More German Anti-Tech Lunacy

[Khendraja'aro]

Hey, actually, it was the US who pioneered that particular invention. Germany merely perfected that (with support from IBM).

But I was speaking of present events, something that is still happening, not something half a century in the past...

That really only happens with public figures who have a commercial interest in managing their image. Otherwise, you're pretty much shit-outta-luck, unless you can raise enough of a public stink to get the company to back down.

Uh, no, my dear, a certain German newspaper (BILD) runs afoul of this law time and again - and is also smacked for it time and again. There are countless other examples where the media was punished for not asking permission before printing pictures of non-famous citizens for no good reason.

[CitizenCain]

Hey, actually, it was the US who pioneered that particular invention. Germany merely perfected that (with support from IBM).

Wow, you're more of a mindless pro-America zealot than most mindless pro-America zealots from America! But, just for the sake of historical truth, neither ovens nor masonry nor fire were invented by IBM. In fact, they weren't even invented by any Americans, but only because Americans weren't around to invent them yet. Those simple, non-American invented technologies date back to a historical period known as the "Dark Ages," named for the absence of light, on account of America not being around to shine its awesome light on the rest of humanity. Thankfully, the it all worked out in the end. The "Dark Ages" are gone, and America is here now, so you can rest easy.

But I was speaking of present events, something that is still happening, not something half a century in the past...

Such as, for example, widespread censorship and violations of freedom of expression?

Uh, no, my dear, a certain German newspaper (BILD) runs afoul of this law time and again - and is also smacked for it time and again. There are countless other examples where the media was punished for not asking permission before printing pictures of non-famous citizens for no good reason.

Yeah, pretty sure that you're wrong here. I think the last time a German paper got in trouble in US courts was back when they were used as kindling for immolating live Jews, and I'm positive it wasn't the pictures that were the US objection there...

[...]I recall someone saying that the US [occasionally] had a similar position on photos if they were used for making the $$$, but my brain may be tricking me.

That really only happens with public figures who have a commercial interest in managing their image. [...]

Hmm...

[Aimless]

I realise that these are mostly concerns for public figures, but it's not like publicity and personality rights are reserved exclusively for hotshots: http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per...#United_States




Re. the scans, I don't think the so-called choice is a good one. It's just not very fair to cast airport security as a compulsory and/or unreasonable imposition in contrast to eg. Facebook's photo shenanigans. The only way I can totally opt out of the latter is by never going anywhere near a camera-carrying facebook user. My only options for mitigating whatever problems I may have with facebook scanning me are made needlessly difficult. That's about as reasonable as the TSA making opting out of body scans a serious crotch-probing hassle. Good thing they're forced to delete the scans at least

[CitizenCain]

Re. the scans, I don't think the so-called choice is a good one. It's just not very fair to cast airport security as a compulsory and/or unreasonable imposition in contrast to eg. Facebook's photo shenanigans. The only way I can totally opt out of the latter is by never going anywhere near a camera-carrying facebook user.

So, it's your custom to be around camera wielding netizens without any clothes on? Because the objection isn't so much the body scans as the images of your naked form, complete with genitals and all (though, they are pretty objectionable even aside from the nudity).

My only options for mitigating whatever problems I may have with facebook scanning me are made needlessly difficult. That's about as reasonable as the TSA making opting out of body scans a serious crotch-probing hassle.

Has Sweden not received word of the latest inventions in face masking technologies? Like sunglasses () and baseball caps (hats of any kind, really) and ski masks (probably best for use during winter months) and hoodies and turtle necks and... well, you get the point. Plenty of ways to obscure or render your face identifiable that don't involve having an unattractive, stranger of the same sex grab your genitals.

And if you were really that worried about it, you could always buy a different face to wear out in public. I have a hard time believing they'd be banned in Sweden, and you can buy very realistic looking ones these days - some guy even got through airport security, and onto an international flight wearing one. Might have gotten away with it too, if he hadn't picked one in a different stage of life than he was. They're not all that cheap, but seems like a better solution than restricting the rest of the world's freedoms on account of some utterly unrealistic expectations by assorted morons, who somehow think that being out in public shouldn't have to include having their faces seen or recorded.

Good thing they're forced to delete the scans at least

Yeah. Say, wanna buy a bridge?

[Dreadnaught]

This thread is awesome.

