More German Anti-Tech Lunacy

[Ominous Gamer]

Cain is right, you can't just keep saying something over and over until it's right.

Where did I state something that wasn't stated in the article?

I am claiming that supercookies could be legislatively comparable to a virus, as it seems almost impossible to remove. There is a very clear difference between a standard cookie (simple, anonymized and removable or opt-outable) and a "supercookie" that so complex and unremovable it may as well be malware.

malware ≠ virus

Conflating regular cookies and super cookies is intellectually dishonest.

I'm not combining them yet. But just like the current tracking cookie is an evolution in advertising, so is the evercookie. every positive advertising related remark you've made about the current level of tracking cookies can be done better by evercookies. When do you draw the line, what level of simpleton of you willing to protect, and why?

And you support this BS as Germany moves to ban the Facebook "Like" button? If so, you are a luddite.

Is there any Web technology the German's won't ban? At least the French and EU bureaucrats ban things because they were created in the US. The Germans just seem to hate the Internet.

and we are back to square one, you're misdirecting the outrage over how a service is used towards not wanting the service to exist. Even tried to take the leg work out of reading an entire webpage and quoted the important bit for you.

[Ominous Gamer]

Dread is really going to love this.

Thilo Weichert, who works for the data protection centre of the northern German state of Schleswig-Holstein, said the social network’s application allowing internet users to express their appreciation of something online [the link button we use here], illegally cobbled together a profile of their web habits.

“Facebook can trace every click on a website, how long I’m on it, what I’m interested in,” he said. According to Weichert, all the information was sent to the US company even if someone was not a Facebook member.

[Aimless]

One wonders if the Facebook Like-button, as it is implemented today, is really in violation of German privacy laws. Is it? Does anyone know?


Re. sneakier cookies, I too would like to know why a supercookie or evercookie or whatever you call it is more likely to be illegal or at least deplorable compared to other creative cookie uses. Re. outrage, let's take it easy eh. The privacy and online tracking debate is probably as alive and heated in the US as it is in Germany. Probably stronger

[Dreadnaught]

I'm not combining them yet. But just like the current tracking cookie is an evolution in advertising, so is the evercookie. every positive advertising related remark you've made about the current level of tracking cookies can be done better by evercookies. When do you draw the line, what level of simpleton of you willing to protect, and why?

Once again, you aren't thinking big-picture here. All a cookie does is insert an anomymized identifier into a browser. This identifier helps Websites recognize a user as having visited before, being logged-in or having a certain site preference. Traditional cookies do this just fine. Evercookies do this just fine. The difference is supercookies can't be removed.

The solution isn't to ban all cookies, it's to possibly legislate against the element of super cookies which makes it impossible to remove them.

We're not talking about hypothetical tracking technology that exists down the line. We're talking about cookies, and your desire to make it basically impossible to use them for any purposes without cumbersome permissions and settings.

and we are back to square one, you're misdirecting the outrage over how a service is used towards not wanting the service to exist. Even tried to take the leg work out of reading an entire webpage and quoted the important bit for you.

One wonders if the Facebook Like-button, as it is implemented today, is really in violation of German privacy laws. Is it? Does anyone know?

The thrust of these unelected bureaucrats is that the laws require, at least, extremely cumbersome manual opt-ins for a Facebook Like button (or Google+ button, login credential, site preference or ad for that matter) every time someone visits a site for the first time. That's outlandish for an anonymized string of text that can be removed from anyone's system or chosen to never be placed at all (IE regular cookies).

[Aimless]

Once again, you aren't thinking big-picture here. All a cookie does is insert an anomymized identifier into a browser. This identifier helps Websites recognize a user as having visited before, being logged-in or having a certain site preference. Traditional cookies do this just fine. Evercookies do this just fine. The difference is supercookies can't be removed.

The solution isn't to ban all cookies, it's to possibly legislate against the element of super cookies which makes it impossible to remove them.

They're not impossible to remove or to avoid, they just seem to be a bloody chore. Why legislate against something just because it's a chore?

Re. "anonymous", isn't Facebook's ability to associate browsing habits, IP-addresses, etc. with a real identity part of it's appeal????

