Even if you informed the uninformed, they wouldn't care. They're not paranoid.
Google tracks my browsing to send me a targeted ad that I rarely ever notice anyways... bfd.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google to Pay $22.5 Million Settlement in Safari Privacy Circumvention Case
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Even if you informed the uninformed, they wouldn't care. They're not paranoid.
Google tracks my browsing to send me a targeted ad that I rarely ever notice anyways... bfd.
Actually, it's you're loading their ad and they know which site you were on when you did. They already know this not through the cookie though. What the cookie gives them is that YOU are loading their ad from the site you're on. It's not evil, no corporation is good or evil, all of them have the same, boring grey goal : making money.
Corporations are amoral. That's why we have industry watchdogs and consumer protection laws to keep them in check.
Anyway, what happened here is a case where Google got a bit arrogant and pushed the boundaries. They took a bet it would pay off. Did it ? Only they know. But in the end, the checks in place worked and they got put back in their place.
I think the "bfd" is that Google actively bypassed a security setting without informing the user, and without requiring any confirmation from the user not that their displaying ads that you don't see or care about
Nope, you're right. The technique I describe is what would normally happen and what Google had to circumvent. My bad for reading shoddy incomplete reporting. The EFF covers it more accurately :
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/...ivacy-settings-safari-users#footnote2_uoa8t2y
Seems it's something they made to pass Google +1's to DoubleClick :
The WSJ has a graphic detailing the code :
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...7225380456599176.html#articleTabs=interactive
Well then, my explanation only explains how tracking cookies should work, not what Google was doing. Should still answer FaroZ06's who had concerns that Google could track you on "all sites" rather than just sites with DoubleClick. This doesn't change that fact, tracking cookies can only track the sites which use the same ad service the cookie was placed with. No one can track you on sites that don't use ads or the ad service you don't want to be tracked with, unless you specifically install software that does so.
Just add to this, still no ads need to be clicked for tracking to occur, as long as you already have the tracking cookie. The "trick" was only to get the cookie installed.
It looks as though the FTC is on top of things in this effort to protect the consumer with this record fine. However, just as getting caught and sent to prison gives a criminal ways to improve his craft so he isn't as likely to get caught next time, Google (and others) may develop ways to steal from us without being discovered.
Unlikely with a medium like HTML/JS, since the source code is available for anyone to see, and since your user-agent is the one executing it, you can run it through various developer tools/debuggers.
If this were closed source, binary software requiring traffic analysis (which could be circumvented with SSL/TLS encryption and HTTPS requests), then yes, Google could just hide it.
I honestly don't. And when I have to do a google search, TOR browser is my friend.
I agree. And a lot of corporations do have codes of conduct.
The trouble is, how do you teach wisdom to employees? Many older mentors have been laid off; a lot of this (IMO) is a result of an unprecedented flood of inexperienced people.
True. What's the number one comment we see around here from the kids? "It's okay that Apple makes as much money as they can off people, because that's what corporations are supposed to do!"
For that, I partly blame the beancounters. Over the past decade we've all seen a huge turn around in the way businesses are run. Now even pennies are seen as metrics to chase. Plus, as mentioned above, experienced people have been laid off in droves.
Regards.
Yet every time someone mentions that Google is the new "Big Brother", countless Google fans still take a position of denial. From satellite imagery, street view, sniffing out private wi-fi spots combined with massive amounts of (frequently improperly) mined personal data from browsing habits. They know where you live, the color of your home, the car in the driveway, what you buy, what you read and all of your internet habits. The old days of Microsoft's dominance had nothing on these guys.
Thanks for that link.
Right and apparently with AdBlock Plus in Firefox or in Chrome the problem can be avoided all-together, so maybe Safari just needs a small update, or at minimum one of its extensions might just need a small update.
Whoa there, I don't think anyone denied anything in this thread. Are you imagining things here ?
Google is not big brother since Google is not the government and thus cannot make laws/doesn't have a police force to abduct you and torture you with. There is no Ministry of Love and you can shut off the Telescreen at any time.
(You know, people should actually read George Orwell's 1984 before trying to use it as a reference for anything...).
I appreciate that Google doesn't think it knows better than me which apps are appropriate.
Heck, I _like_ using their satellite imagery, street views, and hotspot location method. (Good thing for the first GPS-less iPhone that Google had the latter.)
Bit of an exaggeration.
However, it's true that everyone has info on us these days. The good news is that they WANT to keep that info to themselves, so they can charge more for ad placement.
Apple's no info slouch, especially because of insisting on customers using iTunes. Credit info, name, home address, phone number, media buying habits, app preferences. Plus built-in support for location and iTunes-based preferences for iAds.
Heck, doesn't Apple also now have satellite imagery of your home ? Uh oh, couple that with all the information they have on you, and they could also very well be "watching".
Let's guess which corporation is first to buy a country and form the first ever corporatist government, with torture and brainwashing of its citizens.
I say it'll be OCP.
Whoa there, I don't think anyone denied anything in this thread. Are you imagining things here ?
Google is not big brother since Google is not the government and thus cannot make laws/doesn't have a police force to abduct you and torture you with. There is no Ministry of Love and you can shut off the Telescreen at any time.
(You know, people should actually read George Orwell's 1984 before trying to use it as a reference for anything...).
