a jury foreman in California.

Re:Google has a pretty piss poor track record (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41919461)

Are you 12? Responding without addressing my statement only proves that I'm right.

Re:Google has a pretty piss poor track record (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41915611)

For #4, go to www.google.com/ads/preferences in all of the browsers you use. Remove categories related to finding jobs. If that doesn't work, it probably means you are getting random ads that happen to be about job searches (which would interest a lot of people in this economy).

Re:Google has a pretty piss poor track record (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41916993)

2.) I had some emails on sensitive topic that I had a negligible internet footprint with otherwise. Shortly after, I was getting spammed with ads related to that issue through Google.

Well, yeah, that's how Gmail works: they scan your email and offer your adverts they think you might be interested in based on what they know about you. If you didn't know this, and you use Gmail, that's your problem.

Re:Google has a pretty piss poor track record (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#41919099)

I never get spammed from Google, and I have been using there services since their inception. Not a single piece of spam form them, SO I don't really believe your post.

"address book showing up under my YouTube profile pages and I'm sure that eventually they'll start seeing mine."
And? Change the damn setting. Another case of someone who doesn't know how to use something bitching about the systems.
It says this:
" Let people find my channel on YouTube if they have my email address"

Re:Google has a pretty piss poor track record (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41917067)

why would you hack them when they sell it so cheap.

I am sure it works as advertised... (1)

mschaffer (97223) | about a year and a half ago | (#41914883)

but I am sure they have a "work-around" in place, now that they have added this feature.

Re:Google has a pretty piss poor track record (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about a year and a half ago | (#41914989)

The feature works just fine. It adds the extra header information exactly up to spec.

If no one listens to the DNT flag well then that is a whole other issue altogether.

Since advertisers are not following "DNT"? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41913861)

Chrome based browser users MAY find this useful - So - IF you don't want to be:

---

A.) Tracked
B.) Spammed
C.) Speed/bandwidth hogged by ads (as well as electricity, CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O as well)
D.) Hit by malware or malicious scripts (for better "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth")
E.) Hit by DNS poisoning redirection (OR DNS servers being "downed") losing reliability
F.) Blocked out & have even more 'anonymity' (to an extent vs. DNS request logs) + being able to "blow by" what you may feel are unjust blocks (in DNSBL's)... ...& more?

---

APK Hosts File Engine 5.0++ 32-bit & 64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74 [start64.com]

---

Custom hosts files gain me the following benefits (A short summary of where custom hosts files can be extremely useful):

---

1.) Blocking out malware/malscripted sites.
2.) Blocking out Known sites-servers/hosts-domains that are known to serve up malware.
3.) Blocking out Bogus DNS servers malware makers use.
4.) Blocking out Botnet C&C servers.
5.) Blocking out Bogus adbanners that are full of malicious script content.
6.) Blocking out known spammers &/or phishers.
7.) Blocking out TRACKERS.
8.) Getting you back speed/bandwidth you paid for by blocking out adbanners + hardcoding in your favorite sites (faster than remote DNS server resolution).
9.) Added reliability (vs. downed or misdirect/poisoned DNS servers).
10.) Added "anonymity" (to an extent, vs. DNS request logs).
11.) The ability to bypass DNSBL's (DNS block lists you may not agree with).
12.) More screen "real estate" (since no more adbanners appear onscreen eating up CPU, Memory, & other forms of I/O too - bonus!).
13.) Truly UNIVERSAL PROTECTION (since any OS, even on smartphones, usually has a BSD drived IP stack).
14.) Faster & MORE EFFICIENT operation vs. browser plugins (which "layer on" ontop of Ring 3/RPL 3/usermode browsers & are generally written in slower INTERPRETED languages (e.g. AdBlock = python/perl/javascript)- Whereas by way of comparison, the hosts file operates @ the Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode of operation (far faster) as a filter for the IP stack itself which is written in C & Assembly language...).
15.) Custom hosts files work on ANY & ALL webbound apps (browser plugins do not).
16.) Custom hosts files offer a better, faster, more efficient way, & safer way to surf the web & are COMPLETELY controlled by the end-user of them.

---

* There you go... & above all else IF you choose to try it for the enumerated list of benefits I extolled above?

Enjoy the program!

(However, more importantly, enjoy the results in better speed/bandwidth, privacy, reliability, "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth", & even anonymity to an extent (vs. DNS request logs & blowing past DNSBL's) + more, that custom hosts files can yield...)

