What is the concern over privacy, particularly google?

I'd like to think that since everything threatens our privacy and it's more difficult to disconnect than ever, it's more about obfuscation.

...

>why wouldn't you want adverts that target you?
Because I dont want adverts, targetted or generic. If I need something I will buy it regardless of advertising.

you can be profiled by attempting to obfuscate

Every individual can be ID'd on the internet now without an IP address: panopticlick.eff.org/

All photos can be fingerprinted to the device that took them: dde.binghamton.edu/download/camera_fingerprint/

Privacy and anonymity are dead, end of story

>posting the same thing I just demonstrated the reasoning for

i thought summer was over

people openly proclaim their plan to control populations and centralize power, google is caught weekly engineering search results to influence the elections, their execs visit the white house and they openly consort with, they have newly enacted plans THIS WEEK to censor on youtube, but it's all fine

our prosperity and freedom is permanent and eternal vigilance is not necessary

Those two images aren't the same, are you fucking retarded?

I understand that you can still be profiled by browsing habits and even up to the point that sites know here you click on them. Surely we can do better with proper script blocking and spoofing profiles. It's not the most complicated thing if you're willing to go out of your way.

I personally don't understand much about the second statement, other than using EXIF and deducing what device took the picture when you judge by resolution and focus.

Just take a screenshot of your image

>panopticlick.eff.org/

Fingerprinting doesn't ID you , it IDs your browser

Because the information is no longer just used for advertising. It's also used as sacrificial offerings on the altars of law enforcement and national security.

I have no practical control over the info once it's taken from me. And I despise lack of control.

And that's just Google.

For most other data collectors and ad vendors, add in aggressive profiling and deprivation of freedom of use of the goods and services I purchase.

I don't want my list of fetishes up for sale on human profile vendors like Lexis Nexis or any other company.

I don't want my movements tracked. The info being sold attached to an easily de-anonymizable "anonymized" identifier/hash doesn't help either.

I once thought the ad industry would jealously guard the info they have on people as it'd be against their best interests to scare away the public from sharing more information. Instead they aggressively overcollect, share info like crazy, and obfuscate everything about their practices from the public. For what isn't hidden behind an NDA that is.

Beyond that, they can't possibly promise me the info won't get hacked and publicized. Since the information is aggressively collected and aggregated, such a dump has catastrophic consequences.

If the ad industry info was illegal to share with Feds for *any* purpose without qualification, if the info was regularly purged after a brief period of time never exceeding several years, and if society's consequences of deviant behavior wasn't so life-ruining, then I might consider the risk of trackers for ads worthwhile.

Plz go, demoprop shill.

not worth a response

fingerprinting has nothing to do with script blocking or spoofing

the second point is a hardware issue, not a software. all sensors are unique.

your id has already been linked to your browser if you have ever 1) leaked your id in that browser or 2) demonstrate statically relevant browsing habits that have already been linked to your ID

He is saying that the reason black kids show up when you type 'american inventors' is because african american is the high priority term.

i dont agree with him at all though. american inventors = edison, tesla, that president guy, etc and that is what google should show. because you DIDN'T specifically ask for AFRICAN American.

that user is a retard, but that's what he meant.

Keep in mind that Panopticlick's infobase is tiny fraction of a percent of the world's userbase, so even if this says you're unique, it's very possible you are not.

>google track you, sure.
That is why I don't want to use their services
>but they are tracking you to target advertisements to you.
And that is bad.
>advertising has been a way of life for years now, why wouldn't you want adverts that target you?
Let's assume for a second that advertisement is useful information instead.
Then there is a bunch of people who want to tell you random useful information all the time.
With targeted information, you only see what would be relevant to you, thereby robbing you of the chance to see other things that might really be more relevant to you.
But ads do not provide good information to you.
Ads are about spreading a name, so you recognize it and remember the good feeling you had watching the content behind the ad. When you are out buying stuff, then they make money.
Now I am in a weird position as a customer.
Do I want to buy this product because I want this brand, or do I want this product because I was told (By themselves) that this was the better product?
What if they do have the best product, but I hated every second of their pestering advertisement?
Do I reward them for their ads or their product when I buy their stuff?
Do they look at their numbers and say to themselves, more ads or better product?
>I know for sure if TV had ads that i was interested in, the experience would be more pleasurable than watching current ads right now.
I didn't have many ads on TV when I grew up.
Some channels showed a program and had ads in between the programs.
That meant you watched ~5 minutes of advertisement (half was upcoming programs) and then 55 minutes of content.
Now there are channels which show 10 minutes of content and then 5 minutes of advertisement.
That is unbearable to watch.
It has nothing to do with the ads being relevant to my interests or anything, it is just awful.
>I don't really get the hooplah...
They are way beyond recommending the right car to people, they want to control everything you do and think.

