Google CEO Schmidt Predicts End of Online Anonymity 591
Andorin writes "A tweet from the EFF pointed me to a short article detailing part of Eric Schmidt's speech to the Techonomy conference in Lake Tahoe on August 4. According to Schmidt, true transparency and anonymity on the Internet will become a thing of the past because of the need to combat criminal and 'anti-social' behavior. 'Governments will demand it,' he says, referring to full accountability and a 'name service for people,' possibly hinting towards mandatory Internet passports. The CEO of Google also made a couple of somewhat creepy references to the availability of information: 'If I look at enough of your messaging and your location, and use artificial intelligence, we can predict where you are going to go ... show us 14 photos of yourself and we can identify who you are. You think you don't have 14 photos of yourself on the internet? You've got Facebook photos!'"
No, I don't (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Beat me to it ... same here.
Re:No, I don't (Score:5, Insightful)
That doesn't stop your friends (or enemies) from posting photos and tagging them with your name...
Re:No, I don't (Score:4, Insightful)
Who DOESNT set their facebook as friends-only? This applies to photos friends tag of you too, at least if someone is going through your profile to try to find them. I'm not sure if the tag can be indexed and searched from elsewhere if the friends has his photos open to the public?
Either way, I'm sick of people claiming "lol you has a facebook!", as if a private friends-only website implies you're OK with a public open-to-everyone display of your personal information, posts, etc. If anything it implies the exact opposite - the friends-only nature of facebook is exactly why it's so popular. Just look at the backlash every time Facebook has tried to force people's private information public.
Re:No, I don't (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The entire thing, it looks like facebook has you hook line and sinker. Even if your settings are set to private.. you trust facebook not to "share" this information with "trusted" partners? I certainly dont trust facebook after
Facebook has tried to force people's private information public
Re:No, I don't (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree completely. I think most people have confused being curteous to others which is not the same as respect. Curteousness should be automatic respect is to be earned.
Re:No, I don't (Score:5, Funny)
I deliberately used the Goates image for my profile. Anyone searching for it deserves to be horribly scarred for the rest of their life as I don't use facebook
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So all you have to do to counteract that is create a facebook account and post someone else's pictures to it as your own - use Eric Schmidt's.
Fortunately I don't live in a country slave to a two-party system. The government demands too much, we kick them out - because WE are the government, and they need to be reminded of that once in a while.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Even so... (Score:5, Insightful)
Facebook isn't really the area of new risk. The area that's going to see the most impact if his prediction of "Internet Passports" is that of whistle-blowers, the non-violent but anti-establishment types, and of course the "criminal class", the never-to-be-forgiven felons, sex offenders and so on who are already locked out (by policy) of Facebook; people who are criminal by law such as adult drug users or polygamists who are actually engaged in consensual, informed, adult activities (which, IMHO, makes the government the actual criminal entity.) And I've probably forgotten some important other classes of people who need anonymity in order to pursue even normal Internet activity -- certainly if they're going to speak their minds in a hostile environment, whatever the current public opinion of them is. For some people, simply being atheist is enough to earn them severe censure in their own communities. Who are we to say they *must* be outed?
I really don't think it's a good idea to support repressive ideas like Schmidt's. Anonymity is what enables many of the "squeaky wheels" in the system; lose it, and you force those people truly underground, making even the act of speaking anonymously on the Internet a crime, instead of just a choice.
This is really a highly repressive idea -- it's not going too far to call it evil, frankly. An "Internet Passport" would be a very bad thing for the tatters of liberty and freedom we have left in the USA. For countries that have even less freedom, the Internet is the single gateway to freedom of expression that depends upon anonymity. Anonymous voices from repressive countries bring the world's attention to the plight of various individuals and classes; they really do make a difference. Should those people need an "Internet passport", their ability to speak out will be outright amputated.
Re:but... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:No, I don't (Score:5, Funny)
There is almost nobody with my name....but amusingly enough there is someone from almost the same town with the same name.....google away, I am not that guy. Wish I had his money...
It might seem funny now, but wait until thugs beat you up and piss on your rug. That rug really ties the room together.
Re:No, I don't (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No, I don't (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No, I don't (Score:5, Insightful)
It ain't just your name (Score:3, Funny)
I won't take any bets on anyone finding you with "just" your name. That depends on who is looking, how many resources they can spend on the matter, and how dedicated they are.
