firefox, trackers and ghostery

pete smout psmouty at
Thu Jul 18 11:13:47 UTC 2013

On 18/07/13 11:49, Patrick Asselman wrote:
> 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:
> (I'm sure he won't mind me posting it here?)
> Best regards,
> Patrick
Thanks for clearing it up :)


More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list