The thrust of these unelected bureaucrats is that the laws require, at least, extremely cumbersome manual opt-ins for a Facebook Like button (or Google+ button, login credential, site preference or ad for that matter) every time someone visits a site for the first time. That's outlandish for an anonymized string of text that can be removed from anyone's system or chosen to never be placed at all (IE regular cookies).

Here are a few thoughts on your own bureaucrats:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...lly-happen.ars

Perhaps they will help you put aside your obsession with persuading us of Germany's or OG's numerous faults.

[Flixy]

Once again, you aren't thinking big-picture here. All a cookie does is insert an anomymized identifier into a browser. This identifier helps Websites recognize a user as having visited before, being logged-in or having a certain site preference. Traditional cookies do this just fine. Evercookies do this just fine. The difference is supercookies can't be removed.

Err, how is that anonymized?

[Ominous Gamer]

Once again, you aren't thinking big-picture here. All a cookie does is insert an anomymized identifier into a browser. This identifier helps Websites recognize a user as having visited before, being logged-in or having a certain site preference. Traditional cookies do this just fine. Evercookies do this just fine. The difference is supercookies can't be removed.

The solution isn't to ban all cookies, it's to possibly legislate against the element of super cookies which makes it impossible to remove them.

Thank you for admitting that you either don't understand the law, or haven't bothered to research it. The UK law does not ban all cookies, or make websites ask for permission to use all cookies. Cookies that are required for service, search as opting into be remembered for log in, are one of the many exceptions, online shopping cookies are another popular exception.

I've also been using evercookies and supercookies interchangably since the lingo hasn't been ironed out yet and you didn't seem to have a gasp of how they work. I assume at this point you are only using supercookie to refer to flash cookies, which Adobe now makes it easier to delete. And evercookies as this. Meaning that supercookies are easier to remove than evercookies.

We're not talking about hypothetical tracking technology that exists down the line. We're talking about cookies, and your desire to make it basically impossible to use them for any purposes without cumbersome permissions and settings.

Not one example I've provided so far is hypothetical. Everything thus far works, and as your own linkage shows, already out in the wild.

The thrust of these unelected bureaucrats is that the laws require, at least, extremely cumbersome manual opt-ins for a Facebook Like button (or Google+ button, login credential, site preference or ad for that matter) every time someone visits a site for the first time. That's outlandish for an anonymized string of text that can be removed from anyone's system or chosen to never be placed at all (IE regular cookies).

You need to read the article that better describes what the like button does. Its not about cookies on the user's machines, its about Facebook using the like button to track users and store that information in their own systems. Facebook says its cool cause they only use that information for 90 days, and the German government obviously has a problem with that. Again, its not the service thats the problem, its how its being used by those that offer it.

[Dreadnaught]

They're not impossible to remove or to avoid, they just seem to be a bloody chore. Why legislate against something just because it's a chore?

Re. "anonymous", isn't Facebook's ability to associate browsing habits, IP-addresses, etc. with a real identity part of it's appeal????

Here are a few thoughts on your own bureaucrats:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...lly-happen.ars

Perhaps they will help you put aside your obsession with persuading us of Germany's or OG's numerous faults.

Yes, but ease-of-removal is key to keeping cookies open and easy to use. Cookies became standard because they are simple and anyone can easily opt-out of them (it's built-in to browsers). Cookie-mimicking malware goes much deeper and eliminates that choice. That's a major difference.

You linked to an article claiming we need more European-style regulation. Why did you think I would agree with that? That guy wants to create an unelected bureaucracy to police legitimate Internet companies.

Err, how is that anonymized?

Because it doesn't contain personal information. It's a string of numbers and letters, not a key-logger. You or I could post our cookies and it would be meaningless to everyone.

Want to see your Google cookie? Go to www.google.com/ads/preferences/ and see the horrible, racist and malicious things stored in that cookie.

Thank you for admitting that you either don't understand the law, or haven't bothered to research it. The UK law does not ban all cookies, or make websites ask for permission to use all cookies. Cookies that are required for service, search as opting into be remembered for log in, are one of the many exceptions, online shopping cookies are another popular exception.

[...]

You need to read the article that better describes what the like button does. Its not about cookies on the user's machines, its about Facebook using the like button to track users and store that information in their own systems. Facebook says its cool cause they only use that information for 90 days, and the German government obviously has a problem with that. Again, its not the service thats the problem, its how its being used by those that offer it.