[Illusions]

So, your primary complaint is that a business is acting in its best interests, rather than everyone else's? Shocking, truly. I should ask what makes you think Facebook would be "better off" running things your way, but instead I think I'll just point out that the fact that Zuckerberg's managed to sell the company as having a market cap exceeding 100 times revenue, even as expansion opportunities tail off and profitable areas of the business are rapidly drying up, would seem to indicate that he knows what he's doing a lot better than you, me, or anyone else who doesn't have access to privileged data about his company.

And? I don't think his plan is for Facebook to be like AT&T, IBM, Ford, etc. who have been around for decades. I think his plan is to get it as valuable as quickly as possible, damn longevity, then cash out. Everybody else participating, from users to business partners are resources.

Oh, and your last little bit there about asking for permission instead of forgiveness, made me laugh. The adage goes the other way around - it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

Umm...read it again, it says "easier for them to ask for forgiveness after getting what they want, if only for a little while, rather than to ask for permission". Unless you meant its meaning, which goes a bit deeper than just stating the obvious fact of it being easier to ask for forgiveness rather than permission, but instead why its easier.

I think the main problem with your position is that you haven't explained why this is a privacy issue, why anyone should even care, or how you'd implement letting non Facebook users opt out... let alone the troubling, broader implications about freedom of expression and whatnot (prohibition of sharing photos because of people in the background, etc).

If I somehow found out who you were, and had a ton of information on you, would you want it shared? Wouldn't you want to stop me in some way before it got out? How would you feel if the proxy servers/TOR gateways you used all of a sudden gave out your real IP address, instead of anonymizing your browsing, wouldn't you feel betrayed, or upset?

Thats the way a lot of people feel when they agree to something with Facebook, and then it decides later on to change the agreement in ways they don't like.

This thread is awesome.

Hows your Road Runner internet service treating you? Do you like it? Would you recommend it to a friend? On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, how do you rank its speed?

[CitizenCain]

And? I don't think his plan is for Facebook to be like AT&T, IBM, Ford, etc. who have been around for decades. I think his plan is to get it as valuable as quickly as possible, damn longevity, then cash out. Everybody else participating, from users to business partners are resources.

Well, if he's smart at least. But, in any event, you still didn't answer the question of why he should run things the way you want (or be forced to run things the way you want). Not sure why you think he should manage his property in a way that's more to your liking, particularly given that your way is much more likely to be far less lucrative.

Umm...read it again, it says "easier for them to ask for forgiveness after getting what they want, if only for a little while, rather than to ask for permission". Unless you meant its meaning, which goes a bit deeper than just stating the obvious fact of it being easier to ask for forgiveness rather than permission, but instead why its easier.

Salient point being asking for forgiveness > asking for permission, so again, it seems like you're encouraging someone else to act against their best interests, and in favor of yours, but without any real reason why, beyond that you'd like it.

If I somehow found out who you were, and had a ton of information on you, would you want it shared? Wouldn't you want to stop me in some way before it got out?

Yes, well we all have desires. At the moment, I desire a blowjob and large duffel bag full of currency.

Our desires, and how the world "ought" to be, however, are often on different paths. Blaming others for this reality of existence, and/or demanding someone else attend to our desires as the solution to this unfortunate reality may be the most common approach (on account of it being the easier option, and most people being very little more than shaved apes) but that does not make it the best solution.

How would you feel if the proxy servers/TOR gateways you used all of a sudden gave out your real IP address, instead of anonymizing your browsing, wouldn't you feel betrayed, or upset?

Thats the way a lot of people feel when they agree to something with Facebook, and then it decides later on to change the agreement in ways they don't like.

How cute of you to think that's an actual possibility. However, this doesn't really support your case either. Facebook's abysmal privacy record (not to mention their business model revolving around monetizing information you share) and habit of making ToS changes without notice really just supports what I've always said on the topic.

1) Facebook sucks, stop choosing to use it.
2) People are dumber than houseplants. For example, posting copious amounts of personal information to a public network, and then complaining about a lack of privacy. Even my ficus is smarter than that, and it has absolutely no neural function whatsoever.

Again, the solution here is for people to stop doing business with a company whose terms offend them, not to make the company alter its terms.

[Khendraja'aro]

Wow, you're more of a mindless pro-America zealot than most mindless pro-America zealots from America!

Good grief. I said, that I could open such a thread and argue with equally mindless bigotry as Dread does. However, I did not open such a thread. And never have. Unlike Dread.

Now, what does that tell you?

Again, I don't understand how a moderator of this place is allowed to open inflammatory and trollish threads.

[Dreadnaught]

Hows your Road Runner internet service treating you? Do you like it? Would you recommend it to a friend? On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, how do you rank its speed?

