Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, Yahoo Form Alliance Against NSA 293
mrspoonsi writes "BBC reports: Leading global technology firms have called for 'wide-scale changes' to US government surveillance. Eight firms, Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, AOL, Microsoft, LinkedIn, and Yahoo, have formed an alliance called Reform Government Surveillance group. The group has written a letter to the US President and Congress arguing that current surveillance practice 'undermines the freedom' of people. It comes after recent leaks detailed the extent of surveillance programs. 'We understand that governments have a duty to protect their citizens. But this summer's revelations highlighted the urgent need to reform government surveillance practices worldwide,' the group said in an open letter published on its website."
Yeah (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
Surprisingly enough, I think this may be fairly serious. The big US Internet business are becoming increasingly scared that the spectre of NSA mass data-gathering is going to shut them out of markets outside the US.
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm amazed the foreign governments even consider ising an americal based OS (at any time really, but most certainly now) for anything that requires any level of security while also being internet connected. Really, the same goes for most software. It just seems like asking to be pwned.
Re: (Score:2)
There aren't many alternatives. And no, Linux is not always an alternative.
Re:Yeah (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux is always an alternative.
Re: (Score:3)
Linux is always an alternative.
That's what the NSA wants you to believe.
Re:Yeah (Score:4, Interesting)
Linux is always an alternative.
Not if the publisher of a particular business-critical application refuses to make it work in Wine, or the manufacturer of a particular business-critical peripheral refuses to provide a Linux driver.
If that publisher sees incentive (i.e. money) or disincentive (i.e. loss of money), they'll play ball. There are Point of Sale systems that work on top of Linux, some medical systems work on Linux, even your cell phone is likely to be based on Linux (Android). I can all but guarantee that if a government body or a sufficiently large corporation say "we love this, but need it to work on that", you'll see motion in that direction. Look at Valve's push to Linux. It's not a blowaway success, but it's certainly stirring things up.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometime in the past, I believe the government of China wanted the source code for windows 98, which they did not get ( at least that's how I recall it ). They were worries about some sort of plugin that was available to the US government that could capture and transmit whatever was happening. Someone de-compiled the code and did discover that there was some sort of plugin spot for such a thing ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is, in fact, pretty explicit on the website:
“People won’t use technology they don’t trust. Governments have put this trust at risk, and governments need to help restore it.”
—Brad Smith, General Counsel and Executive Vice President, Legal and Corporate Affairs, Microsoft
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
question: do these companies care about US or THEIR PROFITS (due to people turning away from their free online services)?
I'll give you one guess which of those it is.
in fact, those companies KNEW about the spying (they were asked by the gov, many many times, to reveal info about their users) but only NOW do they *act* like they care about us.
just an excuse to try to make themselves look good and stand along the side of citizens in what they perceive as an alignment.
but its all bullshit. those companies do not care one whit about our privacy. they DO care about a mass exodus away from their services to offshore ones and the fact that 'the cloud' is now seen as something to be avoided.
Re:Yeah (Score:4, Informative)
You really think the voters have a chance to make their voices heard?
Re: (Score:2)
Hasn't it been long so that in the US big companies determine the political course and the 4-yearly elections are a way to make the citizens have the impression that they have an influence?
Re:Yeah (Score:4, Interesting)
Is a bit different than that. They are complaining now because the revelation of this is making their paid users to stop using their services. They may or may not be worried about their users privacy, but for sure they are worried about their profits.
In the other hand, tif well they knew the cut of the cake they were getting, they didn't know about all the other companies into the same and how wide and deep were this. Also, the revelation on how the NSA infiltrated their internal network [washingtonpost.com] without their knowledge or consent could had raised some alarms.
In any case, if the NSA head can lie to the congress [slate.com] without consequences after that being found out, why can't they tell all of them that it is over while keep doing it (and keeping the backdoors in their internal networks to keep doing the dirty work) or force them in a way or another to tell the world that all is over when is not, or even plant a fake whiteblower that confirms that the NSA stopped their programs ? By now trust is deeply broken in all that surrounds the NSA, if tomorrow they say that 2+2=4 you should bet that they are doing math in base 3.