yeah but if you have 5 dopplegangers with different browsing habits, located in different regions, speak different languages, etc, it's still really easy to identify

try

User Agent Overrider

and

StopFingerprinting

on Firefox

>>the second point is a hardware issue, not a software. all sensors are unique.

And to profile them, you need a massive amount of data. And the data on a given sensor changes over time as the sensor is continually exposed to environmental factors.

Your point?

Information is power.

adding those add-ons makes you stand out even worse than not having them

>"google track you"
kill yourself

>us inventors
>almost half are niggers
ok, kid

>Ads are about spreading a name, so you recognize it and remember the good feeling you had watching the content behind the ad. When you are out buying stuff, then they make money.
Now I am in a weird position as a customer.

No. Because you have a brain and are human. You want what you want. Not what someone tells you you want. Ads are suggestions, not orders.

>Do I want to buy this product because I want this brand, or do I want this product because I was told (By themselves) that this was the better product?

You decide. The Ad doesn't force you one way or another.

>What if they do have the best product, but I hated every second of their pestering advertisement?

Then you decide what is best for you. In this circumstance I'd avoid their product, even if it meant getting something subpar, but that's a personal preference. Maybe you are more intelligent and look past your trepidation and buy the product anyway.

>Do I reward them for their ads or their product when I buy their stuff?

I personally think that the answer is the product. But again this is your choice. You are free to reward them for either.

>Do they look at their numbers and say to themselves, more ads or better product?

Depends on the company. Some will see sales going up due to ads, some will see sales going up due to product enhancements.

its cause they like to think they are dangerous antiestablishment activists who change how the world thinks and the government is after them.

They are.

>tfw paranoia

It's probably not even advisable to go great lengths to mess with your anonymity online. It'll just make you look suspicious and they'll dig even further.

Every machine has unique identifiers you'd need a brand new computer, spoof your mac everytime, go through a vpn, and use public networks without cameras if you wanted to browse 'off' the grid but wtf is the point in going through all that trouble?

>wtf is the point in going through all that trouble?
Freedom as in freedom.

>ads don't work

Investments in advertising say otherwise

not really, all you need is tor browser assuming that we can trust any technology at all

Since advertising is proven to brainwash people into spending their money, this alone is cause enough to realize how the information about you can be used against your own free will. Ads are mind control, there's no other way to describe it better. Most people buy shit they don't need.

data is logged in data centers. every machine is identifiable and everyone wants you to immediately link your name nad phone number to accounts. to cover your anonymity in the digital age is to literally just go live in the woods without a computer.

Freedom as in freedom

>trusting tor browser
you fell for the greatest nsa meme ever

There's people who invest in the Greek financial sector too. Doesn't mean it's a good idea or that they're going to get any payouts in the end.

the biggest accomplishment in advertising is tricking customers into believing that they are resilient to advertising

you sir are a full-fledged retard

you have to be completely autistic to think that advertising doesn't work or 'only works on dumb people'

> No no, don't use Tor! Use the clearnet instead! The NSA will *never* track you there!

This is what you sound like.

Kill yourself.

Of course advertising works. But the overwhelming majority of it is waste that does nothing but annoy and/or creep people out.

i prefaced with saying that was only an option if you trust any technology

if you think everything is backdoored then you might as well just throw all of your technology in a dumpster fire

your argument is no different than philosophical relativism

I'm legitimately concerned more about filter bubbling and corporate data mining. Much less so about government surveillance (as if they couldn't already arrest anyone here if they cared).

