# Lifestyles & Discussion > Privacy & Data Security >  Google, Facebook: "Do Not Track" Bill a Threat to California Economy

## DamianTV

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...-track-law.ars




> Google and Facebook are warning legislators of dire consequences if California passes a "do not track" bill. The proposed law would require companies doing online business in the Golden State to offer an "opt-out" privacy mechanism for consumers.
> 
> Senate Bill 761 "would create an unnecessary, unenforceable and unconstitutional regulatory burden on Internet commerce," says the letter in opposition to the measure. "The measure would negatively affect consumers who have come to expect rich content and free services through the Internet, *and would make them more vulnerable to security threats*."
> 
> (more on link)


*LIE!!!*

The last quoted Bold comment is the biggest flat out and out lie I have heard yet!  How does not being tracked make someone vunerable to security threats?  It does not.  If that information was not out there to begin with, people would be that much less vunerable.  Its like announcing that you've won a Million Dollar Cash Prize on the Radio, as well as giving out your Full Name and might as well throw in your Street Address while youre at it, then wondering why you just got robbed.

The Foundation of Privacy is so far eroded that we now build business models on the expectation that people should have NO Privacy.  When we do that, everything that comes after will be based on that.  And should it ever falter, the whole system will come crashing down.  This can not continue.  The less that people fight for their privacy by signing up with websites like Facebook and not bothering to Block Cookies from advertisers, the harder it will be to restore ones Privacy once it is completely gone.  For those of you that dont know what Facebook is, I will explain it briefly.  They think they can find out a helluva lot of information about you, but some things arent known yet, please fill in our blanks.

You dont have any control over that information that is out there.  You just ADD to the list of known things about you.  It wouldnt take much effort to plant false information about you.  And since you dont even have any access to see the data, you have absolutely no recourse to correct it, or have it removed.

But they are just Tracking me so they can make money, whats the big deal?  Stop looking at who is doing the collecting, rather pay more attention to who they are selling your information TO.  GPS Maker Tom Tom was recently caught selling your data to the Police so they could issue you Speeding Tickets without even having an Accuser.  It is a lot less likely that you will be able to control the data once companies like Tom Tom get ahold of it, thus, the better scenario is to make sure that the company doing the tracking doesnt get ahold of it in the first place.  It is a lot easier to keep a $5 bill in your pocket if it is in your pocket rather than trying to get it back from a thief.  And who knows, maybe that thief would be willing to End Your Life to acquire your $5 bucks and whatever else was in your wallet?

So, who else may have valued their Privacy?  Maybe... I dont know, The Jews?  If that information was not being coerced out of people to begin with, they may have faired better against the hollocaust.

The thing is, there wont be another Hollocaust again.  At least, not targetting a group of people based on their religious preferences.  No, this time, it will be much much worse.  They will come after you because you voted in a Facebook poll that says you smoked a joint once.  They wont come for your neighbor at the exact same time.  They will pick you off one by one.  What happens when the Death Penalty is extended to Lesser Crimes?  You know pot is considered to be a helluva lot more dangerous than Heroin or Cocaine?  Its information like that will be used to extend your capture and arrest, mostly so they can fine the $#@! out of you, and we all know it has nothing to do with the drug itself, or children, its about them making money.  And your Privacy stands between them and them getting more money.

Neither I, or any other person on this planet will ever be able to exactly list the number of ways that your Invasion of Privacy can negatively affect your life.  I know I tend to focus on Facebook as it is a generalization of the Internet scope of your lack of Privacy, however, it extends to all walks of life.  GPS Transmitters in your car, Traffic Cams and Automatic License Plate Scanners, Retailer Tracking, those retarded Valued Customer Cards, RFID Drivers License and Passports, Retinal Scanners, Facial Recognition Software (which Facebook is now incorporating, for your "convenience"), and the Big Bad Mother of All Invasions of Privacy: The Implant.  Most of it will be used to soak as much money out of you as possible.  After all, that is the one thing that Thieves, Governments and Companies care about, its money, not you!

In a War, it is always convenient for you to surrender to the enemy.  You may not have any control over what happens to you once you surrender, but surely, it is not worth whatever it is that you are fighting for in the first place.  They may imprison you, they may just take what you have then let you go, and they may kill you.  Is any of that worth you surrendering your Privacy?

----------


## ChaosControl

FU Google/Facebook.

Ghostery FTW.

----------


## sailingaway

Hey, don't tell my my marxist government is actually doing something GOOD?

