Hacker News Reader

Comment by _pghu | Hacker News Reader

No, no, no, no.

I do not want Google to have any more fucking data about me than it already does! "Put this blob of JavaScript on every page of your site so that we can see how users are clicking, scrolling, and browsing around. Think of the children^W spam and abuse!"

I just cannot believe that Google somehow gets away with spinning this as some sort of "guardian of the Internet" thing when it is a transparent attempt to a) make adblocking more difficult and b) force people to accept being tracked by Google or get blacklisted from the web.

Getting banned from sites or treated as a subhuman because you don't want Big Brother to follow your actions around should not be something that we're okay with. It just shouldn't be.

View on HN

> I do not want Google to have any more fucking data about me than it already does! "Put this blob of JavaScript on every page of your site so that we can see how users are clicking, scrolling, and browsing around. Think of the children^W spam and abuse!"

They already do with google analytics.

This is a version of Google Analytics you can't adblock without breaking the site

You seem to subtly express the notion that we are somehow "entitled" to access a website, just because it has a public IP address and we happen to have an http client.

Well - we're not.

To put it bluntly.. I think this "just don't use it" meme needs to die. At this point in time, accessing certain websites is effectively a requirement of modern life: want to see your bills without paying for paper bills? want to apply for jobs? want to sign up for courses? submit your taxes? or even vote under some jurisdictions? Then you have to access a website. Sure, for a lot of these, there are alternatives. However, the costs will likely be much higher and you'll simply be left behind by everyone else in society.

This effort by Google, at its worst possible implementation, could break a huge number of "required" websites for users. As others have pointed out in this thread, the users who will be impeded are likely already at a disadvantage[1]. This just reinforces that, especially if everyone starts adopting this given how it is "free" for businesses/organizations.

A convenient side effect? Google gets more information about us and encourages us to view more ads.

[1] Someone mentioned smaller villages in India. The GOV.UK reference talks about users with disability. One could also imagine shared locations like public library, whose users may not have direct access to the internet.

I tend to agree that public services (in the sense of .gov) should avoid using this. But they do need protective measures. Would logging in with a futuristic Aadhaar equivalent be considered less intrusive?

If the only websites that we essentially have to utilize as competent citizens are public ones then it would be easy. We regulate the public ones and we let the private ones do whatever they want. At that point I think a bunch of people on this site will probably be content quitting the internet heh :).

The problem is that it's not that simple. As I said, for things like banks/job search, these are private entities and not public ones. Going down that line, we can find some private services that a majority of the population around you uses that you also have to use in order to keep up with everyone else because there are little alternatives (google maps comes to mind). Granted, the latter is a weaker example, but it's meant to explore how practical it is to completely ditch services that are anti-user.

Also don't get me wrong.. I'll probably be one to turn off my blocker to access some service that will provide me value even if I'm already paying for it. However, it's just a terrible state to be in.

Had to do a double take here. Not sure that this, as a blanket statement can be correct. How can anyone not be entitled to connect to any public IP address? And how, and who, would be able to enforce that?

A server can put various measures in place to limit general access, but then by those measures the IP is no longer public. T&Cs that a site may wish to enforce can only be made available after the connection has already been established.

Also, robots.txt is a standard that we agree to respect but it is not something that legally binding.

So have to disagree.

The IP is public in the sense that a pub's door is public. You're welcome to open it. The bouncer may throw you out without explanations (maybe you wore a hoodie, idk). You walk in under terms. You don't have some birthright to lurk there and harass the customers.

Exactly, though in the case of TCP/IP you can just -lock- the door entirely for certain (people|addresses) - no need for violence!

We aren't entitled to access a site or its information, but neither are they to our personal information. This whole system has broken down as the implicit understanding or what is being given and what is being paid has been trampled on by both sides.

The website may deserve to get recompense for their content, but I deserve to know what I'm paying just as much, if not more.

If you're depriving me of something in our transaction that I'm not aware of, then at least part of what happened was theft. If doesn't matter that I didn't know about it until days, weeks, years or even decades later. If you've deprived me of something that we didn't agree upon, you've stolen from me. Even if in this case it's privacy. Especially in this case because it's privacy, because you can never get it back.

Clearly you're satirising. The very basis of the HTTP protocol, and the idea of the World Wide Web, is one of easy access to, and discovery of, information on openly accessible servers. It provides numerous mechanisms for protecting data that is deemed private.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com