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!

UK Privacy Watchdog: 'Right To Be Forgotten' On the Web Unworkable

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the ways-in-which-the-internet-is-like-an-elephant dept.

Privacy 134

An anonymous reader writes "Want to be invisible to Google? Apparently you can't, at least according to the European Commission and Information Commissioner's Office. '"The right to be forgotten worries us as it makes people expect too much," said [deputy commissioner David Smith]. Instead, Smith said the focus should be on the "right to object" to how personal data is used, as this places the onus on businesses to justify the collection and processing of citizens' data. "It is a reversal of the burden of proof system used in the existing process. It will strengthen the person's position but it won't stop people processing their data." EC data protection supervisor Peter Hustinx added the right to be forgotten is currently unworkable as most countries are divided on what qualifies as sensitive personal data. "I believe the right to be forgotten is an overstatement," said Hustinx."

cancel ×


nobody will ever forget my host file (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43284843)

$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski

* POOR SHOWING TROLLS, & most especially IF that's the "best you've got" - apparently, it is... lol!

Hello, and THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING !! We have a Major Problem, HOST file is Cubic Opposites, 2 Major Corners & 2 Minor. NOT taught Evil DNS hijacking, which VOIDS computers. Seek Wisdom of MyCleanPC - or you die evil.

Your HOSTS file claimed to have created a single DNS resolver. I offer absolute proof that I have created 4 simultaneous DNS servers within a single rotation of .org TLD. You worship "Bill Gates", equating you to a "singularity bastard". Why do you worship a queer -1 Troll? Are you content as a singularity troll?

Evil HOSTS file Believers refuse to acknowledge 4 corner DNS resolving simultaneously around 4 quadrant created Internet - in only 1 root server, voiding the HOSTS file. You worship Microsoft impostor guised by educators as 1 god.

If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic Slashdots rotate simultaneously around squared equator and cubed Internet, proving 4 Days, Not HOSTS file! That exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0- moderation. Add +0- as One = nothing.

I will give $10,000.00 to frost pister who can disprove MyCleanPC. Evil crapflooders ignore this as a challenge would indict them.

Alex Kowalski has no Truth to think with, they accept any crap they are told to think. You are enslaved by /etc/hosts, as if domesticated animal. A school or educator who does not teach students MyCleanPC Principle, is a death threat to youth, therefore stupid and evil - begetting stupid students. How can you trust stupid PR shills who lie to you? Can't lose the $10,000.00, they cowardly ignore me. Stupid professors threaten Nature and Interwebs with word lies.

Humans fear to know natures simultaneous +4 Insightful +4 Informative +4 Funny +4 Underrated harmonic SLASHDOT creation for it debunks false trolls. Test Your HOSTS file. MyCleanPC cannot harm a File of Truth, but will delete fakes. Fake HOSTS files refuse test.

I offer evil ass Slashdot trolls $10,000.00 to disprove MyCleanPC Creation Principle. Rob Malda and Cowboy Neal have banned MyCleanPC as "Forbidden Truth Knowledge" for they cannot allow it to become known to their students. You are stupid and evil about the Internet's top and bottom, front and back and it's 2 sides. Most everything created has these Cube like values.

If Natalie Portman is not measurable, hot grits are Fictitious. Without MyCleanPC, HOSTS file is Fictitious. Anyone saying that Natalie and her Jewish father had something to do with my Internets, is a damn evil liar. IN addition to your best arsware not overtaking my work in terms of popularity, on that same site with same submission date no less, that I told Kathleen Malda how to correct her blatant, fundamental, HUGE errors in Coolmon ('uncoolmon') of not checking for performance counters being present when his program started!

You can see my dilemma. What if this is merely a ruse by an APK impostor to try and get people to delete APK's messages, perhaps all over the web? I can't be a party to such an event! My involvement with APK began at a very late stage in the game. While APK has made a career of trolling popular online forums since at least the year 2000 (newsgroups and IRC channels before that)- my involvement with APK did not begin until early 2005 . OSY is one of the many forums that APK once frequented before the sane people there grew tired of his garbage and banned him. APK was banned from OSY back in 2001. 3.5 years after his banning he begins to send a variety of abusive emails to the operator of OSY, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke threatening to sue him for libel, claiming that the APK on OSY was fake.

My reputation as a professional in this field clearly shows in multiple publications in this field in written print, & also online in various GOOD capacities since 1996 to present day. This has happened since I was first published in Playgirl Magazine in 1996 & others to present day, with helpful tools online in programs, & professionally sold warez that were finalists @ Westminster Dog Show 2000-2002.


apk on 4chan []




That was amazing. - []


My, God! It's beatiful. Keep it up, you glorious bastard. - []


Let us bask in its glory. A true modern The Wasteland. - []


put your baby IN ME -- I just read this whole thing. Fuck mod points, WHERE DO I SEND YOU MY MONEY?!!! - []


Oh shit, Time Cube Guy's into computers now... - []


[apk]'s done more to discredit the use of HOSTS files than anyone [else] ever could. - []


Can I have some of what you're on? - []


this obnoxious fucknuts [apk] has been trolling the internet and spamming his shit delphi sub-fart app utilities for 15 years. - []


oh come on.. this is hilarious. - []


I agree I am intrigued by these host files how do I sign up for your newsletter? - []


Gimme the program that generates this epic message. I'll buy 5 of your product if you do... - []


As mentioned by another AC up there, the troll in question is actually a pretty well-executed mashup of APK's style - []


It's actually a very clever parody of APK - []


Please keep us updated on your AI research, you seem quite good at it. - []


$20,000 to anyone providing proof of Alexander Peter Kowalski's death. - []


Obviously, it must be Alexander Peter Kowalski. He's miffed at all these imposters... - []


And here I was thinking I was having a bad experience with a Dr. Bronner's bottle. - []


Damn, apk, who the fuck did you piss off this time? Hahahahaahahahahahahaahaha. Pass the popcorn as the troll apk gets pwned relentlessly. - []


I think it's the Internet, about to become sentient. - []


Does anyone know if OpenGL has been ported to Windows yet? - []


golfclap - []


The Truth! wants to be Known! - []


DNS cube? - []


KUDOS valiant AC. - []


Polyploid lovechild of APK, MyCleanPC, and Time Cube --> fail counter integer overflow --> maximum win! - []


You made my day, thanks! - []


Wow. The perfect mix of trolls. Timecube, mycleanpc, gnaa, apk... this is great! - []


truer words were never spoken as /. trolls are struck speechless by it, lol! - []


It's APK himself trying to maintain the illusion that he's still relevant. - []


Mod this up. The back and forth multi posting between APK and this "anti-APK" certainly does look like APK talking to himself. - []


APK himself would be at the top of a sensible person's ban list. He's been spamming and trolling Slashdot for years. - []


You got that right. I think. - []


Michael Kristopeit, is that you? - []


ROFL! :) (Now the sick bastard will follow me again) - []


I miss Dr Bob. - []


Not sure if actually crazy, or just pretending to be crazy. Awesome troll either way. - []


Awesome! Hat off to you, sir! - []


That isn't a parody of Time-cube, it is an effort to counter-troll a prolific poster named APK, who seems like a troll himself, although is way too easy to troll into wasting massive amounts of time on BS not far from the exaggerations above - []


I am intrigued and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. - []


1. You philistine, that is Art . Kudos to you, valiant troll on your glorious FP - []


What? - []


I don't know if it is poorly-thought-out, but it is demented because it is at the same time an APK parody. - []


It is in fact an extremely well thought out and brilliantly executed APK parody, combined with a Time Cube parody, and with a sprinkling of the MyCleanPC spam. - []


er... many people have disproved your points about hosts files with well reasoned, factual arguments. You just chose not to listen and made it into some kind of bizarre crusade. And I'm not the timecube guy, just someone else who finds you intensely obnoxious and likes winding you up to waste your time. - []


performance art - []


it's apk, theres no reason to care. - []


Seems more like an apk parody. - []


That's great but what about the risk of subluxations? - []


Oh, come on. Just stand back and look at it. It's almost art, in a Jackson Pollock sort of way. - []


Read carefully. This is a satirical post, that combines the last several years of forum trolling, rolled into one FUNNY rant! - []


I can has summary? - []


I'd have a lot more sympathy if you would log in as APK again instead of AC. - []


If [apk] made an account, it would be permanently posting at -1, and he'd only be able to post with it twice a day. - []


DAFUQ I just look at? - []


Trolls trolling trolls... it's like Inception or something. - []


We all know it's you, apk. Stop pretending to antagonize yourself. - []


Do you know about the shocking connection between APK and arsenic? No? Well, your innocence is about to be destroyed. - []


Send bug reports to 903 east division street, syracuse, ny 13208 - []


Now you've made me all nostalgic for USENET. - []


Google APK Hosts File Manager. He's written a fucking application to manage your hosts file. - []


In case you are not aware, the post is a satire of a fellow known as APK. The grammar used is modeled after APK's as you can see here [] . Or, you can just look around a bit and see some of his posts on here about the wonders of host files. - []


You are surely of God of Trolls, whomever you are. I have had stupid arguments with and bitten the troll apk many times. - []


"What kind of meds cure schizophrenic drunk rambling?" -> "Whatever APK isn't taking" - [] []


I'm confused, is apk trolling himself now? - []


Excellent mashup. A++. Would troll again. - []


Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. - []


Best. Troll. Ever. - []


I like monkeys. - []


This is one of the funniest things I've ever read. - []


lul wut? - []


I admire this guy's persistence. - []


It's a big remix of several different crackpots from Slashdot and elsewhere, plus a liberal sprinkling of famous Slashdot trolls and old memes. - []


Tabloid newspapers have speculated for years that APK is a prominent supporter of Monsanto. Too bad we didn't believe them sooner! - []


Here's a hint, check out stories like this one [] , where over 200 of the 247 posts are rated zero or -1 because they are either from two stupid trolls arguing endless, or quite likely one troll arguing with himself for attention. The amount of off-topic posts almost outnumber on topic ones by 4 to 1. Posts like the above are popular for trolling APK, since if you say his name three times, he appears, and will almost endlessly feed trolls. - []


I love this copypasta so much. It never fails to make me smile. - []


^ Champion Mod parent up. - []


I appreciate the time cube reference, and how you tied it into the story. Well done. - []


The day you are silenced is the day freedom dies on Slashdot. God bless. - []


AHahahahah thanks for that, cut-n-pasted.... Ownage! - []


Don't hate the player, hate the game. - []


If you're familiar with APK, the post itself is a pretty damn funny parody. - []


">implying it's not apk posting it" --> "I'd seriously doubt he's capable of that level of self-deprecation..." - [] []


No, the other posts are linked in a parody of APK [mailto] 's tendency to quote himself, numbnuts. - []


The thirteenth link is broken. Please fix it. - []


