Beta

×

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!

Stanford, Mozilla, Opera Launch Web Privacy Initiative

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the going-private dept.

Privacy 65

An anonymous reader writes "Stanford Law School has kicked off a 'Cookie Clearinghouse' web privacy initiative that brings together researchers and browsers. The project aims to provide a centralized and trusted repository for whitelist and blacklist data on web tracking, much like StopBadware does for malware. Mozilla and Opera are collaborating on the initiative, and Mozilla plans to integrate it into Firefox's new default third-party cookie blocking. The leader of an advertising trade group has, of course, denounced the participating browsers as 'oligopolies.'"

cancel ×

65 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Microsoft and Apple's stance on this (-1, Redundant)

Power Rangers 2000 (2957585) | about a year ago | (#44059249)

What's most important is that both IE and Safari have supposed blocking third party cookies. Google even went to try to circumvent Safari's user privacy settings to be able to track users. Apple quickly followed with a fix.

Re:Microsoft and Apple's stance on this (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44059343)

Now if only Safari would allow the handling of cookies on a site-by-site basis, like Camino used to. For most sites I want to allow the cookies but have them wiped at the end of the session.

That behaviour works for me, and is only slightly annoying when I encounter one of those clusterfuck websites that want to set lots of cookies.

Re:Microsoft and Apple's stance on this (3, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#44059599)

Google even went to try to circumvent Safari's user privacy settings to be able to track users. Apple quickly followed with a fix.

I'm not convinced that's true .. because if you set Safari to block 3rd party cookies, and go to a web site, you still get 3rd party cookies.

So, whatever 'fix' Apple did seems pretty useless to me. Which is why Safari for me is used only to host Facebook -- I don't trust either of them, and if the browser never visits any other sites, there's no other information to be gleaned.

Re:Microsoft and Apple's stance on this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44061425)

There's SuperCookies such as Flash cookies. They track you across browsers.

Even with defenses against Supercookies, and with 3rd-Cookies OFF. There's still plenty of ways to track you.
I highly recommend everyone to download and use TorBrowser as much as it's practically possible.

Re:Microsoft and Apple's stance on this (1)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about a year ago | (#44062005)

Definitely! TorBrowsers a great browsing experience and about as anonymous as you can get connecting from home. A couple of things to look for though:

1) Some sites, like Google won't let you. Just use DuckDuckGo instead. Even when using !google bang, it gets past the Google block on the exit relay IP.

2) Don't set yourself up as an exit relay. Really, don't do this! A non-exit relay is safe and helpful from any computer, but you really do not want the computer/IP address you use to be an exit relay. Bad things will probably happen.

Re:Microsoft and Apple's stance on this (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#44062565)

There's SuperCookies such as Flash cookies. They track you across browsers

Not if I don't have Flash installed on my machine it won't. I trust Flash about as much as I trust politicians -- which is to say not at all.

Re:Microsoft and Apple's stance on this (1)

knorthern knight (513660) | about a year ago | (#44074375)

> There's SuperCookies such as Flash cookies. They track you across browsers.

touch .adobe
chmod 000 .adobe
touch .macromedia
chmod 000 .macromedia

ll -og .adobe .macromedia
---------- 1 0 Nov 17 2011 .adobe
---------- 1 0 Nov 17 2011 .macromedia

So much for Flash cookies on linux. A similar approach should work in Windows, depending on which directory Flash cookies are stored there. And many browsers have an option to refuase/allow Flash cookies and/or HTTP5 storage.

It will be obviously God, like Haiti (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44059277)

God says...

13:28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see
Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of
God, and you yourselves thrust out.

13:29 And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from
the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of
God.

13:30 And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are
first which shall be last.

13:31 The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto
him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee.

13:32 And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast
out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I
shall be perfected.

Re:It will be obviously God, like Haiti (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44059351)

The twins of Mammon quarrelled. Their warring plunged the world into a new darkness, and the beast
abhorred the darkness. So it began to move swiftly, and grew more powerful, and went forth and multiplied.
And the beasts brought fire and light to the darkness.

    from The Book of Mozilla, 15:1

Finally! (1)

Vasil16 (1773348) | about a year ago | (#44059289)

Finally! Using add-ons like "RequestPolicy" and "CookieMonster", without a whitelist/blacklist is a pain, especially on forums where people put pictures that could be hosted anywhere.

