I really don't like Google when this happens

[Louis]

So here's the story:

Earlier today I was poking around the web, using Google to find some info on 3T handlebars.

Just now I was reading a story on the NYT web site which reminded me of a Shakespeare soliloquy I learned in high school. (Macbeth, Act 3: "To be thus is nothing, but to be safely thus...)

So for kicks I Google the line so I can read the rest. The first option is a "Shakespeare Online" something or other site, which looks promising. I click on it, and sure enough, there is the entire soliloquy, exactly what I wanted. I begin to read it.

Then I notice, scrolling across the top of the Shakespeare web page, a banner ad for Competitive Cyclist, listing all the 3T handlebars they carry. This is a real culture clash - on one hand 16th century political intrigue and murder, and on the other hi-zoot carbon fiber bike stuff. The two just don't fit together.

This immediately elicits three different, but all negative, reactions from me:

1) I very much despise the fact that Google has been watching over my shoulder, logging everything I do. I suppose this is an intrusion in my privacy I've implicitly accepted when I chose to use the Google site, but just the same, I really don't like it.

2) Apparently this is the price you have to pay to get such easy and free access to literary reference material.

3) Since the sale, Competitive Cyclist is now way, way more commercial.

What's the best way to protect yourself from all this snooping?

Louis

[fourflys]

3) Since the sale, Competitive Cyclist is now way, way more commercial.


you mean they're using their new business to actually try and make more revenue?

I don't really see the issue...

[bargainguy]

Don't use a search engine. Probably for most of us, myself included, near impossible. It's the current paradigm until someone comes up with search engines you pay for that don't use analytics.

FWIW, last night I was doing a search on torque wrenches and came across this. The missus was as mystified as I was, but only after she stopped laughing. If anyone can explain this, feel free.

http://www.babyshowerwarehouse.com/1-165797011-B002FP9FHM-Topeak_D_Torq_Wrench

Don

[nighthawk]

I downloaded AdBlockPlus onto my mac, and I now I never see any advertisements. It's free, and I have had zero issues with it since downloading, and if for some reason you want the ads on a specific site, you can switch it off (like I do for Paceline).

[Louis]

FWIW, last night I was doing a search on torque wrenches and came across this. The missus was as mystified as I was, but only after she stopped laughing. If anyone can explain this, feel free.

I sometimes get the same incongruity thing with Sears + bike parts I know they don't carry. I don't know the technical term for this business practice, but I think some outfits, call them "aggregators" for lack of a better term, pay Google to link their site to any of a number of products, as if they normally carry them. I'm sure they'll sell it to you, but purely as an intermediary. The torque wrench will never be in the same warehouse as the diapers.

[WillT.]

If you use Firefox, AdBlock definitely helps. You may also want to check out the NoScript and Ghostery addons to help cut down on the tracking.

[regularguy412]

If you use Firefox, AdBlock definitely helps. You may also want to check out the NoScript and Ghostery addons to help cut down on the tracking.

+1 on all this. 'Cept I haven't used Ghostery, but I'll check it out now. ABP and NoScript are both very configurable.

Mike in AR:beer:

[Earl Gray]

If you search while logged into your google account, you can pause your google history. It may impact your searches in other ways but I suspect it will solve that issue.

[DrSpoke]

I have a Windows/MSN home page. I periodically run Tools/Intenet Options/Delete. Norton also has a cleanup utility. I believe that these processes delete the tracking cookies that allow the various sites to track your surfing. I don't think it's just Google. This doesn't prevent it from happening again in the future but slows it down. I run it frequently.

[thegunner]

So here's the story:

Earlier today I was poking around the web, using Google to find some info on 3T handlebars.

Just now I was reading a story on the NYT web site which reminded me of a Shakespeare soliloquy I learned in high school. (Macbeth, Act 3: "To be thus is nothing, but to be safely thus...)

So for kicks I Google the line so I can read the rest. The first option is a "Shakespeare Online" something or other site, which looks promising. I click on it, and sure enough, there is the entire soliloquy, exactly what I wanted. I begin to read it.

Then I notice, scrolling across the top of the Shakespeare web page, a banner ad for Competitive Cyclist, listing all the 3T handlebars they carry. This is a real culture clash - on one hand 16th century political intrigue and murder, and on the other hi-zoot carbon fiber bike stuff. The two just don't fit together.