----------


## VBRonPaulFan

they are accurate in the fact that they'd be able to deliver a less rich, robust, and custom internet experience. google tracks a bunch of statistics on commonly visited pages, commonly visited content type, etc, to be able to deliver more relevant advertisement/web content to you based on what they seem to infer that you enjoy. as a programmer, that is easy to understand. however, i'd have to hear a pretty interesting argument for how this makes you more vulnerable to security threats. the most common attacks are universally designed and google/facebook doesn't need statistics on you to help protect you from them.

----------


## sailingaway

gee, my ads won't be as nosy!  I can miss that 'robustness'.

----------


## jtstellar

just stop giving those internet companies our intelligence contracts that make them unnecessarily essential and make their competitors who may offer non-spying services harder to compete

----------


## Humanae Libertas

This is actually coming from the same corrupt California legislature? I'm surprised. 


Meanwhile they want to ban open carry, register rifles/shotguns, and reinstate AB 962. If there is any government reform that is needed, it is definitely Sacramento.

----------


## DamianTV

> Hey, don't tell my my marxist government is actually doing something GOOD?


No $#@!!  I had to read that twice when I first saw it because I didnt believe it either.

---




> they are accurate in the fact that they'd be able to deliver a less rich, robust, and custom internet experience. google tracks a bunch of statistics on commonly visited pages, commonly visited content type, etc, to be able to deliver more relevant advertisement/web content to you based on what they seem to infer that you enjoy. as a programmer, that is easy to understand. however, i'd have to hear a pretty interesting argument for how this makes you more vulnerable to security threats. the most common attacks are universally designed and google/facebook doesn't need statistics on you to help protect you from them.


There are people out there that will appreciate what Google makes available for them.  Its basically the same way as the bar down the street from my house makes big juicy artery clogging hamburgers available to its customers.  It doesnt mean that I eat there, nor does it mean that I want to tell anyone else that they cant eat there.

The thing is about google and facebook is their idea of privacy shouldnt exist because it is an obstacle to their profits.  That is making a decision for someone else.  And that is NOT what Freedom is.  What they offer is the ILLUSION OF CHOICE.  People that dont block advertising cookies are only being shown Ads for products for companies that paid them.  It doesnt mean that those companies are the peoples only choices.  Like the way our politicians would have our voting system work.  The Illusion of Choice.  Pick between scumbag #1 and scumbag #2.  There!  See!  We respect your choice!  Ron Paul would be president right now and would have won in 2008 if they didnt resort to their dirty tactics to prevent the choice of the people of being heard.  And a lot more people would have heard of Ron Paul if the MSM would have acknowledged his existence.  But we know that isnt how the MSM works.  MSM gets funded by its advertisers, and those advertisers have a helluva lot more say in who they are going to put on the air than we do.

From the techical non privacy standpoint, and also speaking as a programmer, the volume of ads degrades the quality of my internet service.  Thus, the more ads that I can block and trackers that I redirect to 127.0.0.1, the less bandwidth I have to use to bring up a webpage.

Back on point.  The thing is, like you said VB, they "infer" that I will enjoy a product.  They are telling me what I should like because they get paid a great deal of money to do so.  And in order to do so, it comes at the price of my privacy.  They may actually someday be able to show me an ad that actually represents something I do want, but that choice wont be made because I've seen an ad, it will come from me doing research on whatever the product is that I might be interested in.  Whatever the product is, I dont purchase just because I've seen one accurately targetted ad.

But really, my big beef on all of this is Permission.  Advertisers do not ASK to track me.  They expect me to submit.  Every TV provider (Cable or Satellite) forces a Service Agreement that gives them permission to track what you watch on TV.  They expect it.  But the online advertisers dont even give a person a choice.  Barely an Illusion of Choice, but pretty much no choice at all if a person is not computer savvy.  They are the ones that set the standard if "there is no privacy".

People still value their privacy, but when they are given no opportunity to protect it, they feel helpless and just give up.

----------


## NYgs23

Am I missing something here? Because it sounds like piece of legislation, you know, _forces_ private businesses to comply with a government mandate. Mind you, I'm worried about but the extreme lack of privacy on the Internet too, including that engendered by private businesses; I avoid Google as much as possible for that very reason.

But using coercion to try to solve that problem is unjust and self-destructive. What happens when this becomes precedent for more intrusive government controls over the internet? If the government gets as much control over the Web as a currently has over transportation, what privacy will we have then? 

Let's not lose sight of our principles in the hope of short term gain. Fight for more privacy protection on the Web, but do so through voluntary means.

----------


## DamianTV

Well put.  

They are already trying to shove Internet ID's down our throats.  The same people that dont understand jack $#@! about technology, usually what I refer to as a twelve o'clock flasher (a person who doesnt know how to set the clock on their VCR, so it continuously flashes 12:00) are the ones that want both Internet Regulation, and stupid $#@! like Internet ID.  The people in office shouldnt be qualified to make any sort of legal decision based on the complexities of technology, let alone change a mercury filled light bulb.

