11 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessRHP makes it clear in its privacy policy that some of the advertiers may track your net useage.
RHP is not forced. RHP chooses the ad company. RHP makes a concious decision to use an ad-network that tracks your movements versus an ad-network/company that does not track your movements.
The question is not how do you protect yourself from the snooping of these advertisers. The question is how do you feel that RHP has chosen to use an advertising company that snoops on your web usage?
Again, these are questions, not criticisms.
When it comes down to it its all about money.
ad-network that tracks your movements £500 per month
an ad-network/company that does not track your movements £100 per month
Now if you ran a website and were offered 15 advertisers at £500 per month or 15 at £100 per month what would you choose?
Maybe the question you should be asking yourself is "why am I still here?"
11 Mar 09
Originally posted by uzlessOnly a complete idiot would get outraged about something that they have complete and utter control over.
I find it interesting that people are no longer as outraged at information gathering about what we do in private.
I can imagine you wandering the streets of Canada, dribbling profusely, screaming "STOP LOOKING AT MY BALLZ!!! THESE ARE PRIVATE" at everybody who passes.
I can also imagine most people glancing your way, muttering "I wonder why he doesn't put some clothes on, if he doesn't like people seeing his private parts".
🙄
D
12 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessOh, but it is. It really isn't a software in any sense (classical (??) or not).
my mistake for calling a cookie "software". I know it's not a software program in the classic sense. I challenge someone to give cookies a generic label identifier though...."text" just seems to not adequately describe what it does.
It's merely text that your browser uses to allow their sites to "remember"
data between page loads. Clear the browser cookie cache, and the data is
lost to the advertisers. Simple as that. Better yet, block cookies from
certain third party websites (those that aren't in the address field of your
browser), and voilá: no tracking. Why? Because RHP isn't providing the
advertisers with any information that can be used to track you, so if the
advertisers can't set cookies in your browsers, they can't keep track of you.
12 Mar 09
2 edits
Originally posted by uzlessName one (and one that pays as well*). Like I said, you get to use the
RHP is not forced to use ad-networks. There are many other types of internet advertising that don't use this process.
(again in my opinion) best chess site in the world for free. What do you
expect? If you pay for your subscription this issue is non-existant. If you
want things for free, you have to accept whatever conditions that the
provider makes part of that deal, whether you agree or not.
* You see, if an advertiser display ads that are more likely to fall in your
taste, then you're more likely to click more ads, and this in turn brings in
more revenue to the site displaying the ads. Your surfing habits are
observed to better gain an appreciation for your interests. Hell, you
should even be happy with this, considering that you get more and more
ads targeted at you specifically. Again, the advertisers don't get to know
anything about the information you supply in a site. All they know is
what sites you visit, the pages within those sites and which ads you've
previously clicked. (That is, unless you have poor security settings, and
a bad advertising agency decide to make use of this, but I'm hoping
RHP is on the lookout for that.) And they don't know who you specifically
are. If more than one person is using the same browser, they're gonna
think it's one and the same person (which totally messes up the tracking
by the way).
12 Mar 09
Originally posted by RagnorakYour analogy > My analogy
Only a complete idiot would get outraged about something that they have complete and utter control over.
I can imagine you wandering the streets of Canada, dribbling profusely, screaming "STOP LOOKING AT MY BALLZ!!! THESE ARE PRIVATE" at everybody who passes.
I can also imagine most people glancing your way, muttering "I wonder why he doesn't put some clothes on, if he doesn't like people seeing his private parts".
🙄
D
I'm sure he'll be "outraged" by your good points.
12 Mar 09
Originally posted by adramforallThank you for some actual information. It verifies much of what i've been saying. It's interesting that tracking ads pay 5 times as much money to track your web-usage.
RHP makes it clear in its privacy policy that some of the advertiers may track your net useage.
When it comes down to it its all about money.
ad-network that tracks your movements [b]£500 per month
an ad-network/company that does not track your movements £100 per month
Now if you ran a website and were offered 15 advertisers at £ ...[text shortened]... uld you choose?