This immediately elicits three different, but all negative, reactions from me:

1) I very much despise the fact that Google has been watching over my shoulder, logging everything I do. I suppose this is an intrusion in my privacy I've implicitly accepted when I chose to use the Google site, but just the same, I really don't like it.

2) Apparently this is the price you have to pay to get such easy and free access to literary reference material.

3) Since the sale, Competitive Cyclist is now way, way more commercial.

What's the best way to protect yourself from all this snooping?

Louis

this isn't explicitly google's fault. this is mostly NYTimes' fault and competitive cyclist. google's just trying to pay the bills so that it can keep making searches for you ;)

[Louis]

this is mostly NYTimes' fault and competitive cyclist.

NYT had nothing to do with that particular snooping / tracking incident. It merely reminded me of Macbeth.

The players in this drama were Google, CC and the Shakespeare site.

[thegunner]

NYT had nothing to do with that particular snooping / tracking incident. It merely reminded me of Macbeth.

The players in this drama were Google, CC and the Shakespeare site.

NYT pays for demographic tracking, i'm sure. the service exists because there exists a business case for it.

[MattTuck]

I downloaded AdBlockPlus onto my mac, and I now I never see any advertisements. It's free, and I have had zero issues with it since downloading, and if for some reason you want the ads on a specific site, you can switch it off (like I do for Paceline).


Word. What's a banner ad?

[ORMojo]

There is a way to do this, while maintaining the ability to use search engines. And, frankly, it isn't just search engine use that leads to the tracking and targeted ads - it is any browsing. By default, it is highly probable that all of your web browsing is being tracked by numerous companies and being analyzed to then serve you targeted ads on future sites you browse to.

To generate this post, I purposely switched to a computer on which I have not opted out of tracking and targeted advertising so that I could show you, by example below, just how many companies are tracking you.

Cleaning cookies off of your computer, either manually or by adjusting certain settings, and/or the use of programs such as those mentioned above, do help.

AdBlock Plus does indeed block ads, but it does not stop the tracking of your activity, which is what the OP seems most concerned about. However, there is a direct-to-the-source way to do this.

You can directly opt out of many of the "personalized" ads, indeed most of the ones by the major players. In all of the cases where you do so by the methods linked below, that also means that your internet activity will stop being gathered and tracked by these entities.

There are several ways to opt out - the more of these you pursue, the less you will be the subject of targeting advertising. You will have to do this at every computer you use, and the opt-out is activated by the placement of cookies on your computer to "tell" the company that you have opted out, so you don't want to delete/clean those cookies, or you will effectively opt back in.

To start, there are two main places to accomplish this.

The first place to go is here: http://www.aboutads.info/choices/ This page will take a bit to load, as it analyzes what is currently being targeted for your computer. For example, right now, on the computer I am typing this on, this page says that there are 72 "companies customizing ads for your browser." On this page, with just a couple of mouse clicks, you can opt out of some or all of these.

Second, go here http://www.networkadvertising.org/managing/opt_out.asp This page will essentially do the same thing as the page above, and many of the results will be duplicates, but not all. For example, right now on this computer, this page identifies 84 companies. Again with just a couple of mouse clicks you can opt out of some or all of these.

Beyond those two sites, you can also check this out http://www.privacychoice.org/ This is probably the most advanced of the options. This page provides tools for seeing what is being tracked on your computer, and blocking tracking and ad targeting.

Finally, in spite of what I said above, if you are using Google Chrome as your browser, you can make many of the opt-out choices you selected persistent by installing the "keep my opt-outs plug-in" available here https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hhnjdplhmcnkiecampfdgfjilccfpfoe?hl=en

And, if Internet Explorer 9 is your browser, the PrivacyChoice site linked above has the most comprehensive option I've yet found for blocking ad companies, here http://www.privacychoice.org/trackerblock/ie9 This page will let you install a Tracking Protection List that IE9 will use to block tracking and ads - this list currently contains 883 advertiser domains that will be blocked!

The use of these opt-outs stops tracking and targeted advertising, but you will still get banner and other ads, they just won't be personalized. To stop tracking, targeted advertising and banner/pop-up/etc. ads, complete the opt-out processes above and install a utility such as AdBlock Plus.

I hope this helps.

[Louis]

NYT pays for demographic tracking, i'm sure. the service exists because there exists a business case for it.

I'm confused. What role did the NYT play in this?

[FlashUNC]

If I had the choice, I'd rather someone show me ads for things I might actually be interested in over the usual terrible Internet ads.