----------


## sailingaway

> Am I missing something here? Because it sounds like piece of legislation, you know, _forces_ private businesses to comply with a government mandate. Mind you, I'm worried about but the extreme lack of privacy on the Internet too, including that engendered by private businesses; I avoid Google as much as possible for that very reason.
> 
> But using coercion to try to solve that problem is unjust and self-destructive. What happens when this becomes precedent for more intrusive government controls over the internet? If the government gets as much control over the Web as a currently has over transportation, what privacy will we have then? 
> 
> Let's not lose sight of our principles in the hope of short term gain. Fight for more privacy protection on the Web, but do so through voluntary means.


Except that the FEDERAL government encourages it by wanting to use it, and I'm sure google gets concessions in return for access.  It isn't like the government doesn't use their networks whenever they decide to.  If it were purely private company use, I'd trust my privacy more.  The corporations just want me to buy their toothpaste.

----------


## DamianTV

> Except that the FEDERAL government encourages it by wanting to use it, and I'm sure google gets concessions in return for access.  It isn't like the government doesn't use their networks whenever they decide to.  If it were purely private company use, I'd trust my privacy more.  The corporations just want me to buy their toothpaste.


Still think they just want you to buy their toothpaste?

----------


## youngbuck

I'll tell you what the biggest threat to the Californian economy is: the Californian government!

----------


## Petar

This is $#@!ing retarded. The government has no business regulating my relationship with Google. Curtailing the NSA on the other hand...

----------


## DamianTV

> This is $#@!ing retarded. The government has no business regulating my relationship with Google. Curtailing the NSA on the other hand...


What if you dont choose to do business with Google?  Do you still think they have a Right to track your every move on the internet?  And what about the other 100,000 trackers out there trying to do the same thing?  Did you come to the Ron Paul Forums expecting to not do any business with a company called Click Trax?  Silly you.  Oh, and where do you think the NSA gets all its data from?  AOL?

---

Edit:  Just out of curiousity, do you believe in "Nothing to Hide, Nothing to Fear"?

----------


## Petar

> What if you dont choose to do business with Google?  Do you still think they have a Right to track your every move on the internet?  And what about the other 100,000 trackers out there trying to do the same thing?  Did you come to the Ron Paul Forums expecting to not do any business with a company called Click Trax?  Silly you.  Oh, and where do you think the NSA gets all its data from?  AOL?
> 
> ---
> 
> Edit:  Just out of curiousity, do you believe in "Nothing to Hide, Nothing to Fear"?


Well, I know that no one forces me to use the Google search engine... I also know that no one forces me to use cookie settings that allow for me to be tracked... tell me again why this is any of Kalifornia's business?

----------


## DamianTV

If you get ripped off at a local Car Dealership, would you take them to court?  Would that not be the same?  (playing devils advocate...)  What is happening is you do business with RPF.com (for example), and Google wants a cut by ripping you off of your Privacy.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Well, I know that no one forces me to use the Google search engine... I also know that no one forces me to use cookie settings that allow for me to be tracked... tell me again why this is any of Kalifornia's business?


There are other purposes for cookies than click tracking.  Some sites keep info in cookies for local tracking, ie, knowing your preferences on their site (without the need for an account), etc...
Cookies can be a good thing, but like anything else can be abused.

----------


## CPUd

> What if you dont choose to do business with Google?  Do you still think they have a Right to track your every move on the internet?  And what about the other 100,000 trackers out there trying to do the same thing?  Did you come to the Ron Paul Forums expecting to not do any business with a company called Click Trax?  Silly you.  Oh, and where do you think the NSA gets all its data from?  AOL?
> 
> ---
> 
> Edit:  Just out of curiousity, do you believe in "Nothing to Hide, Nothing to Fear"?


It is the responsibility of the user to read and understand the terms before agreeing to them, when signing up to use a service.

----------


## DamianTV

Which is fine if it wasnt for every other tracker tracking through other trackers that are not disclosed.

----------


## better-dead-than-fed

> It is the responsibility of the user to read and understand the terms before agreeing to them, when signing up to use a service.


As it is also the responsibility of service providers to do:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ht-be-a-genius

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ithout-Reading



I like her.

So how can we write our own terms and conditions for trade with Google, etc. Thinking. Not clever like the Russian guy. Don't know what to do.

----------


## CPUd

Here is a good one that is definitely worth checking out:






> Terms And Conditions May Apply examines the cost of so-called 'free' services and the continuing disappearance of online privacy. People may think they know what they give up when they click 'I Agree' on companies like Facebook and Google. They're wrong.


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2084953

----------

