Subject: Re: Lightroom Classic CC problem
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Mayayana<email@example.com> wrote:
> | > 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 use Android it's Google's phone.
nope. it's *your* phone, however, google is tracking you because that's
how google makes money.
that's very different from apple, who does not monetize their users and
goes well out of their way to protect user's privacy.
> If you
> enable location tracking on an iPhone you're
> being tracked.
not by google, you aren't, nor apple for that matter.
> If you also enable Google
> maps they're tracking you.
google maps is an app, not something that's enabled, and it doesn't
necessarily track you in the way you think it does.
> If you use any Google
> services, are logged in, and also enable location
> services then you're probably being tracked.
that obviously helps, but is not required.
your rough location can be determined simply by ip address and the
browser you use can be fingerprinted.
they might not know your name (although they probably do), but they do
have enough data to uniquely identify you next time you come back.
> what your link was talking about. How else do
> you think they're following people into stores?
by capturing credit card data.
that's yet another advantage of using apple pay (versus android/google
pay). not only does the merchant *not* get the actual card number (they
get a virtual number), but more importantly, they don't get the
customer's name. all they see is 'valued customer' or similar.
some merchants may require a name to complete the transaction, such as
needing an address to deliver a large appliance, but that would need to
be provided even with cash.
> In one way you're right: It's hard to deal with that
> kind of thing because most phone apps make money
> via spyware/targetted ads.
some do, some don't.
free apps are often ad supported, but there's usually an in-app
purchase to remove the ads, or there's a separate paid version of the
app, perhaps with additional features as well.
the user gets to choose.
further, on iphones, apps can only get a unique id, which can be reset
at any time by the user, for any reason. apple explicitly prohibits
apps from trying to obtain personally identifying information that the
user does *not* volunteer.
android is a lot easier to find out user info. *really* easy, actually.
and yes, that's exploited, a lot.
> They often require that
> many functions be enabled, even if they don't really
> need them. So if you turn off the tracking beacons
> you might have to give up your restaurant recommendation
> app. You might even have to learn to read maps. As
> the cartoon hyena used to say, "Oh me. Oh my."
> (Was that Hardee Har Har?)
apps may request various functions, but the user can say no.
sometimes it will make a difference and sometimes it won't.
for example, a restaurant recommendation app works best if it knows
exactly where you are, but you could always enter a zip code, which
could even be nearby instead of where you happen to be standing.
a camera app would be completely useless if it didn't have access to
you're also mistakenly assuming that obtaining the user's current
location is the same as logging everywhere they go and uploading it
somewhere. it's not.
> | the point of the article is that google is now tracking purchases made
> | *offline*, in ordinary brick&mortar stores, by capturing credit/debit
> | transactions.
> That was one point. It's an interesting bit of news.
> EPIC is asking the Feds to look into it. There seem to
> be two possibilities: 1) Google is buying data from
> credit card companies directly, perhaps illegally.
> 2) Google is bluffing, using their other vast data
> store to make it look like they know everything and
> thereby command high ad prices.
credit card companies are only too happy to sell your information.
not only do they know where you shop, but many times, specifically what
> The basic idea is that they want to be able to tell
> Acme Mattress exactly how many mattresses they
> sold directly as a result of their AdWords campaign.
> But even if Google is buying your credit history, it
> doesn't tell them much if you block their tracking online,
> don't use their products, and minimize the times you turn
> on your phone, or at least disable as much location
> tracking as possible. (Also a tricky thing to accomplish.
> Even Firefox now has an option to track you. The prefs
> geo.enabled and geo.wifi.logging.enabled deal with
> letting websirtes know your location in mobile scenarios.)
> In other words, if you block tracking, even just to
> the extent that it's not at all inconvenient, you leave
> Google with very limited data. The fact that you bought
> a TV with your credit card will give them no indication
> of whether their ads were involved.
limited data != no data.
all it takes is one little bit of data to link everything together, and
you can be *sure* that google has thought of all sorts of ways to do
exactly that, ways you have not thought of, which means you can't have
google definitely knows there are those who use ad blockers, tracking
blockers, disabling cookies, etc. do you think they just give up and
not bother with those people or do you think they try to find ways
> | 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.
> Of course I do.
you might think you do, but you don't, and to both.
> If you don't use a HOSTS file, enable
> 3rd-party files, and enable script, then yes, you have
> no control.
as i said, you don't know *all* of google's properties. you can only
block the ones you know, so while you may have a lengthy list in your
hosts file, you are still leaking data.
you also have *no* control over what web sites do with any data they
gather. google can (and almost certainly does) get all sorts of data
from the web site, not you.
> But this is just your same laziness argument:
> I can't block 100% so I may as well just give up and
> take a nap.
you're assuming that google is easily fooled and that you can outsmart
not a good bet.
> | no matter how hard you try, google, facebook, etc. are *better* at
> | extracting data than you are at blocking it.
> Oh me. Oh my. I don't like how this is looking Lippy.
> Let's just give up, huh? Oh, wait, I have Facebook in
> my HOSTS file. So there's hope.
i didn't say give up.
i said it's for all intents not possible to block everything and that
it only takes a tiny leak to piece the entire puzzle together.
put another way, google isn't giving up trying to track you just
because you have a hosts file blocking them.
and it isn't just google. you are being tracked if you step outside
police are using alpr to scan license plates and are starting to use
facial recognition on surveillance video.
Russia has fitted thousands of security cameras across Moscow with
facial recognition technology that give police the ability to track
criminals and terror suspects.