I'm not playing slice and dice. Yet I very clearly understand these issues more than you do, as you keep getting stuck in the weeds, ranting about hypotheticals and and missing the principles behind this discussion.

Do you not see any problem with a legislative and regulatory apparatus which allows certain sites to use decade-old cookie technology, while preventing other sites from doing so? The government should not be picking "appropriate" Web services like that. It's a massive open invitation to incumbent companies to use regulation to strangle future competitors who may potentially steal customers from incumbents.

Not to mention flat-out corruption, in which lobbyists would swarm regulators to quash nascent Web services on obscure regulatory grounds. How can you of all people not see why this is a bad thing?

Meanwhile, you seem to be stuck in the weeds on the German government's assault on Facebook's basic functionality. If you don't like the idea of Facebook aggregating your name and e-mail with your Facebook Likes on the Internet, it may be wise to not enter your name and e-mail into Facebook and then push the Facebook Like button wherever you see it on the Web.

The German government's ludicrous position is people shouldn't use features on Facebook because they require user-inputed data.

[Ominous Gamer]

I'm not playing slice and dice. Yet I very clearly understand these issues more than you do, as you keep getting stuck in the weeds, ranting about hypotheticals and and missing the principles behind this discussion.

Again with accusing of hypotheticals. Yet, as usual, you haven't shown anything. I'm provide very real and concrete examples of what is out there, using them to show how wrong you are on the techie parts of this subject, as well as having to correct you on the wording of the laws.

Do you not see any problem with a legislative and regulatory apparatus which allows certain sites to use decade-old cookie technology, while preventing other sites from doing so? The government should not be picking "appropriate" Web services like that. It's a massive open invitation to incumbent companies to use regulation to strangle future competitors who may potentially steal customers from incumbents.

Is there any industry that isn't regulated in some manner of what is and is not allowed? Even you're for outlawing supercookies, even though you haven't shown that you understand how they are controlled.

Not to mention flat-out corruption, in which lobbyists would swarm regulators to quash nascent Web services on obscure regulatory grounds. How can you of all people not see why this is a bad thing?

talk about hypotheticals

Meanwhile, you seem to be stuck in the weeds on the German government's assault on Facebook's basic functionality. If you don't like the idea of Facebook aggregating your name and e-mail with your Facebook Likes on the Internet, it may be wise to not enter your name and e-mail into Facebook and then push the Facebook Like button wherever you see it on the Web.

another example of you not understanding the complaint, or how the technology works (see reply to Fuzzy)

The German government's ludicrous position is people shouldn't use features on Facebook because they require user-inputed data.

here we go again. Its not the service, its the how and what referring to the information thats gathered. In otherwords (someone stop me if I've said this before): "its not the service thats the problem, its how its being used by those that offer it."

[Aimless]

Yes, but ease-of-removal is key to keeping cookies open and easy to use. Cookies became standard because they are simple and anyone can easily opt-out of them (it's built-in to browsers). Cookie-mimicking malware goes much deeper and eliminates that choice. That's a major difference.

But you can just choose not to have flash, for example, or to just avoid sites that use such sinister devices.

You linked to an article claiming we need more European-style regulation. Why did you think I would agree with that?

I linked to the article because it contained some discussion on why anyone--politicians, private citizens, and businesses--in the US would want more "European-style regulation".

Because it doesn't contain personal information. It's a string of numbers and letters, not a key-logger. You or I could post our cookies and it would be meaningless to everyone.

Of course, to anyone who can tie a cookie to, say, your true identity, it would be meaningful. It would reveal eg. your fondness for midget-porn (not yours personally of course). Facebook would know as soon as you went on a midget-porn binge whether you Liked it or not.

Want to see your Google cookie? Go to www.google.com/ads/preferences/ and see the horrible, racist and malicious things stored in that cookie.

I hear Google's better than most at addressing privacy concerns

If you don't like the idea of Facebook aggregating your name and e-mail with your Facebook Likes on the Internet, it may be wise to not enter your name and e-mail into Facebook and then push the Facebook Like button wherever you see it on the Web.

You don't actually have to click anything, you just have to load the page. This isn't exactly new.

