pcause writes: Adblock Plus already lets a lot of ads through its filters if companies pay it. Now it is going to create a body to decide what other ads should get through its filters. The body will have advertisers, publisher and "the public". But since advertisers and publishers created the problem in the first place and given the IAB's various positions on ad blocking, can we expect them to have tight rules to prevent tracking and other abuses? Not a chance. Switch to a better blocker now to show your displeasure with the entire acceptable ads stuff, since it doesn't address the problems. I switched to uBlock when it first came out and it is great.
pcause writes: I think any developer who looked at Windows 8 and Metro knew that metro isn't Windows at all. Windows RT is the "WIndows for SRM" and it is all Metro and none of Windows. This article discusses that Microsoft's top legal eagle seems to admit this and agree.
pcause writes: There has been a lot of press about Pinterest and copyright infringement. Pinterest says that they are protected by the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions, but is this true? Many point to Youtube, but there is a crucial difference. With Pinterest (and Facebook too) the company's code/servers go and directly get the images off of pages that have copyright notices. There is actual work to find the images and retrieve them but that same work could easily spot the copyright notices and not provide images from copyrighted pages. Youtube received files from users and wasn't involved in actually extracting the files and hence was more like email. They did noting active to obtain the images.
Am I wrong? Isn't it like me being pointed to a copyrighted magazine by someone and cutting out the pictures and using them to publish my own magazine?
pcause writes: This article on Howtogeek reports the results of a survey by a company called Best Vendor on the tools developers use. Interesting to look at. Hadn't heard of Best Vendor but the Best Vendor site is kind of interesting as well.
pcause writes: According to this article and apparently confirmed by a Facebook engineer, even when you are logged out of facebook they are still tracking you. The quoted engineer explains that this tracking is only for security related purposes. Maybe, but the bigger question is does this need to be disclosed and does it violate an implied contract with web users as to what logging out means?
pcause writes: Most of the consumer web tracking is done by third party cookies. An ad network or ad targetting service puts cookies on your system to watch where you go and uses this ti figure out what to give you for ads and to build a profile. All of the major browsers have the ability to block third party cookies. The question is why they do't make this the default behavior, as doing so would immediately reduce unwanted tracking, especially if Flash respected this setting.
pcause writes: The WSJ reports that Larry Page knew Google was running illegal ads, but went for the money over what was legal and right. From the article — "Larry Page knew what was going on," Peter Neronha, the Rhode Island U.S. Attorney who led the probe, said in an interview. "We know it from the investigation. We simply know it from the documents we reviewed, witnesses that we interviewed, that Larry Page knew what was going on."
Google is as greedy and corrupt as anyone other big company.
pcause writes: It seems the Obama administration thinks we need a unique ID for the Internet. Do we need this so the advertisers can better track us and invade our privacy? Or does the government want to be able to track everything we do? Of course they say it is secure and more private and not a national ID. They also say they're fixing the economy, reducing the deficit and.....
pcause writes: Google recently stopped Facebook from importing contacts from Gmail, as this article from Wired discusses. All very interesting, but isn't the real issue that the list of my friends doesn't and shouldn't belong to Google, Facebook or anyone else. Isn't this mine and shouldn't I have control of who can have access? After all, by this logic Google could claim to own my email messages.
pcause writes: Here is yet more proof of the arrogance of the leadership of Google. Eric Schmidt says that if you don't like Street View taking your picture, move! Wow, this guy really doesn't have any clue about civility, privacy and just how to keep his mouth shut when his brain has something dumb to say.
Why is Google so eager to champion Flash as opposed to a set of standards they, Apple and Microsoft *all* agree on?
pcause writes: This article in Ars Technica discussed a proposal by a Virginia Congressman to give you back control of your privacy and make use of your personal and behavioral information opt-in. This scares the pants off of Google and they are trying to scare us with stories of how horrible the Internet will be if we have privacy. It will be terrible for Google's business, as they make more money the more they abuse your privacy, and they make a LOT of money!