People who can't distinguish between the two issues are often pedophiles whose fear of being caught overrides actual thinking. And ironically even pedos go under the radar better if they AREN'T ranting about encryption and privacy

>But the overwhelming majority of it is waste

>citation needed

Just use ungoogled Chromium. All of the benefits, none of the spyware.

why do them things concern you?

it's literally mind control

someone is serving you the content they want you to see

That's you, but many people are buying on impulse

youtube.com/watch?v=FHwl6AyL6js

Ya I had a conversation with someone about smoke screens and they tried to say 'well nowadays you can turn on the news and internet and see everything'.

I died inside. This is legitimately concerning stuff but the intellectual will always question deeper into things.

>that's you

that's what he 'thinks' he is
stats and science say otherwise

in fact I learned in one of my marketing classes that customers that perceive themselves to be unaffected by advertising are usually the most affected. it's very similar to dunning-kruger.

>science say otherwise
surely you have peer reviewed sources to back that right?

>in fact I learned in one of my marketing classes that customers that perceive themselves to be unaffected by advertising are usually the most affected
lol ok

Again, peer reviewed source please

Most who claim. They're uneffected by ads are probably 100% influenced by chan board posters own shilling for products

In a way the people who obsess over internet ''freedom'' are the most controlled by their own vices namely internet and porn addiction.

FBI plz go. This shit right here doesn't help your trust deficit with the public. Labeling people who want privacy as pedophiles shows how grossly out of touch you are with people that aren't voyeurs-by-profession.

This may be true for the general population but Cred Forums has a disproportionate number of actual pedophiles on it.

Not all people who want privacy are pedophiles but pedophiles sure as hell obsess over privacy because they use these tools daily. And being Cred Forums this particular board is full of actual pedophiles.

Also pedos tend to be quick to react with moral virtue signaling.

> Click-through rates of 0.1% considered normal. And that's *including* click-fraud.

smartinsights.com/internet-advertising/internet-advertising-analytics/display-advertising-clickthrough-rates/

> No one knows what proportion of traffic is real and what's fake.

techdirt.com/articles/20160915/18183535533/traffic-is-fake-audience-numbers-are-garbage-nobody-knows-how-many-people-see-anything.shtml

>thread goes silent when the truth about Cred Forums being full of pedos is dropped

>just google

Meh, there's far fewer pedos then there used to be. Turns out a lot of them were dumbasses and used Pedobear to signal actual CP on a lot of websites. Made for easy automated IDing of pedo sites that had an imageboard-user nexus.

>> 56808730

Funny that you speak of virtue as you label law abiding citizens as pedophiles for wanting to keep their privacy.

I know it'd make your job fighting pedos easier if they were the only ones that used privacy tools, but law-abiding citizens need privacy too and they're not going to be shamed or scared away from it by assholes like you.

I'm not against the use of privacy tools. I'm just pointing out that in the more hardcore of privacy communities you're likely to find pedos (harmless but gross cp consumers mostly) . Because common sense says they're more likely to be into that.

imo scared pedos are the best source of privacy information because they have motivation.

Also I agree Cred Forums has many fewer pedos than ever. But Cred Forums likely has more than other boards at this point and they tend not to openly talk about it

>but they are tracking you to target advertisements to you.
That they store the information at all gives the possibility that at some point a human might look at it.
>why wouldn't you want adverts that target you?
A lot of advertisements have the point of discovering something new, looking at advertisements of the same genre of things every day doesn't really work.
>i know for sure if TV had ads that i was interested in, the experience would be more pleasurable than watching current ads right now.
But imagine ALL of them were. Don't eat out often? You'll never hear about the new restaurant in town.
>I don't really get the hooplah over tracking/privacy
Because no matter how you put it, a human will always be at the end with access.
Humans aren't exactly known for being trustworthy, no matter who the person is. It's not a "OMG THEY'RE GONNA GET ME" thing, it's a what if your neighbor dislikes you and he works for google thing.

