News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Cname cloaking, a disguise of third-party trackers. Parent comment

Re:Cname cloaking, a disguise of third-party trackers by dessant on Saturday November 23, 2019 @06:48PM (#21617391)
You're contributing to tech that erodes people's privacy, even when they actively fight against it. Don't delude yourself with net positives. The harm your employer causes still affects people, regadless of the useful things you may work on at Google, or the donations you give.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Cname cloaking, a disguise of third-party trackers by SquareWheel on Saturday November 23, 2019 @07:04PM (#21617441)
Not everyone shares your moral sentiments. I find your view elitist and unfair towards jefftk, who has been extremely open and amiable.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Cname cloaking, a disguise of third-party trackers by nothrabannosir on Saturday November 23, 2019 @09:04PM (#21617898)
On the one hand, you’re right jefftk has been cordial. On the other.. where does that argument stop holding water? Just because someone is polite about their views doesn’t really justify them any more or less.

I appreciate your engagement in this, Jeff, but I’ve read the post and I agree that it’s rather light in its evaluation of the negative value of ads.

Anyway I guess it’s getting too far off track at this point. Thanks for at least engaging in the conversation, unlike basically everyone. I would love to chat further in private if you have the time. my contact is in my profile.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Cname cloaking, a disguise of third-party trackers by jefftk on Saturday November 23, 2019 @07:09PM (#21617465)
> when they actively fight against it

While this is definitely true for some adtech vendors, none of the work I do is in that category, and to my knowledge none of the work at my employer is either.

(Still speaking only for myself)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Cname cloaking, a disguise of third-party trackers by rndgermandude on Sunday November 24, 2019 @07:58AM (#21620140)
I glanced over the article you linked on your homepage, and you said you worked for google.

Google is and was actively fighting privacy laws[1] (e.g. seeking exemptions allowing them to even track people who consciously opt out of data collection), had a CEO that made no secret about his anti-privacy stance[2], was repeatedly fined[3], also also for violating the privacy of children[4], etc. etc.

How do you reconcile this with your assertion that google and yourself are good players?

[1] https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-09-04/google-and...

[2] https://www.eff.org/de/deeplinks/2009/12/google-ceo-eric-sch...

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/21/technology/google-europe-...

[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/technology/google-youtube...

[ Parent | on HN ]