Keep fighting the good fight. I've been annoyed by this DDG campaign since they debuted donttrack.us. Google never took the low road in order to gain market share and I don't see why DDG feels the need to spread FUD. Gabriel is incredibly fortunate to have received a warm welcoming and avid following from the developer community, but he is squandering that good fortune by engaging in what is essentially a smear campaign that many of us see right through. He should stick to what makes people want to use a search engine in the first place: Outstanding search results.
Uh, Gabriel made a point by point analysis of the issue, and your response is "fud" and "many of us see right through"? Can you please stick to responding to the issue and not engaging in your own contentless smear?
The only part that's theoretical is the extent we're being tracked online but there's plenty to suggest it's "as much as possible".
- Google's targets ads based on your browsing history - that could include Search, Analytics, AdSense, DoubleClick, and a whole ton of other data they have and collect. [1]
Rapleaf tracks so much that it's actually "a challenge" not to identify people. [2]
QuantCast settled for $2.4 million for making sure their precious tracking cookies were recreated if you delete them. [3]
Facebook just tried to give apps your fricking phone number and address. [4]
Google and their referral leaking is not really "the bad guy" in all of this - there's no bad guy, just a bunch of companies consuming and analyzing as much data as they can get their hands on.
Gathering all this data is necessary and essential for any company who's primary product is their users personal information. (see: Google, Facebook, et al..)
And, corporations being what they are, people within that corporation will optimize to try and make as much money as possible off of that information, because it is in the corporations best interest.
If you don't use any of Google's services which tie an account to you then they aren't tracking you. They are tracking a browser session and once that cookie expires the trail stops. Even if the cookie never expires, Google doesn't know who you are.
I'm starting to think we're arguing over something entirely different. Maybe some over-stuffing of phrases. I'm talking about Google knowing that I, James Simmons, uniquely identified individual, am searching for [something undesirable to have others know about]. I don't personally care either way really, because I've given them this information. Are we talking about the same thing or are you just talking about Google knowing from site A to site B that your browser's owner likes Korean pop music and chocolate cake mix?
My argument or question is why does Google (and not specifically Google, plenty of others) need to know all of that stuff?
You or the other guy mentioned "to make money" which is imo a really weak defense - we wouldn't accept that from anyone who kills, prostitutes, sells drugs, smuggles immigrants, or even legal-but-tasteless stuff like RIAA lawyer.
The data they gather is probably almost always "I like x music" or other innocuous stuff. But it's not always. What if you're searching about a rash on your junk (Google Search), or clocking up lots of views on bondage stuff on RedTube (Google Analytics), or you were browsing a forum for suicidal people and clicked a link to a site that had AdSense? Or pirating a ton of stuff?
Google and god knows who else has a lot of deeply personal information that "making money" doesn't justify - we say, search and browse very intimate stuff on the web, and we don't even know who it's being shared with.
My stance is most of it is just none of their business, even if they've chosen to build a business around it. Although I'm singling out Google they're just the easiest example.
>My argument or question is why does Google (and not specifically Google, plenty of others) need to know all of that stuff?
Alright, but do you assume that they know it is you? By name, by your identity? If not then why do you care if they know your user-agent likes bondage? Are you worried about seeing ads for bondage movies while you're not searching for bondage, while perhaps someone is looking over your shoulder?
>we wouldn't accept that from anyone who kills, prostitutes, sells drugs, smuggles immigrants, or even legal-but-tasteless stuff like RIAA lawyer.
I've noticed something about people arguing on your side of the fence. They keep dragging in ridiculous extremes to try and prove their point; Comparing those extremes to Google (or whoever) knowing information about you. Another guy in here was comparing this to being watched in your home with video cameras against your own will.
>Google and god knows who else has a lot of deeply personal information that "making money" doesn't justify
So stop giving it to them. They won't know who is searching this information unless you link your identity to an account and therefore enable them to link it to your human identity. As for whether or not it's justified I think is subjective. It's a moral issue and it's entirely subjective.
>we say, search and browse very intimate stuff on the web, and we don't even know who it's being shared with.
There was a time when you could search and browse anything on the Web without the repercussion of someone else finding out about it. But that era is over. No amount of arguing this fact will bring it back. In the Web of 2011 and beyond if you search for bondage videos and you are logged into your Google account then Google will have a way to map it to you. If you don't log in, don't create an account, then they won't. It's that simple.