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Interesting)
I think Snowden changed the game on this
Before the Snowden revelation, it wasn't widely accepted that the government was reading everything anybody ever wrote. For _one_ of these companies to come forward to complain was like the prisoners dilemma. There was no guarantee that other players would follow suit, so for GOOG to come out and say "The NSA is spying on you and we can't stop them" puts GOOG at a competitive disadvantage. Furthermore, all of this stuff was secret; not to be disclosed publicly, etc. Companies weren't sure how much teeth there were in those rules, so were further hesitant to talk much about it.
Post Snowden, its all different. Now its an open secret that this happens, and it happens to everyone. Now there's no posturing or competitive advantage to be exploited; everyone is in the same boat. This is a populist issue and once one company made noise about sticking it to the NSA, the rest were going to have to follow.
The other thing that has changed is that Snowden and Lavabit have both gone public. The public has spoken. We now have proof of what kind of stuff the Feds will do and how far they'll go to keep it quiet. The people who leaked this stuff survived.
The government might be able to sue Yahoo or Lavabit or any of them individually, but it cannot sue the entire tech industry.. not right now.
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
question: do these companies care about US or THEIR PROFITS (due to people turning away from their free online services)?
Of course they are primarily concerned about their profits (especially about the potential loss of business from non-US customers, who under current NSA doctrine apparently have no right to privacy at all). But in this case, the companies are right on the merits. Their interests and the interests of the general public are, on this particular issue, aligned.
Civil liberties battles are hard enough under the best of circumstances. You take your allies where you can find them.
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Informative)
no, I won't 'take my allies where I can find them'. they can too easily shift back to being against me. they are NOT my alies, just enemies of my enemy. haven't you been paying attention the last, say, 20 years or so?
Re: (Score:3)
"Enemy of my enemy" worked to win the WW2. Just saying.
In this particular case, you're not required to do anything to support the corporations in question. On the other hand, if, say, you're writing your Congressman to demand some action about NSA, attaching a copy of this letter will help you make your case.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, those companies KNEW about the spying (they were asked by the gov, many many times, to reveal info about their users)
Your parenthetical is presented as support for your assertion, but it isn't. The fact that they were asked many times, whether via lawful orders or otherwise, indicates nothing about whether or not they knew of secret data gathering by the NSA. They've claimed in public statements that they didn't know about it. Most have also claimed that they didn't comply with any requests except where they were obligated by law. I see no evidence to refute either claim. Do you? If so, can you point it out?
Will they leave the USA? (Score:3, Insightful)
What's their nuclear option? What's their post-nuclear strategy? It's doubtful the NSA is going to change their ways.
Re: (Score:3)
In addition to being spied upon by the NSA, these companies must receive thousands of subpoenas for information. They could be a little less responsive to each one of these in many ways (while still remaining within the law). It would not impact the NSA, but would impact the government.
What about looing in the mirror? (Score:2)
It's like the hyenas criticising the lions (Score:5, Insightful)
current surveillance practice 'undermines the freedom' of people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Headline: "Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft..."
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook isn't on the list at least, that would be just too ironic.
Eight firms, Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, AOL, Microsoft, LinkedIn, and Yahoo
Well, that's embarassing.
Re:It's like the hyenas criticising the lions (Score:5, Insightful)
current surveillance practice 'undermines the freedom' of people.
I can choose not to use Google (yes, I can even choose to disable their trackers on websites, like, say Slashdot). I can't choose not to have the NSA snoop on email. So it's more like the merchants criticizing the taxmen. One will happily take your freedoms if you give it to them, the other will take your freedoms willing or not.
"undermines the freedom" of people (Score:5, Insightful)
Google is happy to collect all the information it can get its hands on (and get away with), I am sure the others are equally as complicit.
Re:"undermines the freedom" of people (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a big difference between volunteering your information and having it scooped up by a government agency that has already shown that it will use the information to blackmail you.
Damage Control Mode - ON. Well, fuck 'em all (Score:5, Interesting)
I say fuck 'em all!!
Re:Damage Control Mode - ON. Well, fuck 'em all (Score:5, Insightful)
Policy-wise, nothing really gets done in the US without the implicit consent of corporate power. This applies even to things like spying. The government is run by the wealthy elite and therefore the policies are designed to favor their interests. Where those interests may conflict, it is usually the entity with the greater influence or better connections that gets their way.