But, the thing is, they don't HAVE to just go with your name. You know someone on Facebook - Mama, sister, brother, the geek in the marching band - SOMEONE. Most likely, you know half a dozen people or more. When one of them posted your photo(s) some of the other saw them, and commented. The IP address of each commenter is availab
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm just going out on a limb here, Eric, but I don't think that Google requires a lot of photos to find out where you and Dave live. Dave works at UXC, if I'm not mistaken. Are you still at Bluevest?
I know exactly who you guys are and it took me less than five minutes of meatspace time. Imagine a beowulf cluster of me armed with warrants, Google's hardware, and a sense of righteous indignation.
Re:No, I don't (Score:4, Informative)
Re:No, I don't (Score:4, Funny)
I've been avoiding photos for as long as I can remember. It's unlikely that there were more than a dozen taken (analog and digital combined) over the past 20 years...
I therefore doubt there are [that m]any available on the Net.
Re:No, I don't (Score:5, Informative)
Do you live in a big city with street cameras? Ever had a driver's license or other photo ID? Ever been to an airport or government building? There are photos of you all over the place.
Re:No, I don't (Score:5, Interesting)
Ever had a driver's license or other photo ID?
Maybe he lives in New Hampshire and exercised his right to have them delete the photo out of DMVs database after printing his license?
Gods, why can't all the states be that progressive.....
Re:No, I don't (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No, I don't (Score:4, Insightful)
What progressive cause reduces personal rights? Mandatory health care? Not being beholden to your employer, or an insurance company that can drop you on a whim greatly increases personal freedom. Financial reform? A stable economy increases personal freedom. Alternative energy? I'd certainly like to have the personal freedom to choose sustainable energy sources and not support oppressive regimes.
Seriously, what progressive cause are you thinking of? Or did Glenn Beck just tell you progressives were bad?
Re:No, I don't (Score:4, Interesting)
All positive rights infringe on individual liberty.
Real rights are universal, meaning there is on logical contradiction if all people exercise the right.
Speech is like that. My having the right to say what I want does not prevent someone else from saying what they want.
A "right" to be guaranteed food, for example, is not. Under this model if don't have food then my right is being violated and the only way to correct this is to have food taken away from someone else. This is not a universal right because clearly not everybody in the world can have the right to have someone else's food.
Positive rights define two classes of people: people who are entitled to receive something from someone else, and another class of people who are required to produce a surplus in order to satisfy the first group. There's a name for this kind of arrangement but I'll let you figure that out on your own.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Extending your logic, it's clear that if my continued existence will cause you to die (as happens in shortage situations) then either you or I have no right to life.
So the only rights we have are to try.
We can try to escape, try to live, try to obtain property.
The fact is most things we consider rights are granted by us to ourselves as a group.
And all the philosophy in the world won't stop a person with a rock or stick in their hand from taking everything you have including your life.
The elite of our societ
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ugh, I hate ideologues. When will you guys realize that a mindless logical consistency is utterly unjustifiable in the face of a thoughtful pragmatism? Libertarianism is a good, humanistic sentiment tarred by a callous application of rigor.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Real rights are universal, meaning there is on logical contradiction if all people exercise the right.
Like, oh, the right to universal health care? The right of workers to organize? The right to not be defrauded by our financial institutions? None of these bear any contradictions if everyone exercises these rights. In fact, if everyone demanded these rights they would be much stronger.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No it's not. No one is allowed to prevent you from obtaining and carrying said arm but no one is obligated to provide you with one either. That's the difference.
Yes it is. Your right to own a gun forces me to find extra protections from crazy people with guns.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the natural state of man is anarchy, why do we have so very few places where anarchy is the actual state of affairs?
Here's the thing that bothers me about social contract theory: it's fundamentally flawed once it gets past small groups, just like communism. It doesn't work when enforcement of the contract is not universal or absolute (read: always), nor when the contract is not fully agreed upon by
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What progressive cause reduces personal rights? Mandatory health care?
Yes actually... I have a right to get healthcare, if I want it. Mandatory takes away that right of choice. I can choose to not have healthcare and die in a ditch if I want. Mandatory is the opposite of personal freedom.
Not being beholden to your employer... greatly increases personal freedom.