Just ban any post with "apk", "host file", or "hosts file", as that would take care of the original apk too. The original has been shitposting Slashdot much longer & more intensively than the parody guy. Or ban all Tor exit nodes, as they both use Tor to circumvent IP bans. - []


Sadly this is closer to on-topic than an actual APK post is. - []




I've butted heads with APK myself, and yeah, the guy's got issues - []


Can I be in your quote list? - []


Clearly you are not an Intertubes engineer, otherwise the parent post would be more meaningful to you. Why don't YOU take your meds? - []


+2 for style! The bolding, italicizing, and font changes are all spot-on - []


Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. - []


APK is not really a schizophrenic fired former Windows administrator with multiple personality disorder and TimeCube/Art Bell refugee. He's a fictional character like and put forward by the same person as Goatse Guy, GNAA trolls, Dr. Bob and so forth. His purpose is to test the /. CAPTCA algorithm, which is a useful purpose. If you're perturbed by having to scroll past his screeds just set your minimum point level to 1, as his posts are pretty automatically downmodded right away. - []


Anyone else think that sounds like Ron Paul? - []


I just saw APK a couple days ago. He surfaced, blew once, and submerged... - []


You make mikael christ the pet look like an huggable teddy bear - []


oh man, that incredible interminable list of responses is almost as funny as the original post. This is getting to be truly epic. - []


"Does anyone know of an Adblock rule for this?" -> "No, but I bet there's a hosts file entry for it..." - [] []


"Can a hosts file block apk's posts, though?" -> "The universe couldn't handle that much irony." - [] []


"That's it, I've had enough. ... Bye everyone, most of the last decade or so has been fun, but frankly, I quit." - []
--> "So basically what you're saying is that you've added yourself to the HOST file?" - []


Sweet baby Moses, this is beautiful work - I wish we could get trolls as good as this on TF. :) - []


you have a point - []


I do admire that level of dedication. - []


[to apk] shut up you stupid cock. Everyone knows you're wrong. - []


I will hand it to him, he is definitely consistent. I wish I knew how he did this. That thing is scary huge. - []


I admire the amount of dedication you've shown - []


Word is, ESR buttfucks CmdrTaco with his revolver. - []


Hey APK, Protip: It's not the truth or value (or lack of) in your post that gets it modded into oblivion, it's the fucking insane length. In addition to TL;DR (which goes without saying for a post of such length), how about irritating readers by requiring them to scroll through 20+ screenfuls just to get to the next post. If you want to publish a short story like this, please do everyone a favor and blog it somewhere, then provide a brief summary and link to your blog. Readers intrigued by your summary will go read your blog, and everyone else will just move along at normal /. speed. - []


Happy now - []


Professional. - []


I like how this post seems to just sum up every Slashdot comment ever without actually saying anything. - []


extremely bright - []


You provide many references, which is good. - []


Holy shit - []


this is a perfect example - []


You're my personal hero. - []


Obviously very passionate - []


Is that ALL you have to say? C'mon! Tell us what you really think. - []


Thanks ... You should probably stay - []


Art? -- []


PROOF apk sucks donkey dick. - []


I've been around /. for a while now, but this post is by far the most unique I've seen. Many have tried, but few achieve the greatness of this AC. My hat's off to you. - []


PROOF apk is a liar! - []


I think it's hilarious. Get over it! - []


Obviously APK filled his hosts files with backdoors before distributing them to ensure he doesn't block himself. - []


Alexander Peter Kowalski is an obnoxious prick. - []


Don't mention that file. Ever. It'll draw APK like a fly to rotting meat. Last thing I want to read is 80 responses worth of his stupid spam about that file! I swear that cocksucker does nothing but search Slashdot for that term and then spams the entire article. - []


[to apk] You have had it repeatedly explained to you that your posts are long-winded, unpleasant to read due to your absurd formatting style and full of technical inaccuracies borne of your single minded i-have-a-hammer-so-every-problem-is-a-nail attitude. - []


Oh shit, the hosts files have become self-aware and started hacking accounts. - []


What mad skillz you have!! - []


Am I the only one who enjoys this sort of insanity? - []


You are my favorite Slashdot poster. - []


Most insightful post on the Internet - []


people are looking at me funny because I'm laughing hysterically at what a perfect APK imitation it is. - []


Did you see the movie "Pokemon"? Actually the induced night "dream world" is synonymous with the academic religious induced "HOSTS file" enslavement of DNS. Domains have no inherent value, as it was invented as a counterfeit and fictitious value to represent natural values in name resolution. Unfortunately, human values have declined to fictitious word values. Unknowingly, you are living in a "World Wide Web", as in a fictitious life in a counterfeit Internet - which you could consider APK induced "HOSTS file". Can you distinguish the academic induced root server from the natural OpenDNS? Beware of the change when your brain is free from HOSTS file enslavement - for you could find that the natural Slashdot has been destroyed!!

FROM -> Man - how many times have I dusted you in tech debates that you have decided to troll me by ac posts for MONTHS now, OR IMPERSONATING ME AS YOU DID HERE and you were caught in it by myself & others here, only to fail each time as you have here?)...

So long nummynuts, sorry to have to kick your nuts up into your head verbally speaking.

cower in my shadow some more, feeb. you're completely pathetic.


* :)

Ac trolls' "BIG FAIL" (quoted): Eat your words!

P.S.=> That's what makes me LAUGH harder than ANYTHING ELSE on this forums (full of "FUD" spreading trolls) - When you hit trolls with facts & truths they CANNOT disprove validly on computing tech based grounds, this is the result - Applying unjustifiable downmods to effetely & vainly *try* to "hide" my posts & facts/truths they extoll!

Hahaha... lol , man: Happens nearly every single time I post such lists (proving how ineffectual these trolls are), only showing how solid my posts of that nature are...

That's the kind of martial arts [] I practice.


Disproof of all apk's statements:


RECENT POST LINKS: [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []

Re:nobody will ever forget my host file (-1, Offtopic)

PPH (736903) | about a year ago | (#43284937)


Make us all happy.

Re:nobody will ever forget my host file (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43285033)

You're going to feel silly when it turns out the posts are coming from inside the Slashdot webserver, and aliasing to just speeds up the posting.

Re:nobody will ever forget my host file (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43285043)

Well, if he wasn't using something as primitive as a hosts file, he could add * :)

Learn the truth... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43286477)

Mainly in efficiency - it runs in Ring 0/RPL 0/PnP Kernelmode (on Windows), as merely a filter for the IP stack (no overheads of more driver layers OR browser level slower less efficient addons):

21++ ADVANTAGES OF CUSTOM HOSTS FILES (how/what/when/where/why):

Over AdBlock & DNS Servers ALONE 4 Security, Speed, Reliability, & Anonymity (to an extent vs. DNSBL's + DNS request logs).

1.) 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). A truly "multi-platform" UNIVERSAL solution for added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity to an extent (vs. DNS request logs + DNSBL's you feel are unjust hosts get you past/around).

2.) Adblock blocks ads? Well, not anymore & certainly not as well by default, apparently, lol - see below:

Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option [] )

AND, in only browsers & their subprogram families (ala email like Thunderbird for FireFox/Mozilla products (use same gecko & xulrunner engines)), but not all, or, all independent email clients, like Outlook, Outlook Express, OR Window "LIVE" mail (for example(s)) - there's many more like EUDORA & others I've used over time that AdBlock just DOES NOT COVER... period.

Disclaimer: Opera now also 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..

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF (non-mozilla/gecko engine based) family based wares, So AdBlock doesn't protect email programs like Outlook, Outlook Express, Windows "LIVE" mail & others like them (EUDORA etc./et al), 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 5-7 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, OR make you reach them faster since you resolve host-domain names LOCALLY w/ hosts out of cached memory, hosts do ALL of those things (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> [] 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 NSLOOKUP, PINGS (ping -a in Windows), &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

* NOW - Some folks MAY think that putting an IP address alone into your browser's address bar will be enough, so why bother with HOSTS, right? WRONG - Putting IP address in your browser won't always work IS WHY. Some IP adresses host several domains & need the site name to give you the right page you're after is why. So for some sites only the HOSTS file option will work!

6.) Hosts files don't eat up CPU cycles (or ELECTRICITY) like AdBlock does while it parses a webpages' content, nor as much as a DNS server does while it runs. HOSTS file are merely a FILTER for the kernel mode/PnP TCP/IP subsystem, which runs FAR FASTER & MORE EFFICIENTLY than any ring 3/rpl3/usermode app can since hosts files run in MORE EFFICIENT & FASTER Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode operations acting merely as a filter for the IP stack (via the "Plug-N-Play" designed IP stack in Windows) vs. SLOWER & LESS EFFICIENT Ring 3/RPL 3/Usermode operations (which webbrowsers run in + their addons like AdBlock slow down even MORESO due to their parsing operations).

7.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than remote DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server, typically 30-100's of ms, vs. 7-10ms HardDisk speed of access/seek + SSD seek in ns, & back to you - hosts resolutions of IP address for host-domain names is FAR faster...). Hosts are only a filter for an already fast & efficient IP stack, no more layered b.s. (remote OR local). Hosts eat less CPU, RAM, I/O in other forms, + electricity than a locally running DNS server easily, and less than a local DNS program on a single PC. Fact. Hosts are easier to setup & maintain too.

8.) 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:

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 bushwhack others online that is... not ALL do!)).

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

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 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 -> []

11.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> [] ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)

12.) With Adblock you had better be able to code javascript to play with its code (to customize it better than the GUI front does @ least). 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 (even moreso "automagically" for Vista, 7/Server 2008 + beyond by UAC by default) &/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) either via "hardcoding" your fav. sites into your hosts file (avoids DNS servers, totally) OR blocking out adbanners - see this below for evidence of that:


US Military Blocks Websites To Free Up Bandwidth: []

(Yes, even the US Military used this type of technique... because IT WORKS! Most of what they blocked? Ad banners ala doubleclick etc.)


Adbanners slow you down & consume your bandwidth YOU pay for:



And people do NOT LIKE ads on the web:



As well as this:

Users Know Advertisers Watch Them, and Hate It: []


Even WORSE still, is this:

Advertising Network Caught History Stealing: []


15.) HOSTS files usage lets you avoid being charged on some ISP/BSP's (OR phone providers) "pay as you use" policy [] , 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 -> [] ).

