InformAction Forums

[quote="GµårÐïåñ"]Oh I got it and no matter how you line break it or try to flow it, its a justification. By any name, still a justification and foolish. I want to add why I see it as a justification and not the benefit of doubt you gave it. Telling people that Tails and Tor protect you against such things as this is horrible and false advise. The fact is that while they protect YOUR CONNECTION, they do NOTHING for what an extension gathers on you in the browser. You can VPN your ass through a thousand endpoints and means NOTHING. Read the fine print on TOR where they tell you that being STUPID is still going to leak your privacy.[/quote]
Thanks for explaining, it's quite true that you can't stay anonymous while they're hiding right behind you. I was assuming the post refer to visiting websites.

So, this lot is now split as off-topic.

[quote="barbaz"][quote="GµårÐïåñ"]all that argument about why its ok for them to do it and why its almost expected is respectfully bullshit.[/quote]
And this is exactly why getting line breaks right is important. You didn't understand MenuDigger's post at all, did you?[/quote]
Oh I got it and no matter how you line break it or try to flow it, its a justification. By any name, still a justification and foolish. I want to add why I see it as a justification and not the benefit of doubt you gave it. Telling people that Tails and Tor protect you against such things as this is horrible and false advise. The fact is that while they protect YOUR CONNECTION, they do NOTHING for what an extension gathers on you in the browser. You can VPN your ass through a thousand endpoints and means NOTHING. Read the fine print on TOR where they tell you that being STUPID is still going to leak your privacy.
[quote]Haven't you seen how I respond to those who write drivel on this board? ;)[/quote]
Oh I have adopted a policy of just ignoring idiots but I also don't think they should be allowed to have one sided flow of anonymous bullshit without being called on it. Call it a flaw of being a Marine, I can't just swallow crap and say thank you. Additionally, your claim that the overt promises of one security tool are not to be taken seriously but saying that other tools by all means go all in is just dumb advise. Especially that TOR has been breached repeatedly, consistently and for many years with the full knowledge of the TOR project and they have done jack about it, so where is the security there that we are supposed to believe will mitigate this? Apples and Oranges and Bananas here. The only thing in common is that they are an unreliable clusterfuck of promises and little action in reality - aka fruit.

Even if that means being seen as mean, rude - what I like to call - being BLUNT and brutally honest. That makes it hard to be liked but if someone can't appreciate the value of honesty, then their loss. You want security, you have to do it yourself, not ask someone else to do it for you and when they take advantage of your trust, act like you knew better, bullshit. I don't sugar coat and bad advise is worse than disease.

[quote="GµårÐïåñ"]all that argument about why its ok for them to do it and why its almost expected is respectfully bullshit.[/quote]
And this is exactly why getting line breaks right is important. You didn't understand MenuDigger's post at all, did you?

Haven't you seen how I respond to those who write drivel on this board? ;)

@MenuDigger, while I appreciate what barbaz politely called a poem, I am more blunt and consider it to be an anonymous post that clearly you didn't want to stand behind. You would be wrong in that the security promised is easily achieved and honored by not collecting them or if you do for analytics, you should't be selling it. Simple, so all that argument about why its ok for them to do it and why its almost expected is respectfully bullshit.

Just think the level of access NoScript has to your life. If Giorgio can respect you not to sell that data and frankly not even collect it to begin with, then anyone who claims to be non-evil actor can do that too. So no excuses are justified, none at all. The simplicity by which personal data can be decoded is irrelevant in the bad act.

@MenuDigger: Nice poem, but that form of writing is hard to read on forums, like in this type way -
[img]http://i.psyche.me/walloftext.gif[/img]

Please adjust your use of line breaks for future posts here, thanks. [img]http://i.psyche.me/smiley_p.gif[/img]

Big Data,Small World.
Anonymising?
This is an approach developed by medical and social researchers
that aimed to prevent accidental display of names when databases
were displayed in the context of a working session; the best example
would be say, when a terminal operator is listing members of a
medical study cohort, or when a clerk is issuing notices to individuals
with some kind of communicable disease. It was designed to
stop any single person snooping at a very basic level.
Reversing the anonymisation of most of these formulae is easily
done with birthdays, locations, those kinds of basic ID data.
These algorithms weren't designed to be reverse proof.
Indeed, as Cory Doctorow argues, information in will always
yield information out - one way or another.

Big Data operators have conveniently subverted the term to imply
much more privacy protection than it can deliver.
An IP and a few bits of browsing patterns are oh so easy to
reverse these days.
I don't believe even the most trustworthy of organisations that
complete privacy is possible with most datasets these days.
Moz is just following the herd and can't be held up as any
paradigm in a sea of data collectors.

Even more reason to run around the Net with Tails, Tor, and
all versions of disposable sessions available.