I personally don't care if someone posts my IP address, I don't consider it personally identifiable. But, in principle, posting IP addresses and host names is highly inappropriate and guaranteed to make many people feel uncomfortable. This is something we never did at Atard and something we don't do here.

Everyone knows moderators and admins can check IP addresses. Actually posting that you're doing that kind of snooping is very low. It's not an appropriate way to discuss something or be an admin. EG, even when I could see where Gentry was really posting from over the years, I never posted her IP address or even hinted at it, despite be able to know when she was lying.

You're supposed to keep your capabilities as an admin far above any kind of day-today discussion or disagreement. You are absolutely not use them to make (or fail to make) a point in a discussion.

It is very disappointing to see you do this, we'll discuss this further in the mod/admin forum.

Good grief. I said, that I could open such a thread and argue with equally mindless bigotry as Dread does. However, I did not open such a thread. And never have. Unlike Dread.

Now, what does that tell you?

Again, I don't understand how a moderator of this place is allowed to open inflammatory and trollish threads.

Criticizing German laws isn't bigotry. I encourage you to open a thread criticizing the Amerikkkan racism you seek to discuss.

***

This thread is clearly spinning into other threads and other issues, which is usually a sign a thread is done. So closing for now unless there are massive objections.

[Aimless]

Unless you've banned the topic itself--in which case I strongly object --I'd like to continue the discussion here. If the other thread is reopened I hope you can merge this into it.

In the previous privacy discussion we learned that the EU and the US differ in their official positions on privacy and publicity rights. It's ridiculous to pretend that Germany--or France, or the EU--constitutes a lunatic fringe any more than the US does. Even if we were to accept that the krauts are in the wrong. Never mind Cain's recent assertion that extremism is a necessary consequence of being knowledgeable and correct, or Dread's myriad efforts to rationalise the intuitive conclusions his chauvinism leads him to draw

American equivalents to European privacy/publicity/personality laws aren't necessarily all that different except possibly when they try to reason about "expectation of privacy". While American state-level publicity laws may mostly be relevant to rich celebrities, in theory they afford regular people the same [limited] rights as celebrities to control eg. how images of their faces are used. Perhaps this is why photographers are generally advised to obtain model release forms when possible; and why, even in the US, players such as Facebook and the TSA occasionally take flak over how they handle sensitive data. Esp. Facebook, perhaps because they actually make money offa this stuff. I hear the TSA is required to delete their nudie pics, btw, although I don't remember the source and don't know if that requirement really (= officially) exists.



Either way, privacy and publicity are clearly important concerns on both sides of the pond, and our politicians and legislators and scholars have clearly spent a lot of time and energy on these subjects. Let's try to have a reasonable discussion rather than be put to shame by a bunch of smarty-pants experts.


Some reading material to get round two started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights

[Steely Glint]

I think the UK Data Projection Act provides the correct level of rights for individuals concerning how data about them is collected and used.

• Data may only be used for the specific purposes for which it was collected.
• Data must not be disclosed to other parties without the consent of the individual whom it is about, unless there is legislation or other overriding legitimate reason to share the information (for example, the prevention or detection of crime). It is an offence for Other Parties to obtain this personal data without authorisation.
• Individuals have a right of access to the information held about them, subject to certain exceptions (for example, information held for the prevention or detection of crime).
• Personal information may be kept for no longer than is necessary and must be kept up to date.
• Personal information may not be sent outside the European Economic Area unless the individual whom it is about has consented or adequate protection is in place, for example by the use of a prescribed form of contract to govern the transmission of the data.
• Subject to some exceptions for organisations that only do very simple processing, and for domestic use, all entities that process personal information must register with the Information Commissioner's Office.
• The departments of a company that are holding personal information are required to have adequate security measures in place. Those include technical measures (such as firewalls) and organisational measures (such as staff training).
• Subjects have the right to have factually incorrect information corrected (note: this does not extend to matters of opinion)

[Dreadnaught]

Is there a definition of "data", "personal information" and "necessary"? Those seem like awfully large gaps that any regulator could arbitrarily use to make up policies as they go.

Which in turn could lead to this: http://eu.techcrunch.com/2011/06/22/...eu-cookie-law/

[Ominous Gamer]

Which in turn could lead to this: http://eu.techcrunch.com/2011/06/22/...eu-cookie-law/

Thats more about the sense of websites refusing to evolve past a known profit model. Its more than possible to track users without needing cookies, incognito mode or not.

Title is also misleading. It article claims 90% of the people voted to not have their information used by Google Analytics, but says nothing about how true site traffic dropped.