This latter point is where we stand with regard to warrantless domestic surveillance of US citizens by the NSA. The eight companies that have "allied" against this practice, albeit influential as a group, have been for the most part self-interested competitors, and many of them make no attempt to hide the fact that they run a business model that is predicated upon mining personal data from its users in order to sell advertising (Google and Facebook being the most notable examples).
However, that is not to say that they actively or "happily" collaborated with the NSA. The legal requirements, as far as we have been apprised of them, force their cooperation. It is not logical to assume that just because their business involves exploiting their users, that they would not object to NSA surveillance, because the latter does have a deleterious effect on the former. If users suddenly feel paranoid because they think these companies are (willingly or unwillingly) handing over their personal information to the government, then they would be more reluctant to share that data by posting it online. The fear of surveillance brings about increased awareness of the need for protecting one's privacy, which of course is NOT what these companies want. That is the essential argument behind their opposition.
In any case, these companies are merely the repositories for end-user information. The real culprits here, the ones who ARE happily handing over information to the government, are the telecommunications companies, notably AT&T. They are the ones who let the NSA install listening devices on their networks. And you will note that these companies have NOT banded together to protest this illegal surveillance program. They don't see any need to, because they have too much power (since the entire internet is reliant on them) and, unlike Google and Facebook, they have no incentive to protect the data that flows through their networks. If a subscriber doesn't want to share personal information about themselves to a social network, they can opt out of doing so, and the result is a loss of valuable data for the company that operates that network. But it is MUCH harder to completely forgo the internet entirely, which is what you would have to do in order to avoid having AT&T send your data to the NSA. And AT&T doesn't make their money off selling your personal information to advertisers. They make it off your basic need for connectivity.
PR stunt (Score:4, Informative)
Privacy from the Govt. not US! (Score:3)
i say: put your money where your mouth is. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I dunno about TV, but I learned about this because it was a front-page story on the New York Times. It's not like the mainstream press isn't covering this.
Re: (Score:2)
More people watch TV than read the New York Times.
Not necessarily news programming, but if it got a 60 second spot during Dancing with the Stars, people might notice.
what bullshit! (Score:4, Interesting)
why, in heaven's name, would ANYONE believe this nonsense after all the lying that these corps. and agencies have been stuffing up our butts?
talk about astroturf on a grand scale...more like astroturd.
Re:what bullshit! (Score:4, Interesting)
one good thing to come from the NSA scandal is that people are finally realizing they can't trust:
- the government (the data collectors and manipulators, at least)
- big business
and in a way, its a KIND of progress! its a start. to at least admit there is a problem, that's good progress.
however, step 2 is a bit harder to accomplish...
I'm curious: who DO you trust? (Score:2)
Sounds Legit... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Wouldn't they be meeting agent kettle?
Re: (Score:2)
He's from the NSA and doesn't want you know his real name.
Re: (Score:2)
Give up our security? (Score:3, Funny)
Are they nuts? My Senator says "these tools are required to intercept and obstruct terrorism". He goes on to say that "we must never allow the terrorists to alter the freedoms that define our country and make us the greatest nation in the world". If we stop these programs then the terrorists win!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure Bin Laden wanted an internet free from spying and surveillance. Do you support the same ideals as Bin Laden?
I'm sure Bin Laden liked ice water on a hot day too, and I still like ice water on a hot day.
This is nuts! (Score:2)
Since when have any of these companies ever cared a whit or a bit for their customer's privacy? Something clearly does not add up here. Must be a publicity stunt and nothing more.
AOL (Score:3, Insightful)
As someone else pointed out "Seven leading Internet firms" and AOL
Who's still using AOL , or is still paying for it and actually uses their service. I'm sure I read somewhere that a large percentage of their users are unaware that they no longer needed their AOL subscription to get online via broadband?
Re: (Score:2)
You'd be surprised (or maybe not) how many people still pay to keep the @aol.com e-mail they've had for going on 2 decades now.