I don't know about you, but I can leave my employer at any time and go to another one. Nobody is forcing me to take their money for my work.
Financial reform? A stable economy increases personal freedom.
It depends on what you mean by stable economy. Personally, I have a nest egg set back for hard times and I feel a great amount of personal freedom,
holy crap, libertarians (Score:3, Insightful)
Dude, this is mind-bogglingly dumb. Sure, you have the right to go die in a ditch. You also have the right to stop eating and starve, or the right to hold your breath until you pass out. Practically speaking, though, no one chooses to die in a ditch, starve, or pass out (with certain minor ex
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes actually... I have a right to get healthcare, if I want it. Mandatory takes away that right of choice. I can choose to not have healthcare and die in a ditch if I want. Mandatory is the opposite of personal freedom.
You can still go die in a ditch. In fact, I encourage you to. There are a vanishingly small amount of people who choose to exercise their freedom to die in a ditch. There are millions of Americans who have gained the freedom to buy healthcare. This is a net win for freedom.
I don't know ab
Re:No, I don't (Score:4, Informative)
You're free to pay a fine to the government if you don't want any health care. You knew that, right?
High taxation and a crippling debt reduces freedom. Bailing out certain companies and not others is government control of the economy. Cronyism is not freedom.
In my state, we can choose which company we buy our electricity from. That came from a net REDUCTION in government regulation (the incumbent power company had to allow access to its lines in exchange for removing a cap). I can also choose which company I buy buy fuel oil from. If I don't want to use oil, I can switch to gas or an electrical system that's powered by a utility or by solar or wind technologies. So what progressive gave me these rights, again? It's only government that REMOVES my right to do these things: by state-mandated monopolies, subsidies that artificially lower or raise prices, and local zoning and state regulations that discourage the use of alternative energy or certain kinds of alternative energy.
Maybe it's time you started realizing that having every facet of our lives regulated by the government is not the normal way of things, and that we're not supposed to be happy about our "liberal" society because the government decided to throw us a few scraps. Try reading about the enlightenment and social contracts.
Re:No, I don't (Score:4, Insightful)
Because progressive these days is moving away from personal rights, not towards more.
Progressives have always favored increasing government power, which inherently means reducing individual rights. The base idea of progressives is running society "scientifically". Progressives believe that allowing people to make their own decisions on a variety of things (exactly which things varies from progressive to progressive) is inefficient and that society would function much better if those decisions were made by some central authority who can identify the best way to do something and then mandate that everyone do it that way.
The root of progressive is progress. In the late 19th century the idea was that science was finding new and better ways to do things, but many people were resisting these new and better ways out of stubbornness and ignorance. Of course, it turns out that many of those 19th "new and better" ways of doing things were actually worse (and often not really new either), but today's progressives have learned from the mistakes of thier predecessors and so they have different "new and better" ways of doing things.
As you might guess, I do not believe the modern progressives have learned the most ipmortant lesson from thier predecessors. That being that a central planner cannot know enough to make better decisions than the people who are actually going to have to live with the results of the decision (at least not often enough to offset the misery that will result when they are wrong).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because progressive these days is moving away from personal rights, not towards more.
Not necessarily! Exhibit A: Same-sex marriage.
Beyond that, any honest view of freedom can't help but be: it's complicated.
For example, traffic laws restrict my freedoms to drive straight through any intersection at any time if I want to, my freedom to drive on whichever side of the road I want to, and more. On the other hand, they also create a much greater freedom to move about the country quickly than I would otherwis
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Gods, why can't all the states be that progressive.....
Because some of us aren't paranoid and couldn't give half a shit about a mug shot being present in a state database, when their use for it is obvious and clear. Get over yourself.
Re:No, I don't (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, it started way before G. W. Bush. Bill Clinton had CARNIVORE. Nixon wiretapped radical groups without a warrant (which was the impetus for FISA). The Olmstead case of 1928 was when government wiretapping was declared constitutional- which was well before G. W. was even born.
Re:No, I don't (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No, I don't (Score:5, Insightful)
and ya know what, those friends of yours talk about you when you're not around too.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you don't have Facebook doesn't mean you don't have pics out there.
