From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Lightroom Classic CC problem
Full headers:
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Lightroom Classic CC problem
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 17:24:07 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <080220181724078165%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <> <p5cipj$o45$> <> <> <p5ft8h$8lv$> <> <p5hos0$8ra$> <080220181114116368%nospam@nospam.invalid> <p5i5q8$f0p$> <080220181359029826%nospam@nospam.invalid> <p5i8g5$46n$> <080220181509373937%nospam@nospam.invalid> <p5iheb$985$>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info:; posting-host="cbfccedfaa21d704d1c68463b14c3857";
logging-data="18190"; mail-complaints-to="";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/XrzKUN3QA6BnJ5gc4B46T"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MZen5scGsl4G1FnI/C/E7qw5miM=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article <p5iheb$985$>, Mayayana<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> | it's impossible to completely prevent google tracking without going
> | fully offline, and even then, google can (and does) gather information
> | on you in *other* ways.
> |
> | for example:
> | <>
> |  Announcing the service, Google said that it captures around 70% of
> |  credit and debit card transactions in the US.
>   Read your own link.

i did, as well as many others. 

>   If you're walking around
> with a cellphone turned on then, yes, you're
> being tracked. It's virtually a radio collar.

not by google, unless it's an android phone.

> If you shop online you might be tracked. 

online shopping is just one method of tracking.

the point of the article is that google is now tracking purchases made
*offline*, in ordinary brick&mortar stores, by capturing credit/debit

> If you
> don't add Google properties to your HOSTS file
> you're being tracked on most webpages. 

first of all, you don't know *all* of google's properties and second,
you have *no* control over what web sites you visit do.

> Probably
> at least 70%. and that's just Google.
> This list is for use with Acrylic DNS proxy. (Free
> software.) Normal HOSTS file doesn't accept
> wildcards.

which is why a hosts file is not an effective way to block everything.

a host file does have its use, but there are much better ways to block

> | you would need to pay cash for *everything* to avoid that, or hope that
> | you're always in the 30% that isn't captured.
> |
>   No. Like I said, it does take a little bit
> of effort. 

much more than a little bit.

> But yes, it's much easier, in a
> sense, to just be lazy and tell everyone else
> that's the only option. And an all-or-nothing
> logic is also a clever trick to maintain laziness:
> I can't stop it all, so why bother?

it's not about being lazy. it's that the amount of effort is *much*
more than you think it is.

no matter how hard you try, google, facebook, etc. are *better* at
extracting data than you are at blocking it.

if you leak *anything* (and you do), then you can be (and most
certainly are being) tracked.

you can pretend that your simple hosts file blocks everything, but it
doesn't. at best, it limits it, a little.