[CitizenCain]

Title is also misleading. It article claims 90% of the people voted to not have their information used by Google Analytics, but says nothing about how true site traffic dropped.

Does the distinction even matter, for the vast majority of websites?? Given that most sites are free, and supported by ad revenue, opting out of the advertising may as well be not visiting the site... maybe worse, given that you still use the site's resources, but don't contribute to its bottom line.

[Ominous Gamer]

advertising existed before targeted ads, and as I've already said, its easy enough to figure out web users without putting cookies on their machines. Its all about browser fingerprints now.

[Dreadnaught]

Advertising isn't a static industry. Targeted ads are a development in advertising, and, increasingly, good targeting requires cookies.

Increasingly, advertisers do what's called "buying audiences". Which means they want to follow anonymized groups of users who index for certain types of behavior or browse certain collections of sites. The benefit is potentially more relevant ads, but among the major industry players it still relies on traditional cookies.

[Dreadnaught]

Advertising isn't a static industry. Targeted ads are a development in advertising, and, increasingly, good targeting requires cookies.

Increasingly, advertisers do what's called "buying audiences". Which means they want to follow anonymized groups of users who index for certain types of behavior or browse certain collections of sites. The benefit is potentially more relevant ads. You can read all sorts of scare stories and discuss various ways one could target, but among the major industry players it still relies on traditional cookies.

[Ominous Gamer]

good targeting requires cookies.

Thats more about the sense of websites refusing to evolve past a known profit model.

people used to think that good crops required blood sacrifices too.

[CitizenCain]

advertising existed before targeted ads, and as I've already said, its easy enough to figure out web users without putting cookies on their machines. Its all about browser fingerprints now.

Yeah, but not being able to use those analytics cookies gives you the bottom rate for ads, doesn't it?

And, as much as I like that browser fingerprints idea (well, much better than cookies anyway), it's got plenty of problems, not the least of which is the triviality with which you can alter what information is presented to websites (either by presenting false data, or simply blocking most of the requested data). Changing the content of cookies, not so much. And, I think we can all agree that false information is much worse than no information at all.

It also seems to think my browser window size is my display resolution, which I found pretty amusing, given that it's at a really weird size right now.

[LittleFuzzy]

people used to think that good crops required blood sacrifices too.

Does that profit model not actually generate profit the way they think it does, as was more or less the case with the crops and the sacrificed vestal virgins? Good targeting, the way they're doing it, requires cookies. Is that somewhat circular? You bet. Of course, they don't have to invest another dime in that circle, whereas they would have to spend more money to change how they get money from advertising.

[Dreadnaught]

Indeed. I'm also waiting to see what the non-advertising model can be for the bulk of the Web.

[Ominous Gamer]

Does that profit model not actually generate profit the way they think it does, as was more or less the case with the crops and the sacrificed vestal virgins? Good targeting, the way they're doing it, requires cookies. Is that somewhat circular? You bet. Of course, they don't have to invest another dime in that circle, whereas they would have to spend more money to change how they get money from advertising.

Yes, obviously there is going to be an expense here as agencies move over into new advertising models. Not that I consider that a bad thing. There are hundreds of examples of businesses getting overly comfortable with a certain business model that governments change after the fact to help balance the scales. I wouldn't automatically call the legislation bad (yes, I know you haven't done that).

what the non-advertising model can be for the bulk of the Web.

no one is suggesting that advertising needs to be done away with, and thats simply not going to happen. advertising will still exist, will still be targeted, it simply won't be designed around old parameters.

And, as much as I like that browser fingerprints idea (well, much better than cookies anyway), it's got plenty of problems, not the least of which is the triviality with which you can alter what information is presented to websites (either by presenting false data, or simply blocking most of the requested data). Changing the content of cookies, not so much. And, I think we can all agree that false information is much worse than no information at all.

Each method is going to have its trade offs, ups and downs. Fingerprinting for example currently works even when browsers use their private browsing or incognito function. false data wouldn't exactly be a problem in terms of tracking, until someone writes a script that scrambles that data for each server connection. Managing to block most of the data may be helpful, but you're still leaving a trail.
Of course cookies have to fight against already existing browser functions and programs like ad-block.

[Ominous Gamer]

Germany started lifting the ban on the Galaxy Tab yesterday. Official appeal is the 25th.

Apple has also been caught presenting fake and doctored evidence to the courts in order to secure the original ban.

