Big Brother is watching Yahoo is snooping
#1
Posted 15 December 2005 - 01:16 PM
>>
Yahoo is now using something called "Web Beacons" to track Yahoo Group users around the net and see what you're doing and where you are going--similar to cookies. >>
>>
Yahoo is recording every website and every group you visit.>>
>>
Take a look at their updated privacy statement: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy. About halfway down the page, in the section on cookies, you will see a link that says "web beacons".>>
>>
Click on the phrase "web beacons". That will bring you to a paragraph entitled "Outside the Yahoo Network.">>
>>
In this section you'll see a little "click here to opt out" link that will let you "opt-out" of their new method of snooping.>>
>>
Once you have clicked that link, you are exempted. >>
>>
Notice the "Success" message on the top of the next screen. >>
>>
Be careful, because on that page there is a "Cancel Opt-out" button that, if clicked, will *undo* the opt-out.>>
>>
Feel free to forward this to other groups. >>
>>
I encourage everyone to opt out and send this information to any group that you belong to that my message didn't reach.
>>
Regards,>>
#8 Guest_Anna_*
Posted 16 December 2005 - 06:21 PM
Be careful out there!
#9
Posted 16 December 2005 - 06:27 PM
I believe Google supplied the Yahoo search engine, one has to wonder if Google is more of a threat when it come to personal privacy. It's a good idea to mix and match, and don't rely on one provider. You can delete cookies but that can be such a pain when visiting regular sites. Wonders if this is anything to do with the Bush's anti Panty terrorism malarky, why do they want to know what sites your visiting?.
Big Sister is watching your antics
#10 Guest_sara_nichole_*
Posted 16 December 2005 - 08:39 PM
Pantyholic, on Dec 16 2005, 03:22 PM, said:
I believe Google supplied the Yahoo search engine, one has to wonder if Google is more of a threat when it come to personal privacy. It's a good idea to mix and match, and don't rely on one provider. You can delete cookies but that can be such a pain when visiting regular sites. Wonders if this is anything to do with the Bush's anti Panty terrorism malarky, why do they want to know what sites your visiting?.
Big Sister is watching your antics
As my job requires me to be a corporate 'big brother' - yes I am the dreaded security person
Google desktop and most of their tools are not only for targeted marketing, but their aggregated search results are often categorized and viewed by the US Gov. under the guise of the 'War on Terrorism'. Any information whether aimed at domestic security or not, gathered without your consent is akin IMO to stealing.
Also, Google as a tool is the second most productive tool in use toady by hackers to gain not only information, but a means to break into sites. (Internet Explorer is the most commonly used tool FYI).
My 2c worth....
Sara
#12
Posted 16 December 2005 - 10:55 PM
sara_nichole, on Dec 16 2005, 10:34 PM, said:
Sara
Yes I was aware of the queries for such searches, and how one could even search for information that would lead you to the actual administrator passwords in some cases, and Vulnerable Servers for hacking. Google if used correctly can throw up all kinds of sensitive info, and yet they do nothing to counter it, or maybe it's the beast that can't be tamed, or rather They don't want it tamed.
This search will throw up Confidential Info, if you have nothing to worry about no problem, but as you say it is stealing.
This so called war on terrorism ........... don't start me off on President Mugabe the corrupt mad dog dictator of Zimbabwe who's villainous ways, including crimes against humanity are totally ignored, it's come to a point when as soon as someone opens their mouth in politics all I hear is the word bullshit.
You know a thought just crossed my mind. You probably never heard of him, but Trevor Mcdonald who is a British journalist is about to retire, anyway he once intervied President Bush for TV.
This was before the invasion of Iraq. The interview went something like this.
Trevor on the subject of Sadam and weapons of mass destruction: So whether he allows the inspectors in or not, he is on the list to be attacked, he's the next target?
Bush: You keep trying to put ......... you're one these clever reporters that keeps trying to put words in my mouth.
Trevor: Far from that Mr President.
Bush: Well, I'm afraid you do, sir. But, nevertheless, you've had my answer on this subject. And I have no plans to attack on my desk.
Well maybe he was telling the truth, maybe it wasn't on his desk, it could of been the plans were in Google
#13
Posted 17 December 2005 - 01:18 PM
You know, this snooping under the guise of anti terror is nothing more than spying. I wonder if the spies are logging our data on this site and others like it are seeking out sexual devients(we would all be "deviants" to these people) gays, liberals, anyone who dares to have a voice of there own and not follow the crowd.
