Question about tracking on the internet

[lxskllr]

So, you are comparing using Google to having the worst password ever? Ok. Someone may have an idea what site I visited yesterday, but at least they don't have may bank records and account numbers. Big difference in my book.

I'm comparing to convenience, which was your argument. Someone has more than an idea of which sites you went to. They have the search terms, the site, and depending on how you do the rest of your computing, everything you looked at on the site. That can be used against you at a future date. By insurance companies, current/prospective employers, or the government. History is open to interpretation, and anyone can be made a criminal by having their history cherry picked.

Paranoia? Last year I was called paranoid when I said the government was sucking up all our data. Hopes and dreams aren't going to save us. We know what can be done with technology, and we generally know how it's setup. We also know the specific terms of EULAs and TOSs. What people say has no bearing on what the agreement says. If they say "We don't mean x, it's only setup to do y", it can be safely ignored, because y is covered by the specific language, and can be used against you.

Lastly, it's just bad policy to put all your eggs in one basket, especially if you don't own the basket. No company is too big to fail, and the computing field is littered with the carcasses of titans. It's good practice to spread things around.

 

[Mushkins]

I'm comparing to convenience, which was your argument. Someone has more than an idea of which sites you went to. They have the search terms, the site, and depending on how you do the rest of your computing, everything you looked at on the site. That can be used against you at a future date. By insurance companies, current/prospective employers, or the government. History is open to interpretation, and anyone can be made a criminal by having their history cherry picked.

Paranoia? Last year I was called paranoid when I said the government was sucking up all our data. Hopes and dreams aren't going to save us. We know what can be done with technology, and we generally know how it's setup. We also know the specific terms of EULAs and TOSs. What people say has no bearing on what the agreement says. If they say "We don't mean x, it's only setup to do y", it can be safely ignored, because y is covered by the specific language, and can be used against you.

Lastly, it's just bad policy to put all your eggs in one basket, especially if you don't own the basket. No company is too big to fail, and the computing field is littered with the carcasses of titans. It's good practice to spread things around.

"Hopes and dreams aren't going to save us"? From what? We're not fighting some privacy revolution here, we're talking about searching for mundane junk on the internet.

Lets use the food store as an example: those savings card memberships are absolutely around so they can track what you buy. They're also damn convenient, and save people a ton of money at the food store. Are we "putting our eggs in one basket" by shopping at Acme? If they go under, I just drive to the Wegmans or the Giant down the street. Yes, they know what brand of ketchup I buy, and they could potentially be selling that information to the NSA or insurance companies or whoever, but frankly who cares? It's just ketchup. If "the man" is going to go out of his way to use my preferred ketchup brand against me in some way, well, that's life. If i'm that concerned I can always move out to the mountains in Siberia away from everything, but that seems like a pretty shitty way to live for me.

Likewise, Google knows that I searched for "Acer Laptops" and "black stapler," and they may be sharing that information with the NSA or insurance companies or potential employers. Ok? I wasn't planning on searching "how to make a bomb" anytime soon, and frankly I dont care if the NSA catalogs my favorite stapler in a profile somewhere. For most people this is a complete non-issue.

 

[lxskllr]

Lets use the food store as an example: those savings card memberships are absolutely around so they can track what you buy. They're also damn convenient, and save people a ton of money at the food store. Are we "putting our eggs in one basket" by shopping at Acme? If they go under, I just drive to the Wegmans or the Giant down the street. Yes, they know what brand of ketchup I buy, and they could potentially be selling that information to the NSA or insurance companies or whoever, but frankly who cares? It's just ketchup. If "the man" is going to go out of his way to use my preferred ketchup brand against me in some way, well, that's life. If i'm that concerned I can always move out to the mountains in Siberia away from everything, but that seems like a pretty shitty way to live for me.

You're getting played. You're giving up your privacy for nothing. Stores with loyalty programs aren't any cheaper than those that don't have them. I prefer the simplicity of just buying my food with cash, and paying the same as anyone else. A bonus is "loyalty free" stores are usually independent, so the money stays closer to home.

Likewise, Google knows that I searched for "Acer Laptops" and "black stapler," and they may be sharing that information with the NSA or insurance companies or potential employers. Ok? I wasn't planning on searching "how to make a bomb" anytime soon, and frankly I dont care if the NSA catalogs my favorite stapler in a profile somewhere. For most people this is a complete non-issue.