I've posted 1 image of myself that's actually me, there are 5 friends who have pictures that I'm in posted. Grand total of 6. Guess the Google-Boys don't know all. :p
Re: (Score:2)
You have just given them the info that there are exactly 6 pictures of you on facebook, that should help them narrow it down ;)
Re: (Score:2)
So, the good side of censorship?
Re:No, I don't (Score:5, Informative)
Just because you don't have a Facebook profile doesn't mean that people can't upload compromising pictures of you to Facebook. Furthermore, you can still be tagged by name in photos even if there's no profile to link to.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are pictures but not compromising ones unless by compromising you mean tied to my name.
You see I am old and boring now. I don't drink at all. I am married and faithful to my wife. In other words I am now as dull as dirt.
In my college days cameras used this stuff called film. People didn't carry them with them at all times and never to bars or parties.
So their are no pictures of my none boring miss spent youth.
That is why we call them the good old days.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No kidding. I came to the internet from BBSes. Handles originated because it was hard to fit everyone's full name into 8 characters.
And you know what? I'm still using handles today. Handles and limited photo exposure for THIS EXACT REASON. I value my privacy and I value my anonymity. And y'know what? Every idiot I know who is doing/has done criminal behavior eventually trip themselves up, so claiming that you need to strip away everyone's anonymity to catch the criminals is not just ludicrious, it's CRIMINA
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah no photos of me ... no Facebook account!
Same here, /. is as social as I get. I guess that could be considered by some as sad. Those attention whore social sites annoy the hell out of me. Hmmm, I guess I'm anit-social and therefore could be considered a threat. You just can't be left alone.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
First of all, the police can tie your Slashdot account to your name in less than 24 hours if they really need. Slashdot will provide your IP and your ISP will provide your name and address. It works a bit differently in different countries, but they pretty much will get it if you are the suspect in a criminal investigation of any importance.
Secondly, that statement by Schmidt in TFA was just his wallet talking. When you use free (as in free beer) services on the Internet, you are the product, advertisers ar
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Me either. TFS says the need to combat criminal and 'anti-social' behavior
Copyright infringement, computer intrusion, child porn... is there anything else that's against the law you can do on the internet? And why just on the internet? Why not make everyone simply wear a badge with a number on it like The Prisoner? [wikipedia.org] After all, I could commit a crime offline, too. Hell, I smoked a joint last night, better put a camera in my bedroom. That's where it looks like we're going, only instead of as small island, ever
And the internet... (Score:5, Interesting)
... will just fight back. The idea they can end internet anonymity is bullshit, programmers and smart people can always way's to game the system.
Fuck the doomed (Score:3, Insightful)
What about 99% of the population who won't take the time to carefully maintain pseudo anonymous identities?
Fuck 'em. It's their complacency and ignorance that has put us in this situation, and is forcing their betters to waste inordinate amounts of their time developing cryptographic and other methods of protecting the privacy they should be able to enjoy be default.
They get exactly what they deserve.
Re:Fuck the doomed (Score:5, Insightful)
It's becoming more and more about exploitation of the user.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I do sometimes wonder...
Speaking as a former sysop of a THG [wikipedia.org] dist site and member of iCE [wikipedia.org], you can wonder no longer: it was.
I would gladly give up my high speed internet and go back to 9600 baud if it meant we could be free from all these goddamned fucking idiots.
Re:Fuck the doomed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Then that premise will be simply part of "gaming the system".
Re:Fuck the doomed (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't expect everyone to have working technical knowledge in cryptographic systems and anonymity.I think it would be the duty of those who still have free speech to spread the information to the rest of the population.
Thats absurd to say its everyone fault except those who know how to fight back or understand the broader nature of the issue. So your average citizen can now be screwed by his government when he is looking in the wrong direction and its his fault because he is an idiot and gets what he deserves? Seriously?
I understand you got to stand up for your rights, but we all got to help each other out.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I totally understand this way of looking at it, because emotionally, that's how I see it too. But rationally, it's wrong/impractical. The doomed will take you down with them, or at least make things more difficult for people who are trying to do the right thing. You will get what they deserve.
Take email privacy, for example. This is ludicrously easy problem to solve. We aren't waiting for any tech to show up; we have it right now and have had it for a couple decades, yet its usage is rare. None of my
Re:And the internet... (Score:4, Interesting)
You are under arrest for the murder of Donald Kaufman.