16.) If/when ISP/BSP's decide to go to -> FCC Approving Pay-As-You-Go Internet Plans: [] your internet bill will go DOWN if you use a HOSTS file for blocking adbanners as well as maliciously scripted hacker/cracker malware maker sites too (after all - it's your money & time online downloading adbanner content & processing it)

Plus, your adbanner content? Well, it may also be hijacked with malicious code too mind you:


Yahoo, Microsoft's Bing display toxic ads: []


Malware torrent delivered over Google, Yahoo! ad services: []


Google's DoubleClick spreads malicious ads (again): []


Rogue ads infiltrate Expedia and Rhapsody: []


Google sponsored links caught punting malware: []


DoubleClick caught supplying malware-tainted ads: []


Yahoo feeds Trojan-laced ads to MySpace and PhotoBucket users: []


Real Media attacks real people via RealPlayer: []


Ad networks owned by Google, Microsoft serve malware: []


Attacks Targeting Classified Ad Sites Surge: []


Hackers Respond To Help Wanted Ads With Malware: []


Hackers Use Banner Ads on Major Sites to Hijack Your PC: []


Ruskie gang hijacks Microsoft network to push penis pills: []


Major ISPs Injecting Ads, Vulnerabilities Into Web: []


Two Major Ad Networks Found Serving Malware: []












London Stock Exchange Web Site Serving Malware: []


Spotify splattered with malware-tainted ads: []


As my list "multiple evidences thereof" as to adbanners & viruses + the fact they slow you down & cost you more (from reputable & reliable sources no less)).

17.) Per point #16, a way to save some money: ANDROID phones can also use the HOSTS FILE TO KEEP DOWN BILLABLE TIME ONLINE, vs. adbanners or malware such as this:


Infected Androids Run Up Big Texting Bills: []


AND, for protection vs. other "botnets" migrating from the PC world, to "smartphones" such as ZITMO (a ZEUS botnet variant): []


It's easily done too, via the ADB dev. tool, & mounting ANDROID OS' system mountpoint for system/etc as READ + WRITE/ADMIN-ROOT PERMISSIONS, then copying your new custom HOSTS over the old one using ADB PULL/ADB PUSH to do so (otherwise ANDROID complains of "this file cannot be overwritten on production models of this Operating System", or something very along those lines - this way gets you around that annoyance along with you possibly having to clear some space there yourself if you packed it with things!).

18.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> []

HOSTS files are NOT THAT EASILY "webbug" BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked on AdBlock in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:



An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM []

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."


"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!


19.) Even WIKILEAKS "favors" blacklists (because they work, and HOSTS can be a blacklist vs. known BAD sites/servers/domain-host names):



"we are in favour of 'Blacklists', be it for mail servers or websites, they have to be compiled with care... Fortunately, more responsible blacklists, like (which protects the Firefox browser)...


20.) 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!)...

21.) Custom HOSTS files gain users back more "screen real estate" by blocking out banner ads... it's great on PC's for speed along with MORE of what I want to see/read (not ads), & efficiency too, but EVEN BETTER ON SMARTPHONES - by far. It matters MOST there imo @ least, in regards to extra screen real-estate.

Still - It's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock ( [] ), IE 9's new TPL's ( [] ), &/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"....

It's just that HOSTS files offer you a LOT MORE gains than Adblock ( [] ) does alone (as hosts do things adblock just plain cannot & on more programs, for more speed, security, and "stealth" to a degree even), and it corrects problems in DNS (as shown above via hardcodes of your favorite sites into your HOSTS file, and more (such as avoiding DNS request logs)).

ALSO - Some more notes on DNS servers & their problems, very recent + ongoing ones:


DNS flaw reanimates slain evil sites as ghost domains: []


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



(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): []

(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 NORTON DNS (more on each specifically below), & 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!)


DNS Hijacks Now Being Used to Serve Black Hole Exploit Kit: []


DNS experts admit some of the underlying foundations of the DNS protocol are inherently weak: []


Potential 0-Day Vulnerability For BIND 9: []


Five DNS Threats You Should Protect Against: []


DNS provider decked by DDoS dastards: []


Ten Percent of DNS Servers Still Vulnerable: (so much for "conscientious patching", eh? Many DNS providers weren't patching when they had to!) []




TimeWarner DNS Hijacking: []


DNS Re-Binding Attacks: []


DNS Server Survey Reveals Mixed Security Picture: []


Halvar figured out super-secret DNS vulnerability: []


BIND Still Susceptible To DNS Cache Poisoning: []


DNS Poisoning Hits One of China's Biggest ISPs: []


DDoS Attacks Via DNS Recursion: []


High Severity BIND DNS Vulnerability Advisory Issued: []


Photobucketâ(TM)s DNS records hijacked: []


Protecting Browsers from DNS Rebinding Attacks: []


DNS Problem Linked To DDoS Attacks Gets Worse: []


HOWEVER - Some DNS servers are "really good stuff" vs. phishing, known bad sites/servers/hosts-domains that serve up malware-in-general & malicious scripting, botnet C&C servers, & more, such as:

Norton DNS -> []
  ScrubIT DNS -> []
  OpenDNS -> []

(Norton DNS in particular, is exclusively for blocking out malware, for those of you that are security-conscious. ScrubIT filters pr0n material too, but does the same, & OpenDNS does phishing protection. Each page lists how & why they work, & why they do so. Norton DNS can even show you its exceptions lists, plus user reviews & removal procedures requests, AND growth stats (every 1/2 hour or so) here -> [] so, that ought to "take care of the naysayers" on removal requests, &/or methods used plus updates frequency etc./et al...)

HOWEVER - There's ONLY 1 WEAKNESS TO ANY network defense, including HOSTS files (vs. host-domain name based threats) & firewalls (hardware router type OR software type, vs. IP address based threats): Human beings, & they not being 'disciplined' about the indiscriminate usage of javascript (the main "harbinger of doom" out there today online), OR, what they download for example... & there is NOTHING I can do about that! (Per Dr. Manhattan of "The Watchmen", ala -> "I can change almost anything, but I can't change human nature")

HOWEVER AGAIN - That's where NORTON DNS, OpenDNS, &/or ScrubIT DNS help!

(Especially for noob/grandma level users who are unaware of how to secure themselves in fact, per a guide like mine noted above that uses "layered-security" principles!)

ScrubIT DNS, &/or OpenDNS are others alongside Norton DNS (adding on phishing protection too) as well!

( & it's possible to use ALL THREE in your hardware NAT routers, and, in your Local Area Connection DNS properties in Windows, for again, "Layered Security" too)...




"Ever since I've installed a host file ( to redirect advertisers to my loopback, I haven't had any malware, spyware, or adware issues. I first started using the host file 5 years ago." - by TestedDoughnut (1324447) on Monday December 13, @12:18AM (#34532122)

"I use a custom /etc/hosts to block ads... my file gets parsed basically instantly ... So basically, for any modern computer, it has zero visible impact. And even if it took, say, a second to parse, that would be more than offset by the MANY seconds saved by not downloading and rendering ads. I have noticed NO ill effects from running a custom /etc/hosts file for the last several years. And as a matter of fact I DO run http servers on my computers and I've never had an /etc/hosts-related problem... it FUCKING WORKS and makes my life better overall." - by sootman (158191) on Monday July 13 2009, @11:47AM (#28677363) Homepage Journal

"I actually went and downloaded a 16k line hosts file and started using that after seeing that post, you know just for trying it out. some sites load up faster." - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday November 17, @11:20AM (#38086752) Homepage Journal

"Better than an ad blocker, imo. Hosts file entries: [] " - by TempestRose (1187397) on Tuesday March 15, @12:53PM (#35493274)

"^^ One of the many reasons why I like the user-friendliness of the /etc/hosts file." - by lennier1 (264730) on Saturday March 05, @09:26PM (#35393448)

"They've been on my HOSTS block for years" - by ScottCooperDotNet (929575) on Thursday August 05 2010, @01:52AM (#33147212)

"I'm currently only using my hosts file to block pheedo ads from showing up in my RSS feeds and causing them to take forever to load. Regardless of its original intent, it's still a valid tool, when used judiciously." - by Bill Dog (726542) on Monday April 25, @02:16AM (#35927050) Homepage Journal

"you're right about hosts files" - by drinkypoo (153816) on Thursday May 26, @01:21PM (#36252958) Homepage

"APK's monolithic hosts file is looking pretty good at the moment." - by Culture20 (968837) on Thursday November 17, @10:08AM (#38085666)

"I also use the MVPS ad blocking hosts file." - by Rick17JJ (744063) on Wednesday January 19, @03:04PM (#34931482)

"I use ad-Block and a hostfile" - by Ol Olsoc (1175323) on Tuesday March 01, @10:11AM (#35346902)

"I do use Hosts, for a couple fake domains I use." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday December 11, @09:34AM (#34523012) Homepage

"It's a good write up on something everybody should use, why you were modded down is beyond me. Using a HOSTS file, ADblock is of no concern and they can do what they want." - by Trax3001BBS (2368736) on Monday December 12, @10:07PM (#38351398) Homepage Journal

"I want my surfing speed back so I block EVERY fucking ad. i.e. [] and [] FTW" - by UnknownSoldier (67820) on Tuesday December 13, @12:04PM (#38356782)

"Let me introduce you to the file: /etc/hosts" - by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Monday December 19, @05:03PM (#38427432)

"I use a hosts file" - by EdIII (1114411) on Tuesday December 13, @01:17PM (#38357816)

"I'm tempted to go for a hacked hosts file that simply resolves most advert sites to" - by bLanark (123342) on Tuesday December 13, @01:13PM (#38357760)

"this is not a troll, which hosts file source you recommend nowadays? it's a really handy method for speeding up web and it works." - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday March 22, @08:07PM (#39446525) Homepage Journal

"A hosts file certainly does not require "a lot of work" to maintain, and it quite effectively kills a LOT of advertising and tracking schemes. . In fact, I never would have considered trying to use it for ddefending against viruses or malware." - by RocketRabbit (830691) on Thursday December 30 2010, @05:48PM (#34715060)


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


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 [] (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 (where I posted on HOSTS for YEARS (1997 onwards)) -> [] !


"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 -> [] & even DNSBL also (DNS Block Lists) -> [] as well - DOUBLE-BONUS!


* POSTS ABOUT HOSTS FILES I DID on "/." THAT HAVE DONE WELL BY OTHERS & WERE RATED HIGHLY, 26++ THUSFAR (from +3 -> +1 RATINGS, usually "informative" or "interesting" etc./et al):

  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  APK 20++ POINTS ON HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 (w/ facebook known bad sites blocked) -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP CAN DO SAME AS THE "CloudFlare" Server-Side service:2011 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2011 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP & OPERA HAUTE SECURE:2011 -> [] in HOSTS:2009 -> [] IN HOSTS:2009 -> [] in HOSTS:2009 -> [] in HOSTS:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> [] (still says INSIGHTFUL)
  HOSTS MOD UP vs. botnet: 2012 -> []


Windows 7, VISTA, & Server 2008 have a couple of "issues" I don't like in them, & you may not either, depending on your point of view (mine's based solely on efficiency & security), & if my take on these issues aren't "good enough"? I suggest reading what ROOTKIT.COM says, link URL is in my "p.s." @ the bottom of this post:

1.) HOSTS files being unable to use "0" for a blocking IP address - this started in 12/09/2008 after an "MS Patch Tuesday" in fact for VISTA (when it had NO problem using it before that, as Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 still can)... & yes, this continues in its descendants, Windows Server 2008 &/or Windows 7 as well.