[Louis]

The use of these opt-outs stops tracking and targeted advertising, but you will still get banner and other ads, they just won't be personalized. To stop tracking, targeted advertising and banner/pop-up/etc. ads, complete the opt-out processes above and install a utility such as AdBlock Plus.

I hope this helps.

Thanks - that's just the type of stuff I was looking for.

[Louis]

If I had the choice, I'd rather someone show me ads for things I might actually be interested in over the usual terrible Internet ads.

Who said I don't need cheap Viagra? ;)

[ORMojo]

If I had the choice, I'd rather someone show me ads for things I might actually be interested in over the usual terrible Internet ads.

It does seem to be a bit of a double-edged sword. Either get tracked, and see ads that might, and I emphasize might, interest you, or don't get tracked and see random ads for ??? Frankly, as far as ads go, either way is annoying, yes, but dangerous, no.

But, here is another consideration, and one, that for me, is primary. The downside to the stuff I, and others, posted as ways to avoid tracking and advertisements, is that pretty much all of the solutions result in a hit - read "detriment" - to your browsing speed.

All of those opt-out cookies, all of the AdBlock or similar add-ons, all of the Tracking Protection Lists . . . will slowwww dowwwn your browsing. Think about it -- every one of those means yet another filter that every element on every web page you load has to be checked against/filtered through.

It isn't worth it for me. I value browsing speed. I value time. I don't care if they are anonymously tracking my browsing in the hopes of selling me something. I've decided to use my eyes as my primary ad filter -- I just don't look at the damn ads. They can try all they want, but I don't pay any attention.

Except for one computer of the 10 computers that my wife and I currently use (that includes desktops, laptops, tablets, and smart phones), I specifically disabled almost all of the add-ons on all computers but one, thus, yes, allowing tracking, targeted ads, etc., etc. . . . but also speeding up the browsing as much as possible. The last computer - the one where I haven't disabled add-ons/etc. - is the one where every protection of every type I know of is enabled, and is the only computer where we do all of our financial and other sensitive transactions (and that is a lot, for a number of reasons including that we are as paperless financially and otherwise as possible). (Note that what I am talking about is different/broader than antivirus/malware/etc. protection -- that is enabled/installed to the max on every one of the 10 devices.)

So, it is a trade-off, both in the ads you will see, and the speed with which your browsing will transpire. Make your choices.

[thegunner]

I'm confused. What role did the NYT play in this?

misread your first post, i was under the impression this was an ad delivered by google on the NYT website.

[benitosan1972]

Google's been watching you way more than you know, welcome to 2012.

And Competitive Cyclist is too commercial? Let's see, they are a retailer for profit, that would mean being commercial...

[cat6]

I think Louis should start paying a subscription to every web page he visits, since the Internet is free and all...

Want free, no ads? Subscribe. I'd prefer ads.

People much smarter than you and I are figuring out ways to figure you and I out based on our Internet usage.

Is it invasive, YES. Is it hidden, NO.

I'd prefer cycling ads over random BS any day.

As others have mentioned you can block ads with a number of plugins with several browsers.

If you'd like to surf anonymously you can use google chrome in "incognito mode".

[Germany_chris]

Google is the Big Brother, that MS was and Apple aspires to be. The problem is their search algorithms are just better than everyone else in the business. way to much data goes into googles servers and comes out as ads.

[cat6]

Google is the Big Brother, that MS was and Apple aspires to be. The problem is their search algorithms are just better than everyone else in the business. way to much data goes into googles servers and comes out as ads.

Apple's current advantage is the iPhone, and anyone using iCloud is sharing everything always, that includes me. There will be a time when your GPS routes you near establishments that pay for advertising, and there will be a time when your mobile Yelp searches will lead to Email solicitation for "name your favorite food". I've searched for subway schedules in NYC from my phone and saw an unreal amount of Subway Sandwich ads on my home PC shortly thereafter. Coincidence? Probably not. I don't live in NYC and never eat at Subway. Yet after a week of searching subway routes, those are the ads I see.

I don't think it's a coincidence.

[nighthawk]

I've searched for subway schedules in NYC from my phone and saw an unreal amount of Subway Sandwich ads on my home PC shortly thereafter. Coincidence? Probably not. I don't live in NYC and never eat at Subway. Yet after a week of searching subway routes, those are the ads I see.

I don't think it's a coincidence.

Maybe Google just knew you were hungry.