Thunderbird Chat and Off the record (1)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about a year ago | (#44060283)

I am hoping they can fix the very long outstanding security bug for the Thunderbird chat - enable the ability for people to use plugins like OTR in Thunderbird chat. So far It is like they are dragging their feet on it/don't want encryption/privacy is not a priority:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=779052 [mozilla.org]
https://getsatisfaction.com/mozilla_messaging/topics/otr_support_in_instant_messaging_chat [getsatisfaction.com]
https://getsatisfaction.com/mozilla_messaging/topics/deleting_chat_conversations_or_going_off_the_record [getsatisfaction.com]

NSA and RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44059305)

"Exxxxeeeelent" *rub hands*

It's about the right to choose (5, Insightful)

Jawnn (445279) | about a year ago | (#44059333)

“There are billions and billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs at stake in this supply chain,” said Rothenberg, who called the browser makers “oligopolies” with excessive power to make decisions affecting the workings of the Internet. “It should be done with stakeholders’ input.”

Mr. Rothenberg, you keep using that word. I do not think that it means what you think it means. The "stakeholders" in this are the users of the browsers, not the web site operators. Get that part right, at least. It is my browser, not the web site operators. If I don't want it to allow me to be tracked through the use of third-party cookies, I should have that choice, just like it's the web site operator's choice to deny me access if I don't allow such tracking. It's all about choice and when it comes to what my browser should or should not do, that choice is mine.

Re:It's about the right to choose (5, Insightful)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about a year ago | (#44059397)

And of course there's nothing stopping Rothenberg's bunch of self-entitled wastes of skin from producing their own browser! The AdBrowser could be designed with no blocking of cookies, tracking enabled by default and no blocking of Flash or pop-up windows.

I'm sure it'd be popular.

Re:It's about the right to choose (3, Funny)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year ago | (#44059413)

That's called Internet Explorer isn't it?

TIL: Adblocking in IE is actually BUILT-IN (3, Informative)

mha (1305) | about a year ago | (#44059519)

See http://superuser.com/questions/257792/how-can-i-block-ads-in-internet-explorer [superuser.com]

Not that I use IE, but I tried that immediately and it works great. No need to install any add-ons, it works right out of the box, you just have to subscribe to one of those lists (like in Adblock+). And the page with those lists is provided by Microsoft!

Re:TIL: Adblocking in IE is actually BUILT-IN (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44060249)

Did you also learn that this isn't fucking reddit?

Re:TIL: Adblocking in IE is actually BUILT-IN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44063489)

What's wrong with reddit?

Re:TIL: Adblocking in IE is actually BUILT-IN (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year ago | (#44066469)

What's wrong with reddit?

What isn't?

Re:TIL: Adblocking in IE is actually BUILT-IN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44073555)

I don't know. That's why I'm asking you.

Re:It's about the right to choose (2)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about a year ago | (#44060329)

It is quite popular. It's called Chrome.

Ad-friendly features include:
-inability to create ad-blocking add-on as good as FF's
-Permanent built-in serial number (http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=google+chrome+serial+number [yahoo.com] )
so that killing cookies or super-cookies is pointless.

No word yet on Prism compatibility.

Re:It's about the right to choose (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44060489)

You linked to a Yahoo search for "google chrome serial number". The first result is a documentation page for serial port access. The second is a link to the Google Chrome download page. The rest are links to cracks and keygens. Do you have any links that actually explain what you mean by, or even mention, Chrome's "Permanent built-in serial number"?

Re:It's about the right to choose (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about a year ago | (#44060643)

After being called out on not reading the links I posted, I did some research and it seems Chrome might be safe after all:

ahref=http://news.softpedia.com/news/Google-Chrome-to-Remove-Unique-ID-137535.shtmlrel=url2html-8704 [slashdot.org] http://news.softpedia.com/news/Google-Chrome-to-Remove-Unique-ID-137535.shtml>

Re:It's about the right to choose (3, Informative)

auric_dude (610172) | about a year ago | (#44059401)

EFF illustrate the scope of third party data sharing. How Dozens of Companies Know You're Reading About Those NSA Leaks https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/third-party-resources-nsa-leaks [eff.org] . Noscript helps but is a bit like shutting the stable after the horse has bolted, this 3rd party stuff should not be in your browser in the first place.