Of course, THIS is NOT going to "go well" with 3 types of people out there online, profiting by advertising & nefarious exploits + more @ YOUR expense as the consumer:

---

A.) Malware makers & the like (botnet masters, etc./et al)
B.) ADVERTISERS - the TRULY offended ones, as it is their "lifeblood" in psychological attack galore, tracking, & more, etc.!
C.) Webmasters (who profit by ad banners, but fail to realize that those SAME adbanners suck away the users' bandwidth/speed, electricity, CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O they PAY FOR, plus, adbanners DO get infested with malicious code, & if anyone wants many "examples thereof" from the past near-decade now? Ask!)

---

APK

P.S.=> Lastly - It does a BETTER JOB than AdBlock &/or Ghostery (both of those are OWNED BY ADVERTISERS & are crippled in the former by default, + track you via the latter)

AdBlock only operates on Mozilla products afaik, 1st of all (just stating how these once fully useful products get "bought out" or rather "souled-out" & crippled)!

AdBlock's written in slower javascript/perl/python, & operates in SLOWER ring 3/rpl 3/usermode, LAYERED OVER ALREADY SLOWER ring 3/rpl 3/usermode apps in browsers (vs. custom hosts operating in ring 0/rpl 0/kernelmode, merely acting as a filter for the IP stack which is written in C & Assembly language - FAR faster!). AdBlock also can't speedup your favorite sites and protect you vs. DNS poisoning (as well as making access to your fav. sites more reliable), and more where it's inferior to custom hosts files...

AND

Custom hosts files also circumvent Apache's b.s. as well as anything in ANY browser that attempts to defeat blocks (or other webbound programs):

---

Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option:

http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/12/2213233/adblock-plus-to-offer-acceptable-ads-option [slashdot.org]

---

and

---

Evidon, which makes Ghostery, is an advertising company. They were originally named Better Advertising, Inc., but changed their name for obvious PR reasons.

Despite the name change, let's be clear on one thing: their goal still is building better advertising, not protecting consumer privacy.

Evidon bought Ghostery, an independent privacy tool that had a good reputation.

They took a tool that was originally for watching the trackers online, something people saw as a legitimate privacy tool, and users were understandably concerned. The company said they were just using Ghostery for research.

Turns out they had relationships with a bunch of ad companies and were compiling data from which sites you visited when you were using Ghostery, what trackers were on those sites, what ads they were, etc., and building a database to monetize.

When confronted about it, they made their tracking opt-in and called it GhostRank, which is how it exists today.

They took an open-source type tool, bought it, turned it from something that's actually protecting people from the ad industry, to something where the users are actually providing data to the advertisers to make it easier to track them.

This is a fundamental conflict of interest.

To sum up: Ghostery makes its money from selling supposedly de-indentified user data about sites visited and ads encountered to marketers and advertisers. You get less privacy, they get more money.

That's an inverse relationship.

Better Advertising/Evidon continually plays up the story that people should just download Ghostery to help them hide from advertisers. Their motivation to promote it, however, isn't for better privacy; it's because they hope that you'll opt in to GhostRank and send you a bunch of information.

They named their company Better Advertising for a reason: their incentive is better advertising, not better privacy

---

Advertisters never intended to honor "DNT" (Do Not Track):

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/09/23/1334258/advertisers-never-intended-to-honor-dnt [slashdot.org]

---

AND, neither do others:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/09/30/1435231/think-tanks-website-rejects-browser-do-not-track-requests [slashdot.org]

---

The webserver program folks even "jumped on the bandwagon" in Apache, as far as "DNT":

http://apache.slashdot.org/story/12/09/08/0053235/apache-patch-to-override-ie-10s-do-not-track-setting [slashdot.org]

---

Talk about "crooked" & telling 1/2 truths (as well as making software that was ONCE quite useful & effective, NOT QUITE AS USEFUL & EFFECTIVE by default anymore!)

... apk

Unjustifiable downmods? Please, lol... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41914041)

The "best you've got's" downmodding my post for no good reason -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3237873&cid=41913861 [slashdot.org]

?

Then, you're only proving my point in my subject-line above!

After all - Anyone can "hit & run downmod", but it's QUITE ANOTHER THING to actually JUSTIFY that downmod on VALID technical grounds... now, isn't it?

* Apparently, judging by the 'results' here? I am correct as it gets!