It's an unfortunate cost of promoting privacy and the freedom it provides. There's going to be awful people in the world who use good tools for bad person purposes. Metasploit is used by nefarious actors just like it is by good actors. Wireshark is used by people with the intent to defraud or harm innocents, but it's also used by Sys Admins to do legit troubleshooting on their networks.

I'd rather focus on researching alternative ways law enforcement can take advantage of OpSec failures by pedos and train them to use those ways instead of having them blackmail tech companies and FOSS devs info giving up decryption keys, unnecessarily MITMing the communications of their users, or weakening the crypto primes used in securing infrastructure.

I'm not wholely unsympathetic to law enforcement's desire to catch pedos, but I sure as hell don't want to sacrifice my freedoms and privacy in the process.

I don't do anything illegal but I'm very into privacy / encryption / obfuscation topics they're like hobbies

you have nothing to worry about that, unless you're doing something illegal

(cont'd)

It's like if you were into rocketry and built model rockets and also wear a Casio F91w-1 - and the NSA / CIA / FBI violates your privacy constantly and puts you on watch lists because you fit an obscure "profile" of a terrorist bomb maker

Then they see you in the park one day firing model rockets off and they say to themselves "that must be his cover" - and they continue to pry into your life under the implied accusation that you're a terrorist

that first nigga got a giant fucking forehead

any good podcasts?

Do you think that the government is naturally "good" ? Why do people think this?

Most governments don't last very long and all have periods of tyranny. Look at history. It's dangerous to put complete trust into the government, they're people motivated by power and control, some of the worst indicators

>Most governments don't last very long
the US one has been going on for quite a while senpai

>why wouldn't you want adverts that target you?
I block all ads, so there's really no reason for your company to track me, shill. Regardless it's an invasion of my privacy, I'd rather see irrelevant ads than relevant ones.

I'm a lot more concerned about Google itself and it's monopoly over public perception than any supposed government turnover. The gov could get my data if they wanted. I have no doubt this is true for anyone who posts on chans.

Really? If I didn't know any better, I could have sworn law enforcement goes after legal activity it finds socially deviant as well.

Look up DoJ's Operation Choke Point. They tried to defund gun vendors, sex workers, and other deviant-but-legal businesses under the premise that it'll also stop illegal activity in the process.

Or what of law enforcement mistaking hyperbolic rhetoric as a terroristic threat and putting an innocent teenager in solitary for years as a result?

Additionally, I have no desire for law enforcement to gain enough power that power-hungry people feel they can change society and culture by pushing aggressive "law and order" enforcement of repressive laws.

300 years and 100 of which it hasn't been technically sovereign in the way I would describe "sovereign" and it isn't really their fault. In a capitalist democracy you can be bought out and outnumbered by private foreign interests

I hate the idea of social law enforcement but sometimes i really worry I'd have been a better person if say porn was banned nationwide

>other deviant-but-legal
good
deviancy must be rooted out desu

Yeah me to, I just mention the government because any data corporations have they can be assumed to have also so it encompasses both things

Even if porn was banned, you'd still jerk off every day like you do.

Cred Forums should have been banned a decade ago had obscenity laws not been overturned by the porn industry back in the 60s.

Thia triggers me as much as anyone else here but we all would have been better off

True if it happened now.

Doubtful if I'd have grown up with porn inaccessible and marriage valued from a young age.

>Cred Forums should have been banned
yup
Trump would not be a viable candidate if Cred Forums didn't exist desu

>what is imagination

You would have started touching your dick, like everyone else, around puberty.

hes not a viable candidate now fucko

I sure hope so
right now he's at a 44.2% chance tho

But that'll probably go down after he got rekt in the debate

but it's still worrying that he has anything about 1%

TRUMP woudnt have been needed because the people would have elected better candidatea for the past decades had they not been pacified by porn and degenerate media.

Possibly true. But the damage isn't the same as with porn.