Theft of services (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44061621)

Be nice if the EFF could find a way for anyone on metered bandwidth to be able to charge advertisers with theft of services. Honestly, how much bandwidth do these uniinvited guests burn? Heck, even with NoScript, AdBlocker, Ghostery etc running advertisers are stealing bandwidth, processor cycles and electricity.

Re:It's about the right to choose (3, Interesting)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#44059407)

He also seems to have trouble telling the difference between the Web and the Internet. Browsers are half the game of the Web, but just more car in a traffic jam of the Internet.

They do have a lot of power when it comes to defining the user experience of the web, but the cool thing about browsers is that it's relatively easy for a programmer (or group thereof) to split off and make their own how they want it, so browser makers have a fair amount of incentive to give users what they want. It won't necessarily be easy, but with all of the major players pushing to follow the standards better, it's probably a lot easier now than it was for Firefox to break on the scene a decade or so ago.

Turning the Tables (2)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year ago | (#44059667)

So Rothenberg doesn't want the companies he represents to have their activities tracked and to be profiled without their consent? I seem to remember reading a rule about that. Golden something-or-other ...

Re:Turning the Tables (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#44059869)

I seem to remember reading a rule about that. Golden something-or-other ...

And by rule, you mean trite saying?

Do you honestly think corporations are interested in that? They're interested in maximizing profits, and they don't give a shit about you ... which is why the more we have stuff which blocks these guys, the more we can not need to rely on them to not "screw unto others".

That advertising group? (4, Insightful)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about a year ago | (#44059387)

The group in question is the Interactive Advertising Bureau, which is paid to rail against pretty much anything that makes it harder for advertisers to track people online.

I don't want these shitbags tracking my browsing history, which is why I block or otherwise restrict most cookies, and block web bugs. I'm fine though with adverts - just not Randall Rothenberg's view of spying being an acceptable price for free content. Bloody hell, even his name makes him sound like some 19th century mad industrialist, busy earning a fortune from grinding childrens' bones in to cosmetics.

Re:That advertising group? (4, Insightful)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#44059449)

I'm okay with most ads, as long as there's no music/video/flashing/excessive animation/pop-ups/pop-unders/scrolling/etc. I don't mind them tracking me within a site (IE: NewEgg displaying ads for stuff someone from my IP has previously looked at). However, when I see ads for something I looked at on NewEgg popping up on every site I visit, that just feels like stalking. I don't want the Walmart Greeter following me into Target, Sears and Big Lots just so he can keep trying to hand me the Flyer of the Week.

Re:That advertising group? (2)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about a year ago | (#44059529)

Good analogy, and these guys seem unwilling to acknowledge how creepy this is! Even though it's anonymised, it's still stalking and building up a little profile of my online activities.

How far does one have to go before Rothenberg considers this to be stalking? Tying to real names? Rothenberg posting his semen soaked toenail clippings through the letterbox of that girl he one day follow on the bus until she reached her home?

strange definition of oligopoly (1)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#44059431)

An oligopoly that between them has around 20% of the market?

Tough ... (4, Informative)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#44059539)

âoeThere are billions and billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs at stake in this supply chain,â

You know what Mr Rothenberg, we don't give a shit.

Because also at stake is our privacy, and our right to not have some douchebag advertising company know every detail of our lives.

I don't want doubleclick, quantserve, google analytics, scorecard research, and all of these other assholes to get a phone-home beacon on every page I visit -- which is why between my firewall and various things like NoScript/ScriptSafe, these sites are blocked.

I don't owe you marketing data, and I'm not interested in your product. Don't act like it's your right for me to provide you this data, because it isn't.

The advertising companies who do this are the oligopolies, Mozilla is just putting some more freedom in the hands of their consumers ... or maybe you don't like it when consumers exercise their right to be not interested in what you're selling and your just a corporate mouthpiece who is only interested in corporate freedom?