(Especially since no valid justification for downmodding my post was offered, & certainly NONE OF THE POINTS I STATED IN THAT BOGUSLY DOWNMODDED POST OF MINE WERE DISPROVED EITHER!)

APK

P.S.=> So, until 1 of you "hit & run downmodding trolls" actually manages to disprove the points in that post? Your downmod is DEFINITELY "bogus", & yes, unjustifiable...

... apk

Re:Since advertisers are not following "DNT"? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41914073)

Advertisers, malware makers, or webmasters downmodding you apk.

I'll agree with that (for the most part)... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41914213)

It MAY also be my "fanclub" of little trolls I've "dusted" in tech debates here MANY times - this is their ONLY form of "effete retaliation" in doing unjustifiable downmods to my posts (however, they NEVER disprove the points I put in those posts to actually validly justify their downmods, either)...

* They're pitiful...

APK

P.S.=> Funniest part is that MOST folks here browse way, Way, WAY below "the default" setting here anyhow, & see my posts anyhow (so the trolls attempting to "bury" my posts with unjustifiable downmods? Useless... lol!)

... apk

Re:Since advertisers are not following "DNT"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41914683)

Advertisers, malware makers, or webmasters are downmodding you apk.

They can "Rinse, Lather, & Repeat"... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41914707)

While running dry of their unjustifiable downmod points -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3237873&cid=41914213 [slashdot.org]

* :)

APK

P.S.=> Trolls - they're all the same, effete unjustifiable downmods, & all: They "run-dry" of their modpoints soon enough though... lol!

... apk

Re:Since advertisers are not following "DNT"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41917099)

WTF is going on here

Re:Since advertisers are not following "DNT"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41918009)

I prefer using CleanMyPC to remove all those little breadcrumb trails tracking me around the innertubes.

What's the point? (1)

Yakasha (42321) | about a year and a half ago | (#41913917)

So they can claim Chrome is the only browser that truly protects your privacy by pointing out that Safari & IE's privacy settings are ignored by the top search engine?

ADDS NOT INTRODUCES !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41913927)

This has been done before making it no introduction !!

Many reasons for tracking. (3, Interesting)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about a year and a half ago | (#41914021)

Most people don't want tracking because of scumbag marketers and data gathers; groups who are the least likely to follow the spirit of DNT. Yet for a website like mine GeoAmigo.com [geoamigo.com] . I track one thing and that is your login. I am fairly certain that people who use my site are 100% happy with my tracking as then they don't log in over and over. I cookie this so that the next time you come back to check to see if new people are in your area you don't have to log in again. If you log out the cookie is killed.

So it shouldn't be do not track but do not sell my data to data whoring scumbags.

This where the law needs to get with the 21st century. I have a simple suggestion. That any organization or logical part of an organization cannot share your data without your written permission with anyone else on the planet. Thus the billing department for a company can't even share your contact info with the marketing department let alone any third party. Also they need to make obtaining this permission a separate document. They can't have a small section of a larger form forcing you to agree to this. Also agreement to sharing the data cannot be a condition to any other agreement. This way the phone company can't say you don't get an account without sharing data.

The reason for this would be that with the push of a button a company can share millions of records with any dirtbag they feel like. So make it hard work to share data.

I use different addresses (same location but mistakes that don't matter) for nearly every company I deal with so I can see who is selling my data. Nearly all of them are. They might argue that it is for my own benefit but if I don't want it then it isn't for my benefit but to my detriment.

Re:Many reasons for tracking. (1)

complete loony (663508) | about a year and a half ago | (#41915739)

A login process is opt-in and should therefore be exempt from the do not track setting. But if your web site added a cookie and tracked my page views without my explicit consent? That's something else entirely.

Re:Many reasons for tracking. (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#41919127)

DNT doesn't mean they won't track you.

Enabling ‘Do Not Track’ means that a request will be included with your browsing traffic. Any effect depends on whether a website responds to the request, and how the request is interpreted. For example, some websites may respond to this request by showing you ads that aren't based on other websites you've visited. Many websites will still collect and use your browsing data - for example to improve security, to provide content, services, ads and recommendations on their websites, and to generate reporting statistics. Learn more

Re:Many reasons for tracking. (2)

gigaherz (2653757) | about a year and a half ago | (#41916313)

If you don't allow people like Google to do their business with your data, then they will most probably stop making all those services free for the user, since the money comes from the user tracking data.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. It's sorely needed to regulate the personal information sharing/trading. But people need to be aware that many of the free services we have like so much are free because we are not the clients, our data is the product instead.