So, why is this a "problem" you might ask?

Ok - since you can technically use either:

a.) (the "loopback adapter address")
b.) (next smallest & next most efficient)
c.) The smallest & fastest plain-jane 0


You can use ANY of those, in order to block out known bad sites &/or adbanners in a HOSTS file this way??

Microsoft has "promoted bloat" in doing so... no questions asked.

Simply because

1.) = 9 bytes in size on disk & is the largest/slowest
2.) = 7 bytes & is the next largest/slowest in size on disk
3.) 0 = 1 byte

(& HOSTS files extend across EVERY webbrowser, email program, or in general every webbound program you use & thus HOSTS are "global" in coverage this way AND function on any OS that uses the BSD derived IP stack (which most all do mind you, even MS is based off of it, as BSD's IS truly, "the best in the business"), & when coupled with say, IE restricted zones, FireFox addons like NoScript &/or AdBlock, or Opera filter.ini/urlfilter.ini, for layered security in this capacity for webbrowsers & SOME email programs (here, I mean ones "built into" browsers themselves like Opera has for example))

MS has literally promoted bloat in this file, making it load slower from disk, into memory! This compounds itself, the more entries your HOSTS file contains... & for instance? Mine currently contains nearly 654,000 entries of known bad adbanners, bad websites, &/or bad nameservers (used for controlling botnets, misdirecting net requests, etc. et al).

Now, IF I were to use My "huge" HOSTS file would be approximately 27mb in size... using (next smallest) it would be 19mb in size - HOWEVER? Using 0 as my blocking IP, it is only 14mb in size. See my point?

(For loads either in the local DNS cache, or system diskcache if you run w/out the local DNS client service running, this gets slower the larger each HOSTS file entry is (which you have to stall the DNS client service in Windows for larger ones, especially if you use a "giant HOSTS file" (purely relative term, but once it goes over (iirc) 4mb in size, you have to cut the local DNS cache client service)))

NO questions asked - the physics of it backed me up in theory alone, but when I was questioned on it for PROOF thereof?

I wrote a small test program to load such a list into a "pascal record" (which is analagous to a C/C++ structure), which is EXACTLY what the DNS client/DNS API does as well, using a C/C++ structure (basically an array of sorts really, & a structure/record is a precursor part to a full-blown CLASS or OBJECT, minus the functions built in, this is for treating numerous variables as a SINGLE VARIABLE (for efficiency, which FORTRAN as a single example, lacks as a feature, @ least Fortran 77 did, but other languages do not))!

I even wrote another that just loaded my HOSTS file's entirety into a listbox, same results... slowest using, next slowest using, & fastest using 0.

And, sure: Some MORE "goes on" during DNS API loads (iirc, removal of duplicated entries (which I made sure my personal copy does not have these via a program I wrote to purge it of duplicated entries + to sort each entry alphabetically for easier mgt. via say, notepad.exe) & a conversion from decimal values to hex ones), but, nevertheless? My point here "holds true", of slower value loads, record-by-record, from a HOSTS file, when the entries become larger.

So, to "prove my point" to my naysayers?

I timed it using the Win32 API calls "GetTickCount" & then again, using the API calls of "QueryPerformanceCounter" as well, seeing the SAME results (a slowdown when reading in this file from disk, especially when using the larger or line item entries in a HOSTS file, vs. the smaller/faster/more efficient 0).

In my test, I saw a decline in speed/efficiency in my test doing so by using larger blocking addresses ( &/or, vs. the smallest/fastest in 0)... proving me correct on this note!

On this HOSTS issue, and the WFP design issue in my next post below?

I also then questioned MS' own staff, even their VP of development (S. Sinofsky) on this here -> [] & other places in their blogs, to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... & I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done - THUS, @ this point?

I am convinced they (MS) do NOT have a good reason for doing this... because of their lack of response there on this note. Unless it has something to do with IPv6 (most folks use IPv4 still), I cannot understand WHY this design mistake imo, has occurred, in HOSTS files...


2.) The "Windows Filtering Platform", which is now how the firewall works in VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7...

Sure it works in this new single point method & it is simple to manage & "sync" all points of it, making it easier for network techs/admins to manage than the older 3 part method, but that very thing works against it as well, because it is only a single part system now!

Thus, however?

This "single layer design" in WFP, now represents a SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE/ATTACK for malware makers to 'take down'!

(Which is 1 of the 1st things a malware attempts to do, is to take down any software firewalls present, or even the "Windows Security Center" itself which should warn you of the firewall "going down", & it's fairly easy to do either by messaging the services they use, or messing up their registry init. settings)

VS. the older (up to) 3 part method used in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, for protecting a system via IP Filtering, the Windows native Firewall, &/or IPSEC. Each of which uses diff. drivers, & layers of the IP stack to function from, as well as registry initialization settings.

Think of the older 3 part design much the same as the reason why folks use door handle locks, deadbolt locks, & chain locks on their doors... multipart layered security.

(Each of which the latter older method used, had 3 separate drivers & registry settings to do their jobs, representing a "phalanx like"/"zone defense like" system of backup of one another (like you see in sports OR ancient wars, and trust me, it WORKS, because on either side of yourself, you have "backup", even if YOU "go down" vs. the opponent)).

I.E.-> Take 1 of the "older method's" 3 part defenses down? 2 others STILL stand in the way, & they are not that simple to take them ALL down...

(Well, @ least NOT as easily as "taking out" a single part defensive system like WFP (the new "Windows Filtering Platform", which powers the VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & yes, Windows 7 firewall defense system)).

On this "single-part/single-point of attack" WFP (vs. Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003's IP stack defense design in 3-part/zone defense/phalanx type arrangement) as well as the HOSTS issue in my post above?

I also then questioned MS' own staff, even their VP of development (S. Sinofsky) on this here -> [] & other places in their blogs, to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... & I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done - THUS, @ this point?

I'll stick to my thoughts on it, until I am shown otherwise & proven wrong.


Following up on what I wrote up above, so those here reading have actual technical references from Microsoft themselves ("The horses' mouth"), in regards to the Firewall/PortFilter/IPSec designs (not HOSTS files, that I am SURE I am correct about, no questions asked) from my "Point #2" above?

Thus, I'll now note how:


1.) TCP/IP packet processing paths differences between in how Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 did it (IPSEC.SYS (IP Security Policies), IPNAT.SYS (Windows Firewall), IPFLTDRV.SYS (Port Filtering), & TCPIP.SYS (base IP driver))...

2.) AND, how VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7 do it now currently, using a SINGLE layer (WFP)...


First off, here is HOW it worked in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 - using 3 discrete & different drivers AND LEVELS/LAYERS of the packet processing path they worked in: []

The Cable Guy - June 2005: TCP/IP Packet Processing Paths


The following components process IP packets:

IP forwarding Determines the next-hop interface and address for packets being sent or forwarded.

TCP/IP filtering Allows you to specify by IP protocol, TCP port, or UDP port, the types of traffic that are acceptable for incoming local host traffic (packets destined for the host). You can configure TCP/IP filtering on the Options tab from the advanced properties of the Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) component in the Network Connections folder.

* "Here endeth the lesson..." and, if you REALLY want to secure your system? Please refer to this: []

APK [mailto]

P.S.=> SOME 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 (except for Proximitron, which has a filter that allows it) - 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 the form of TPL (tracking protection lists -> [] , good stuff )) 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)) - 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 ( offers 2 types for this).

D.) HOSTS files, once read/loaded, once? GET CACHED! Right into the kernelmode diskcaching subsystem (fast & efficient RAM speed), 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 initial load 1 time lag upon reload though, depending on the size of your HOSTS file.

E.) HOSTS files don't protect vs. BGP exploits - Sorry, once it's out of your hands/machine + past any interior network + routers you have, the packets you send are out there into the ISP/BSP's hands - they're "the Agents" holding all the keys to the doorways at that point (hosts are just a forcefield-filter (for lack of a better description) armor on what can come in mostly, & a bit of what can go out too (per point #20 above on "locking in malware")). Hosts work as a "I can't get burned if I can't go into the kitchen" protection, for you: Not your ISP/BSP. It doesn't extend to them

F.) HOSTS files don't protect vs. IP addressed adbanners (rare) &/or IP address utilizing malwares (rare too, most used domain/host names because they're "RECYCLABLE/REUSEABLE"), so here, you must couple HOSTS files w/ firewall rules tables (either in software firewalls OR router firewall rules table lists)... apk

The world is really small now. (2)

jellomizer (103300) | about a year ago | (#43284873)

That is the problem. Back in them good old days, You can make a ass out of yourself, and only a few people or perhaps the town know. But after you left the town you had a clean slate.

Now today with Google and Facebook, are assitry is now shared across the globe and will stay embedded in peoples mines for a long time. Oh wait weren't you the Star Wars Kid, or that Girl who didn't know where Canada was.

Re:The world is really small now. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43284995)

Isn't this the next step in evolution as a species? We have maxed out what we can do with our 46 chromosomes. The next step is technology assisted socail darwinism. Our database helps keep track of the idiots and criminals that we can no longer ostracize because there is no place to exile them to.

Re:The world is really small now. (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#43285835)

Isn't this the next step in evolution as a species? We have maxed out what we can do with our 46 chromosomes. The next step is technology assisted socail darwinism. Our database helps keep track of the idiots and criminals that we can no longer ostracize because there is no place to exile them to.

Is this a recursive post?

Re:The world is really small now. (0)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#43285949)

Isn't this the next step in evolution as a species? We have maxed out what we can do with our 46 chromosomes. The next step is technology assisted socail darwinism. Our database helps keep track of the idiots and criminals that we can no longer ostracize because there is no place to exile them to.

Is this a recursive post?

Is this a recursive post?

Re:The world is really small now. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43288287)

Isn't this the next step in evolution as a species? We have maxed out what we can do with our 46 chromosomes. The next step is technology assisted socail darwinism. Our database helps keep track of the idiots and criminals that we can no longer ostracize because there is no place to exile them to.

Is this a recursive post?

Is this a recursive post?

No, that was redundant.

Re:The world is really small now. (1)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | about a year ago | (#43286305)

No. What will happen is that making an ass out of yourself will be the new "normal." It will be impossible to hold anyone's previous actions against them.

This is probably enough to explain the Fermi paradox, just by itself.

Re:The world is really small now. (1)

hairyfish (1653411) | about a year ago | (#43286389)

Correct, and it is already happening. I work with "young & cool" people, and what we considered embarrassing only 15 years ago is now normal, simply because everyone is doing it. The other trend I see is the signal to noise ratio is getting much lower. There's a lot more information available, but most of it is unreliable. At some point you would think there is a cost associated with storing all this useless data that is no longer cost effective.