We haven't found the body, but nobody has seen him in years and we have evidence connecting you to Mr. Kaufman.
This will not end well (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect that entire subnets of the Internet will be encrypted and continue to allow anonymity. Not to mention, there is always your public library or Internet cafe. It's not like spies will stop using the Internet, so "solutions" to this problem will inevitably surface.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not every country will require it. Not to mention you could encrypt everything you do while you are connected, effectively making everything you do hidden. This might even open up a whole new black market for "connection laundering". :p
Re:This will not end well (Score:4, Insightful)
I rather doubt that would pass Constitutional muster in the United States, given that SCOTUS has an extensive history of upholding the right to anonymous political discourse. I also doubt it would fly in the Scandinavian countries. Not so sure about the rest of the world (the British seem to be competing with themselves to see who can surrender their civil liberties the fastest....) but that's not really my concern as an American.....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The U.S. could always just create some new law, like the USA PATRIOT Act [wikipedia.org],
Man who makes money from tracking web activity... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Are there FBI agents trolling through this discussion waiting to pounce on the GNAA?
This is slashdot. They'd need a steamroller.
Re:Man who makes money from tracking web activity. (Score:5, Informative)
It is one of the reasons they will give.
Anti-Social Behavior Order [wikipedia.org]. Governments consider it their business to deal with all behavior.
Self-fulfilling prophecy (Score:5, Insightful)
What Schmidt actually meant was "True transparency and anonymity on the Internet will become a thing of the past because we here at Google can make a bundle by eliminating it. Advertisers, governments, you want it, we got it!"
Re:Self-fulfilling prophecy (Score:4, Insightful)
All for marketing (Score:5, Insightful)
Worrying (Score:5, Insightful)
This seeming blazay attitude, coupled with his comments a while back where he said something like "People only need privacy when they're doing something they shouldn't be" really worries me, since he commands a lot of power and sway online. Eric, imagine if someone posted a video of you taking a dump and posted it on youtube, your views on privacy and "I have nothing to hide" might change...
He's probably right in that every government will want online identity, of course they would. But it's up to us to battle for "what is right" and we always hoped Google would help us. If he just rolls over and accepts it, that's terrible for us.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What worries me is the general lack of resistance to it and the acceptance of "oh well, that's how it's going, that's what we'll do".
There, FTFY.
Re:Worrying (Score:4, Informative)
It's blasé. For goodness' sake, read a book!
Hey Frenchy! (Score:5, Funny)
No (Score:3, Insightful)
No, we changed the spelling. Do stop reading books and keep up!
Re: (Score:2)
What worries me is that he will use his lobbyists to get laws passed that will ensure the force of law requires the elimination of online anonymity.
If you want to access your healthcare records or use the DMV, you have to log in to your Google managed government user-account that looks like and acts like Facebook.
Re:Worrying (Score:5, Insightful)
What worries me is his lack of resistance to it and his acceptance of "oh well, that's how it's going, that's what we'll do".
As others have pointed out he's not just accepting it, he is actively promoting it. All Schmidt cares about is profits for Google and if he
can get the Govts of the world to help him he would love nothing more then to build the Grand Unified DB that will track and report everything
we do. Governments win, advertisers win and Google makes ridiculous money from it all.
Don't be evil died when this guy took reigns at Google. Where the F are Sergey and Larry now? What do the think about the death of anonymity?
You cant catch me Eric Schmidt (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You cant catch me Eric Schmidt (Score:5, Funny)
Hi Carl.
Erm... (Score:5, Interesting)
"show us 14 photos of yourself and we can identify who you are"
I highly doubt that. I assume we're talking about a globally unique identification of a single individual. I call crap, given that we can't even do that with anything at all - fingerprints, DNA, or anything else. No biometric is that good. And, besides, if you have 14 photos of me, you know who I am anyway - I'm the guy who's in the photo. It doesn't exactly prove much at all, or help you out unless the photo shows me doing something illegal and I need to be traced. I *guarantee* you that other humans will catch me from my photo in a newspaper before any computer-based system does, and probably with much smaller margins of error.