In the Web of today, if you search for it, you just have to be aware that people have the technological means to know about it and there is no good reason for them to not want to know about this information. It helps them make the decisions they need to make to generate more money -- the entire purpose of a business. No altruistic causes here.
>In the Web of 2011 and beyond if you search for bondage videos and you are logged into your Google account then Google will have a way to map it to you. If you don't log in, don't create an account, then they won't. It's that simple.
No it's not. They're likely going to track IP addresses and make assumptions there. And even if limited IPv4 addresses give some protection for a while, browsers can be fingerprinted.
I'm sorry, but people like you are way too complacent. People like us know a little history. Things can get nasty.
>No it's not. They're likely going to track IP addresses and make assumptions there.
So? Unless Google is getting direct data from ISPs and requesting personal information about your identity from them then your IP address is just as useless to them as it is to me for linking your tastes to your human identity. Browser fingerprinting, in the Panopticlick sense, is just as useless to that end. At Google's scale the Panopticlick method doesn't even work because of how many people they come across. Once the number of browsers that match your "fingerprint" is > 1 it becomes useless to them.
>I'm sorry, but people like you are way too complacent.
I'm not complacent, I just know what I'm talking about. Take the tin-foil hat off.
>People like us know a little history. Things can get nasty.
You are so full yourself. You have no idea what you're talking about.
You could at least add some commentary to your comment. I've read that article and I don't see the implications to our discussion here. They linked together all the information that women (and everyone else) put out there for others to scrape. That is not the same as the keyword/referrers/logged into Google argument that we are having.
Just thought I'd show you how identifiable you really are, without your knowledge or consent or even knowing who the companies tracking you are.
And it's exactly the same as what we're discussing - Rapleaf was even one of the companies I specifically mentioned earlier. These companies don't look at any single piece of data individually, they collate as much as they can and the result is ... what I linked to.
Referrers and search terms are just two easily ended streams of data.
Yes, you are correct. It is very easy to link all this data together to create a profile about a person. They probably have more data about each of us than any of us realizes. I think even I might be surprised by how much a company like Rapleaf has put together about me.
Well, it may be a little heated but aside from that "you'll be fucked, who cares" comment I don't think we're going to far. I doubt anyone here has had their feelings hurt.
1) actually, to my understanding it's a pretty common practice. i know that i at least have been served ads based on queries i just made, or pages that i just visited. i'd be very surprised if i was the only one here on HN who has had that experience.
2) that's certainly true, but i'd say that means we should be concerned about those alternate methods as well, not that we shouldn't be concerned about this one.
1. I don't doubt that google (who owns 60% of ad space online) doesn't have some kind of profiling on you already, but they don't need http referers to build that data. Hell, even the example email in the blog has nothing to do with referer tracking, unless gabriel is suggesting that wikipedia is running hidden ad trackers on their pages.
well, i think Gabriel's point (though he's had some trouble getting it across) is not that Google is building the profile on you, but rather that other ad networks are.
you do raise an excellent point about the email example, though. hopefully Gabriel or Matt could shed some light on that?
Profiles based on the web pages you visit is different from the search terms used to find those web sites. People are more honest with their search engine than they are with their family.
I do not place as high a value on privacy as others. I hope that doesn't bite me in the butt someday.
I'm not spreading any fear, uncertainty, or doubt with my response. In what way should this blog post rectify the view of donttrack.us and that billboard in the eyes of the people who think it's a load of crap?
Not considering the specifics of DDG billboard and the Referer angle, does it not bother you to the slightes that Google does in fact track you all over the Internet?
One is basically checking in with Google everytime he visits any site that uses Analytics, embeds a YouTube video or a font from a Font Directory, or a Google-hosted Javascript snippet. Not to mention GMail. Don't know about other people but this bothers the hell out of me. So while I don't think DDG should've focused on the Referer issue, they got the core issue absoluely right. Google does in fact track everyone.
So is Facebook with their like button, AddThis with their widgets and probably dozens or even hundreds of other services people use. At this point no, I'm not worried about it.
To be perfectly clear: I am not worried because tracking is a part of life on the Web. This isn't going to change. This isn't specific to Google. I do not care about it and I'm not worried about it.
Wrong. I never said tracking was "ok" on the merit that it's already happening. It can't be stopped and basically because we fuel it. I give the Web a lot of information about myself. From typing queries into a search engine to storing my photos, thoughts, and relationships in Facebook. I, like millions (billions, really) of other people have willingly sacrificed a certain level of privacy by using these free services who make money off our data.