>Google Black woman
>Google Latin woman
>Google Asian woman
>Google White woman
>...
>Start hating Jewgle

Made a screenshot of the results a few months ago. Seems like they changed the algorithm a little bit, but there are still way to much white woman with niggers wich are in explicit positions.

*Look for women

not what the polls are saying

you mean the polls that Cred Forums and r/the_donald brigaded?

>implying shillary supporters aren't doing the exact same thing

What if google get compromised user? Heard of the 500 million hacked yahoo accounts just the other day? That's why it matters

there's direct evidence of trump supporters doing that

where's your evidence of hillary supporters doing the same?

>WOW THE SUPPORTERS OF EACH CANDIDATE ARE VOTING FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE CANDIDATES!

stop the fucking presses guys

there's a difference between just voting and changing your IP so you can vote multiple times

How long have you been on chans?

Do you seriously wish they were all banned along with all anonymous internet sites (I'm talking user to each other not to governnent)

I've been on here for maybe 5-ish years
yes

except when both sides do it, they naturally cancel out

Honestly it would be best if all home internet use were banned. Make internet for libraries and schools and work only. As it was originally intended.

The world was a better place without the PC

gnunet is coming

is that before or after gnu hurd?

How is gnunet relevant? Is it not even more anonymous than the current chans?

Also RMS is a huge sexual deviant. If you're the same person i was talking to before how could you support gnunet?

reminded that RMS was raped by a parrot and he liked it and would like a repeat of the experience

Technology is degenerate desu. By nature. Anyone who uses it too much becomes corrupted. I'm fairly convinced the Amish are right.

Let it all be destroyed.

This pretty much. You cannot refute it. Criminal scum will try their shitty arguments and fail every time.

Repeating it for clarity:

If you don't do anything illegal, you have nothing to worry about.

Yeah the innocent are never convicted of illegal crimes. Not once.

There's a difference between being obsessed with government surveillance and law enforcement, and being against Google manipulating your search results.

The latter is a genuine concern but gets ruined by pedos mashing all the issues together under the ''cops are gonna find out'' umbrella

Give me ONE example of someone innocent being convicted of a crime as a result of Google's data collection.

I'm waiting.

Pretty much none because actual government dissidents aren't retarded enough to use google

>convicted

The court of public opinion, which is much more damning

reason.com/blog/2013/08/01/innocent-couple-gets-visited-by-feds-aft

Was this a new opinion that you only formed after Trump and thia election season or did you always believe it?

Amazing.

I guess you and I both agree then that you have nothing to worry about unless you're doing something illegal.

I realized this maybe 1-2 years into channing, when the cynic in me came out.

I'm not interested in ads. They're the first thing I block. If a TV is showing ads currently I just switch the channel. The more ads of a product I see the less I want it. Also
>2016
>watching TV

Imagine how much better the world would have been with the internet heavily controlled and disallpwed for social and entertainment purposes since its creation.

Tbh China is doing it right. We all should have been put into camps as kids for internet addiction. There's a reason the chinks are beating the US at everything

But really, take a step back and realize the moralfags were always right ever since the days of old Cred Forums.

We are the scum of the earth and should have listened to our fathers.

reason.com/blog/2013/08/02/the-nsa-wasnt-spying-on-couple-who-searc

Try again, dipshit.

Clearly, you were so desperate to find a case that you just took whatever you could google without even reading the damn thing.

Jesus christ, you kids.

Ironically if all internet were illegal the coworker wouldnt have been able to false report them

>sometimes i really worry I'd have been a better person if say porn was banned nationwide
If it wasn't for porn:
I'd still be wondering what a clitoris is; y'know, that thing mentioned in the South Park movie.
I'd know about the g-spot only because it was the topic of a New Scientist article.
I still wouldn't know where women piss from.
I wouldn't know what a rectum is, never mind a prolapse.
My dick would be disease-ridden from neglect by now: it was painful the first several times I tried to pull back my foreskin and there was blood in my ejaculate the first time I masturbated.

Porn might play the major role in why I've never tried to have a girlfriend but it's taught me about human (and especially women's) anatomy and made me more aware about keeping good hygiene.
Hell, I'm a grown man and I only found out last year that "prick" means dick; I always thought the insult referred to the irritation that a pin prick causes.