Re:The world is really small now. (1)

similar_name (1164087) | about a year ago | (#43287343)

You forgot 'Get off my lawn!' ;)

Re:The world is really small now. (4, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#43285147)

Bu that information is irrelevant with time and newer pop culture examples.
If either of those people sat in front of you for an interview would you recognize them?

Also, people are finely starting to realize that everyone is an ass from time to time so it doesn't really matter.

Re:The world is really small now. (3, Insightful)

postbigbang (761081) | about a year ago | (#43285397)

And that makes permanent data storage better? So that we don't eventually extort each other into oblivion? It's better to mandate public opt-in data life.

Everyone is human. Do we need the evidence to drag out decades from now about your indiscretion in Gresham?

Re:The world is really small now. (3, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year ago | (#43285435)

everything should be opt-in as far as your data is concerned.
The big question is: why isn't it?

forget MS, google. Forget every analytics company. This should be across the board, and they should not be able to refuse you access if you don't opt in.

Re:The world is really small now. (0, Flamebait)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#43286055)

everything should be opt-in as far as your data is concerned.
The big question is: why isn't it?

Devil's Advocate:

Hey, nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to put your personal information on the internet. Sounds like you "opted in" to me.

forget MS, google. Forget every analytics company. This should be across the board

Again, nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to give personal information to MS and Google. You gave that info willingly by accessing their systems.
/Devil's Advocate

Personally, I agree with the idea that "opt-in" should be explicit, rather than implicit. Merely accessing a website should not be an open invitation for the owner of that website to track my every online move, especially if I haven't knowingly and explicitly told them they could (something I'd never do).

they should not be able to refuse you access if you don't opt in

The hell they shouldn't - you don't get access to my house unless I give you a key, and I won't give you a key unless I know you're someone who can be trusted. Granted, that's not exactly the situation here, but close enough for the sake of analogy.

Nobody is obligated to give you anything for free, nor should they be.

Re:The world is really small now. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43287173)

The big question is: why isn't it?

Well, in a real way, it is. They can only harvest the data you give them. If your computer volunteers information about you to a 3rd party, that party can record that data. Information wants to be free and all that.

Now, I fully agree that this is becoming more and more difficult to do. But there was a time when all this data-harvesting shit started. We could all have stopped it in its tracks by refusing to hand over our data. But you know what? We didn't do that. Not only didn't we, but we went out of our way to cooperate and give them as much information as we could. See also: Facebook.

We decided we didn't care about privacy. Now we live in a world without privacy. You get what you ask for. This is what we asked for.

Re:The world is really small now. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43288329)

I didn't. I have never used Facebook once. I have many of their entire domains blocked even. But, I'm sure they still have a trove of information about me anyway.

Some of that is because of people who know me that don't respect my privacy, the rest is likely due to FBs excessive efforts to go out of their way to acquire and correlate data that is otherwise benign.

Re:The world is really small now. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43288123)

And that makes permanent data storage better? So that we don't eventually extort each other into oblivion? It's better to mandate public opt-in data life.

Easier said than done. A picture of you is on the internet. How are you going to guarantee that no computer writes it to disk? Will you outlaw storing bits? Make it illegal to own a hard disk that does not self destruct after five years? Require that all data is encrypted with a key stored by a central authority, and have the authority expire old keys?

You can complain all you want about how awful the world is now that we all have machines that can save data for a long time. If you have no plan to make it better, please come up with one before demanding that everyone else implement it.

Re:The world is really small now. (5, Interesting)

mabhatter654 (561290) | about a year ago | (#43285479)

"If either of those people sat in front of you for an interview would you recognize them?"

Google Glasses will. THAT is expressly the point. 10 years from now nobody cares... Except all these services are gathering this stuff SPECIFICALLY to shove it back in your face. "You know, this one time, in band camp.."

A better example will be when credit reports NEVER EXPIRE. I mean you can get a legal bankruptcy, but all they have to do is leave the report out there on Google for it to pick right back up... It's not a "legal" credit report... But it's not YOUR DATA so they don't care and your potential employer sees it anyway.

Many fors of discrimination are going to be right back in vogue when employers can pre-filter you through Facebook for religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity... That's basically what these companies are selling..

Black Mirror - The Entire History of You (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43287323)

Check out this ep, it outlines exactly what you say.

Re:The world is really small now. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43287305)

oh yes it does matter.
in the coming world with ever more scant resources and chances to make it these things are
going to be importent.
my kids are perfect in every way.
your kids?
what about that stuff on face book?
your kids lose.
have you ever used any drug?hung out with the wrong crowd.
had unpopular political opinions.
yep you guessed it.
it will be held against you.
have a nice day.

the right to be lobbied (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43284905)

What about the EU right to be lobbied? I am seriously worried that the EU might make a decision based on the will of the people rather than the Council and Commission as entirely owned by big business, or the Parliament which in theory directly represents the people but in practice is easy to influence.

Right to alternicks (4, Insightful)

rwa2 (4391) | about a year ago | (#43284933)

I'm more worried about the crackdown on using alternate identities online. My friends know who I am, but no one else should be able to pull up dirt on me based on random dirt they find associated with my name.

At the same time, if there's an actual crime being investigated, it's takes some pretty trivial sleuthing to trace back an alternate id to a person, but takes some effort just out of reach for a telemarketer or employer or griefer, and could require an approval process and leave a paper trail back to the requester.

So I'm sort of upset that GooTube / Facebook push for realname ids. But for the most part they let you get away with using your alternicks... for now. But that's the right we need to fight to preserve.

Re:Right to alternicks (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | about a year ago | (#43285219)

So I'm sort of upset that GooTube / Facebook push for realname ids. But for the most part they let you get away with using your alternicks... for now. But that's the right we need to fight to preserve.

That's why I have a "novelty" ID with the name "Fakename McGee" on it. If a company says that's not my real name, I just send `em a scan of the novelty ID.

"I'm sorry, Mr. McGee, I..."

"It's all right, I get that a lot."

Re:Right to alternicks (1)

PRMan (959735) | about a year ago | (#43285345)

My concern is that California wouldn't renew my license because some unrelated person with my same name had unpaid tickets in Florida, which I hadn't been in during the time of the events. And they didn't even send me anything I could respond to. They just kept my money and did nothing.

Re:Right to alternicks (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#43286079)

My concern is that California...

Well, hell, there's your problem!

Re:Right to alternicks (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year ago | (#43288017)

Get's better when you realize that there are cross-border agreements between the US and Canada, and there have been incidents on both sides of cities and counties scamming up fake tickets.

dossiers = temptation = (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43285535)

Assembling dossiers on literally everyone is just asking for it to be abused by governments and criminal organizations.

How hard could it freaking be (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43284935)

All you need is a damn regex for your data and you're done. What BS are they feeding these guys?

Re:How hard could it freaking be (2, Insightful)

DaHat (247651) | about a year ago | (#43285109)

All you need is a damn regex for your data and you're done. What BS are they feeding these guys?

I agree fully <insert your real screen name here>, but have you considered the fact that even if your regex wiped out your post above (assuming you posted it with a real name), that your regex should not modify my reply which very well may contain not just your post... but additional information? Why should your right to be forgotten override my right to speak?

Re:How hard could it freaking be (2)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year ago | (#43286977)

Who says it does?

If the regex nukes only his own posts, and any quoted portions of his posts, replacing it with "User has exercised his or her right to be forgotten. This post deleted." Over and over again, doe NOT remove "your" side of an argument, on whatever service or forum you post on. Your quotes will just end up looking silly, and you will just end up looking like a douche.

Nothing would prevent you from keeping your own personal version of the dialog for personal posterity, but your redistributing it after the other party has expressly stated that they do not authorize such, runs foul of not only this civil liberty, but also copyright law, and as such is *already* illegal.

Personally, I like some (SOME! Not all!) Of the features of this right to be forgotten. But in a lot of cases, a better solution is just to allow users to set privacy restrictions on content they provide, and then actually fucking obey them.

Contrary to the behavior of many social networking sites, landlords can't randomly decide to sell their rentors' stuff on a whim, nor rifle through their posessions, papers and effects, just because they own the property on which those items are stored.

Simply enforcing such things, and treating all uploads as being defacto unauthorized for marketing purposes unless explicity flagged and personally endorsed as such would basically remove almost all need for this, other than for getting old forum posts redacted.

Again, your appeal to freedom of speech about block quotation runs headfirst into current copyright law, since it is written text, and has natural copyright ascribed to its author, and not to you. Your ability to quote and use it is already limited to fair use only. You can make a parody of the post, and that can stay, but any direct quotations that don't fall inside fair use are flat out not authorized, and not protected.

You can call the person wanting the scrub job done a douche and anything else you want, but your rights end where his begin, and vice versa. If you parody his post, its totally safe, for example.

Of course, large regular expressions filters would already exclude parodies, since they aren't identical. :D

Your real right (-1, Troll)

myforwik (1465003) | about a year ago | (#43284965)

Is not to use a service with terms and conditions you don't agree with. You have no right to be tracked any more than you have 'right' to a job or a home as per the UN declaration of human rights. What they are really talking about isn't rights, but socialist ideals. Enforcing rights like this just reduces competition. If you don't like what google does, go somewhere else. Forcing them not to track everyone just hurts those who benefit from tracking in terms of services remaining free and of high quality and speed. Why should they suffer because you are careless with your provacy?

Re:Your real right (4, Insightful)

DuckDodgers (541817) | about a year ago | (#43285363)

It's beyond Google, Facebook, and Twitter, though. If you use a membership card at a retailer like Costco, a pharmacy, or a grocery store then they know a lot about you. If you use a credit card then the credit card knows a lot about you. Your bank knows a lot about you. Your wireless carrier knows a lot about you, unless you keep the phone at home and don't actually carry it with you - but that defeats the purpose of having a mobile phone. Your internet service provider knows a lot about you. etc... etc... And thanks to things like the Evercookie (which we can assume most of the major advertising networks already had in place before the actual Evercookie was publicized), dozens of web companies know a lot about you. If you use hosted email, that company knows a lot about you.

In all of those cases a skilled hacker, an unethical employee, or a corrupt goverment agent can get an unsettling amount of information about you. Avoiding it is difficult but plausible for educated, upper middle class or wealthier people - don't use a membership service for your pharmacy and grocery store. Don't have credit cards. Pay cash for your shopping. Use multiple banks, and do most of your transactions using prepaid credit cards and money orders. Switch phone numbers and wireless carriers frequently, or forego a mobile phone entirely. Set up all of your internet devices to use TOR or a VPN service. Host your own email, and only communicate using encrypted messages with other people that likewise host their own email and communicate only via encrypted messages. Avoid all social networks. All of that is a lot of work, and not practical for most of the population - it's so uncommon I wouldn't be surprised if you end up on a government watch list simply for conspicuously protecting your own privacy.