[CitizenCain]

Oh, I see. Well, I do choose to not have Facebook, and that works just fine for me. The difference, and the flaw in your analogy, is that Flash is a technology, not a particular company. Whoever uses Flash can choose to use it benignly, or can choose to implement flash cookies and other pain-in-the-ass tracking technologies, but it's not a situation where there's one rule or standard for every site that uses Flash. Facebook, on the other hand, does consistently apply the same shitty ToS and privacy-busting technologies across every user's page. (And again, to be clear, this is a good reason not to use Facebook, but not a good reason to regulate what consensual agreements people can enter into over the 'net.)

[Aimless]

Re. flash, sure, people can use flash in different annoying/dangerous ways. Perhaps someone can pressure the company that maintains flash, eg. Adobe, to make flash less of a pain in the ass.

And as for ToS...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_S...ivacy_concerns

On 10 August 2009, Wired magazine reported that more than half of the top websites used Local Shared Objects to track users and store information about them but only four of them mentioned it in their privacy policy. "Flash cookies are relatively unknown to web users," it said, "even if a user thinks they have cleared their computer of tracking objects, they most likely have not."

[Aimless]

Facebook's TOS and FAQs have traditionally been about as penetrable and as helpful as EPA regulations on dust. By their own admission, they've been bad at informing their users of what's going on. "Consensual" is a tricky concept when you don't/can't know what you may be explicitly or implicitly consenting to now and in the future. I don't know about legislation, I'm only interested in the current discussion on privacy issues in the US and in Europe

[CitizenCain]

Well, again the fact that Facebook has an abysmal privacy record, and a ToS that reads like a particle physics textbook in Russian... uh duh? You agree to share information with a company like that, and you shouldn't be surprised when they do what they have a long history of doing.

As to Flash, there's now a setting inside Flash player to clear the shared object location so users can wipe their flash cookies and any other trackable data, but as Flash is a browser plugin, its settings can be a little convoluted to access, and there's not a whole lot Adobe can do about that, aside from killing off Flash for the PoS it is, and embracing html5 video standards... but it should be obvious why that's not an optimal solution for them.

Bottom line, there's no quick and easy route to privacy, so if it matters to you, the only solution that will work is to stay informed and know what you're doing. No law or discussion or public consensus can or will change that.

[Aimless]

To be fair, avoiding heavy metals and botulinum toxin and air pollution and salmonella and deadly side-effects of drugs etc etc are also very difficult tasks.


As for privacy and what matters, whether or not something matters to me is frequently influenced by 1. how much I know about it and 2. how difficult it is to do something about it.

[Aimless]

Bt, speaking of anti-tech lunacy, how're those ridiculous software patents working out for you Dreadsie?

[Wraith]

Bt, speaking of anti-tech lunacy, how're those ridiculous software patents working out for you Dreadsie?

That's pro-tech lunacy. Their purpose is to protect and encourage new technologies.

[Aimless]

Aha, I thought they were instead having the effect of hampering said things and assumed that actions speak louder than words

[CitizenCain]

Aha, I thought they were instead having the effect of hampering said things and assumed that actions speak louder than words

Well, something to think about along those lines...

An interesting alternate spin on the [US] patent system... not so broken after all? It's pretty long, but it's worth the read. I'm not sure what I really think about that piece, but a look at the upside of patents, instead of just the trolls and abusers of the system does make me wonder if maybe it's worth trying to fix after all. Hmm.

[Ominous Gamer]

if you want a story on how America has become anti-tech...

[LittleFuzzy]

if you want a story on how America has become anti-tech...

I can't help but note that Denning's thesis is based entirely on the claim that all other services, from inventing to marketing and distributing, become massively harder or impossible if you aren't near the source of manufacture. That looks like just another version of the thoroughly wrong thesis that production *as opposed to services* is the only thing that matters because only production creates something physical.

[GGT]

I can't help but note that Denning's thesis is based entirely on the claim that all other services, from inventing to marketing and distributing, become massively harder or impossible if you aren't near the source of manufacture. That looks like just another version of the thoroughly wrong thesis that production *as opposed to services* is the only thing that matters because only production creates something physical.

I don't know about Denning's thesis, but physical production means use of the human element and their feedback, even in limited or small ways. That feedback can either improve production at its source, or spawn other innovative ideas.