You may want to know what your talking about when you imply what literature posters may or may not have read. I have read it. My reference is a metaphor. As with Orwell's work, many would say that everyone is under complete surveillance, in this case by Google, instead of the government. But perhaps learning about metaphors is beyond your lofty achievements in literary consumption.
Again, you can turn off the telescreen. It's an hyperbole, not a metaphor. If you read and understood 1984, you'd know Google has no where near the influence or power of information control and disruption that Big Brother has.
Oh geez. Every argument on this forum is just two people nitpicking what the other says and arguing over semantics. There's no substance here. It's like a bunch of 2nd graders arguing.
Can we stay on topic instead of trying to one up each other or play dumb to get a point across?
Can we stay on topic instead of trying to one up each other or play dumb to get a point across?
I seriously don't think 2nd graders have read 1984 and if they did, they are far from having understood any of it. They probably think O'Brien is the good guy.
I just think some people do tend to go overboard with the "Google = big brother". They think Big Brother is about data collection, that's a big mistake. The book isn't about how our lives are monitored, it's about a society where information is controlled, thoughts are controlled are independant thought is prohibited.
It's pretty much like the people here that say "Macrumors is a fansite! What we say is what everyone should think". That's a form of "Big Brother"-ism. What Google is doing is simply what every ad agency has done forever, in a much more effective way. In the end, it gives them no control over you.
That's why I think the parallele is hyperbolic and really bad for Orwell's work. It diminishes it. Just like Godwin's law for Nazis. No matter what you compare them to, you're diminishing the movement. Nothing is as bad as that regime. Heck, we should have Godwin's law 2, for when someone calls a corporate entity "Big Brother". Same rules should apply. Thread has ended and the party that brought it up loses the argument instantly.
I think the topic is pretty much done by page 2 of every thread around here.
What more is there to add really ? Google got fined after Google bypassed privacy settings. Done and over, they don't anymore.
I seriously don't think 2nd graders have read 1984 and if they did, they are far from having understood any of it. They probably think O'Brien is the good guy.
I just think some people do tend to go overboard with the "Google = big brother". They think Big Brother is about data collection, that's a big mistake. The book isn't about how our lives are monitored, it's about a society where information is controlled, thoughts are controlled are independant thought is prohibited.
It's pretty much like the people here that say "Macrumors is a fansite! What we say is what everyone should think". That's a form of "Big Brother"-ism. What Google is doing is simply what every ad agency has done forever, in a much more effective way. In the end, it gives them no control over you.
That's why I think the parallele is hyperbolic and really bad for Orwell's work. It diminishes it. Just like Godwin's law for Nazis. No matter what you compare them to, you're diminishing the movement. Nothing is as bad as that regime. Heck, we should have Godwin's law 2, for when someone calls a corporate entity "Big Brother". Same rules should apply. Thread has ended and the party that brought it up loses the argument instantly.
I think the topic is pretty much done by page 2 of every thread around here.
What more is there to add really ? Google got fined after Google bypassed privacy settings. Done and over, they don't anymore.
I understand your point, knight, but i think you've got to give ppl a little bit more leeway. I've read 1984, and while Google is obviously not at the level of Big Brother, i understand the sentiment the OP is trying to convey: that Google is "watching" you. That's all he was saying and it's true. He wasn't making some social commentary and telling about the world ending.
When you start nitpicking and arguing metaphor vs analogy vs hyperbole etc, it just leads to pointless derailing of the thread.
I knew exactly what the op meant the minute he said it. I have a feeling you did too, because you don't strike me as someone unintelligent. However, you choose to go after the person rather then just let it slide and go to the heart of the issue (like you did with the guy who said dress trade instead of trade dress). There is no point in doing things like that. Like i said, it DOESN'T make you look smarter, it makes you look like someone who is here solely to argue and be condescending to others.
My .02
Since this thread is derailed enough as it is, suffice it to say I don't agree with the sentiment itself and that is why I responded. I just don't find it a fitting metaphor at all. That was my motivation for responding, not some "urge to be condescending". Quite the contrary.
I get the IP address of everyone who visits my site
No you get the IP address I want you to have
You'll get the browser information I want you to have.
It'll also be via a sand boxed browser.
Most people don't use proxies. I don't see any reason not to give my IP out. I just have a few ports open on non-standard ports with very tight passwords.
But you see, that's what Google wants. Just your IP and browser's user-agent. They can build a profile off just that, they don't actually need to know who you are nor do they really care (though it gives them that much more info to work with).
With your IP and user-agent, they can essentially see what you like by accumulating your site visits. Macrumors, Apple Insider, Cult of Mac, Engadget, AllthingsD, WSJ... ok, they won't be feeding you Android ads, they'll be pushing your banner and ad views to their Mac/iOS accessories vendors.
They also don't sell this info to let's say Speck. Speck comes up to them, asks to place an ad for a new iPad case. Google says : "yep, got just the guys to push it too". Then they push you that ad on about every site you visit thanks to just your IP and user-agent matching the profile of a total Apple fanboy with probably 2 metric tons of Apple gear that needs Speck cases to keep it good looking.
That's how it works really. There's no big conspiracy, no shady backdoor deals "hey, Speck, want to know FaroZ06 ? We gotz da Scoopz mangd". Google doesn't "sell" the info, they sell ad placement based on the information they have. They'd be nuts to sell that kind of stuff!