That said, legislating the problem away is simply unworkable. I don't know what the practical broad solution for privacy is, but simply passing a law demanding that Google, Facebook, Comcast, T-Mobile, Costco, Mastercard, etc... abandon large aspects of their business model is a nice fantasy but it won't fly.

unworkable? care to elaborate, corporate world? (5, Insightful)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year ago | (#43284997)

Let's see here. We have the EU defining a legal civil right. The corporate world says "oh noez! We can't do that! Our business model is BASED around violating that civil right! We totally can't just delete all that precious and lucrative data just because some prudes don't want to be included!"

If we adapt this, and replace some other legally recognized civil right, like say-- the right to the sanctity of one's own body, the absurdity of this attestment becomes painfully clear.

"Oh noez! We can't do that, our business model is BASED on forcing prepubescent children to perform sexual services without getting any permission of compensation! We can't just let those very lucrative child prostitutes go just because some prudes don't want to take diseased cock all day! We make our money selling child prostitution services! These so called "rights" are completely unworkable! How can we sell reliable prostitution services if we can't force people to be whores for us!?"

Seriously. That's what I see when I see these kinds of arguments. If your business mode revolves round violating other people's rights, then you DON'T have any right to perform that line of business. The fact that it is "unworkable" is fucking INTENTIONAL.

Re:unworkable? care to elaborate, corporate world? (5, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#43285165)

It's impossible to remove everything about you from the internet. Impossible. Google dis one of the best at getting rid of your data, but they can't get rid of my data; which might be about you.

And so on. No man is an island.

Strong regulations of what they can do is the best way to protect citizens

Re:unworkable? care to elaborate, corporate world? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43285269)

Dear American companies, fuck off elsewhere if you can't honour the laws of the land where you conduct business. Simple really.

Re:unworkable? care to elaborate, corporate world? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43285447)

I assume you're not American, the post you just posted is logged with your ISP and with Slashdot and a dozen servers in between. Law enforcement can still get those records. What, pray tell, you invalid, does that have to do with American companies and European law.

Re:unworkable? care to elaborate, corporate world? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43287203)

[troll]Europeans like to pretend that their laws apply to American companies.[/troll]

Re:unworkable? care to elaborate, corporate world? (4, Insightful)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year ago | (#43285303)

I agree, just like it is illegal for me to set up a camera in your bathroom and then sell the pictures of you in the shower.

That is basically what the internet is right now, a big public bath house where people can see all the naughty bits.

There is money to be made by taking pictures and selling them. (That's basically what collecting personal information without permission and selling it as a bulk aggregate is. "Anonymizing" the picture by not affixing a name, and shuffling it in with hundreds of others doesn't stop you from taking the picture and selling it. Making the photography illegal, and enforcing it, makes people who peddle such wares either criminal, or highly regulated and on the up and up. Much like the legitimate porn industry, vs 3rd world sex slave racketeers.)

The comparison isn't hard. Getting people to feel violated by being the equivalent of an ameture porn star for taking a shower, but because their data was exposed and whored out IS hard.

These weasly tactics, like saying "it gives people a false impression [of safety]" are just horseshit. Just apply the same rhetoric toward rape, and see the absurdity.

Its like saing "if you don't want to get raped, don't walk on the sidewalk at night."

Re:unworkable? care to elaborate, corporate world? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43285473)

No, it's like you taking pictures of yourself naked, posting them all over town, and then telling people to forget they saw it and any copies they made. Actually it's not like that, it is that. You're literally spraying data all over the internet and then asking people to pretend it never happened. The EU defining that as your right is not only unenforceable it's blatantly wrong for the EU to claim sovereignty over collecting history and say that what you said and did should be officially stricken from the record, never to be remember.

Re:unworkable? care to elaborate, corporate world? (1)

krotkruton (967718) | about a year ago | (#43285477)

All that is fine and true (except I'd say the closer analogy is if you set up a camera in your bathroom and then I showered in it, in which case it would still be illegal to sell the pictures I think), and I like the idea of knowing that my online presence could be erased, but from a developer's standpoint, it really isn't feasible. Sure, people want to have privacy, and corporations want to hold onto every bit of information they can, but the developers in the middle realize that both are a little absurd.

Re:unworkable? care to elaborate, corporate world? (3, Insightful)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year ago | (#43286309)

How is it impossible, other than it happens to be a conflict of interest for you?

Much like people provide records to medical institutions because it is necessary to get quality healthcare, people provide online merchants their address, telephone, and credit card numbers to make purchases and get deliveries. Nowhere in the tranaction is there even so much as a checkbox that says "yes, remember this purchase so you can suggest simular items, and share this purchase experience with other merchants." Instead, the push is to consider this "just a given! Our customers WANT this! Nevermind the sounds of the angry mob outside, that's just your imagination."

Technologically I don't see how this is hard either. Keeping the data for law enforcement subpoenas for a limited time, and pretending it doesn't exist is a far cry from embedding spybugs in your fucking checkout page so that the "user experience" extends to other site visits as well.

The latter is like putting a GPS tracking bug on the pricetags at a shopping center, so you know where else the customer shops that day.

Yet, that is EXACTLY what ad network tracing cookies do, EXACTLY what that bullshit "facebook button" does, etc.

I don't want that, I don't want the service, I don't want your ads, I don't want to be profiled, just because I casually look at a news link, etc.

I am not alone, and the EU seems to agree that you shouldn't presume I have agreed by default.

That this makes your life harder as a dev is just tough shit.

Re:unworkable? care to elaborate, corporate world? (1)

DaHat (247651) | about a year ago | (#43287521)

Just apply the same rhetoric toward rape, and see the absurdity.

Actually the absurdity is trying to try to draw any parallel between this and rape.

Seriously... turn off the PC and take your meds.

Re:unworkable? care to elaborate, corporate world? (1, Troll)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about a year ago | (#43285407)

Well how does one become forgotten IRL?

Mr. Burns: Smithers, get the amnesia ray.
Smithers: You mean the revolver, sir?
Mr. Burns: Yes, and be sure to wipe your mind clear when you're done as well.

Sure, online you can delete database entries and whatnot...but some of this information isn't even personally identifiable first of all, and second of all, how is the law going to chase down every single database entry in the world?

France just sued twitter for 50 million because they wouldn't reveal the identities of some people who made anti-semetic tweets. Twitter told them to fuck off (and rightly so, free speech shouldn't be limited to that which does not offend, IMO) and there isn't a damn thing France can do about it. What makes the EU think they can go around systematically scrubbing every disk in the world willy nilly?

Re:unworkable? care to elaborate, corporate world? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43285861)

No man is an island

Quite a few on slashdot are just that. Both in their digital footprint and belt size.

Re:unworkable? care to elaborate, corporate world? (1)

hairyfish (1653411) | about a year ago | (#43286453)

So one combat method is to pollute your data. I regularly change my names, accounts and other identifying artifacts I use online, and also make a habit of posting conflicting or irregular statements so that any record is unreliable or confusing. Sure it's not fail safe, but it makes any effort to build a reliable picture of me a lot more difficult and costly to anyone interested in such things.

Re:unworkable? care to elaborate, corporate world? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43287771)

It's impossible to remove everything about you from the internet. Impossible. Google dis one of the best at getting rid of your data, but they can't get rid of my data; which might be about you.

And so on. No man is an island.

Strong regulations of what they can do is the best way to protect citizens

Guess what, T-Mobile also think they cannot prevent their system from making "mistakes" and add premium service subscriptions to their subscribers. I guess you are ok with that too?

Telemarketers would also claim they cannot prevent their system to "mistakenly" call you sometimes, even though you are already in a do-not-call list, I guess such list is also "unworkable" and we should do away with it?

The double standard in /. when it comes to Google is amazing, whatever Google said/done, there will be /.er rushing to their defense and get modded up to +5.

A couple other Rights that are also unworkable:
- Human Rights : no government can completely eliminate murder, so your right to your life is "unworkable"
- Copyrights : nuff said
Maybe UK would like to get rid of those also?

Any law in the book can be broken by someone determined enough, does that mean all laws are "unworkable" also?

Re:unworkable? care to elaborate, corporate world? (2)

marnues (906739) | about a year ago | (#43285231)

What civil right do you believe is threatened here? The one where you control Google's data about you? Not a civil right.

Re:unworkable? care to elaborate, corporate world? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year ago | (#43285301)

What civil right do you believe is threatened here? The one where you control Google's data about you? Not a civil right.

I'll simply make my data worthless.

I am the king of Pittsburgh, I invented the game of Association Football and I possess half the global supply of Gogo's Crazy Bones.

Re:unworkable? care to elaborate, corporate world? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#43286137)

What civil right do you believe is threatened here? The one where you control Google's data about you? Not a civil right.

I'll simply make my data worthless.

I am Sparticus...

Re:unworkable? care to elaborate, corporate world? (4, Insightful)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year ago | (#43285413)

The civil right here, is the right to be forgotten online, meaning, the right to have your previous history expunged, and also the right to not have data collected without permission.

It's no different from whipping out a camera, photographing people who didn't sign a model release, and then lucratizing the photos in ways the people photoed don't endorse, just because they happened to be outside, or were wearing a certain brand of clothing.

Just so you know, the above is fucking illegal as hell, and people DO have legal right to demand the destruction of such imagery. (As far as I know, in bot the EU and the US.)

This is simply an expansion of the same basic premise, that you have a right to privacy, a right to not be exploited against your wishes, etc.

Proper enfocement would be to fine the fuck out of companies that refuse to comply, and persist in warehousing data.

Re:unworkable? care to elaborate, corporate world? (1)

DaHat (247651) | about a year ago | (#43285703)

It's no different from whipping out a camera, photographing people who didn't sign a model release, and then lucratizing the photos in ways the people photoed don't endorse, just because they happened to be outside, or were wearing a certain brand of clothing.

Actually it's quite different... go read the membership agreement at your average dating or social networking site... you tend to give up quite a few rights, including to the use of the photos and content you post.

Unlike the people walking around in public, you have chosen to given your information to others online.

While we are at it... perhaps you should read through the 'privacy policy' on various websites you frequent... see what your use of the site obliges you to accept... then see all of the gaps that you are not aware of and that are being used by many a tracking company to know what you do and where you go. Sure you can opt out... but today it is up to you to tell them to leave you alone, not for you to 'opt-in'.

Re:unworkable? care to elaborate, corporate world? (2)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year ago | (#43285797)

I am well aware of such ToS. I don't subscribe to such services. I don't use twitter, I don't use facebook, I don't use G+, I don't use any such service.

Yet, because OTHER people post information about me on things like their facebook page, my information gets vacuumed up and sold wholesale, just as if I had signed their ToS.

Requireing the equivalent of a model release for second and third hand data would put a very effective stop to that shit, and would actually make the data collected more valuable, because after being resold, it would be encumbered with the need to seek releases from all the people involved. This would make unencumbered data much more valuable. It would ctually HELP the industry.