[PQJ]

What's the best way to protect yourself from all this snooping?



Leave your phone, computer and every other electronic device at home. Move to Timbuktu. Don't tell anyone. Make sure you are never anywhere near any source of electrical power or radio/wireless transmitting device. You should be good. At least for a couple years.

[Climb01742]

louis, i'm not sure you have a valid peeve. while no one likes being 'watched' we do it voluntarily and we do it because we get something out of it.

google deserves to make money because they offer a service 99% of people find of value. and seeing an ad isn't exactly heavy lifting on our part.

we are trading privacy for a service. if that's not a trade one is willing to make, don't use google and don't make use of its value.

yes, it's a little creepy but it's a bargain we enter into voluntarily.

[oldpotatoe]

So here's the story:

Earlier today I was poking around the web, using Google to find some info on 3T handlebars.

Just now I was reading a story on the NYT web site which reminded me of a Shakespeare soliloquy I learned in high school. (Macbeth, Act 3: "To be thus is nothing, but to be safely thus...)

So for kicks I Google the line so I can read the rest. The first option is a "Shakespeare Online" something or other site, which looks promising. I click on it, and sure enough, there is the entire soliloquy, exactly what I wanted. I begin to read it.

Then I notice, scrolling across the top of the Shakespeare web page, a banner ad for Competitive Cyclist, listing all the 3T handlebars they carry. This is a real culture clash - on one hand 16th century political intrigue and murder, and on the other hi-zoot carbon fiber bike stuff. The two just don't fit together.

This immediately elicits three different, but all negative, reactions from me:

1) I very much despise the fact that Google has been watching over my shoulder, logging everything I do. I suppose this is an intrusion in my privacy I've implicitly accepted when I chose to use the Google site, but just the same, I really don't like it.

2) Apparently this is the price you have to pay to get such easy and free access to literary reference material.

3) Since the sale, Competitive Cyclist is now way, way more commercial.

What's the best way to protect yourself from all this snooping?

Louis


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/22/the-most-amazing-librarie_n_432126.html

[BumbleBeeDave]

I would assume the internet based site opt-outs ormojo mentions work for all platforms, but what about the others mentioned . . . software based. Does the Mac version of Firefox offer the same opt-out choices? I have the "do not accept third party cookies" box checked on FF and that has cut down on my cookie quantity a lot, but of course does not affect Google and cycling sites I visit like VN, cycling news, etc.

BBD

[zap]

louis, i'm not sure you have a valid peeve. while no one likes being 'watched' we do it voluntarily and we do it because we get something out of it.

google deserves to make money because they offer a service 99% of people find of value. and seeing an ad isn't exactly heavy lifting on our part.

we are trading privacy for a service. if that's not a trade one is willing to make, don't use google and don't make use of its value.

yes, it's a little creepy but it's a bargain we enter into voluntarily.

Climb, I think the problem is that many do not know to what extent activities are being tracked.

Google is just the tip of the iceberg.

[pcxmbfj]

https://startpage.com/do/search

No affiliation to. Seldom use myself.

[victoryfactory]

if we want to take advantage of the mighty Google.
My story:

My friend who was dealing with cancer sent me email which I answered
The right hand side of the screen lit up with all these quack cancer treatment ads.
Normally I wouldn't even notice but do to the emotion involved with my friend's condition, I complained to The Mighty G about people reading my mail.

Their response (with absolutely no irony) was that I shouldn't be concerned
because "people" were not reading my mail, computers were. Ha! I feel much better now.

VF

Ps: you can turn off the ads, but it's not keeping them er... their computers
from snooping.

[Ahneida Ride]

It's the current paradigm until someone comes up with search engines you pay for that don't use analytics.
Don


use duckduckgo

[54ny77]

Ghostery is great, but both it and AdBlock disable functionality of a lot of websites when viewed in Firefox.

If you use Firefox, AdBlock definitely helps. You may also want to check out the NoScript and Ghostery addons to help cut down on the tracking.

[wc1934]

see article below (at the end of it was an ad for wcp - kinda funny).

As someone mentioned, I would rather see ads about things I am interested in as opposed to random crap - that said, Google IS watching - only way around this is not use Google or gmail, both of which I like.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/250698/states_challenge_google_privacy_policy_change.html

[Bob Loblaw]

Ignore it. Using the WWW is like using going to Disneyland for free as long as you let them keep track of which rides you go on.