AOL (Score:2)
The Huffington Post (Score:2)
Just government surveillance, huh? (Score:3)
"Government surveillance"? At least the NSA isn't reading my stuff to figure out how to best sell me things...
So what about corporate surveillance? I'm a lot more worried about the snooping being done in this group of corporations.
Actually, clearly I'm not very worried about that either, since I keep using Windows, Google, Facebook etc.
He who votes decides nothing (Score:4, Insightful)
He who COUNTS the votes decides everything. Good luck guys. Let us know how it works out for you.
Rights to provide details (Score:3)
FTFA: "rights to provide details of any such future data requests to their users"
This is the only substance in TFA talking about what they "alliance" wants. All that means to me is there will be another EULA full of word-spin everyone will simply click through because it's bullshit.
Until there is a service where you physically posses your encryption key, this is all the same clear-text data laying on disk, wrapped in SSL when it's moving. Still subject to eveasdropping.
Where are the Editors? (Score:2)
Sounds great and all..... (Score:2)
trust never was there (Score:2)
I hereby pledge (Score:2)
My rifle and my service to said alliance, and the principles by which it stands. Of internet freedom, liberty, justice and the American way. In support of the Constitution and the First Amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
By that, I mean if they start arresting their CEOs and imprisoning. I'm game for breaking them out. But I wager most prisons use modern electronic locks. So it's more than likely someone will just hack the prison system so they can walk out.
But seriously, NSA, you are dangerously close to being an enemy of the Constitution.
This is a meaningless PR gesture (Score:2)
Good, Because US Citizens Have No Say In Country (Score:2)
I am just a U.S. Citizen. I no longer have a say in what my government does, so I better prop up any company that might help they unConstitutional NSA, which operates with no checks and balances, with the taxpayers blank anti-terrorism check.
Hmmm. Those corporations own the US (Score:2)
government. The NSA does what those corporations do. Those corporations are not happy that their own government is duplicating their efforts. They are unhappy because the miniscule taxes they pay are being used to do the same things they are doing at their own expense. They want their tax money to be used for other things, things that they themselves can't do (yet), such as invading other countries, firing missiles from drones, shipping undesirables off to third countries to be tortured, etc.
I suggest t
Great PR (Score:4, Insightful)
Buy stock in popcorn (Score:3)
Oh look, the corporations I don't like are fighting the government I don't like. It's like Christmas had sex with my birthday!
Still an empty gesture, though. (Score:3)
Here's the problem: the REAL people that should be standing up to NSA snooping are the Level 1 Internet backbone providers: AT&T, Level 3, Sprint and Verizon. Because the NSA directly tapped into the backbone, the spy agency don't need access to the servers at AOL, Apple, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft and Yahoo! to get all the information they need. Indeed, I've read that NSA already has special rooms inside AT&T and Verizon operations to directly tap into the backbone--and this known for many years.
SPREAD IT AROUND (Score:3)
The NSA intrusion is already affecting U.S. business. My e-mail is at Yandex.com, which answers to the KGB, not the NSA. I use IxQuick, not Google. My web site is in Thailand. Any company today who creates a web site hosted in the USA is just stupid. There are perfectly competant hosting services outside the NSA's backyard.
I sent an e-mail supporting these eight companies regarding their hopes to limit the Feddie spooks. Yes, of course it is stockholder's equity that is being destroyed. But that makes it no less sincere. If the US can't hold back the NSA then NOBODY will use Google.com. Of course, it is ironic that Google's whole business plan is to know eveything about you. I don't want ANYBODY to know everything about me; I stopped using Google a year before Edward Snowden.
Ahah! There was that name! "Edward Snowden". This post will make it to the bowels of the NSA database. Creepy?
The weird part is that this problem was solved over two hundred years ago. It's called a "search warrant". You want to read my e-mails, go get a search warrant. Otherwise, keep your fingers out of my stuff.
Re:congrats guys and gals (Score:5, Insightful)
thank you for releasing a press statement claiming that you are standing up, in a way that mollifies those concerned about their privacy, while lacking any substantive evidence of resistance
American corporations, and these 5, in particular, have shown a history of not minding deceitful marketing in the slightest. I feel no compelling reason to trust them.