I've broken free of most Cred Forums controlled opposition bs but this time 't. Schlomo kikestein' is an accurate response to your post.

Internet has blinded us all to the value of patience and abstinence and NOT knowing everything right away.

You might not realize I'm right until you're 45 and have terminal ED and rotting alone in regret.

>t. Schlomo kikestein

You must be from Cred Forums since you're so fucking retarded you think someone with foreskin is jewish. Go back to your containment board.

You're not jewish but you are a slave to an industry that actually IS proven to be run by Jews. And you're promoting porn as a net positive for society when everyone from feminists to Muslims to Christians to Communists, both left and right wing agree it is bad.

This isn't conspiracy conjecture.

OH NO NOT THE ((((((((((((((JEWS)))))))))))))))

>You're not jewish but you are a slave to an industry that actually IS proven to be run by Jews.

>implying I watch american porn
>implying 3dpd

>both left and right wing agree it is bad.
source: my ass

I'll give you the feminist one, but that's because they think it objectifies women and that gay porn is misogynistic. Not because its "morally bad" or anything like that.

Christians and Muslims and Orthodox Jews even see porn as a sin of adultery. Feminists see it as objectifying women. Communists see it as capitalist exploitation of the proles. Commie hating Republicans see it as destructive to the family and national productivity. Nazis see it as Jewish subversion. Even black power activists will say it's objectifying blacks.

Literally every single political or religious leaning has a clear reason for why porn is bad.

The ones who say it's good are naive addicts or industry lobbyists. To anyone else it's viewed the same as heroin. Or rather it was until the majority of the country became addicts thanks to the internet removing the shame of buying it in person.

oh boy, can't wait for the underground black porn market that would arise from that.

Prohibition doesn't work

See: the actual fucking failure that was the alcohol prohibition

also the weed prohibition.

someone had a tough time with their own sexuality.

Never said all groups agree porn should be banned. But it is still objectively harmful.

> objectively harmful
> objectively
> objective

> Citation needed

Porn is harmful , the way your brain responds to porn is sort of like it's a drug. It will impact your natural arousal mechanisms etc

Yourbrainonporn.com

Plenty of actual studies there and you cant pull the religious card because they're atheists.

And the same is true for internet as a whole. Imageboards are just the equivalent of porn for conversation.

Ideally every channer should have been forced into rehab and trained to read books, do long manual tasks etc.

Which is why the idea of ''internet freedom'' is a joke.

Because you become a slave to the internet. Everyrhing you consume is intended to keep you online. So you're not free at all.

A society that bans the internet would be freer than anything we have now.

>Cred Forums privacy thread
>paranoid criminals and NEETs so bored with their lives that they hop on the privacy bandwagon so they can prentend they have interesting lives
>turns into a nofap thread with even more NEETs citing unscientific anecdotal 'evidence'

This is literally the worst board on Cred Forums, fuck you all.

I have a job.

Also ever consider that maybe NEETs are that way because of porn and masturbation?

who is this semen deamon?

No, we NEETs just have a lot of time on our hands. And no income.

Anyway, getting back on topic, the whole privacy thing, for me at least, is more of a trust issue.
People are known to be fallible and sometimes malicious. That goes for bodies of people, too.
Automated systems, on the other hand, are just stupid: they follow their programming, don't learn from their mistakes and, the ones that do, can't discern subtleties.
The way automated systems get better is either by problems being flagged up or by people sat about brainstorming on what changes to make next on the thing; unrelated, the latter seems to be the way that YouTube makes all of its bad decisions.

Also, I've been getting some bizarre and worrisome adverts, lately: it was fun when I had nothing but Japanese ones but now I'm getting nothing but chuckle ball and lego duplo instead.
I mean, I liked lego when I was younger but they're definitely not the adverts I wanted. The other one was damned loud. I'm a headphone user, damn it!
I would've been happy with plain, non-targeted ones; they're a waste my time either way.

Go back to 1933 and ask what's the big deal about giving all your Jewish information to IBM?