Either you have the most banal existence ever, or you aren't thinking hard enough. There's uncountable common searches that can be used against you by just about anyone. I've seen character assassination in person, and though it hasn't involved the internet yet, it's only a matter of time. That's assuming you aren't in a high profile position. Those people are already having their online identities used against them/

 

[Mushkins]

You're getting played. You're giving up your privacy for nothing. Stores with loyalty programs aren't any cheaper than those that don't have them. I prefer the simplicity of just buying my food with cash, and paying the same as anyone else. A bonus is "loyalty free" stores are usually independent, so the money stays closer to home.

How am I getting played? I *know* they're tracking what ketchup I buy and I just *dont care*. I'm not the president of Heinz and I dont have to worry about some reporter stirring up a ketchup scandal because I bought Hunts instead of my own brand. I'd say the vast majority of people in the world are in the same position. Cash or credit, doesn't matter, because you gave them a name/address/phone number (presumably your real one) when signing up for the card. And i'm not going to argue about prices because they're regional, but when its the difference between $1.50 a can or $1.20 a can with the card where you're already shopping, and you're going to buy the can either way, nobodys going to say no to that saved $.30. Im doing a cost/benefit analysis and actively deciding that the money saved is worth more to me personally than keeping my ketchup buying habits a wholly private affair. Likewise, searching Google is of more value to me than the potential privacy loss that the government knows and potentially cares that I searched for cake recipes.

Either you have the most banal existence ever, or you aren't thinking hard enough. There's uncountable common searches that can be used against you by just about anyone. I've seen character assassination in person, and though it hasn't involved the internet yet, it's only a matter of time. That's assuming you aren't in a high profile position. Those people are already having their online identities used against them/

If you're a high profile person, it's already an entirely different ball game. Its apples and oranges. Joe Smith doesn't need to worry about his online privacy to that extreme degree when it comes to searching unless he *is* looking for bomb making instructions in genuine. Bill Gates probably isn't even posting his own facebook posts without a dozen other executive-level eyes making sure he doesn't say anything that may harm or damage his character and the branding of Microsoft. The point is the majority are *not* ever going to be targets for that level of smear campaign, and letting a search engine know their search history is for all intents and purposes totally harmless and provides a convenient service to them, so being that level of paranoid about their online privacy to the point of not using the service is silly.

 

[lxskllr]

How am I getting played? I *know* they're tracking what ketchup I buy and I just *dont care*. I'm not the president of Heinz and I dont have to worry about some reporter stirring up a ketchup scandal because I bought Hunts instead of my own brand. I'd say the vast majority of people in the world are in the same position. Cash or credit, doesn't matter, because you gave them a name/address/phone number (presumably your real one) when signing up for the card. And i'm not going to argue about prices because they're regional, but when its the difference between $1.50 a can or $1.20 a can with the card where you're already shopping, and you're going to buy the can either way, nobodys going to say no to that saved $.30. Im doing a cost/benefit analysis and actively deciding that the money saved is worth more to me personally than keeping my ketchup buying habits a wholly private affair. Likewise, searching Google is of more value to me than the potential privacy loss that the government knows and potentially cares that I searched for cake recipes.

I can't find the actual study. I haven't seen it in a couple years, but this blog post covers it pretty well. You aren't saving anything. Prices are artificially raised so they can be lowered with cards, and track your purchases in the process.

http://savingtools.com/tips/does-your-supermarket-club-card-really-save-you-money

If you're a high profile person, it's already an entirely different ball game. Its apples and oranges. Joe Smith doesn't need to worry about his online privacy to that extreme degree when it comes to searching unless he *is* looking for bomb making instructions in genuine. Bill Gates probably isn't even posting his own facebook posts without a dozen other executive-level eyes making sure he doesn't say anything that may harm or damage his character and the branding of Microsoft. The point is the majority are *not* ever going to be targets for that level of smear campaign, and letting a search engine know their search history is for all intents and purposes totally harmless and provides a convenient service to them, so being that level of paranoid about their online privacy to the point of not using the service is silly.

You don't have to be "high profile" to be harmed. That's generally how it works today, but it's not how it'll work in the future, and the future is the only thing that matters.