BL

[Germany_chris]

I would assume the internet based site opt-outs ormojo mentions work for all platforms, but what about the others mentioned . . . software based. Does the Mac version of Firefox offer the same opt-out choices? I have the "do not accept third party cookies" box checked on FF and that has cut down on my cookie quantity a lot, but of course does not affect Google and cycling sites I visit like VN, cycling news, etc.

BBD

Yes it does..and a couple others

Safari does it by default on 10.8 which I'm on right now which sounds really great until you see Gatekeeper.

On a side note

I'm easy to irk and I know that but MS and Apple have me peeved. The Metro UI for Win 8 ruins a perfectly nice OS I know it can be turned off but what is it signaling. Gatekeeper on 10.8 are signaling that I can't be trusted with my own computer and need daddy Apple to tell me whats OK. Stallman is a bit out there but I'm close to jumping back on his train. More programs and applications are becoming web based so the lack of commercial software is less important.

[darkadious]

All of those opt-out cookies, all of the AdBlock or similar add-ons, all of the Tracking Protection Lists . . . will slowwww dowwwn your browsing. Think about it -- every one of those means yet another filter that every element on every web page you load has to be checked against/filtered through.

if your computers are slowing down enough for you to be turned off by ad block then you really need to upgrade.


i've noticed no difference in the computers i've used at home for years.

[CunegoFan]

Paranoia will destroy ya. Google is not snooping your email or any other such nonsense. It's all done programmatically. It's no different than seeing ads for kids' toys when watching Scooby Doo instead seeing ads for electric razors. Google's software does not give a damn if you are emailing people about Brad Pitt, BBQ grills, or Simpsons porn. The goal is to fund their services by showing you ads that will most likely interest you.

[Kontact]

This whole idea of being "tracked" is a little over played. All this stuff is automatic and it is questionable how much of the data generated by cookies or whatever is actually recorded in a database that "knows" who you are. It is mostly a dumb response system that just reacts to what you have been doing.

Explorer has a "Browse in Private" function, if that's what you want.

[WillT.]

Ghostery is great, but both it and AdBlock disable functionality of a lot of websites when viewed in Firefox.

True, but once you get it adjusted for those websites, i.e. adding exceptions to the blocking lists, I don't find it too much of a problem. :beer:

[Tony T]

1) I very much despise the fact that Google has been watching over my shoulder, logging everything I do. I suppose this is an intrusion in my privacy I've implicitly accepted when I chose to use the Google site, but just the same, I really don't like it.

What's the best way to protect yourself from all this snooping?

Louis

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/02/how-remove-your-google-search-history-googles-new-privacy-policy-takes-effect

:bike:

[victoryfactory]

Paranoia will destroy ya. Google is not snooping your email or any other such nonsense. It's all done programmatically. It's no different than seeing ads for kids' toys when watching Scooby Doo instead seeing ads for electric razors. Google's software does not give a damn if you are emailing people about Brad Pitt, BBQ grills, or Simpsons porn. The goal is to fund their services by showing you ads that will most likely interest you.

I still don't trust them.
I'm going shopping in a real store today. I need some tin foil for my colander.

[DHallerman]

“If you’re not paying for it, you’re the product.”

There's no free lunch. And, one might more accurately say, data that potentially indicates your interests is the product.

And sometimes that data leads to bike retailer ads (I've been seeing a lot from Aspire Velo-Tech), and sometimes it leads to ads for Subway stores even when you live on the west coast.

In either case, it can be somewhat spooky, but less so, I think, if you at least understand the backstory -- why it occurs, how that might affect your privacy.

And what does privacy mean to you? Has that changed over the past 20 years, as you spend more and more time on the internet?

Meanwhile, I use multiple browsers on my Mac, one set up for strict ad and data blocking, one for moderate blocking, and one with no real ad blocking (but I typically use the browswer settings to block third-party cookies on all three apps).

Dave, who thinks a key meaning of privacy in his life is some degree of control over who can gather and use data about him but also wonders what "him" means when the SOBs say it's all "anonymous"

[stien]

Didn't read thread but if you use google chrome, they redirect everything you do through their own servers.

I found this out when getting web in the middle of the ocean on a research vessel, satellite sucks, but when you try to go through chrome you get all sorts of issues to the point where you can't load anything at all. Switched to firefox.