>Would you be against tracking in real life? Cameras everyone out in public? In your home?
Tracking people with cameras, or in their homes (get real, dude) is so far removed from the kind of opt-in tracking we're talking about. I call it opt-in because you wouldn't be tracked if you didn't participate. Being watched by some government agency in your home, presumably against your will, is a far leap from here. You're really grasping at straws.
> Wrong. I never said tracking was "ok" on the merit that it's already happening. ... snip ...
Sorry. That was clearly my interpretation. Thank you for clarifying. However, I disagree on several points. First, it can be stopped to a certain degree. Just because it can't be stopped across the board doesn't mean we shouldn't fight against it.
An example in context to this discussion: You give Google your data. No one is arguing that choosing to give Google your data is wrong. Rather, it's that the data you gave to Google is now being given to other sites without your knowledge.
> Tracking people with cameras, or in their homes (get real, dude) is so far removed from the kind of opt-in tracking we're talking about.
First, "(get real, dude)". I am. Maybe you didn't hear about the case about the school district spying on students by accessing their web cams in their laptops? So these things do happen in real life.
Next...
> is so far removed from the kind of opt-in tracking we're talking about.
You think people are aware that they are sending the resulting site specific data about their searches? Or do you think they are just assuming Google is tracking this? Do you really think people understand what companies like RapLeaf can do?
Did they really opt-in?
> Being watched by some government agency in your home, presumably against your will, is a far leap from here.
But being tracked by businesses you never knew existed without every visiting their site isn't a far leap.
> You're really grasping at straws.
I'm not, really. My questions were merely that. If you took them as anything more than honest questions, it's your fault. Mostly a result of you not being clear about what your okay with being tracked.
Finally, stop being antagonistic. Your insults are childish. You can disagree, but you can do so being less rude.
>Rather, it's that the data you gave to Google is now being given to other sites without your knowledge
That is a completely unsubstantiated claim. Given to who?
>Maybe you didn't hear about the case about the school district spying on students by accessing their web cams in their laptops?
I did hear about that. It was a huge controversy and when people found out about what the school district was doing people got in trouble. That wasn't ok and people were up in arms about it. That still isn't even an example of what you were stating because it was a one-off thing that people weren't aware of and when they became aware of it the problem was fixed.
>You think people are aware that they are sending the resulting site specific data about their searches?
Perhaps not, but I did clarify in the following sentence my exact meaning of "opt-in" in this case, which you seem to be ignoring. So what if sites get the search queries? I have sites too and my Google Analytics shows what people are searching for to reach my site. Do I know who those people are? Not at all, not in any way shape or form.
>But being tracked by businesses you never knew existed without every visiting their site isn't a far leap.
Yes it is. Some Website knowing that some browser searched for some keyword is still an incredibly far leap from being tracked in your home by video cameras.
>Finally, stop being antagonistic. Your insults are childish. You can disagree, but you can do so being less rude.
I have not insulted you once. Telling you to get real is not an insult, not under any stretch of the imagination. Especially given the context of the remark. Perhaps I am being a little harsh, but only because your argument went from worthy of a response to completely off-the-wall.
> That is a completely unsubstantiated claim. Given to who?
Google allows the forwarding of your search information to other sites. It's not unsubstantiated, and well established. It's the point of all of this. Yes, it's being done in your browser. But it can be fixed on the search engine end.
> That still isn't even an example of what you were stating because it was a one-off thing that people weren't aware of and when they became aware of it the problem was fixed.
Yes, when people are made aware of it, they fixed it. Like in this case, educating people on the problems pushes for fixes. The problem here is people aren't aware that the information they are sharing with specific sites are being shared with other sites.
Basically, the issue at hand isn't you sharing your data with specific sites; it's that you are sharing it with sites you aren't aware of.
> Perhaps not, but I did clarify in the following sentence my exact meaning of "opt-in" in this case, which you seem to be ignoring. So what if sites get the search queries? I have sites too and my Google Analytics shows what people are searching for to reach my site. Do I know who those people are? Not at all, not in any way shape or form.
I'm aware of your 'opt-in' remark, and I didn't ignore it. However, no one is 'opting-in' to sending their search queries to your site. Oh, I'm sure their are people who don't care. And for your site, it's not a problem. You don't know who these people are.
But these people aren't saying "Yes, send my search data to coderdude's website." They are searching in Google, and the net result is coderdude get's this information. The next step is what you can do with that information when coupled with other tracking information.