I don't have any more sympathy for advertisers than I do for telemarketers. They can both go eat shit and die.

Re:Tough ... (0)

Ash-Fox (726320) | about a year ago | (#44059601)

and our right to not have some douchebag advertising company know every detail of our lives.

So what you're saying is, every detail of your life is pretty much visiting websites where their advertisements exist. I feel for you.

Regarding this universal right you mentioned, can you quote something relevant to back this right up, such as from 'The declaration of human rights' or such?

Re:Tough ... (1)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about a year ago | (#44059787)

Regarding this universal right you mentioned, can you quote something relevant to back this right up, such as from 'The declaration of human rights' or such?

Oddly enough, article 12 of the UDHR.

Re:Tough ... (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | about a year ago | (#44059927)

Article 12 says:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

The definition of "arbitrary interference" is:

arbitrary inference is a type of cognitive bias in which a person quickly draws a conclusion without the requisite evidence.

The definition of "cognitive bias" is:

A cognitive bias is a pattern of deviation in judgment, whereby inferences of other people and situations may be drawn in an illogical fashion

I would say that advertising algorithms are not persons. But, if they were, then an argument to create more sophisticated monitoring to improve the standing of "requisite evidence" could be used by advertisers. You know, for human rights purposes.

I don't think this has much relation or focus with targeting advertising.

Re:Tough ... (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about a year ago | (#44060013)

interference

inference

Try again?

Re:Tough ... (0)

Ash-Fox (726320) | about a year ago | (#44060111)

Try again?

Same result [bit.ly] .

Re:Tough ... (2)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about a year ago | (#44060181)

That's a definition specific to clinical psychology. That's like saying trying to tell me that resistors of political change are measured in ohms.

Re:Tough ... (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | about a year ago | (#44060275)

Do not question the mighty Google! Google is infallible.

Re:Tough ... (1)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about a year ago | (#44060309)

I withdraw my blasphemous objection. All hail hypo-Google!

Re:Tough ... (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#44059797)

Well, since it involves transmission from MY computer, or pulling down from their servers (again, from MY computer)... until someone tells me I'm legally obliged to allow this to happen, I'm perfectly free to block it. So, I am well within my rights to not participate. It's also my right to tell a telemarketer to fuck off, and to set my phone to block calls with unknown caller id (because if I was supposed to care who you are, you should identify yourself to me).

I'm not interested in their marketing crap, and I will tune it out as much as possible -- which includes not cooperating with their data gathering, and actively blocking it on my side as much as possible. Pretty much same if someone in a store asked me to fill out a survey or give them my email address -- the real world response and the digital response are the same, and that's a firm 'piss off'.

Can you cite some 'declaration of corporate rights' which says I'm required by law to allow all of these web beacons and cookies? Because unless someone is standing over my shoulder forcing me to accept cookies under threat ... they can suck it.

But, as I said, having these companies know every web site you visit is a terrible idea. And since I control how my browser and firewall are configured (you know, my right), you can bet your ass it's might right to block this crap.

So until the lobbyists convince the law makers that it should be illegal for me to block their advertising attempts, I will continue to do so. And any lawmaker which agreed to that should be shot.

Re:Tough ... (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | about a year ago | (#44059965)

Can you cite some 'declaration of corporate rights' which says I'm required by law to allow all of these web beacons and cookies?

In theory, they could use this in their Terms of Service and deny you service on those grounds. Additionally, depending on the country, this could be seen as unauthorized access to a system (civil and/or criminal law), because you did stick to the conditions of the terms of service.

Re:Tough ... (4, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#44060099)

In theory, they could use this in their Terms of Service and deny you service on those grounds.

In theory, they can shove it up their asses.

Until I see a legally binding court decision which compels me to allow this, I'm going to assume my right to tune them out and not listen still holds true.

If a website wants to sue me for blocking their ads, and 3rd party advertiser thinks I'm breaking some kind of law by blocking this, then I will refer them to Arkell v Pressdram [wikipedia.org] .