[gemship]

I don't care much for advertising but I'm also a bit numb to it. As long as it takes lightning speed to load a webpage and for me to navigate it then I don't care however if said webpage freezes up my internet connection and I have to reboot the computer,cable modem and wireless router then we have a problem :rolleyes:

I can't see why people make a big deal about privacy issues with this unless we just call it more nitpicking.

They aren't getting your s.s# and you should be smart enough to hide the other personal info like credit and debit card #'s.... then who cares?

[gemship]

So here's the story:

Earlier today I was poking around the web, using Google to find some info on 3T handlebars.

Just now I was reading a story on the NYT web site which reminded me of a Shakespeare soliloquy I learned in high school. (Macbeth, Act 3: "To be thus is nothing, but to be safely thus...)

So for kicks I Google the line so I can read the rest. The first option is a "Shakespeare Online" something or other site, which looks promising. I click on it, and sure enough, there is the entire soliloquy, exactly what I wanted. I begin to read it.

Then I notice, scrolling across the top of the Shakespeare web page, a banner ad for Competitive Cyclist, listing all the 3T handlebars they carry. This is a real culture clash - on one hand 16th century political intrigue and murder, and on the other hi-zoot carbon fiber bike stuff. The two just don't fit together.

This immediately elicits three different, but all negative, reactions from me:

1) I very much despise the fact that Google has been watching over my shoulder, logging everything I do. I suppose this is an intrusion in my privacy I've implicitly accepted when I chose to use the Google site, but just the same, I really don't like it.

2) Apparently this is the price you have to pay to get such easy and free access to literary reference material.

3) Since the sale, Competitive Cyclist is now way, way more commercial.

What's the best way to protect yourself from all this snooping?

Louis


Just out of curiosity what do you think of Facebook? Personally, I think I registered once a long time ago just to see pics and webpages of people I know but I have long since lost the password and never put a photo of myself on there or any real pertinent info about me.

[William]

It's all just 1's and 0's. With the proliferation of electronic media communications (cell phones, computers, iPads, Smartphones, internet etc....) there has been such and increase in electronic data that even the N S A can't keep up with let alone read everything that is sent over the wires or through the air. Unless you are specifically targeted, or fall for a phishing scam, you are just a 1 or a 0 and are lost in the static.





William

[PQJ]

Just out of curiosity what do you think of Facebook?

I can't speak for Louis, but I personally think that Facebook is about a million times more evil and less trustworthy than Google. Can't put my finger on why exactly. Could have to do with the fact that if Facebook didn't exist tomorrow, the world wouldn't be materially worse off and it might even be much better off. Google, on the other hand, has many applications that provide us with meaningful functionality on a day-to-day basis.

I am genuinely scared for the day when my kids (now 6 and 3) will want access to FB. Given how quickly technology evolves and how fickle your average consumer is, it is probably misplaced worry now, and there will likely be something far more nefarious in 6 years time. Still, given Facebook's and Twitter's ubiquity among (yes, evil) corporations, they scare the bejeesus outta me.

[gemship]

I can't speak for Louis, but I personally think that Facebook is about a million times more evil and less trustworthy than Google. Can't put my finger on why exactly. Could have to do with the fact that if Facebook didn't exist tomorrow, the world wouldn't be materially worse off and it might even be much better off. Google, on the other hand, has many applications that provide us with meaningful functionality on a day-to-day basis.

I am genuinely scared for the day when my kids (now 6 and 3) will want access to FB. Given how quickly technology evolves and how fickle your average consumer is, it is probably misplaced worry now, and there will likely be something far more nefarious in 6 years time. Still, given Facebook's and Twitter's ubiquity among (yes, evil) corporations, they scare the bejeesus outta me.


Absolutely no problem replying. Actually it was more a open question to all I just quoted Louis because I know he must have a opinion on this and he really likes to articulate things in a way I find interesting. I should probably start a thread on this, I think there is one on the old Serotta forum, thanks for the input.

[victoryfactory]

They aren't getting your s.s# and you should be smart enough to hide the other personal info like credit and debit card #'s.... then who cares?

Computers are listening to cell phone calls to pick up trigger words which are
bumped up the line to humans for evaluation.
Machines are checking emails for the same triggers.

I know a guy who had a large telephone pole lying down in his driveway and he got a visit
from homeland security who picked it up from above and thought it was suspicious (shaped like a rocket).

This is the result of the dangerous world we live in. We are forced to endure
this stuff for our own protection these days. I would like to think I could
trust the government to handle this fairly and separate the real threats from
free speech. But who knows?