We've already seen how specific Facebook ads can get in the past when you have a lot of specific information about a user, and we already know RapLeaf and others store a lot of information.
> Yes it is. Some Website knowing that some browser searched for some keyword is still an incredibly far leap from being tracked in your home by video cameras.
Sorry, I really didn't mean to tie the two so closely together. My intent in asking the question was really just to gauge how important privacy is to you. I know people who are quite fine with the whole "tracking everyone if it fights terrorism." Anyways, the point of the last statement was merely to say that to some, spying on your activity at home is essentially spying on your personal internet traffic. Indeed, for many, the later is more revealing then the former.
Even still, a poor direct comparison, and one I really hadn't intended to make in the first place.
> Especially given the context of the remark.
It was a question, not an assertion. You inferred more from the question than intended. I'll blame myself for not being more clear to distance the question from being more than it was, but it was just a question.
> I have not insulted you once. Telling you to get real is not an insult, not under any stretch of the imagination.
> Perhaps I am being a little harsh
Let me just say your attitude was insulting then. Relax. I'm not crazy. =) I probably just failed at being specific enough, though I hate constantly hedging and making assumptions about how people will read things.
>Google allows the forwarding of your search information to other sites. It's not unsubstantiated, and well established. It's the point of all of this. Yes, it's being done in your browser. But it can be fixed on the search engine end.
They forward along the keywords. Useless for identification purposes.
There isn't a point to arguing this any further with each other, as I think we've both made our points clear. Good Game.
what he's doing is highlighting a key differentiator between their products, and trying to educate the market on why his implementation is more awesome.
in other words, he's taken a page out of your "how to win customers" playbook.
In what way are they ahead that had anything to do with that campaign? The iPod, iPhone, and iPad are all markets that they are ahead in but those all have nothing to do with the Mac vs PC campaign. They still are not "ahead" in the general computer marketplace.
> In what way are they ahead that had anything to do with that campaign?
Because the campaign was more than just Mac v.s. PC. It was also the Apple ecosystem.
> The iPod, iPhone, and iPad are all markets that they are ahead in but those all have nothing to do with the Mac vs PC campaign.
This statement is not true. The campaigns did impact the perception of the Apple brand. To assume the campaign had nothing to do with the success of these devices is wishful thinking.
> They still are not "ahead" in the general computer marketplace.
In terms of pure numbers, no. But in numerous other ways to measure success they are.
Just look at the growth of Apple after a campaign where it attack the PC. Discounting this isn't smart.
> The campaign was more than just Mac v.s. PC. It was also the Apple ecosystem.
It was mostly about the Mac OS X vs. Windows. And I'll repeat, they are still not ahead there.
> Just look at the growth of Apple after a campaign where it attack the PC. Discounting this isn't smart.
Correlation != causation. I would say instead, "Just look at the growth of Apple after it introduced several really amazing products that had no equal in the marketplace".
> Correlation != causation. I would say instead, "Just look at the growth of Apple after it introduced several really amazing products that had no equal in the marketplace".
Which is beside the point. Apple's ads and growth are relevant to the question. The question didn't ask for an example where attack advertising directly led to growth.
I'm not implying that the ads led directly to Apple's amazing growth and dethroning Microsoft at the revenue level (amongst other areas).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for or against attack ads. I'm also not arguing against your points in this comment. Merely that they don't matter in context.
> The question didn't ask for an example where attack advertising directly led to growth.
I think that's an awfully pedantic interpretation of the original question. To me, 'Can you give some examples of companies that have successfully "smeared" the market leader with FUD and ended up ahead?' very clearly implies just that.
> I think that's an awfully pedantic interpretation of the original question
Nevertheless, that's the question. It's a simple question, and a better one then what you imply it is. "Can you give some examples of companies that have successfully smeared a market leader with FUD and ended up ahead as a direct result of that smear campaign" is a loaded question.
Rather, the question as asked is simple: Despite having a smear campaign, have companies succeeded? Are their success stories? Yes, yes there is. There are countless success stories of companies and organizations directly attacking their competitor and being successful, if not market leaders.
> Google never took the low road in order to gain market share
Excuse me? You forgot the unwanted automatic opt-in for Google Buzz? Or doing a u-turn on net-neutrality in cahoots with Verizon? Or "accidentally" collecting wifi data?
This particular issue may not fall into that category, but the days of "don't be evil" are behind us. Like most major corporations, Google puts profit before ethics.
