News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Tech firms seek to frustrate internet history log law by MWil on Wednesday November 23, 2016 @07:03AM (#13021957)
One option is to hide your internet history, the other is to automate it (including signing up for and logging in to sites you don't necessarily visit) so that your machine is logging 24/7 and your small portion gets lost in the haystack
Re:Tech firms seek to frustrate internet history log law by onion2k on Wednesday November 23, 2016 @07:13AM (#13021997)
Logging discovers who visited a specific "bad website" - the fact there might be 10,000 "good websites" in your history is essentially irrelevant. If you visited the bad one then you'll get flagged as a user of the "bad website".
Re:Tech firms seek to frustrate internet history log law by buro9 on Wednesday November 23, 2016 @07:30AM (#13022114)
> your small portion gets lost in the haystack

This is not a good security method in this day and age.

It is cheap to watch and alert on everything.

Re:Tech firms seek to frustrate internet history log law by Kepler-125c on Thursday November 24, 2016 @03:31AM (#13029056)
This is not true, for instance say you're an oppressive government and have a method to decrypt encryption type X (https, E2E encryption or what-have-you). There's only so many times you can use your decryption alg for evil purposes before someone leaks that you have it. Https is infinitely better than http, E2E encryption is infinitely better than nothing.
Re:Tech firms seek to frustrate internet history log law by mike-cardwell on Wednesday November 23, 2016 @07:07AM (#13021977)
Your "fake" traffic would have to very closely match your non-fake traffic otherwise it could be easily filtered out. And I'm not just talking about User-Agent headers.