How private are you on line?

[azzaman333]

Personally, I'm not particularly concerned about privacy online. Anything I post on the internet I'm comfortable for people to see it, and I don't particularly care whether Google or Facebook are tracking what I'm doing if they can make my life easier somehow through streamlining of service or advertising or whatever.

 

[plarq]

Number 1 concern is cyberbullying, number 2 is financial/credit card fraud, number 3 is government tracking. Unless you're significant, government won't do much against you besides peeping your privacy.

 

[Zelig]

What can't I re-enable with the program? Also, if I just want to read the comments on an online article, I only need to enable the associated programs and not the dozens of other scripts on such sites. This selectivity works well for me.

Javascript is a critical part of the modern web.

Your argument works pretty much exactly the same for images.

Sure, you can block images by default, and only selectively enable them one site at a time, but it's a pain in the ass.

Whitelist cookies.

Blacklist ad providers and third-party trackers.

No need for noscript or noimage.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I use Ad Block Plus and Ghostery.

Some folks here have asked me for SF convention pictures. Not gonna happen, guys. There are NO pictures of me online, and there never will be. Through no wish of my own, I acquired stalkers some years back, from two different forums where certain people didn't like my opinions or my standing up and defending other forum members against harassment from forum owners/staff.

In one case the forum owner made it personal enough to publicly post my IP and as much information as he could find re my personal address (in violation of his own forum's rules, btw). With his blessing, some of his friends on the forum took it further, and tracked down a blog written by a girl with the same first name as my forum username (a bit of confusion on their part), and pretty much said, "Go forth and harass this girl." The girl whose photo they posted just happened to live in Red Deer AND she was underage at the time - just 17, and had absolutely nothing to do with any of that situation. She probably had never heard of that forum, and just happened to share a name and home city with me. In this instance, I contacted the forum admin and told her that if she did not remove all this stuff immediately, I intended to call the RCMP for this girl's own protection, and tell them that the owner of an American gaming company/magazine was promoting the cyberstalking/cyberbullying of an underage high school girl, thinking they were going after me (still illegal, but not as bad as going after an innocent kid). The admin removed my personal information and that of the teenage girl.

The second instance happened because I committed the "sin" of being polite to Frank Herbert's grandson when he was a member of my Dune forum (as in not allowing others to flame or troll him), being polite to the people who like the nuDune stuff, and not being emphatic enough in condemning KJA/BH. There are a couple of rabid anti-KJA people, one of whom has made it his life's ambition to ruin KJA's life as much as he can, and that means going after not only Kevin J. Anderson, but also his wife, family, fans, and anyone else who ever failed to utterly condemn him. These two love to make things personal, and have openly accused me of some pretty awful things to do with my family situation - twisted versions of the truth, and which their own friends eagerly lap up and never try to confirm for themselves what the truth really is. They've googled my RL name, and then accused me of lying about everything since what I said on the forum back when we were still on friendly terms doesn't match what they found when they did a search on my name. The funny thing is, I may share a name with a couple of very accomplished women, but I'm not them, they are not me, and I'm very tired of being called a liar.

So... please know that even though I will never post photos of myself and there are some things I'm not saying, everything I have said about my life here on CFC is the truth.

 

[classical_hero]

Are you comfortable with so many companies knowing so much about you and trading that info amongst themselves just so they can present you with customised advertising? I'm not.

I think you are in a different position than most people. It doesn't matter that much to me that I get ads for dating sites on Facebook, because I am single, since I just ignore them, but you are in the corporate world and seem to be in a rather powerful position, so things are different for you than for me.

 

[Willem]

Am I alone in these habits or are we all a little bit paranoid? Discuss.

No, you're not alone. I don't get extreme enough to continually close my browser, but I do pretty much all the rest of the things you've mentioned. And I don't even go to any social media sites and "let it all hang out". I have no interest in sharing my life with thousands of complete strangers.

 

[warmonger]

Not much point in erasing cookies every time browser is closed if I whitelist cookies in the first place, wiping CFC login info just serves to annoy me when I need to login every time I visit the site. Also no point in subject sessions.

I read alot of journals, newspapers etc. on line but I don't take subscriptions because that leaves footprints. Most sites like these let you read a certain number of articles without a sub (1 for The Economist, 5 for the NYT, etc.) and they keep track of how many I've read with cookies. Private mode in Firefox will not display the cookies stored in temp files so the easiest way to continue reading is to close the browser and re-load.