Even if we call advertising 'speech', your right to free speech in no way compels me to listen or enable you to speak to me. I consider advertising to be in the same class the Jehova's Witnesses who come to my door -- your desire to tell me something is trumped by the fact that I Don't Give A Fucking Shit. And like I will shoo these people from my front door, I will continue to block the advertisers and other crap in my browser.

Their desire to be heard doesn't mean I'm required to listen or allow them onto my property.

Re:Tough ... (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | about a year ago | (#44060263)

I was actually referring to website owners rather than advertisers setting the terms of service where you agree to the delivery and tracking of advertisement. In theory, advertisers could require that website owners require a ToS on their website that requires this and permit the advertisers to go after people.

The violations I spoke of were of access to the service, couple that with western society laws on unauthorized access and you have some interesting criminal/civil charges on top. I'm not calling advertising 'speech'.

Your statements try to push this as not possible today, I see it as entirely possible.

Re:Tough ... (1)

mrbester (200927) | about a year ago | (#44061411)

Unless those terms are prominently displayed on every page (not just tucked away behind a link no one visits) then contract law in UK clearly states that this is an unenforceable extension to the contract as the terms were not made available at the time of accepting it (navigating to a page on the site; i.e. *before* you've even loaded the site)

Not that a Terms of Service page on a web site is a contract in the first place in UK...

Re: Tough ... (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | about a year ago | (#44062169)

That's why HMRC website terms and conditions aren't upheld right, despite being only a link on every webpage? Oh wait, they are.

Re: Tough ... (1)

mrbester (200927) | about a year ago | (#44063863)

The copyright terms, yes. Obviously.

Re:Tough ... (1)

nmr_andrew (1997772) | about a year ago | (#44062969)

IANAL, but while I'm sure such a ToS would probably be considered valid, I don't think that the advertisers could "go after" users. It would, however, be within the rights of the hosting website to refuse access to anyone using an ad blocking browser, plugin, hosts file, etc., and within the rights of the advertiser to refuse to pay to have their ads hosted on any website that doesn't do that.

Cookies for session only (1)

TomC2 (755722) | about a year ago | (#44059571)

As an experiment, I recently tried setting Chrome to keep cookies only for each session (ie delete everything when I close the browser). So far I have not noticed any substantial difference to my browsing experience - all the sites I go to still seem to work normally. It seems like a good compromise - if cookies are disabled completely, lots of sites do not work properly, and do not report why they are not working, and maintaining a manual exception list is a pain.

Re:Cookies for session only (1)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about a year ago | (#44059717)

I've browsed this way for a long time, and as you said, it works well. I only allow longer-term cookies for sites on which I have an account of some type.

The thing with targeted advertising is that it's still possible, just not as easy. We know that on a Counterstrike website there's little point in advertising training bras, while on an angel healing website there's a burgeoning population of naive marks waiting to buy the next mystical wonder. The biggest loser here would be content mills that are so unfocussed that they really don't have any significant target demographic. No worries for those ones though, there's plenty of scope for acai berries and industry uproar over a breakthrough made by a "local mom".

Already exists (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44059607)

Firefox with ABP (load up the subscriptions, uncheck 'allow some advertising), NoScript (take out all the whitelisted URLs which are there by default) and Ghostery. Add in an extension which forces HTTPS.

Stop visiting sites that make you add any of their shitware scripts to the whitelists in NoScript or Ghostery.

There's a reason advertisers hate, hate, HATE those three plugins. It's because they are like holy water being poured on the foreheads of obese, slovenly vampires which want to devour your personal data.

Re:Already exists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44060665)

Ghostery is written by some of those advertisers.

Threat classification (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44059665)

We just class the companies who do all this tracking as a security threat, i mean how can you not ? we have a financially orientated team or people (lets call them a gang) coming together for the sole purpose of obtaining data and perform said activities covertly by way of obfuscation and hidden web bugs
thats the very definition of what a security threat is, just because they wear a suit and call it "metrics analytics" doesnt change the nature of their business, spying on people for cash, funny how all the big players in that space are all creepy American companies again, maybe the NSA incident is a cultural issue not political

Flawed premisses (2)

Hypotensive (2836435) | about a year ago | (#44059785)

From http://cch.law.stanford.edu/our-projects/ [stanford.edu]

If Stanford hosted all of their images on www.stanford-images.edu, but users only visit www.stanford.edu, then cookies would set from www.stanford.edu (presumption 1) but not from www.stanford-images.edu (presumption 2.) This does not make any logical sense, since both websites are part of Stanford.