[LittleFuzzy]

Yes, obviously there is going to be an expense here as agencies move over into new advertising models. Not that I consider that a bad thing. There are hundreds of examples of businesses getting overly comfortable with a certain business model that governments change after the fact to help balance the scales. I wouldn't automatically call the legislation bad (yes, I know you haven't done that).

I will be the first to acknowledge I am not at the forefront of technology issues. I hesitate to label the legislation bad because of that. But from my limited knowledge of the topic, it does seem like a pointless waste of money. I don't see the purpose here, the wrong being remedied by such legislation. Businesses "being overly comfortable" with the way they currently work does nothing but aid entrepeneurs who will demonstrate that to them by taking their market share sometime in the future, which is generally a good thing. Legislation does not exist as a tool for you to make the universe fit just right for you, which is the only benefit I currently see from this.

[Flixy]

Germany started lifting the ban on the Galaxy Tab yesterday. Official appeal is the 25th.

Apple has also been caught presenting fake and doctored evidence to the courts in order to secure the original ban.

I was slightly confused why the ban was EU-wide... except for the Netherlands.

[CitizenCain]

false data wouldn't exactly be a problem in terms of tracking, until someone writes a script that scrambles that data for each server connection.

Yo.

Though, I strongly suspect I'm not the first, and the same effect might be possible by just resizing the browser window between visiting different sites (if all/most fingerprinting has the same issue of windows size == display size). The only difficultish thing is figuring out what values you want the browser to present... get it wrong, and you could be presenting a truly unique fingerprint, in your attempt to be less identifiable.

But once you've got that figured out, there's even a browser plugin (for FF, at least), and I use it to alter what my browser presents to the outside world periodically, and have been for a couple (few?) years now, ever since someone posted a browser fingerprinting link in this community and I found out that my OS, language, time zone, browser and plugins were a uniquely identifying combination.

All of which, I suppose, brings me back to where I started this discussion - if you want privacy, you can manage it yourself without too much effort, and that approach is far superior to the "legislate first, let the next guy deal with the blowback" approach you seem to be advocating.

[Ominous Gamer]

Legislation does not exist as a tool for you to make the universe fit just right for you, which is the only benefit I currently see from this.

I'm not seeing this legislation as something thats targeting a very select or narrow group of people. I see something thats aimed at the masses, the lay person as they use the internet. That type of person isn't exactly hard to find either. For example, I had to explain in the chat how the picture tracking from the previous thread worked. Dread's own linkage shows that once someone is made aware (and given an easy to find/use choice) of what is going on they overwelmingly choose not to share their information. When the EU forced Microsoft to offer multiple browsers, those competing browsers saw a spike in usage.

I don't see this as making the universe fit just right for anyone. I see this as helping transparency when dealing indirectly with parties online.

[Dreadnaught]

no one is suggesting that advertising needs to be done away with, and thats simply not going to happen. advertising will still exist, will still be targeted, it simply won't be designed around old parameters.

Interest-based ad targeting is new, not old. And it's part of what's bringing display advertising out of a doldrums that lasted almost a decade. What you're suggesting is neutering a re-emerging industry that employs hundreds of thousands.

And candidly, I don't want the same old ads of yore. I don't want stupid banners on weather.com telling me about 1 easy trick for a flat stomach, or cheap home loans. I want ads that target me based on the things I'm actually interested in and may be useful to me as an anonymized browser.

This kind of technology makes for a better ad experience for everyone. Sure, people should have a choice to opt-out. And there are industry initiatives among the largest ad networks to agree on standards for that kind of choice (see AdChoices initiative). But legalizing a de-facto end to a better ad experience is bad for consumers, Website owners, advertisers and the whole Web ecosystem.

[Ominous Gamer]

i'm going to explain this as simply as possible.
denying the use of cookies is not denying the use of interest based advertising.

[LittleFuzzy]

I'm not seeing this legislation as something thats targeting a very select or narrow group of people. I see something thats aimed at the masses, the lay person as they use the internet. That type of person isn't exactly hard to find either. For example, I had to explain in the chat how the picture tracking from the previous thread worked. Dread's own linkage shows that once someone is made aware (and given an easy to find/use choice) of what is going on they overwelmingly choose not to share their information. When the EU forced Microsoft to offer multiple browsers, those competing browsers saw a spike in usage.

I don't see this as making the universe fit just right for anyone. I see this as helping transparency when dealing indirectly with parties online.

Transparency without comprehension isn't transparency. Without comprehension seeing through the glass provides no more information than an opaque surface. All that's happened is something has been given a different color scheme. That measure, and this, do nothing to educate people and without the transformative effect that real knowledge provides to decision-making nothing has really improved.