And 14 photos is a HELL of a lot. And it depends on their quality, and your clothing, and the lighting, and the angles, and the focus, and anything obscuring the picture, and the resolution. Otherwise you're magical "14 photos" system could be used on 14 frames of any CCTV footage and instantly pinpoint the criminal. See what a ridiculous assertion that is?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fourteen photos is nothing considering how many cameras there are flying around all over public areas. They have cameras at airports that can take a photo with HUNDREDS of people on them and identify their faces from a database within seconds. The 14 photos of you don't have to come from your limited view of the Internet (consider every place you've been that has had a camera: banks, airports, schools, etc.). There is a lot more information out there collected about you than you can being to imagine.
Once
A bit of overkill (Score:5, Interesting)
If there is a problem with online banking, why not put all the banks in a different net, accessible only to identified persons? Putting all the websites in an ID-net, for the problem of just one small segment of the whole net, seems a bit of an overkill.
Sadly... (Score:3, Insightful)
He is right. I do not like it, but he is right.
This quote interested me most (Score:2)
You think you don't have 14 photos of yourself on the internet? You've got Facebook photos!'
The learned Mr. Schmidt should know that there are folks like me for who, Facebook and themselves do not mix [for now] and probably will not for the foreseeable future.
This is Why I Avoid Google Products (Score:3, Interesting)
Everyone loves gmail & google apps. But it came out early on that google had no respect for people's privacy. I've avoided every on-line product of theirs besides google search & earth.
No they'd just like to have you think that (Score:5, Insightful)
Creepy (Score:5, Insightful)
And Google wonders why nobody wants to join their social network? Schmidt makes Zuckerberg look good.
they can demand it all they want.. (Score:2)
if it was something you could just decide and make it happen by being the "government" then we would already be there with non-anonymous internet.
and what good is having the supposed identity of some guy who -doesn't even have a real identity from his goverment- logged into the computer on the other side of the globe in some cafe. so schmidt, fuck you, y
And to prove his point (Score:5, Funny)
You've got Facebook photos! (Score:3, Insightful)
No I don't.
Re: (Score:3)
What are you hiding, then? Don't try to deny it, you have things to hide! Things you don't want to be public... Bad things...
You must be a terrorist or a pedophile or something!
May Google save us from your kind!
Do you have friends on FB? (Score:3, Insightful)
Google thinks I'm an anime character (Score:4, Interesting)
Performing a Google image search for my name (which is pretty unique, I'm really the only person on the internet with my first/last name combo), and I get a lot of anime character images. And on facebook, well, they'll think I look like my cat. So, unless you "play by the rules", it's unlikely they are going to be able to *really* identify you.
As for the whole privacy issue: I would suggest that someone start a website ala Wikileaks, where they publish everything known about every corporation, and make that publically accessible. If I want to know the BP CEO's home address, how much he makes, his social security number, yadda yadda, then perhaps there will be more concern over privacy.
The only way to win is to turn it around. If citizens can't have privacy, then neither should corporations or governments. We should be working hard to open up these areas. Right now corporations have a powerful position because they are essentially running the government, and they know more about us then we do about them. But it's time we turned the tables on them and re-took control.
When people fear their government, there is opression, but when government fears the people, there is freedom.
Cookie Exchange! Bugmenot! Trackmenot! (Score:3, Interesting)
Cookies can be exchanged with others or - better still - edited at random. Those cryptic hashes are unreadable anyway so why not replace them with some other random string every time a site or time limit is crossed?
More problematic are sites which use other sites for eg. authentication. When they say you can use your Google username to login just don't. Run your own OpenID server [keyboard-monkeys.org] and be creative with the accounts you create on it.
Flash and its ilk can be used to track you as well. This is made harder by making its configuration directory read-only - so it can not store its own 'cookies' (which are more like wedding pies given their size).
I've seen reports on the Chromium and Google Chrome browsers - and maybe others? - which claim they can send a UUID. If this is true - I have not verified the claim which might be nothing more than fear mongering - that code is ripe for some creative editing, if one UUID per browser is good then one per request is even better.
More ideas?
Poisoning the well (Score:3)
We might not be able to keep our information off of the internet, but how about poisoning the well? Put up pictures of yourself on flickr, facebook, etc labelled as being somebody else. Buy unusual things, subscribe to contradictory news feeds. Open a fake facebook account and post status reports of you doing things you'd never do. Everyone knows that you can't trust what you read on the Internet; governments and corporations should be taught the same lesson?