Not according to the whole way the Internet works. These are two completely unrelated domains. If you wanted the system to work for you, call your images server images.stanford.edu. Now see how simple your decision to allow or deny Stanford cookies is?

Can I have... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44059977)

a) A general end to end encryption mechanism, as opposed to the current end to server mechanism. If I send a message to Bob using FaceBook, that is between me and bob, not Bob, Facebook, NSA, CIA, or any other law breaking faction of government that might have the technical means to grab it.
So it should be encrypted with Bob's certs, not Facebooks certs.

b) Thunderbird to support public key exchanges like SSH does. So a public key is attached to outgoing mail, a client that supports it, records that key the first time it sees it, and from then on send to my email are encrypted with that key. i.e. removing the public certificate authority, and relying on the first key exchange to encrypt mail end to end.

c) A HTML extension, declaring an encrypted edit field, with a second extension declaring the recipient. The browser only allows javascript and send to see the encrypted edit text, encrypted with the public key of the recipient (which you obtained on the first key exchange, see a). The edit field needs a visual indicator so we know its encrypted. So webmail can support end to end encryption.

d) An add on to force sites like Yahoo, Hotmail and Gmail into encrypted mode. So we can webmail encrypted even if the site refuses to cooperate.

e) Better control of certificates, I'd like to remove all the cert authorities that have a US base as untrusted (untrustable), but I'm reduced to going through them one by one. Also SSH has warned me in the past of attempts to substitute a certificate, does Firefox do the same?

f) File send data encrypted. People upload zip files with their banking passwords, and other details, thinking they're trusting Google or Yahoo or Dropbox or whatever with a backup copy of their data, not realizing they're handing it to a Dr Strangelove. They should have an easy way to upload it encrypted with their own key.

g) ISPs, can I have the old Deutsch Telekom trick of renewing an IP address every 2am. Making tracking more difficult.

h) ISP's if you're putting in Super NATs can we have them using a session id, and not some constant mechanism that reveals the end point after the NAT.

Excuse me (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44060449)

But how do you get more privacy out of a centralized repository? Centralization and privacy don't mix. And that word... trusted... please...

Re:Excuse me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44060887)

A central repository of public keys is the only way to fight MITM attacks.

Since they charge neither users nor advertisers... (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | about a year ago | (#44061027)

Tough tits, toots.

Advertisers are of course, free to create their own extra-spiffy browsers, just chock full of advertising.

Stories of doom and gloom (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | about a year ago | (#44061043)

Stories of doom and gloom were also spewed by the Phone telemarketers and they are doing just fine.

What happens next? Nothing changes ! (1)

hebertrich (472331) | about a year ago | (#44061271)

What happens next?
See what we have planned ( click link )

404 — Fancy meeting you here!
Don't panic, we'll get through this together. Let's explore our options here.

Nothing changes LOL

The list belongs in DNS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44062085)

I think it would be awesome if browser vendors would create a list of domains which when referenced the browser simply would treat the same as if it looked up the domain and no address records were found. Obviously there should be more fine grained tools but sometimes if you cut it off any later then DNS fingerprinting cannot be averted.

We have such a list in our local DNS cache and it is quite awesome.

Companies will just buy your data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44064081)

The issue infonnis most things used to block adds and stop cookies is that more often than not companies pay to be on an exceptions list. Hence you will still have this problem..?

Greetings, slashdotlings (1)

aleecia (608467) | about a year ago | (#44065497)

Hi. I'm running the Cookie Clearinghouse [stanford.edu] . I'd like to do a good job with it. From prior experience with Do Not Track, I notice two things: (1) it's impossible to actually get anything *done* with too many people in the room, yet (2) users are basically not part of the discussions, yet alone decisions. How, if at all, would you like to be involved? What's a good way to get more smart voices into the discussion without it being a DDOS on my time?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>