Internet Privacy

[kernelbogey]

'Essentially, the edifices of privacy that we once thought we understood are melting like ice in a heatwave.' - Charles Arthur, Technology Editor,writing in Tuesday's Guardian.

I've been alarmed by the change to Google's privacy policy effective today. I have a gut fear of, and also an intellectual resistance to, companies being able to track my internet surfing, searches, purchases etc.

I'm not particularly IT-savvy, but decided to remove all the cookies on my MacBook today with the intention of blocking new cookies. Within minutes I found a Google cookie there - sort of like the wasp you've just ejected from the kitchen suddenly buzzing around - even though I hadn't visited Google in the interim. I now find I cannot use my Hotmail account if cookies are disabled.

I've started this thread in the hope that others with more IT knowledge might share some of it and also a place for views about what seems like the end of privacy.

[Norfolk Born]

I've been thinking about this and looking into it, and wonder whether the loss of cookies etc. and the resultant palaver when logging on to, for example, the library service might not offset, or even outweigh, any safeguarding (real or perceived) of my privacy.

[Frances_iom]

be selective in who you block - on a windoze machine the HOSTS file can be used to prevent access to certain sites (google analytics etc ), there are similar mechanisms on Linux and I presume on the walled garden that is the Mac (tho here I suspect Apple also being in this business may make it difficult to be anything other than a passive consumer) - there are many useful addons or extensions for firefox (noscript is very useful in that blocks javascript unless you authorise for that site) - flash blockers are also useful - personally I browse with images turned off but then I'm basically a text person and the eye candy is of little importance to me but your attitude may vary. Until a scheme of micropayments is devised the only options for much on the web is advertising or subscription - the other problem is that US companies in general consider themselves above local law in same way the US gov does.

[Word]

on the walled garden that is the Mac

On the Mac I would recommend the Ghostery extension for Safari (also available for other browsers) and GlimmerBlocker or Privoxy, which are proxy servers that can be used to block all Google affiliated domains and, even, dynamically rewrite search requests to use less intrusive services. (Don't let their power put you off as they're easy to use.)
Mac OS X is Unix so can handle pretty much anything, including running Windows in a VM better than it runs natively on a Windows PC .

[Nick Armstrong]

On the Mac I would recommend the Ghostery extension for Safari (also available for other browsers) and GlimmerBlocker or Privoxy, which are proxy servers that can be used to block all Google affiliated domains and, even, dynamically rewrite search requests to use less intrusive services. (Don't let their power put you off as they're easy to use.)
Mac OS X is Unix so can handle pretty much anything, including running Windows in a VM better than it runs natively on a Windows PC .

As a Mac user on OS X who shares kernelbogey's instinctive aversion to any company using my surf/search/purchase data for any purpose, that is interesting intelligence, Mr Word: thanks I quite like the sound of Ghostery.

Then again, the advantages of cookies (e.g. remaining logged in) make me think: so if they want to track the fact that I'm looking for Stile Antico's discography, good luck to 'em. The emails I get from amazon et al. 'suggesting' other things 'I might like' or that other people 'like me' may have bought, I completely ignore and are easily deletable - a small price to pay for the benefits of online browsing and shopping, I think.

[kernelbogey]

On the Mac I would recommend the Ghostery extension for Safari

Thanks for your advice, Word: I'll look into Ghostery etc. (I'm also running OSX on my MacBook.)

[pmartel]

I'm a bit nervous by all this, recently here, the Canadian gov't passed Bill C-30 which allows police and others to snoop on potential child offenders.

What got us in an uproar as that could be potentially taken further and you could be spied on without knowing,if someone feels you're saying 'the wrong things'

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1136406--bill-c-30-opens-canada-to-big-brother-inc-business-geist

[Mahlerei]

Yes, thanks for the Mac info. As a precaution I also delete cookies at least once a week.

[Stillhomewardbound]

Well, I saw it expressed recently ... we are no longer the consumer, with consumer rights and such, we are now the product.

[kernelbogey]

There are, indeed, scary implications:

[Google's] dossier of information on users also proves a source of concern to online activists. The company, whose headquarters is in California, is subject to search orders from the US government for any user, regardless of their nationality. Like other online businesses, Google complies with orders from governments. This was seen in a high-profile subpoeana for the email records of the WikiLeaks supporter Jacob Applebaum. If a subpoena is sealed, a user may never even be told their details have been handed over. Google is, however, transparent in revealing how many information requests it gets. Between January and June 2011, it was asked by governments for data on 25,000 of its users worldwide, and complied in handing over the information in around 19,000 of the cases. The US government asked for details on 11,057 users, while the UK asked for 1,444. - James Ball, Guardian 1.3.12

[Norfolk Born]

The way I see it, if they want to know something, they'll find out sooner or later and one way or another. Not a counsel of despair, just a recognition of the way most people's lives are circumscribed (arguably to no greater extent than in the past).

[kernelbogey]

The way I see it, if they want to know something, they'll find out sooner or later and one way or another. Not a counsel of despair, just a recognition of the way most people's lives are circumscribed (arguably to no greater extent than in the past).

Call me paranoid, but I don't see it that way. I'd like the option of others not being able to dig around in my private life - any more than I would give a stranger a key to my house and say s/he can lend it to anyone who wants a look around.

I've been checking my cookies at the end of each session on the net, and deleting those I don't want to remain there. An instructive process. (I just checked one article on the NY Times site and found about twelve NYT cookies at the end of that session....)

[Stunsworth]

be selective in who you block - on a windoze machine the HOSTS file can be used to prevent access to certain sites (google analytics etc ), there are similar mechanisms on Linux and I presume on the walled garden that is the Mac (tho here I suspect Apple also being in this business may make it difficult to be anything other than a passive consumer)...

It's just as easy to use the HOSTS file on a Mac as it is a Windows machine.

[MrGongGong]

Come on where's mrP "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" ??????

[Frances_iom]

Call me paranoid, but I don't see it that way. I'd like the option of others not being able to dig around in my private life - any more than I would give a stranger a key to my house and say s/he can lend it to anyone who wants a look around.

unless you are using one of the very latest browsers that is exactly what you do when you install Flash and/or allow Javascript (this can report back on what sites you last visited etc - Google is quite explicit in what information is collected - basically everything it can ) - Flash had even worse privacy implications tho now I understand you can forbit it permission to turn on your computer camera.
However even if you are circumspect and feed little to google (and btw just mark all cookies except your select few such as for this board, to be session only) there are mechanisms to infer quite a bit from your less careful friends.