White-listing those sites would severely curtail my reading material.

 

[Camikaze]

Proactive information security instead of reactive? I don't get why people automatically assume someone is up to nefarious deeds if they seek to hide their online activity. I do it because the training I have received taught me to be proactive about all forms of security.

In short, proactive security is never a bad idea and reactive security is always a bad idea.

I'm not saying I think proactive information security is stupid, just that I don't particularly see why it's worth the effort. If I'm putting some sort of effort into controlling cookies or something, then presumably there's a commensurate benefit.

 

[Willem]

If I'm putting some sort of effort into controlling cookies or something, then presumably there's a commensurate benefit.

It doesn't take that much effort to control cookies. With Firefox at least, there are settings that will do it for you automatically, and there's a few extra add-ons you can install that will take it a step further than the browser itself, without you having to do anything at all.

 

[Camikaze]

Okay, I'll take your word for it (though learning about this stuff takes effort in itself ), but even so, that still doesn't answer the question of what benefit I'd get out of it. No-one seems to have answered that question.

 

[The_J]

It's the same benefit as not getting camera surveilled all the time.
Especially with google. The combination of what you've googled, on what sites with doubleclick you've been, parts of your youtube history, etc., gives google a nice overview over all your life.
If you don't mind, then fine.

Javascript is a critical part of the modern web.

Your argument works pretty much exactly the same for images.

Sure, you can block images by default, and only selectively enable them one site at a time, but it's a pain in the ass.

Never had a problem with that.
You normally visit a couple of sites regularly, and there the necessary JS is activated.
And for most of the rest, you can navigate/use them pretty good without, at least from my experience.


Privacy here:
FF with Noscript/Adblock, DNT, no browser history, only whitelisted cookies.
No FB, no Twitter, no LinkedIn.
Basically no images of me connected with my name online (there are a few on some friends FB, but without my name; some from the GamesCom 2010, but only with my forum name).
My real name is basically nowhere online, besides on the websites of my current and my former university (and sadly from my email address on some public mailing lists, from which I get spam from).

Bad habits: I use google search, translate + maps, and I have an Amazon account.
Else I can't think of anything.

 

[Camikaze]

It's the same benefit as not getting camera surveilled all the time.
Especially with google. The combination of what you've googled, on what sites with doubleclick you've been, parts of your youtube history, etc., gives google a nice overview over all your life.
If you don't mind, then fine.

I still don't think that really answers the question, because what I'm trying to get at is why someone would mind? Google having a record of you isn't a reason unless you explain why Google having that record is a bad thing. Being under video surveillance seems quite different to me, as those concerns are largely to do with state authority, rather than innocuous info gathered for commercial purposes in exchange for the use of a service. Same thing with NSA surveillance, for instance. That's a different issue to whether or not Google knows what sort of websites you look at.

 

[Zelig]

I read alot of journals, newspapers etc. on line but I don't take subscriptions because that leaves footprints. Most sites like these let you read a certain number of articles without a sub (1 for The Economist, 5 for the NYT, etc.) and they keep track of how many I've read with cookies. Private mode in Firefox will not display the cookies stored in temp files so the easiest way to continue reading is to close the browser and re-load.

White-listing those sites would severely curtail my reading material.

I've got a special browser install for these sites where cookies are allowed and cleared on exit, but really think that not allowing cookies by default is a better solution.

I'm less likely to use or recommend a site if it's rendered unusable by not allowing cookies - which is how it should be, sites with poor design which is impossible to fully mitigate on the user end deserve to have less traffic as a function of the design.

Okay, I'll take your word for it (though learning about this stuff takes effort in itself ), but even so, that still doesn't answer the question of what benefit I'd get out of it. No-one seems to have answered that question.

I think society would be better off if online advertising were not a viable business decision.

Never had a problem with that.
You normally visit a couple of sites regularly, and there the necessary JS is activated.
And for most of the rest, you can navigate/use them pretty good without, at least from my experience.

In my experience you can navigate sites pretty good without images or stylesheets..

 

[Commodore]

I'm not saying I think proactive information security is stupid, just that I don't particularly see why it's worth the effort. If I'm putting some sort of effort into controlling cookies or something, then presumably there's a commensurate benefit.

Well presumably the benefit is eliminating, or at least significantly reducing, the chance of having accounts hacked and identities stolen. Also, some people like myself do not like receiving constant ads and spam that are "tailored to my interests".

