fabulist

Maybe it's more interesting to ask, "why are penises so aerodynamic?"

Why not both?

Excellent point, I should've thought of that.

That seems to say Google won't share your Analytics data without making any guarantee that they won't _use_ your analytics data.

While I feel we should all treat Google with skepticism here, I didn't realize they (and so failed to acknowledge) that Homebrew was attempting to remedy that, so I apologize for speaking out of turn.

Add a feature where users can opt-in for periodic reports to be uploaded as a private gist, and a link is transmitted to you. GitHub is already a trusted party where Homebrew is concerned, so the loss of privacy is minimal. Users control their own GitHub accounts, so they control of the permanence of the data you collect on them. You can use Google Forms to transmit the links, so your infrastructure is cheap-to-free. For bonus points, encrypt the links with your public key.

How does that sound?

"We use the information we collect from all of our services to provide, maintain, protect and improve them, to develop new ones, and to protect Google and our users. We also use this information to offer you tailored content – like giving you more relevant search results and ads."

https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/

"When you visit a website that uses our advertising products (like AdSense), social products (like the +1 button) or analytics tools (Google Analytics), your web browser automatically sends certain information to Google... When you visit websites or use apps that use Google technologies, we may use the information we receive from those websites and apps..."

https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/partners/

It should be noted this does not directly contradict what GP claims.

Collecting telemetry is reasonably, but it seems inappropriate for Google to get a copy and to be able to identify which of their users installed a particular piece of software from the IP address.

So yes. Running their own server would be much preferable.

What about the people whom Theranos failed to deliver accurate test results to? They are the losers here.

Google Privacy is the program which blurs (things that looks like) faces and license plates.

If you can find a way to use their backup tool to download an arbitrary user's profile, and they don't pay you out at $1M, "BS" can be safely called.

Now imagine that without Google Privacy, better cameras, and shot from the air.

Normally I would agree with you, I often chide people for inventing problems to solve. But it is a little different when it isn't a hypothetical as much as an inevitable future occurrence.

As for refrigerators, I am just as worried about people trying to fly drones around my house as I am about people flying drones around planes, yes. I have it on good authority that anyone with the funds can purchase access to 3D drone-generated map of my city, my house included. A gentleman here in town who replaces windows doesn't bother to measure them anymore; he just uses the drone photos.

We will always have to worry about intelligent, motivated people who wish to do us harm. Isn't that enough to worry about without being vulnerable to careless people, behaving unintelligently, who put lives at risk through their ignorance? Keep in mind, the latter group is much bigger.

Aren't they trained to judge size and distance by eye, though?

The fingerprinting could be done server side. Their legal team could force browser vendors not to carry ABP or uBlock in the add-on stores, and GitHub to take down the repositories, meaning you and I could still find the source but not Average Joe. Your response to my comment about profiling ad blockers was entirely unconvincing.

You are placing more trust in this technology than it deserves, and I just think you should be aware; there are no silver bullets.

Edit: The browser fingerprinting could be done server-side. The add-on fingerprint looks something like, "were we able to load include this asset the add-on uses in an img tag?", so obviously requires interaction w/ the browser.

I think the geofencing has the same value as a door lock; it keeps the honest people honest.

I meant more, "if they ran a marketing campaign."

I don't see this as cheating, but we're talking about the company who convinced people "Rose Gold" was cool. If they told their customers it would be super for them to bring old iDevices back to the Apple store for recycling, I'm confident they would succeed.

This is not a sound security strategy.

I think the issue is that Amazon has access to their sales numbers. Normally a competitor would have to put in work to infer your sales numbers from, say, an incrementing identifier in the receipt, and you would have some recourse (prevent information from leaking as best you can).

It seems to me there is an obvious conflict of interest.

Consider this; if an employee left to work for a competitor and took such precise information about online sales with them, it would be illegal.

I find it incredibly hard to believe that Amazon is not a monopoly. This Forbes[0] article from 2013 states that Amazon had more sales than it's next 12 competitors combined, and that it's sales were growing faster than overall online sales. If we take this as read, that means Amazon is probably more dominant in 2016 than it was in 2013.

That doesn't seem like meaningful competition, that seems like the other retailers are keeling over.

[0] http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/09/01/fascinati...

In the words of the Stanley parable,

The end is never The end is never The end is never The end is never....

For instance, it's trivial to fingerprint most browser add-ons. What if organizations refused service to people with anti-anti-adblockers entirely? What if they kept a database of browser fingerprints they even suspected were using such tools? What if they opened up a new front, winning some sort of legal battle?

Hopefully the conflict is resolved with micropayments or something.

Having another weapon in your arsenal during an arms race does not sound like having solved a problem.

Why is this legal? Aren't they using their dominance in one market to enter another market? Isn't that what antitrust suits are for?

I'm not being rhetorical, I'm actually asking.

No, that doesn't explain anything. Durov has a lot of money to throw around. Okay. Why did he throw it at something silly when Telegram has real problems? NCC Crypto Services would do a lot of good work for a million dollars.

CNN is a consistent mouthpiece for the United States Government. Shame on them for regurgitating such garbage.

While I share your hope that there will be some service of justice, nothing could make that right.

I don't know specifically, but perhaps this commentary will be enlightening.

https://moxie.org/blog/telegram-crypto-challenge/

https://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram/archives/1998/1215.html...

No, you missed the point. They don't want Chrome, and if their aversion could be solved with small tweaks to the branding they'd have probably just gotten over it.