Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:That's good (Score 1) 141 141

Why are we letting this hypothetical employer off the hook for basing their hiring decision on this non-issue? That's my question.

The narrative that you pose is one where people must be protected from the unreasonable views and actions of third parties as a result of finding information out efficiently. Is that feasible, practical, reasonable? And how are we to ascertain if it is worthwhile? By what metric?

Comment: Re:Ugh (Score 4, Insightful) 126 126

Ad blocking was born in response to the arms race advertisers launched (and lets be fair here, also the websites that hosted them) where their ads became increasingly intolerable, obnoxious, disturbing and disruptive (to simple reading comprehension, never mind anything else). This behaviour *necessitated* a response; intitially simple pop-up blockers (now integrated into browsers AS STANDARD!) and gradually moving forward.

If anything, we've seen a lull in hostilities for the past few years as ad blockers have proved very successful, limited only by their install base.

The next round will probably involve websites refusing to show content until adblocking software is disabled (seen here and there already) and if/as this becomes more prevalent, ad blockers responding with stealthing mechanisms.

Since users ultimately own the rendering device, I'm not certain the advertisers can ever win. And god knows, they lost the moral argument long, long ago.

Comment: Re:Hijacking my friends' email addresses (Score 1) 144 144

Can't companies be fined for spamming in the USA?
The statement that Uber wants the "ability to send special offers to riders' friends or family" is a clear declaration to spam, since a person *cannot* opt someone else into recieving marketing emails.
Seems like any activity based on exploiting such contacts in said manner would clearly land Uber with not insignificant fines and/or criminal prosecution.
(IANAL etc.)
 

Comment: Re:bye (Score 3, Informative) 531 531

Also on the top right of a new tab is a settings 'cog' where you can choose "Enhanced", "Classic" or "Blank" so you can easily turn this off.

The details are fairly straightforward and are laid out on this page.

Some choice exerpts to soothe the paniced minds:

Easy to control

Tiles are easily pinned, moved around or removed using simple drag-and-drop and close interfaces. If you do not want to see any Tiles, you can deactivate them completely in two clicks through the new tab gear control.
Respects your privacy

What data is being collected?

Mozilla collects Tiles related data such as number of clicks, impressions and Tile specific data (e.g. position and size of grid) to help Mozilla determine how frequently the Tile has been seen or interacted with, as well as your IP address (collected by Firefox, quickly translated into a region code and then deleted).
What data is collected when I opt out?

No data is collected when a user deactivates the Enhanced Tiles experience.

Comment: Re:bad but creating false evidence trails is worse (Score 4, Informative) 46 46

>"Parallel Construction" [wikipedia.org] is a fundamental part of police work now.

So true and yet an utterly chilling sentence.

A DEA official said, "Parallel construction is a law enforcement technique we use every day. It's decades old, a bedrock concept."

Where the state is engaging in perjury, openly and without shame, what justice can there be?

Comment: Re:Not Censorship (Score 2) 285 285

>If I own a newspaper I can decide what I publish in the paper.
If you own a newspaper, you pay people to write FOR you. These people are your employees.
If you host a *public* blogging platform, you can certainly disallow what people are allowed to publish there, but you don't get to not call it censorship.

Comment: Re:Not Censorship (Score 1) 285 285

Oh please. Why do people (mostly American) trot out this narrow, legalistic, definition of "censorship"?

Blogger is a site where the public can post their communications. If Blogger is deciding certain communications are unacceptable and is either hiding them or disallowing them entirely, it's still censorship.

Just because Google isn't a government, doesn't mean it can't engage in censorship.

God helps them that themselves. -- Benjamin Franklin, "Poor Richard's Almanac"

Working...