Subject: Re: Lightroom Classic CC problem
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Mayayana<email@example.com> wrote:
> | 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.
> Another way to look at it: If naysayers like yourself
> would just stop arguing and spend even a few minutes
> dealing with the issue -- find a techie friend to set
> you up with a HOSTS file and adjust your privacy
> settings in software you use -- then the spyware
> economy would collapse. You can easily reduce the
> spying on yourself to a trickle.
you need to get off your high horse.
not only do i have a hosts file, which is appropriate for blocking
*some* sites (not all), but i also use *far* more sophisticated and
easier to use tools that can automatically detect and block suspicious
sites on the fly. i also use more than one browser, configured from
very locked down to very (but not fully) open, depending on the site.
which *still* misses the point, in that you *can't* block everything
unless you go off the grid, and even then, you're still being tracked.
you *are* leaking data, far more than you realize and in ways you
haven't thought of, ones which google, facebook and others have known
for online, start here:
> The spyware business model only works because
> people like you can't be bothered to deal with the
> control you have. It's not about having total privacy.
> The point is just to not make it easy for companies
> like Google to have a dossier on you for advertising.
another one of your incorrect assumptions.
you have *no* idea what i do or don't do in regards to google or other
> Anyway, do as you like. I'm not going to argue
> anymore. It was worthwhile only insofar as it
> might have provided some information useful
> to others.
except you didn't.
all you did was demonstrate how little you know about the topic.