I get why zombie cookies are bad as it takes control away, but what is the issue surrounding plain tracking of behaviours? So what if a company knows the history of sites you've visited - what does this do against you?
I could invent many hypotheticals in this vain but privacy is something worth protecting.
Are employers getting access to search data today? I'm not sure that's happening. Most 3rd party tracking isn't that accurate in coming up with interests/segments for the user in the first place and 1st party data is well protected in that it's what gives the holder value.
I think privacy is important, but there a lot of levels here and browsing history (while valuable) for advertising is not as big of an issue as other wholesale data collection that we see out there.
The more it's used, the cheaper it becomes to collect and sell. The issue is never about how it is used today; always about how it can be used in the future.
You can always find a way to work for yourself and avoid passing an employer background check. I'm more worried about political parties and private eyes -- blackmail, extortion, ugly divorce proceedings, etc. This can have a chilling effect on free speech and curiosity.
The Jacob Applebaum talk explaining linkability.[1]
Anyone who has access to any website where you logged into an account you publicly admit to owning can link your public identity to any private/anonymous persona, given another marketing data source. Verizon "owns the data", but not really. They are the original owner of the data, but eventually Expirion (target of the recent T-Mobile-Experion data theft) and the other credit reporting agencies will have your X-UIDH. Facebook, Twitter, and Google will know as soon as you log in once. They will be able to identify all of your accounts, perhaps even if you use a VPN.
As with any other high tech tracking, the average end-user is either unaware of the zombie cookie or unaware of the full capabilities of the linkability of it.
I get that most people have uninteresting data but don't want it collected anyway, but what happens if it is? (Because it is right now). What is it doing to them today? More targeted ads? More spam? More...? That's what I'd like to know.
>I get that most people have uninteresting genitals but don't want it seen anyway, but what happens if it is? (Because it is right now). What is it doing to them today? More targeted ads? More spam? More...? That's what I'd like to know.
>What exactly is the big aversion to nudity? The vast majority has shown (via actions, not internet noise) that they don't care so what exactly is the big downside? Not arguing for/against, just want to know reasons beyond "i just dont like it".
I'm not saying you're taking a stance against privacy by any means, but changing only a single word in your statements makes them laughable. Would you tell someone embarassed about a wardrobe malfunction in public that you just couldn't understand why they would feel uncomfortable? How about someone who is the victim of identity theft? Now extend that to someone who's entire internet browsing history was made available to corporate and governmental institutions.
I don't want my privacy violated because it makes me feel violated - why should anyone need a better reason than that?
lastly, think about what we would classify as 'creepy facebook stalking' by a person - why should corporations and governemntal institutions be immune to that creepy classification?
It takes a small attack surface and multiplies it exponentially, making you more vulnerable to any criminal out there.
Is not wanting your identity stolen enough of a reason?
It makes any positive steps you've taken to protect your privacy utterly meaningless.