There could be a anti panty pogrom. (what happened to all the Eastern bloc secret police?
I am sorry, I am ranting, my apoligies.
Mandy x
#15 Guest_sara_nichole_*
Posted 19 December 2005 - 01:15 PM
carlainpanty, on Dec 17 2005, 11:54 AM, said:
Probably for the best. Too many traces can be found - social engineering tactics employed to find out how to discredit your character in the eyes of the moral elite (pardon me I have to go wash my mouth out now....)
On a lighter note, you could run on the Satin Ticket - you would be 'marvelous darling!'
Sara
#16
Posted 19 December 2005 - 04:51 PM
sara_nichole, on Dec 19 2005, 02:10 PM, said:
On a lighter note, you could run on the Satin Ticket - you would be 'marvelous darling!'
Sara
The thing is there is an awful lot of hypocrisy where politics is concerned, we all know that a good deal of men like to wear panties from time to time. Lets be honest I doubt if there is a man in the land who hasn't sneaked a pair on even if he doesn't wear them regularly.
Lets all join ranks and shout out to the world, I love panties! (but not just yet in case the wife finds out)
Mandy x
#17 Guest_Anna_*
Posted 19 December 2005 - 11:22 PM
mandyboy, on Dec 17 2005, 10:13 AM, said:
Not very likely. Too many spies themselves are "deviants" for it to matter much any more. Perhaps the biggest gain governments obtain from surveillance and, more importantly, constant fear of surveillance, is a constant level of low-grade paranoia spreading through the general population. (I say this having once been part of the "spook" community, btw.) The reality is (especially now) there is far too much raw data to process effectively. Spooks usually have their hands full with trying to detect more critical things (even if their intel never actually gets used by anyone in power).
In any case, recent events (as well as history) tend to lead to the conclusion that most administrations make up their mind on a policy issue and only then go looking for the intel data to back it up.
The greatest present benefit to the generation of thieves presently running most of the "western" pseudo-democracies is that the supposed secrecy surrounding their intel establishments allows them to claim credibility for even the most ridiculous, impossible claims.
Okay, I've had my fit. Now where are my meds?
#18 Guest_sara_nichole_*
Posted 21 December 2005 - 11:21 AM
Anna, on Dec 19 2005, 08:17 PM, said:
Okay, I've had my fit. Now where are my meds?
True, but corporate america sends a lot of data to local and state authorities. Some site data gets collected and sent to other security cos. Most of these security companies are run by or employ large numbers of ex-govt.
Data once published is available for a long time. Wayback Machine Is an example.
Ok I need your meds to Auntie....
Sara
#19 Guest_Anna_*
Posted 21 December 2005 - 01:36 PM
sara_nichole, on Dec 21 2005, 08:16 AM, said:
Since NSA (and agencies like it) hire and train a huge number of mathematicians, programmers and the like, I'm not sure one should make too much of the fact that such cos. employ many ex-gov people. Who else would they hire? In any case, the 'net archive utilities such as that which you linked seem to me to be sort of dual-edged swords. As a front-page piece in the New York Times yesterday (Dec. 20, '05) pointed out, terrorist or other committed underground movements tend to use the net with far greater flexibility and imagination than these supposedly omnipotent security agencies.
One has only to look at the brain dead quality of the FBI's reportage on various Sixties "dissidents" to get an idea just how likely the government is, collectively, to have a clue. Forget having one, they don't even seem to know how to buy one, in most cases. Still, I'm sure there are exceptions. However, I suspect any exceptions tend to either rise into the middle ranks of the "hot button" offices looking at terror, the Middle East and so on, or they find themselves a nice safe career niche -- most likely in an area that cares very little about anyone's undergarments.
Probably the thing that makes me feel least threatened, at least by these official forces, is that I know that for an intel agency to collect and report on something, it first has to be "tasked" by a "consumer" agency. I just find it hard to imagine -- though it would be amusing to read -- any US gov agency explicitly asking for intel resources to be dedicated to the surveillance of MIPs or even to any number of more interesting -- and more readily made to sound threatening -- subpopulations on the frontiers of sexual "normalcy."
If it were to happen, I am fairly sure that it would soon be leaked to the press, with the predictable, ensuing shitstorm clearing out the desks of whichever yutzes happened to act on such a brainfart.

Sign In
Register
Help



MultiQuote