Re:Many reasons for tracking. (0)

martin-boundary (547041) | about a year and a half ago | (#41917203)

There's nothing wrong with that. All those free services can go. They'll be replaced by other free services from new companies that will abide by the rules and still think they can make a profit, by doing what their customers want instead of what they don't want. Moreover, if open source has taught us anything, it's that high quality free stuff still gets made by people who just want to be proud to help advance the human race.

So let the data collecting leeches die a well deserved death. We don't need them.

Re:Many reasons for tracking. (1)

CCarrot (1562079) | about a year and a half ago | (#41920549)

There's nothing wrong with that. All those free services can go. They'll be replaced by other free services from new companies that will abide by the rules and still think they can make a profit, by doing what their customers want instead of what they don't want. Moreover, if open source has taught us anything, it's that high quality free stuff still gets made by people who just want to be proud to help advance the human race.

So let the data collecting leeches die a well deserved death. We don't need them.

Woww...I really can't believe the mod carnage I'm seeing on this forum. Seems like a lot of 'vested interests' are spamming with their mod points today...

For example, what's 'over-rated' about the quoted comment? Seems to me it's well written, not factually incorrect or profane, and quite reasonable. Oh, riiight, it expresses sentiments that the advertising industry really doesn't want people to think about. In other words, 'over-rated' is mod-code for 'STFU, you're threatening our bloated and obscene profit margins!'

All right, do your worst mod-trolls *braces*, my karma can TAKE it! :P

Don't need it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41914075)

Can't track me if I don't accept your cookies.

Re:Don't need it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41914109)

Er, IP address and user agent?

Re:Don't need it (0)

smash (1351) | about a year and a half ago | (#41916099)

Oh really. Just keep telling yourself that.

Re:Don't need it (1)

CCarrot (1562079) | about a year and a half ago | (#41920765)

Can't track me if I don't accept your cookies.

Do you load images? (tracking pixels [skillcrush.com] )

Do you use flash? ('super' [wsj.com] cookies [howstuffworks.com] )

etc.

0% DNT usage (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41914159)

If a site is really not tracking people with DNT, then they'll see 0% of visitors using DNT, thus not justifying the cost to support it. Otherwise, they're tracking people's usage (aggregation counts), and therefore don't comply with DNT anyway!

Now they can work on unprefixing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41914223)

Transitions and transforms have been unprefixed in all the other browser engines, what's the hold up webkit?

It really is the end of the world! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41914249)

Fire and brimstone! The dead rising from the grave! Chrome introduces Do Not Track! Dogs and cats, living together, mass hysteria!

Re:It really is the end of the world! (1)

rossdee (243626) | about a year and a half ago | (#41914413)

And of course the whaling and gnashing of teeth.

Re:It really is the end of the world! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41914615)

Arr, me hearty!

Re:It really is the end of the world! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41915099)

/\ This is why I love the Internet.

Re:It really is the end of the world! (2)

fatphil (181876) | about a year and a half ago | (#41916815)

No self-respecting whales have teeth - baleen plates for the whine.

Re:It really is the end of the world! (1)

Barefoot Monkey (1657313) | about a year and a half ago | (#41917057)

Killer whales have no self respect? :(

Re:It really is the end of the world! (1)

fatphil (181876) | about a year and a half ago | (#41917163)

They let themselves be put in captivity as playthings for humans - that's not a life of respect. :-( Respect to the ones who actually use their teeth as a way of voicing their complaints.

Re:It really is the end of the world! (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#41919141)

If they had self respect, the wouldn't be falsely called 'Whales'. The would be confident enough to be comfortable with being a specie of Dolphin.

Tor feature should be included (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41914309)

Do not track reminds me of the beware of dogs sign. Useless.

Just as Chrome contains Flash and the means to update it, so should it contain Tor and an auto update option. For first time users of this new Tor feature, they should be sent through locally fetched html files which detail the use of and warnings for using Tor via Chrome. All plugins in the Tor mode would be disabled, except those needed/provided by Tor developers.

Do not track? Worthless. Tor user? Just another exit node.

No one had any intention of respecting it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41914487)

None of the disreputable companies who track their users ever had any intention of respecting the standard.

DNT: Now only the bad guys will track you. (4, Insightful)

thisisauniqueid (825395) | about a year and a half ago | (#41914631)

So now the *good* guys will no longer track you. I don't get the logic.

