News Social Media And Privacy Facebook’s Tracking Practices Have ‘no Legal Basis’

[anthony]

Why the hell not use it?

I'm not advocating to not use it, or other such measures... but simply outlining the beginning of your response, in that nothing you do is private online. Everything leaves a footprint, whether you know it or not, your entire online usage is still be logged somewhere, recorded, and can be tracked.

@shimmerz just beat me to it... in that Ghostery is known to do exactly what you're trying to hide from, instead they stack your data and sell it as a complete package for providers to target you with advertising. They just do it with anonymous data... but help the enemy, in essence.

Free browser plugins make their money other ways... you should look at how they make it. You're really just robbing Peter to pay Paul with most third party tools.

If you look at VPN providers, for example, whilst most do not log your session, they still log your actual IP against a date and time. When subpoena'd, that information is just as damaging because it allocates your real IP and computer to the assigned anonymous IP at a date and time. The better VPN's simply reside their head quarters in countries where an International subpoena means little, and they toss it in the bin.

The more interesting question, is that authorities have already hacked your encrypted connection to obtain the evidence to grant a subpoena for legal evidence, as they obviously cannot use hacking to obtain information as a legal precedence alone.

There is simply zero privacy online... it really is an illusion, and people should always treat it that way when they login from any device.

 

[anthony]

I wonder why...

Lifehacker is one of the worlds most respected, authoritative domains on the subject.

I'm a fan of... if you care about your privacy, then take steps. If not... don't worry about it.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Lifehacker is one of the worlds most respected, authoritative domains on the subject.

And that means it's not to be questionned how?

 

[anthony]

Now you're just being argumentative IMHO... question them, not us. It doesn't change an authoritative site from being authoritative, which typically means their content is concise, accurate, and stands up to scrutiny 99.9% of the time.

 

[shimmerz]

Lucky, totally up to you . I have worked in the field for three decades. I know of which I speak. I am not much into arguing about it, so I am signing off this thread. Have a good evening.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Now you're just being argumentative IMHO... question them, not us. It doesn't change an authoritative site from being authoritative, which typically means their content is concise, accurate, and stands up to scrutiny 99.9% of the time.

You can claim a website has authority or is authoritative but that doesn't mean I will take your word on it. You don't seem to understand what "burden of proof" means. "Don't question us, question them". Nope, if if the site is sited as a source of proof and then you say I can't question while claiming they are 99.9%, it's clear as day you're trying to play people, including me. You're the one defending them. If you don't have reasons to defend them then bugger off.

And if you have a problem with my being argumentative, in the debate section of the forum for asking you why you think lifehacker should never be questioned, then you need to rethink why this section is labeled as such. I'm 100% serious on that @anthony. Opinions mean jack if you're just saying things to sway public dissent.

@shimmerz then please PLEASE bring up actual sites that actually show good data, without all the click bait and underpaid e-journalism.

This site might aid anyone who is wondering what the hell happened here:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

 

[shimmerz]

Howz Mozilla CEO? Or is he wrong too? I asked that you not include me in this conversation anymore and I am pissed that you tagged me when I specifically asked you to leave me out. That is disrespectful. Do NOT do that again please.

http://www.ted.com/talks/gary_kovacs_tracking_the_trackers

 

[LuckyDuck]

You chose to respond. Not my problem. Put me on ignore if you're pissed. That site option really works.

A TedTalks that has no sites to link to, and an advert for Mozilla doesn't count.

 

[Deleted member 28740]

Chiming back in on this. @anthony Regarding the "Like function" which the Guardian article claims is FaceBook non-consentual opt-in. How does the "Like" on myPTSD function? Change it to Yeah or Neah? Is the "Like" on this site one of the millions of sites that sends this data to FB?

 

[Deleted member 1860]

Uhm @shimmerz, you can't control other people. If you don't want to be tagged, then turn off tagging or ignore Lucky Duck. I guess I find it amusing that you're pissed about a tag that you could have easily ignored. ie at this point you're letting LD get to you. Ignore, ignore, ignore....

Turning off those damn tags was the best thing I did......I hate to be called like a dog.....

 

[anthony]

Is the "Like" on this site one of the millions of sites that sends this data to FB?

The FB like is, not the post like.

The FB like works based on when you're logged into your FB account via an active cookie, then anything you visit with a FB like will be tracked by FB for targeted advertising purposes. That's all they're doing... nothing evil or sinister, just what everyone other company is doing in relation to narrowing their marketing to show for the best results for the advertising dollar based on browsing habits.

The EU is a little different, however; if a person in the EU accepted FB's cookie already, then the like tracking isn't working based on each site visited, but the primary FB cookie is tracking any page visited with a like button. I believe this is how FB are skirting the fringes of the EU cookie consent law.

Even this site, we have a cookie consent when you visit for the first time, or when you renew a cookie in your browser.

There's no point showing girl products to a guy, for example. If a guy is a car enthusiast, then such targeting can help deliver targeted car related ads to that user. It improves the users use of the web, instead of seeing foot cream or such, and improves the advertisers dollar for their ad being placed in front of a relevant audience.

There is no conspiracy about this stuff, its all advertising based. Privacy can go a little further in some aspects though, which are the ones you may be more concerned about, such as the area of insurance and such.

If you're on your home computer and don't care about seeing relevant ads delivered on the pages you view... then discard all the conspiracy theories and such you hear, if what you really want is ease of use, i.e. cookies remembering all your logins behind your master password for your computer. If using a public or work computer, use private browsing and all that stuff is history, as all your activity is wiped at the close of the browser. You simply have to login to everything each time, is all.