VF

[Ahneida Ride]

If you use gmail

you may wish to turn off tracking of what site you visit .
By default it creates a history.

[victoryfactory]

I think "Handlebra" is on the government's list of
taboo words

[1centaur]

The days are rapidly fading when "the government" won't know as much as it wants to know about you with very little effort if you are in the mainstream of computer use. Your greatest protection will be being boring and not making enemies. Frankly the ability for others to put incriminating stuff on your computer with fake headers as if you downloaded it yourself probably exists today, so even being boring won't really help.

The one temporary positive still hanging around is the pathetic ability of business to predict what I would like based on what I have expressed an interest in. I've been keeping an eye on predictive marketing since I became aware of it around 1990 and I've consistently been appalled at the slow pace and low accuracy of its development. I hope for the sake of our foreign policy that the pattern recognition and analysis of our CIA has advanced at a greater rate than Amazon's. I have made an effort over the years to insert fake DOBs, name, income and even gender in databases/questionnaires in order to maximize database conflicts and minimize understanding of who I am. But that's a hobby, not a strategy. Still, I am amused to get junk mail addressed to some character I invented in the past.

[PQJ]

In the context of the government of the United States of America, I'm really surprised there is more distrust of it than there is of private enterprise. Really, I am. Yes, in spite of what I know about it (the US government), now and historically, and because of what I know about it (private enterprise), now and historically.

[Louis]

Just out of curiosity what do you think of Facebook?

What is this "Facebook" thing, to which you refer? :)

[gemship]

What is this "Facebook" thing, to which you refer? :)


Ha,ha too funny lol :hello:

[gemship]

I have made an effort over the years to insert fake DOBs, name, income and even gender in databases/questionnaires in order to maximize database conflicts and minimize understanding of who I am. But that's a hobby, not a strategy. Still, I am amused to get junk mail addressed to some character I invented in the past.


That is funny. We sort of have something in common. Last night I was at a community meal, in my city there is one seven days a week and I meet some very happy people with low incomes there as well as some very troubled people with low incomes oddly it's the volunteers who are mostly well off that I like the most. I like them because they aren't too intense and they make me laugh. Last night was somewhat difficult however, I ate at the same table with guy that's a registered sex offender. So he starts talking to me and pleasant enough, I try to forgive him of his past but he gives me the creeps. Well the last straw was he asked me what my name was three times in a span of ten minutes. He couldn't remember the first time or the second so gave up just started lying my tail off. Kind of funny, actually really funny when I look back on it but a little disturbing at the time. All I could think of was who cares about who anybody really is? Names aren't important.

[DHallerman]

I can't speak for Louis, but I personally think that Facebook is about a million times more evil and less trustworthy than Google. Can't put my finger on why exactly.

Can't put your finger on it?

Try this article from the USA Today: (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2011-11-15/facebook-privacy-tracking-data/51225112/1)

Facebook officials are now acknowledging that the social media giant has been able to create a running log of the web pages that each of its 800 million or so members has visited during the previous 90 days. Facebook also keeps close track of where millions more non-members of the social network go on the Web, after they visit a Facebook web page for any reason.

Wow, so you don't even need to use FB and they track you. That makes my fingers itch.

[54ny77]

The gov't? Heck, there's enough private sector tools to do much the same. Basically they're amazingly powerful relational databases.

It's not too hard to make correlations that establish you've just bought a swank new custom bike and are enjoying a cycling trip to the Tuscan countryside, all while defaulting on your home loan.

:no:

The days are rapidly fading when "the government" won't know as much as it wants to know about you with very little effort if you are in the mainstream of computer use. Your greatest protection will be being boring and not making enemies. Frankly the ability for others to put incriminating stuff on your computer with fake headers as if you downloaded it yourself probably exists today, so even being boring won't really help.

The one temporary positive still hanging around is the pathetic ability of business to predict what I would like based on what I have expressed an interest in. I've been keeping an eye on predictive marketing since I became aware of it around 1990 and I've consistently been appalled at the slow pace and low accuracy of its development. I hope for the sake of our foreign policy that the pattern recognition and analysis of our CIA has advanced at a greater rate than Amazon's. I have made an effort over the years to insert fake DOBs, name, income and even gender in databases/questionnaires in order to maximize database conflicts and minimize understanding of who I am. But that's a hobby, not a strategy. Still, I am amused to get junk mail addressed to some character I invented in the past.