 

[The_J]

I still don't think that really answers the question, because what I'm trying to get at is why someone would mind? Google having a record of you isn't a reason unless you explain why Google having that record is a bad thing. Being under video surveillance seems quite different to me, as those concerns are largely to do with state authority, rather than innocuous info gathered for commercial purposes in exchange for the use of a service. Same thing with NSA surveillance, for instance. That's a different issue to whether or not Google knows what sort of websites you look at.

So it wouldn't bother you if your employer surveilles you all the time ^^?


Unrelated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble
Your basically limiting your horizon with that. You're giving away your ability to act as an informed, sophisticated adult being, by letting someone (-thing) else decide what you should think, you're getting prone to manipulations.
Google profiles you. Then it tells you what you want, instead of you actively deciding that this is really what you want.
Want to look for something else, outside your usual interest? Might be hard to achieve, because google knows better.
It makes a tremendous difference if with this profiling you get as first hits for important news the BBC, Fox News, Al Jazeera or Russia Today. Or some of them not at all.
Because you always read Fox News. Why even bother about what other news channels have to say?
Then you're not anymore forming your opinion, you're getting your opinion formed.

If that's what you want...

In my experience you can navigate sites pretty good without images or stylesheets..

But that's ugly .
Without JS you often lose a bit functionality, which you might not even notice if you don't use certain features.
On CFC usage of JS or not makes the difference between being able to multiquote or not.

 

[Commodore]

I still don't think that really answers the question, because what I'm trying to get at is why someone would mind? Google having a record of you isn't a reason unless you explain why Google having that record is a bad thing.

Why does Google having a file on me have to be bad for me to mind if Google has a file on me? Maybe I just don't want someone tracking my activity, whether they are using it for nefarious purposes or not. Is that really too much to ask for? Why do you assume Google (or any other company for that matter) has a right to track people as long as they aren't causing harm by doing so.

Basically it all comes down to how much control one has over their life and who has access to that life. If I don't want Google knowing my interests, that's my choice as an individual and I should be able to make that choice without being called paranoid or being viewed with suspicion because I "have something to hide".

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Javascript is a critical part of the modern web.

Your argument works pretty much exactly the same for images.

Sure, you can block images by default, and only selectively enable them one site at a time, but it's a pain in the ass.

Whitelist cookies.

Blacklist ad providers and third-party trackers.

No need for noscript or noimage.

Still not seeing the overwhelming advantage in whitelisting cookies over whitelisting scripts. I don't need to use every script on a page. Sometimes, I don't want certain scripts on a page. Plus, I like the feature of temporarily enabling scripts.

 

[Camikaze]

So it wouldn't bother you if your employer surveilles you all the time ^^?

I would, but again, those concerns are different. Google isn't my employer. I don't avoid walking around in public on the off-chance that my employer is watching through a telescope, but I wouldn't mind if an employer background-checked me.

Why does Google having a file on me have to be bad for me to mind if Google has a file on me? Maybe I just don't want someone tracking my activity, whether they are using it for nefarious purposes or not. Is that really too much to ask for? Why do you assume Google (or any other company for that matter) has a right to track people as long as they aren't causing harm by doing so.

Basically it all comes down to how much control one has over their life and who has access to that life. If I don't want Google knowing my interests, that's my choice as an individual and I should be able to make that choice without being called paranoid or being viewed with suspicion because I "have something to hide".

Again, I'm not saying it's stupid, just that I can't personally see a reason for taking such 'precautions', and would like someone to provide me with one. The fact that a supermarket formulates a list of the products I buy, which they can attach to me through video surveillance footage, doesn't prevent me from buying groceries. Even though that supermarket also has no right to know anything about me.

 

[Commodore]

Again, I'm not saying it's stupid, just that I can't personally see a reason for taking such 'precautions', and would like someone to provide me with one. The fact that a supermarket formulates a list of the products I buy, which they can attach to me through video surveillance footage, doesn't prevent me from buying groceries. Even though that supermarket also has no right to know anything about me.

And I gave you the reason. Some people just don't like other people collecting information on them without consent. The person or entity doing the collecting doesn't have to be doing anything negative with the info, but some people still just do not like it. So if someone wants to take precautions and hide their internet activity because they just don't like their activity being monitored and analyzed, that is reason enough.

It may not seem like a good reason to you, but it is to the person taking the precautions, and that's all that really matters.

 

[Camikaze]

Okay, so what you're saying is that it's simply a preference, like what colour you prefer or what your favourite food is. That there's no actual objective reason to care?