Re:congrats guys and gals (Score:5, Informative)
Their statement should read "You're fucking up our business model and shareholder equity, stop copying us!"
Re:congrats guys and gals (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, they want the NSA to just buy the information it needs from them.
Re:congrats guys and gals (Score:5, Insightful)
Now they are possibly just using the outrage to negotiate a higher price.
Re:congrats guys and gals (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And what would be wrong with that? The NSA is doing significant economic harm to the only sector of the US economy that's still growing, and it's doing so without a commensurate increase in the physical security of the 300,000,000 US citizens it claims to be protecting.
Unless NSA can demonstrate that the value of the industrial espionage it conducts exceeds the value it destroys due to customers fle
That's our job (Score:5, Informative)
How dare you collect and analyze personal data on our clients! That's our job!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:congrats guys and gals (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Get 8 and your doing 14% more than they are!
Re:congrats guys and gals (Score:5, Insightful)
All they are doing is try to protect themselves and their businesses. They could give a shit less about the people being spied on. If they had really cared they would have done this years ago not simply when the egg splatted on their faces.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So what? I don't give a shit what they are doing so long as they can get some kind of results. If I had to choose who was spying on me, I'd rather it be a company than a government. Companies can't misconstrue something that you said, send you to a prison camp and torture you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The "so what" is that they would have never done anything had there been no PR disaster. They would have continued to gladly give taps on their customer's data. Ignorants like yourself will believe this stunt is some genuine backlash when it's simply so they can save face and continue yo give over the data anyway.
Re:congrats guys and gals (Score:4, Interesting)
I work at Google.
Before anything was reported by Snowden, plans were already in place to protect user data. It started with the switch to HTTPS, continued with us encrypting user data on disk, and we were beginning to encrypt data that was transferred between datacenters. The revelation that the NSA was tapping into undersea cables only accelerated the timeline.
Re: (Score:2)
A company that you voluntarily agreed to be a customer of, and hand your data over to.
Re:congrats guys and gals (Score:4, Insightful)
Until this got leaked out into the public sphere, they were gagged by the same surveillance orders. They couldn't say anything without admitting they were served with secret subpoenas. Now that this is public knowledge, they can refer to those that were leaked and say this is bad for business/citizens without breaking the law on any further subpoenas.
So, maybe they didn't care. Or maybe they did and just couldn't say anything about it due to the same evil law. From this vantage point, we still can't tell for sure.
Re: (Score:2)
The NSLs don't become null-and-boid because of the leaks. This pure PR damage control and nothing more.
Re: (Score:3)
Intentions never matter. Results always matter. All the chatter and groupthink on /. is that the big corporations really run the government. Well, these big corporations want to change how the government is run, in a way that benefits us. I wish them the best of luck.
Re:congrats guys and gals (Score:4, Informative)
At least they are doing something. What have YOU done?
Cancelled my accounts on Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft and Yahoo.
Re: (Score:2)
How's that working out for you?
Re: (Score:3)
He no longer needs to pay for the Internet, so he's saving lots of money!... but how did he post?!
Thank you for pointing out the biggest problem with the Internet today - people think if the don't have an agreement with one of the big Internet corporations, and use their services, that there is nothing to use the Internet for. I assure you, this is incorrect. And we'd all be a lot better off if more people would realize that.
Just because you don't shop at Walmart or Target doesn't mean there's nowhere to go shopping.
Re: (Score:2)
At least they are doing something. What have YOU done?
I haven't bought a XBox or any other Microsoft product, I have not subscribed to Cox VOIP, I also don't have a Facebook page, twittter account or any other related infosite account. I wont buy a PS4 or a new phone, tablet or anything else until this spy / fear mongering crap stops. The only item I have not gotten rid of is gmail. For IMHO they are all the same. Even if you run you own POP server they can get the data. But we'll see maybe I'm just not being clever enough. I realized the gov does not listen
Re: (Score:3)
5? How do you get "these 5" from 8?
I do agree that this isn't significant at all, but all of them are american corporations and three of the 8 have been pretty honest with their marketing.
Re: (Score:2)
By ignoring the list from Yahoo onwards, since no one uses them anyways.