 

[colonelciller]

Uh... don't make a google account? Don't sign into a google account you may have? Search while connected through various VPN or anonymous proxy services? Don't search for anything you're uncomfortable potentially being tracked back to you? .

you're sounding more than a bit nutty here.

you're criticizing startpage because you "don't trust them", and yet you don't have a single better alternative to offer. your counter offer is not to make a google account, who was talking about making a google-track-me-better account? a healthy distrust of search providers is fine, but proposing not to search is plainly stupid and i'm sure you realize that. also, choosing companies that openly declare that they spy on you over companies that openly say that they do not is absurd.

the nuttiness continues as you are saying not to trust startpage but instead to trust a VPN or "anonmyous proxy".. what gives. why would someone trust a VPN service or "anonymous proxy" but not startpage? please reconcile that contradiction.

Don't search for anything you're uncomfortable potentially being tracked back to you? .

this kind of comment is based in head in the sand logic OR ignorance. you are proposing throu your example that we will always live in a world where right and wrong will always be understood by everyone equally AND that there will never be a jerk in power who will use your innocuous "spied on" information to construct a narrative that will crucify you or a group of people similar to you.

had the internet existed in the years before WWII with the Atrocious spying on everyone and databasing of all human digital activity... well your advice quoted above would have fucked the jews as they would have fealt safe having their personal info datamined while feeling comfortable with it because of your seemingly logical (yet based on ignorance and lack of vision) to live by "Don't search for anything you're uncomfortable potentially being tracked back to you"... would have meant that anyone searching for hanukkah recipes or shopping for dredils would have been right on the top of the extermination list... gauranteeing that even fewer jews would have survived the atrocities of the NAzi violence.

fail hard

 

[Mushkins]

you're sounding more than a bit nutty here.

you're criticizing startpage because you "don't trust them", and yet you don't have a single better alternative to offer.

Who says there *is* a better alternative?

your counter offer is not to make a google account, who was talking about making a google-track-me-better account? a healthy distrust of search providers is fine, but proposing not to search is plainly stupid and i'm sure you realize that. also, choosing companies that openly declare that they spy on you over companies that openly say that they do not is absurd.

Nearly the entire first page of this thread was specifically about Google and how they were profiling the OP's search habits to custom tailor search results. Proposing not to search is stupid? You can't have your cake and eat it too, the only 100% guaranteed way to not have your information collected in a search is to *not search*. Anything else involves compromising some level of your privacy for the convenience of the service. And if anything, taking either company at their word that they do or do not track you is absurd. If you think they're not going to track you just because they put up a little "we dont track people" disclaimer, i've got a bridge to sell you.

the nuttiness continues as you are saying not to trust startpage but instead to trust a VPN or "anonmyous proxy".. what gives. why would someone trust a VPN service or "anonymous proxy" but not startpage? please reconcile that contradiction.

It was an example of a potential strategy for reducing your online footprint, not a foolproof way to remain perfectly anonymous. If you'd really like me to reconcile the example, how about "pool together with your friends to rent a warehouse in Antigua under fake names/documents and set up your own private encrypted VPN/proxy."

this kind of comment is based in head in the sand logic OR ignorance. you are proposing throu your example that we will always live in a world where right and wrong will always be understood by everyone equally AND that there will never be a jerk in power who will use your innocuous "spied on" information to construct a narrative that will crucify you or a group of people similar to you.

had the internet existed in the years before WWII with the Atrocious spying on everyone and databasing of all human digital activity... well your advice quoted above would have fucked the jews as they would have fealt safe having their personal info datamined while feeling comfortable with it because of your seemingly logical (yet based on ignorance and lack of vision) to live by "Don't search for anything you're uncomfortable potentially being tracked back to you"... would have meant that anyone searching for hanukkah recipes or shopping for dredils would have been right on the top of the extermination list... gauranteeing that even fewer jews would have survived the atrocities of the NAzi violence.

fail hard

I'm not even responding to this. You're seriously playing the Nazi Germany card?

The bottom line is you can't fully trust either service not to track you regardless of what they say. You can't be unwilling to make a potential privacy compromise *and* use a service not directly under your control, they are mutually exclusive.

 

[lxskllr]

The bottom line is you can't fully trust either service not to track you regardless of what they say.

No, you can't. You can inspect business models, and make an educated guess though. If a company specifically tells you they're collecting data, and are known for it, it might not be the best place to put your data if you're concerned about that sort of thing. You can also go by company/server location. We know the US sucks up data. Other countries do also, but some matter more than others. If they can't do anything to you based on the data, it doesn't matter as much as countries that can.