Re:DNT: Now only the bad guys will track you. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41915947)

So now the *good* guys will no longer track you. I don't get the logic.

you assume that there is good tracking. your logic is faulty.

Re:DNT: Now only the bad guys will track you. (2)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | about a year and a half ago | (#41916065)

There are no good guys when it comes to tracking me.

Re:DNT: Now only the bad guys will track you. (3, Interesting)

Todd Knarr (15451) | about a year and a half ago | (#41916105)

It's called "putting them on notice". Sure, they'll still track me. But they can't claim that they didn't know I didn't want to be tracked, or that there was some implicit consent because I didn't tell them I didn't want to be tracked. It's like the fence with the "No Trespassing" sign on it: it won't stop someone from trespassing, but they can't claim they didn't know and thought it was OK. That doesn't matter unless I want to take official or legal action against them, but if I do it's a very useful thing to have available.

Prior art (1)

gillbates (106458) | about a year and a half ago | (#41918285)

It's called the evil bit.

And it doesn't work, either. Ignoring the Do Not Track standard won't give you a case against them because:

  1. You can't prove the tracking caused actual harm - unless you were caught doing something illegal.
  2. If you were doing something illegal, the tracker has no obligation to conceal illegal activity.
  3. The Do Not Track standard is why I don't use Chrome: Google believes (and probably rightly so) that its users are idiots. This is designed to give the user a false sense of security, and to further entrench Google's position in the market.

Re:Prior art (1)

Todd Knarr (15451) | about a year and a half ago | (#41920503)

I don't have to be doing anything illegal to suffer harm. For instance, if I work for a GOP-supporting business my job may be at risk if they find out I support the Democrats. Note recent news stories of CEOs making fairly explicit threats to employees about what'd happen if they failed to support the GOP in the election (eg. http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/175797801.html [jsonline.com] ). Just because something's legal doesn't mean I want the public at large, or even any specific third party, to know about it. Take your checking account register, for example, or the list of places you've shopped for gifts for your wife's birthday. Nothing illegal there at all, but you probably don't want your checking account activity posted on the Web or your wife finding out where you've been shopping before you hand her your gift.

What about chromium? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41915397)

Just what the subject says...

I don't understand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41915767)

I don't understand why more people don't just wholesale block all ads and trackers. It's pitifully easy. Your privacy is worth more than a website's revenue desires.

Personally, I block everything: cookies, all ads, all tracking, I send all LSOs to /dev/null, and I enjoy the nice, clean Internet that I paid to access.

"Please do not steal from me" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41916177)

With quite a number of companies stating that they are about to disregard the "do not track" entry in one way or another it sounds much like putting up a sign stating "please do not steal from me" on the front door. Even worse than that because with the "do not track" options people may still think they've protected their privacy somewhat.

I, for myself, don't hand the decision away to someone else and keep to AdBlock Plus and NoScript.

They had to (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about a year and a half ago | (#41916269)

If they didn't then people might realise they shouldn't use a browser from an advertising company. Plus they will just disregard the setting anyway. They had no problem by-passing safari's settings so I'm sure they are happy to do it to their own browser.

Now you can be relieved! (1)

hotfireball (948064) | about a year and a half ago | (#41916619)

Now, when selected, no more Facebook or tons of other websites tracking you. Now only Google...

Who cares.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41917687)

.....until they bring back side tabs or allow addon authors to modify the UI and let an addon do similar functionality, I won't bother ever using Chrom ever again. I also show Chrome users what they are missing out on and convince them to dump it too.

Microsoft Way Of Business (1)

helix2301 (1105613) | about a year and a half ago | (#41918277)

This is just like Microsoft to muscle companies into what they want. I am for DNT but I don't like how Microsoft makes companies do what they want them to do by using there desktop leverage.

Do not track (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41918289)

You do realize that the companies have already stated they are not going to follow the do not track option? They really don't care if you have it checked or not unless there is some law that will cost them money. Following the do not track rules would cut into their finances and that just won't happen.

Why bother if the servers ignore it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41918459)

Well, why would this make any diff?

All Your Privacy Belong to Us (1)

bdeanet (2759677) | about a year and a half ago | (#41918573)

So how does this impact Google Analytics? I don't agree with the advertising industry stating "we won't support this", maybe an unscrupulous business or two. I know many good advertising businesses which have a strict permission-based flow and would support the end-users' preference.
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...