Re:congrats guys and gals (Score:5, Insightful)
American corporations, and these 5, in particular, have shown a history of not minding deceitful marketing in the slightest. I feel no compelling reason to trust them.
As well you shouldn't. But don't look a gift horse in the mouth. This is capitalism at work... our government doing the wrong thing has hurt their bottom line, so they are using their financial and political muscle to get change. This is a good thing. I, like you, doubt they are acting out of pure good will, but I'll take what I can get.
2ndly, Google having my personal data is a bad thing, I agree... but it's orders of magnitude less dangerous than the government having that same data. At most, Google can annoy me with spam, hurt my credit rating, or use psychology to trick me into buying something I otherwise wouldn't have. The government on the other hand can imprison me, force me to implicate friends, blackmail me, or even torture and kill me. Lets work on the securing the serial killer in the room before we worry about the shady used car salesman.
Re: (Score:2)
these 5, in particular, have shown a history of not minding deceitful marketing in the slightest
Cite?
Re: (Score:2)
That's a big request, to be honest. It'd be easier to do on a company-by-company basis. Which concerns you most?
Re: (Score:2)
More importantly, this same corporations are the contractors that facilitated these acts.
Cite?
But nothing, corporations under your control (Score:5, Informative)
Where is the alliance to prevent Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, and Yahoo (and Amazon) from invading our privacy...
That's in your power. Don't use them, or use them in ways you know they can't track you (disable flash/cookies etc).
It's still a VASTLY better situation than the government, which you cannot opt out of. You cannot realistically not use a phone; you cannot realistically connect to the internet at all and not be at risk of the NSA breaking into your system unwanted.
At least what companies DO is transparent. Anyone can see what the websites are sending/receiving, and you know when you are visiting or making use of them. The same is never true of the government.
Re: (Score:2)
transparent?
let me ask you to do this experiement. go to any 'big' website and view source. can you actually read that javascript stuff? its not meant to be readable and its intentionally obscurred and obfuscated. its hard to even add blocking regex's since they actively try to thwart that, too.
its not transparent. they do all they possibly can to hide what they are really doing. only a really top techie can figure out what's really going on on each http request and reply.
JavaScript beautifiers; /etc/hosts (Score:2)
go to any 'big' website and view source. can you actually read that javascript stuff? its not meant to be readable and its intentionally obscurred and obfuscated.
It's still in syntactically the same form as source code, and there exist JavaScript beautifiers to remove some of the obfuscation.
its hard to even add blocking regex's since they actively try to thwart that, too.
One thing they'd have a harder time thwarting is DNS blacklisting. If I know a particular hostname means nothing but trouble, I can tell any computer that I control to refuse to resolve that hostname by adding it to the computer's hosts file. This means the server behind that hostname will see no connections from my computer.
Re: (Score:2)
"At least what companies DO is transparent. Anyone can see what the websites are sending/receiving, and you know when you are visiting or making use of them."
I agree with the gist of what you're saying, but this is only partially true. I had LinkedIn start recommending people to me whom it could only have linked me to via my MSN messenger contact list.
I say this with certainty because I had a couple of contacts recommended on both Facebook and LinkedIn with whom my only association was via MSN messenger (or
Re: (Score:3)
Where is the alliance to prevent Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, and Yahoo (and Amazon) from invading our privacy...
At least what companies DO is transparent. Anyone can see what the websites are sending/receiving
Yeah, I agree that it's better than the government, but I wouldn't exactly call big business tracking on the internet "transparent."
Sure, you can run all sorts of browser plug-ins to control scripts, 3rd-party requests, cookies of various types, etc., etc., but most of this is invisible to the average user. I'd say greater than 95% of internet users have no freakin' idea that a single website visit might trigger dozens of cookies, dozens of requests to various other sites, etc.
Yes, most people understa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
how is it different to go through your mail by bots to serve you shit and to have it being snooped by potentially tens of thousands of 20-30 year old contractors NSA bought on a sale from the random "security cleared" market? a lot of it is different - from the other you might get served penis enlargement adverts and from the other you might get a swat team bust your house up unannounced with weapons hot ready to kill.
btw. you do have a big problem with privacy laws in general which allows companies to make