Producers and manufacturers might prefer to operate close to their clients and customers, and build close to those manufacturing hubs, as Immelt has said in the Presidential advisory committee on jobs/employment. But their bottom line remains making a profit, even if it's an American company like GE, Google or Apple, using labor in Taiwan or Korea or Beijing, selling through Walmart, Best Buy or e-Bay.

As for the humans in the human element of production, it's been proven that those out of work and idle for more than six months actually lose skills. Like muscle tone and strength. Use it or lose it.

[LittleFuzzy]

I don't know about Denning's thesis, but physical production means use of the human element and their feedback, even in limited or small ways. That feedback can either improve production at its source, or spawn other innovative ideas.

Producers and manufacturers might prefer to operate close to their clients and customers, and build close to those manufacturing hubs, as Immelt has said in the Presidential advisory committee on jobs/employment. But their bottom line remains making a profit, even if it's an American company like GE, Google or Apple, using labor in Taiwan or Korea or Beijing, selling through Walmart, Best Buy or e-Bay.

As for the humans in the human element of production, it's been proven that those out of work and idle for more than six months actually lose skills. Like muscle tone and strength. Use it or lose it.

GGT, if you're not going to actually reply to me, if my post isn't anything but a streamboard for your latest publicly-posted stream of consciousness, do me a favor and don't quote me. It's deceptive, as bad as any of Lewk's practices *or non-practices, as the case may be* with quote tags.

[GGT]

GGT, if you're not going to actually reply to me, if my post isn't anything but a streamboard for your latest publicly-posted stream of consciousness, do me a favor and don't quote me. It's deceptive, as bad as any of Lewk's practices *or non-practices, as the case may be* with quote tags.

Well, sorry for not replying as you expected. I thought I was "actually" replying to your post, after your Denning thesis honorable mention. Gave my opinion regarding manufacture and production vs services, proximity and physicality.

That looks like just another version of the thoroughly wrong thesis that production *as opposed to services* is the only thing that matters because only production creates something physical

[Ominous Gamer]

This showed up on the front page of slashdot today. It details how facebook is able to track you across sites, even after logging out. Transferring information that includes, and goes beyond, your Account ID.

http://nikcub-static.appspot.com/log...-is-not-enough

Figured it might be a useful read since we were having some trouble understanding the practice earlier in the thread.

[Nessus]

This showed up on the front page of slashdot today. It details how facebook is able to track you across sites, even after logging out. Transferring information that includes, and goes beyond, your Account ID.

http://nikcub-static.appspot.com/log...-is-not-enough

Figured it might be a useful read since we were having some trouble understanding the practice earlier in the thread.

Maybe this'd make for a good thread on its own. Some of the responses would be hilarious

[Ominous Gamer]

hilarious, depressing, guess its all the same...


If any of you EU peeps with a facebook account have some time to waste, mind sending facebook a request for all the information they have on you? I'm curious how something like this would look.

1.Open this site: https://www.facebook.com/help/contac...=data_requests
2.Enter your personal information
3.Make a reference to the following law: “Section 4 DPA + Art. 12 Directive 95/46/EG”
4.Click on Send

[Aimless]

hilarious, depressing, guess its all the same....


If any of you EU peeps with a facebook account have some time to waste, mind sending facebook a request for all the information they have on you? I'm curious how something like this would look.

It would look like a waste of plastic and energy. Why the fuck couldn't they just insist on being able to download it? I mean, that would also be wasteful, but at least it would be better.

[CitizenCain]

Seems like more proof that the ridiculous regulatory burdens of the modern Leviathan state are incompatible with a market economy or any semblance of freedom, consumer choice, etc.

Guess I understand why you'd find that depressing, but for the rest of us, the more reasonable approach would be to turn the tide and start eliminating regulatory bullshit that never should have been made law in the first place.

[Ominous Gamer]

Guess I understand why you'd find that depressing,

That was a response to nessus' post and not the linkage, hence the copying of "hilarious". You missed the context, again.

Why the fuck couldn't they just insist on being able to download it?

This would be ideal, yes. And less likely to be abused in the manner it is now. We can request credit reports in a similiar manner, I see no reason why this information should be treated differently.