firefox, trackers and ghostery

[Patrick Asselman]

On 2013-07-18 12:16, pete smout wrote:
> On 18/07/13 11:09, Patrick Asselman wrote:
>> On 2013-07-17 13:14, Sajan Parikh wrote:
>>> On 07/17/2013 04:41 AM, pete smout wrote:
>>>> True except when you substitute face for IP then with the help of
>>>> some software your 'entire online' footprint becomes available to
>>>> them. Simply put you bought some bananas at store A, some milk and
>>>> ice cream at store B, Store A can then put 2 + 2 together and 
>>>> assume
>>>> the you are making banana smoothies when in-fact all you wanted 
>>>> was
>>>> some bananas to take for a snack at work tomorrow, some milk for a
>>>> cup of coffee, and ice cream for pudding! My point being that
>>>> incorrect conclusions can be made from the most innocent of 
>>>> activities!
>>> Absolutely, but the type of incorrect conclusions that are made in
>>> advertising are limited to advertisers showing you a banana 
>>> smoothie.
>>> Is that really such a giant inconvenience?  If you were trying to
>>> imply a larger point, I will put this out there.  In the U.S., of 
>>> the
>>> string of criminal prosecutions where the IP address was the sole
>>> piece of evidence linked to the plaintiff, I'm fairly positive not 
>>> a
>>> single one was convicted.
>>
>> The smoothie was just an example of course, you need to extrapolate.
>> Imagine a farmer ordering fertilizer and diesel online. Those are 
>> two
>> ingredients for explosives. So with misinterpretation that would 
>> make
>> him a suspect of terrorist activities. Imagine he also just bought a 
>> gun
>> a week ago, and a ticket to New York to visit his cousin who lives
>> there. Imagine him sending an email to his cousin stating that they 
>> will
>> have a "bang of a party" when he arrives. I think he's already half 
>> way
>> to Guantanamo if all these facts are misinterpreted.
>>
>> By the way I found your lates blog post interesting to read. The one
>> where you state that you are trying to use Google's services less,
>> though you don't really know why. It put a grin on my face.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Patrick
>>
> Of course you need to extrapolate. My mind does not work in a 
> 'criminal'
> way and that was the best example I thought of when writing that 
> post!
>
> What blog? I dont have one that I know of......perhaps I should start
> one, but then would I not be feeding the beast I am complaining 
> about?
>
> Pete

I was replying to Sajan's email, so it would be his blog ;-)
For those interested: http://blog.sajan.io/
(I'm sure he won't mind me posting it here?)

Best regards,
Patrick