[1centaur]

I guess I focused on the government because they are more likely to want information to use against you whereas businesses mostly want you to buy their stuff. The incentives involved make for very different uses of the same data. Where I see a crossover, potentially, is if Google needs regulatory relief on a transaction and the government asks for a quid pro quo from Google's database - ongoing access to the best data that money can buy while government funding's a little light.

[54ny77]

Good point.

FYI, an adept user of Thompson Reuters' CLEAR product can do some interesting things as well.

Or put another way, there is no such thing as privacy.

I guess I focused on the government because they are more likely to want information to use against you whereas businesses mostly want you to buy their stuff. The incentives involved make for very different uses of the same data. Where I see a crossover, potentially, is if Google needs regulatory relief on a transaction and the government asks for a quid pro quo from Google's database - ongoing access to the best data that money can buy while government funding's a little light.

[Louis]

Same old, same old.

Link to NYT Story (http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/tk-ios-gives-developers-access-to-photos-videos-location/?hp)

Apple Loophole Gives Developers Access to Photos
By NICK BILTON

A test application was able to copy an iPhone’s photo library after it was given access to location data.

Developers of applications for Apple’s mobile devices, and Apple itself, came under scrutiny this month after reports that some apps were taking people’s address book information without their knowledge.

As it turns out, address books are not the only things up for grabs. Photos are also vulnerable. After a user allows an application on an iPhone, iPad or iPod Touch to have access to location information, the app can copy the user’s entire photo library, without any further notification or warning, according to app developers.

It is unclear whether any apps in Apple’s App Store are actually doing this. Apple says it screens all apps submitted to the store, and presumably it would not authorize an app that clearly copied a person’s photos without good reason. But copying address book data was also against Apple’s rules, and the company let through a number of popular apps that did so.

Apple did not respond to a request for comment.

The first time an application wants to use location data, for mapping or any other purpose, Apple’s devices ask the user for permission, noting in a pop-up message that this also “allows access to location information in photos and videos.” When the devices save photo and video files, they typically include the coordinates of the location at which they were taken — creating another potential risk.

“Conceivably, an app with access to location data could put together a history of where the user has been based on photo location,” said David E. Chen, co-founder of Curio, a company that develops iOS apps. “The location history, as well as your photos and videos, could be uploaded to a server. Once the data is off of the iOS device, Apple has virtually no ability to monitor or limit its use.”

Full access to the photo library was first permitted in 2010 when Apple released the fourth version of its mobile software, iOS. It was intended to make photo apps more efficient. Developers said it was unclear why Apple would tie the permission for sharing of location data to access to photos.

“It’s very strange, because Apple is asking for location permission, but really what it is doing is accessing your entire photo library,” said John Casasanta, owner of the successful iPhone app development studio Tap Tap Tap, which makes the Camera+ app. “The message the user is being presented with is very, very unclear.”

The New York Times asked a developer, who asked not to be named because he worked for a popular app maker and did not want to involve his employer, to create a test application that pulled this information from an iPhone. When the “PhotoSpy” app was started up, it asked for access to location data. Once this was granted, it began siphoning photos and their location data to a remote server. (The app was not submitted to the App Store.)

The knowledge that this capability exists has been around for some time, developers say, but it was assumed that Apple would ensure that apps that inappropriately exploited it did not make it into the App Store. Based on recent revelations, phone owners can’t be sure.

“Apple has a tremendous responsibility as the gatekeeper to the App Store and the apps people put on their phone to police the apps,” said David Jacobs, a fellow with the Electronic Privacy Information Center. “Apple and app makers should be making sure people understand what they are consenting to. It is pretty obvious that they aren’t doing a good enough job of that.”

“We’ve seen celebrities and famous people have pictures leaked and disclosed in the past. There’s every reason to think that if you make that easier to do, you’ll see much more of it,” Mr. Jacobs said. Not just celebrities are at risk, he added. “A lot of sites are trying to obtain images from everyday people and politicians to post online.”

As the Apple Store has grown to include more than 600,000 apps, and Apple has faced pressure from Google and its Android mobile software, some worry that the company is becoming less vigilant about monitoring app developers, exposing users to unnecessary risks and shoddy apps.

This month, Apple allowed a fake 99-cent “Pokemon” app into the App Store. Even though it offered only a series of Pokemon images, it became the second-most-popular paid app in the store before it was pulled by Apple.

Brian X. Chen contributed reporting.