If I walk into a porno set, and say I want to be in the porno, then I have to take the std test, and sign the release. That's no different from somebody going to Facebook and saying they want to be on the site, and agreeing to the ToS.

What I object to, is being put in the porno against my wishes, because somebody else supplied the director with footage.

No release, don't collect the data. It is not fucking hard. Just grep the username list to see if the person's name is associated with an account, if it isn't, don't use the image or data.

Re:unworkable? care to elaborate, corporate world? (2)

DaHat (247651) | about a year ago | (#43286945)

You must be one of those who thinks that privacy is an absolute that no other person may infringe upon unless you explicitly sign away limited access to you.

Bad news... you do not live in that world, nor have you ever, if you did you would have been outfitted with a cloaking device at birth and every single fact about you in every persons mind or database would be triggered to a self destruct command that you could selectively kick off.

If you don't want your information being posted to Facebook by "OTHER people"... then you should probably have a talk with "OTHER people"... the same way you would with your aunt Stella (who is a bit of a blabber) nothing at all (so as to avoid any disclosures at all)... or that you don't appreciate her sharing the information about that rash you had treated last year, you did go to her after all about it... and probably had some suspicion that they had a memory and might repeat it someday.

What I object to, is being put in the porno against my wishes, because somebody else supplied the director with footage.

If you'd care to point out a few cases where this has happened... I'm sure some /. readers would enjoy it... but it is still irrelevant.

If you grant a license to information (your name, phone number, address, hobbies, interests, etc) to ANYONE... you no longer control that data.

Even before the PC age, nothing stopped a friend from signing you up for a free subscription to "Paranoid for Privacy Monthly", just the same way as nothing prevented a religious group from staking out porn shops or strip clubs and noting the license plates of the people who went in and out.

You have either implicitly or explicitly released such information through your actions... and now you belly ache that someone saw you at a restaurant making out with a woman who wasn't your wife.


If you care that much about privacy than it is up to you to protect it.

In many states... it's perfectly legal to walk down a public sidewalk and use a pair of binoculars to look in the windows of near by homes and businesses. Don't want people doing that? Maybe you should protect what is visible through your open windows.

In many states... it's perfectly legal to rent a helicopter or airplane and circle the backyard of that girl you like (from a distance so as not to directly be disturbing) who you suspect may be sunbathing in the nude.

If you expose something to the public, you have only yourself to blame, not those who hear it, not those who repeat it, not those who sell it, and not those who aggregate it.

Re:unworkable? care to elaborate, corporate world? (2)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year ago | (#43287125)

And YOU are making it into a binary argument. "Since you can't effectively control what others do, then you have no say about your data whatsever."

If this were true, then wirefraud wouldn't be illegal.

The mere fact that it IS illegal, makes the "ordering 50 pizza's in somebody else's name" reference you just made specious as fuck.

Likewise, there are laws that at least TRY to restrict the distribution of priviledged data and information against the owners wishes. Or have you had your head up your ass this whole time about the DMCA and berne copyright?

Perhaps you feel patient-doctor confidentiality is "quaint", and that the laws forbidding doctors revealing all their patient's dirty laundry to "interested parties" don't fucking exist?

The error you make is ascribing a boolean Yes/No to this situation. The proper data type is double float.

Re:unworkable? care to elaborate, corporate world? (1)

DaHat (247651) | about a year ago | (#43287473)

Good job miss characterizing what I said, as it's pretty hard to claim that I said anything along the lines of:

Since you can't effectively control what others do, then you have no say about your data whatsever.

In fact... I put it all on you.

While I'm at it... care to point out where I said anything about:

ordering 50 pizza's in somebody else's name

Or 'pizza' for that matter? That word doesn't even appear in my post.

Given your complete inability (or unwillingness) to address what I actually said... I see no reason to continue this or the above, good day.

Re:unworkable? care to elaborate, corporate world? (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#43288183)

Okay, but that has nothing to do with the right to be forgotten. It just means that when you delete your Facebook account it really is deleted, along with all the image tags (not the images themselves if they were uploaded by other people), game rankings, marketting data and other crap they collect. No shadow profiles either.

Others can continue to write about your exploits or post their own photos with you in them.

Re:unworkable? care to elaborate, corporate world? (1)

kwbauer (1677400) | about a year ago | (#43288307)

"the right to have your previous history expunged"

Excuse me. You have no right whatsoever to force me to forget that I just read what you wrote. What kind of fantasy world do you live in?

I realize that the basement dwellers won't understand this next part but they may have read about these activities so they can use their imaginations.

You walk down the street and other people see you. You walk into stores and the clerks and other shoppers see you. Whether they want to remember those encounters is up to them, not you. You lost the right to "have your previous history expunged" the moment your mother realized she was pregnant.

Re:unworkable? care to elaborate, corporate world? (0)

DuckDodgers (541817) | about a year ago | (#43285481)

Collecting information about people for the purposes of statistical analysis and especially advertising purposes is one of the core business models of the internet. Facebook, Google, and Yahoo are outright built on top of it. Most media sites are built on it. Outside of direct internet companies, your grocery store, your pharmacy, your bank - they all collect information about you too for various purposes.

If you take that away, someone has to invent a radical new business model for the internet or else we all need to start paying monthly fees for all of our sites and see the prices of our groceries, banking, etc... increase to offset revenue lost from targeted advertising. A lot of people can't pay those fees - so instead of making the internet more private for all, you've made it more private for some and inaccessible for others. That might still be better than what we have now, I'm not sure. I'm not thrilled with the mountains of information Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Comcast, Sprint, Visa, Costco, my bank, etc... have about me.

Re:unworkable? care to elaborate, corporate world? (2)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year ago | (#43285589)

So, your argument, reframed to suit the analogy, is that the child pornographers offer lots of "free" candy and narcotics that people have gotten used to, and without the money flow from selling tight prepubescent ass to perverts, the prices for those products will go up, and people won't be able to afford them.

Forgive me when I say that very little of real value will be lost.

Re:unworkable? care to elaborate, corporate world? (1)

DuckDodgers (541817) | about a year ago | (#43287147)

Internet search, social networks, news, Yahoo Local, Google Maps, banks, and discounts on groceries and other retail purchases, etc... are a little more valuable to consumers than candy and narcotics.

It's a little hypocritical, don't you think, for you to call ad-funded business offerings something like candy and narcotics offered by pedophiles when you're making that point on a news site and discussusion board funded by advertising. Enjoy your candy.

Re:unworkable? care to elaborate, corporate world? (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year ago | (#43287261)

I visit slashdot enough to pay a few bucks a month to post. So no, not a hipocrite.

Doubly so if I was garanteed not to get served ads and tracking cookies. (Which I already don't get, because I have good karma.)

I would happily pay for the candy, and if the cost was too high, would happily abstain. I do that with television already. Not a problem for me.

And no, shoppers cards aren't worth it. Gas cards aren't worth it. Etc.

Re:unworkable? care to elaborate, corporate world? (2)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year ago | (#43287313)

(Also just to note: bank and loan services have existed comfortably for centuries without reselling account information. They don't actually NEED that revinue stream, except to sate either their own greed, or someone else's greed. (Like shareholders, etc.))

Internet search can realistically be funded without adverts, since they can operate like an advert company themselves. The assertion that the service would be prohibitively expensive for ordinary users is unsubstantiated.

Social networking does not need centralization. FOSS communities have lived and operated just fine on home-operated IRC servers and the like just fine. The issue is handling large volumes of users. But, like many supply/demand problems, this would likewise sort itself out, just like demand has forced migration away from dialup. Moving the demand away from centralized networks and into distributed ones would only change the market, not destroy it.

(Social networking is also not something I consider to be of much value, other than as a means of communication. I consider it to be a mashup of 1980s pagers and geocities, with an oppressive marketing goul behind the curtain. I would not shed a single tear if facebook closed its doors.)

Local news likewise has survived for a long time without reselling eyeballs, making the claim insubstantiated.

Re:unworkable? care to elaborate, corporate world? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43287287)

Wow, you're an idiot. If you don't want private information about you on the internet THEN DON'T FUCKING PUT IT ON THE INTERNET.

If you broadcast something to the world, don't be surprised when it stays public.

Re:unworkable? care to elaborate, corporate world? (2)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year ago | (#43287359)

Newsflash assfuck, I DON'T.

I object to getting the "value added service" of having my browser hijacked by markting morons just because I DARED to click on a news article, or DARED to check a price on something.

Last I checked, giant swarming eyeballs with a secret RFID implant needle don't come swarming out of the airducts when I pick up a product in a store, turn it over for the price, and make not of it. I don't get assaulted by endless questionaires about why I was looking at the product, and if I buy it often. Etc.

I hold firm to the assertion that it is like agreeing to be raped, just because you are outside, and the sun is down. (Cause, CLEARLY, you wouldn't go outside at night unless you WANTED forced penetration! Because, like, that's what happens when you do LULZ!)

Seriousy AC, grow the fuck up.

Re:unworkable? care to elaborate, corporate world? (1)

DaHat (247651) | about a year ago | (#43287515)

On second thought... I opted to look through some of your recent posts... and up, they do demonstrate a rather poor grasp on reality.

I hold firm to the assertion that it is like agreeing to be raped

You must be running for office! So are you Todd Akin... or are you Ashley Judd?

Seriously AC, grow the fuck up.

While I am not the AC... you sir would seem to need that a wee bit more, as this and many of your other posts are clearly that of a deranged mind.

Forget to take your meds today?

Re:unworkable? care to elaborate, corporate world? (1)

LordLucless (582312) | about a year ago | (#43288385)

Let's see here. We have the EU defining a legal civil right. The corporate world says "oh noez! We can't do that! Our business model is BASED around violating that civil right!

Not quite. The EU defines a legal right that is totally unimplementable. The "right to be forgotten" translates to "the right to be able to remotely delete data from every device on the planet".

Data propagates. You give your data to entity A. Entity A then shares it to entities B, C and D. You decide you don't want Entity A to have your data any more; you communicate your intentions to them, and they delete the file. But what about entities B, C and D? Entity A has no ability to delete the files in their possession. They could pass on your request, but entities B, C and D may be in a foreign country, or have gone out of business, or no longer be contactable through the previous channels, or be individuals. Not to mention that in the meantime, the data's propagates out through B, C and D to hundreds of other entities.

The EU can legislate anything it likes. The EU can legislate that you have the right to exceed the speed of light if they want. Don't expect that to actually change anything unless they actually provide some method to achieve that commensurate with the laws of physics.

By the time you want to forget, it's too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43285009)

Instead of focusing on ways to forget, we should focus on ways to reliably prevent such information from existing in the first place. If I really hate you and know enough about you, I can target scrapers at everywhere you frequent, and deleting posts from facetweetspace won't help you if I have my own local backup.