Maybe the question you should be asking yourself is "why am I still here?"[/b]
You raise an excellent point about the financial decisions a site has to make when deciding which ad-company to use. You are absolutely correct when you say "its all about money".
Let me repeat, "IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY" RHP has decided to take the cash, rather than protect its users. Our privacy has been traded for cash !.
Sure, individuals can change their cookie settings and set up their system to protect themselves, but SHOULD THIS BE EVEN NECESSARY??
Imagine if the police followed you wherever you went and wrote down everything you did. But to stop the police from tracking you, you could wear an invisibility cloak so they couldn't see you or track you. Now, do you think you should have to wear an invisibility cloak or should you be able to go about your business without being tracked?
Why is it that on the internet, some of us choose to think we should have to wear an invisibility cloak?
12 Mar 09
Originally posted by RagnorakThis is about cleavage, isn't it?
Only a complete idiot would get outraged about something that they have complete and utter control over.
I can imagine you wandering the streets of Canada, dribbling profusely, screaming "STOP LOOKING AT MY BALLZ!!! THESE ARE PRIVATE" at everybody who passes.
I can also imagine most people glancing your way, muttering "I wonder why he doesn't put some clothes on, if he doesn't like people seeing his private parts".
🙄
D
12 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by RagnorakYou should read my post to adramforall. (2 posts up)
Only a complete idiot would get outraged about something that they have complete and utter control over.
I can imagine you wandering the streets of Canada, dribbling profusely, screaming "STOP LOOKING AT MY BALLZ!!! THESE ARE PRIVATE" at everybody who passes.
I can also imagine most people glancing your way, muttering "I wonder why he doesn't put some clothes on, if he doesn't like people seeing his private parts".
🙄
D
You are looking at this backwards. Of course someone would be an idiot if they wore NO CLOTHES and complained people could see their body.
We are talking about someone tracking your movements, FOLLOWING YOU...ad companies aren't just looking at you as you walk by them. They are following you and recording your every movement, unless you figure out a way to give them the slip. Should you be required to give them the slip, or should they just not be following you in the first place??
Your analogy needs revision.
12 Mar 09
Originally posted by uzlessRead my last post on the subject. Nothing about you specifically is known
Come on palynka, join the fray. I'll take you all on...unless you have a brain and/or understand what George Orwell was getting at in 1984.
by the advertisers. They only know the sites you visit, the pages you view in
those sites and ads you've chosen to click on. They don't know anything
about you as an individual. Except your surfing habits. Which may say
something about you, but still: can't be used for anything.
12 Mar 09
2 edits
Originally posted by JigtieName one (and one that pays as well*).
Name one (and one that pays as well*). Like I said, you get to use the
(again in my opinion) best chess site in the world for free. What do you
expect? If you pay for your subscription this issue is non-existant. If you
want things for free, you have to accept whatever conditions that the
provider makes part of that deal, whether you agree or not.
think it's one and the same person (which totally messes up the tracking
by the way).
See adramforall's post. trackers pay $500/month, non-trackers pay $100/month.
Like I said, you get to use the
(again in my opinion) best chess site in the world for free. What do you
expect? If you pay for your subscription this issue is non-existant. If you
want things for free, you have to accept whatever conditions that the
provider makes part of that deal, whether you agree or not.
"A people who extend civil liberties only to preferred groups start down the path either to dictatorship of the right or the left.” - Douglas
* You see, if an advertiser display ads that are more likely to fall in your
taste, then you're more likely to click more ads, and this in turn brings in
more revenue to the site displaying the ads. Your surfing habits are
observed to better gain an appreciation for your interests. Hell, you
should even be happy with this, considering that you get more and more
ads targeted at you specifically. Again, the advertisers don't get to know
anything about the information you supply in a site. All they know is
what sites you visit, the pages within those sites and which ads you've
previously clicked. .
To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Access, deserve neither Liberty nor Access."
12 Mar 09
2 edits
Originally posted by uzless1) Which was my point exactly.
1) See adramforall's post. trackers pay $500/month, non-trackers pay $100/month.
2) To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Access, deserve neither Liberty nor Access."
2) You don't really read what you read, do you?