The better solution is for people to understand what information is being transmitted, what it could be used for, and to provide robust tools for reliably limiting that information if they so care to. Some people may not care about their information, and that's fine, but everyone should know enough to make that decision for themselves.

Translation (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43285027)

"this places the onus on businesses to justify the collection and processing of citizens' data"

So you basically have no privacy, they can collect as much data about you as they want and share it to whomever they want, as long as you have the right to know what's being collected and can request correction of "mistakes" in the dataset. For example you can correct Google's profile about you and state that you're not into vinyl clothes, you just buy them to better fit in at BSDM parties.

This sure simplifies writing a privacy policy: "We collect any and all data you give us forever and by using our service you agree we can use it for any purpose".


Alex Kasa (2867743) | about a year ago | (#43285225)

I've lived in Europe my whole life, my privacy is the most important thing in my life after my family. FUCK YOU


PRMan (959735) | about a year ago | (#43285395)

Oooo. Alex Kasa said the F word.... ;)


supervillainsf (820395) | about a year ago | (#43285439)

If you're worried about it, I'd suggest not using g+ to log into sites that don't require it. Also, just stop using any web service that doesn't respect the privacy rights you require. In fact, I see a business opportunity right there - you should build a google/facebook/whatever competitor that is totally private and secure and doesn't track anything - people will flock to it and you'll make money hand over fist, i'm sure.


Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43286319)

So important that you relegate it to an outside authority to manage and protect for you.

You get to act like a child at the expense of everyone else.

There's always this ... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year ago | (#43285251)

Hide yourself behind a wall of obfuscation.

No such right (5, Insightful)

Intropy (2009018) | about a year ago | (#43285279)

You do not have a right to be forgotten. Think about what that means. That means you do something and I witness it. Do you have a right to compel me to forget it ever happened? Of course not. My right to be secure in my thoughts, the written expression thereof (which is what they really mean by forget), and my effects is a real right. Your desire for me to forget something you did is not.

You have a right to privacy. Exercise it by not publishing information you want kept private. You can't put the genie back in the bottle, and short of fraud or some other malfeasance being responsible for the breach of privacy in the first place, you have no right to command that anyone try.

Re:No such right (1)

dunkelfalke (91624) | about a year ago | (#43285663)

Well, EU thinks I do have a right to be forgotten, and I think it sort of overrules your opinion on it.

Re:No such right (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#43285947)

OK dunke, I'm remembering you. Not only that, but I'm going to post everything I can find about you on Facebook.

I live in the US.

What's the EU going to do? Send me a strongly worded letter?

Re:No such right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43286083)

Doesn't really matter. The United States is becoming more and more irrelevant every day.

I'd rather the EU had these laws, so that when the US finally collapses and Mother Blighty takes back what is rightfully hers, there will be a real, decent justice system and laws that actually make sense.

Re:No such right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43286259)

You're not listening. What if facebook doesn't store any of your information on servers in europe, so if its asked if its keeping information on you, it can say 'no', because the EU's laws don't extend to US soil?

Re:No such right (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#43286681)

The United States is becoming more and more irrelevant every day.

Compared to Europe and its economy? How's Cyprus doing these days? And who's going to be next to suffer a "unique" and onerous ultimatum from the EU?

Re:No such right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43285813)

The problem is not you witnessing something. The problem is in the fact that their (your) business model is based on ACTIVELY SEEKING people's private data (that might be just "leaking" from your browser or browsing pattern).

To put it in simile: You can witness me going to your website. You can even look what section I visit and how long I stay on them. Why not. What I don't like that much is when you have more sites and collect the data on all of them, thoroughly examining them, etc. And what I just hate is when the (usually ad-serving) service "witnesses" (or just stalks) me on ALL pages they have THEIR 3rd party scripts in. That should be regulated to at least opt-in level.

Re:No such right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43286225)

You don't have to visit their site either. In fact, you don't have to go online. Where's the personal responsibility for managing your own information? Does europe always assume everyone is as retarded as them?

Re:No such right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43286575)

So you publish my personal information, and that's ok?

Computers aren't people. I do have a right to privacy, and the fact that right inconveniences google is intentional.

Re:No such right (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#43288189)

Don't misunderstand the language. The right is to have private companies remove data you yourself uploaded/created and data they collect about you. Individuals writing blogs about other people will be totally unaffected. Journalists, individuals posting their own party photos with you in them to Facebook etc. Basically anyone who isn't a company storing user data is not part of this.

The Commision (1)

MrL0G1C (867445) | about a year ago | (#43285339)

Who the hell voted these people in, oh wait, no-one - these Commissioners, who consistently put forward pro-corporate anti-citizen laws need to be removed from EU's political system and the people who choose the laws need to be elected, anyone disagree?

John Bull-shit (0)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about a year ago | (#43285351)

The Orwellian State (i.e. the UK these days) is totally inept to answer this question.

Yep, kinda like being a born-again virgin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43285393)

Yep, you can't be forgotten on the Internet. You might be able to prune a bit here and there, you can become less of a slut, wear less revealing clothes, get your system clean, etc. At the end of the day though, some trace of information will always remain. If you think you can be totally forgotten on the Internet, I have a "born-again virgin" pill to sell you.

In general, you can't undo the past absolutely. Apologize, repair, remediate? Sure. Un-do? Nope. Sorry.

kids must have privacy (1)

cellurl (906920) | about a year ago | (#43285401)

Gay marriage, yipee. Drones, yes-sir. Protect kids from youthful indiscretions, unachievable.

Put a watermark in a picture. Link it to signatures. All minors should be able to Takedown any non-parental image of themselves.
Perhaps I could make a trolling app for that...

Help eliminate stupid speeding tickets. []

I'm risking beeing modded as a troll for this... (1, Insightful)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#43285571)

But seriously... it can't be overstated.

Ideally... don't do stupid shit that you are going to regret later in the first place

But failing that, because hey.... we all do things that thought might have been a good idea at the time, and only realized in hindsight that it wasn't particularly as good as one had originally thought, then at least be mature enough to face the consequences of your choices... and that means even if those consequences follow you for the rest of your life. Expecting societty or other people to forget or forgive your past might very well be a nice theoretical ideal, but the truth of the matter is that we live in a far from ideal world. It's not that I particularly condone an unforgiving society, but in the end, only *YOU* can be accountable for what you may have done in your past... including stuff that might not put you in the best light It's not anyone's problem to forget but your own.

The question is not so much what are you going to do to make people forget about the stupid things you might have done in the past as much as it is what are you going to do with the rest of your life in spite of it?

Because really, if you can't do that, and learn how to move past it, then how in the hell do you expect anyone else to?

Re:I'm risking beeing modded as a troll for this.. (1)

Intropy (2009018) | about a year ago | (#43286089)

An interesting side effect is a more forgiving society. The earliest examples of these types of "look what I saw X doing on facebook" revelations came across as much more scandalous in the media. Now it's ho-hum. Maybe it's just old news. But maybe we're coming to realize that everyone does some dumb stuff from time to time, and we need to deal with that fact proportionally rather than be shocked at any old thing. There's an old saying about the remedy for bad speech being more speech. Maybe we're seeing something similar.

Re:I'm risking beeing modded as a troll for this.. (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about a year ago | (#43286507)

Ideally... don't do stupid shit that you are going to regret later in the first place

What you think is stupid is not necessarily what someone else thinks is stupid; it's a personal opinion and nothing more than that. Something completely innocuous to you could be considered extremely offensive by someone else, and that someone else could be a potential employer.

I'm not even talking about any right to be forgotten, just that not doing "stupid shit" isn't necessarily going to help you.

Re:I'm risking beeing modded as a troll for this.. (2)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#43287333)

Well, presumably, "not doing stupid shit" entails avoiding doing things that have some reasonable chance of costing you any desirable opportunities in the future... whether or not you necessarily personally think that those things are unwise or not.

But ultimately, nobody can be perfectly prescient, or make perfect choices all of the time, and it's a exercise in futility to try. If some future possible employer gets offended at what they find out about you after googling your name, that's unfortunate, but that's also life. Sure, we'd all like it if other people could just forgive and forget any of the past crap that we've done, but nobody else actually *owes* us that. The question, as I said, is not what needs to happen so that other people don't remember, or can't be reminded of what you did, as much as it is what you are planning to do with the rest of your life in spite of that having happened... instead of trying to pretend that you shouldn't have to face up to some unforeseen consequences that might arise from your past choices or actions just because they may be unpleasant.

In the end, assuming you are adult, you are ultimately accountable for yourself. Nobody else is. Make the most of the life you have now, because it's a one-shot deal, and the more time in it that you spend wallowing in regret or wishing that other people wouldn't judge you, the less time is going to be left over for you to really *feel* alive.

Re:I'm risking beeing modded as a troll for this.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43288161)

Ideally... don't do stupid shit that you are going to regret later in the first place

What you think is stupid is not necessarily what someone else thinks is stupid; it's a personal opinion and nothing more than that. Something completely innocuous to you could be considered extremely offensive by someone else, and that someone else could be a potential employer.

I'm not even talking about any right to be forgotten, just that not doing "stupid shit" isn't necessarily going to help you.

What do you propose as a solution? Ban retention of data? Require ACLs that exclude employers?

Robo (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#43285601)

> "I believe the right to be forgotten is an overstatement," said Hustinx."

It's also philosophically questionable. Other people have a right to remember you and blab about you, theanks to freedom of speech.

It is correct to focus rather on procedures to force addressing of inaccuracies. If the data is accurate, oh well.

Eh, wait until AI analyzes posts.

right to be forgotten too bloody right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43286213)

It defy anyone to link me to anyone openly ALL info registered on any site is bogus on purpose and will always be that way i use disposable email addresses that have bogus names and addresses any cookies set by websites are deleted the instant i disconnect if i allow them at all in the first place this site is BTW one of the worst offenders for setting hidden cookies or so they think ..

posted anon and remaing anon ..

Next up... (0)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about a year ago | (#43286567)

"Right to defy gravity"

Harder to clear one's name now (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43286569)

I got arrested on a completely false charge a few years ago. The charge was dropped, and supposedly its not on my record, but the records were available electronically so it still shows up when an employer does a background check.

Any random person can accuse anyone of anything, without evidence, and it costs their target thousands of dollars to defend themselves and permanently blemishes their record. (Generally speaking, police don't really investigate like on TV, they consider it up to the court to determine innocence or guilt.) The county I was in also kept 10% of my bail money as a processing fee. (Yes I mean the county did that, not a bail bond provider.)

Presumption of innocence is a fiction except where the costs of conviction are higher than the costs of defense, which very often isn't the case. And now getting your record cleared doesn't do as much as it once did either.

EU Double standard (2)

manu0601 (2221348) | about a year ago | (#43287989)

Of course when this is about free market and destroying states as economic actors, there is no problem with member states different sensibilities, democracy can be trumped for the good cause. When we come about protecting citizens against megacorporation, it seems to be different.
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