said by TKJunkMail :

Google targets consumers the same way with behavioral targeted advertising. The protests therefore seem to be targeting the method of data collection rather than the data collection itself.

One could argue that Google data collection is voluntary. But given the breath of Google data collection from their own sites and from all their partner web sites, and the near monopoly that Google now has in ad delivery, that distinction is fairly irrelevant.

said by moonpuppy :

Google is free and you decide to go there.

said by swhx7 :

Google's whole system relies on seb-surfers making requests to their domain for scripts, accepting their cookies, or both. Anyone who cares to find out the very simple precautions can opt out of it completely.

On the other hand, in some areas it's impossible to get broadband internet without 100% of one's traffic being intercepted and data-mined by the Nebuad machine (whether it serves the ads or not).

That's a huge difference.

said by TKJunkMail :

Google targets consumers the same way with behavioral targeted advertising. The protests therefore seem to be targeting the method of data collection rather than the data collection itself.

One could argue that Google data collection is voluntary. But given the breath of Google data collection from their own sites and from all their partner web sites, and the near monopoly that Google now has in ad delivery, that distinction is fairly irrelevant.

said by clickie :

Furthemore, Google isn't putting their data into third-party pages. Nebuad injects javascript into everyone's pages.

said by Google Analytics :

Google Analytics is implemented by including what is known as a "page tag". This is referred to as the Google Analytics Tracking Code (GATC) and is a hidden snippet of JavaScript code that the user adds onto every page of their website. This code acts as a beacon, collecting anonymous visitor data and sending it back to Google data collection servers for processing. Data processing takes place hourly, though it can be 3-4 hours in arrears of real time.

To function, the GATC loads a larger file from the Google webserver and then sets variables with the user's account number. The larger file (currently known as ga.js) is typically 18 KB in size and is only downloaded once at the start of the visit as it will be cached throughout the session. As all websites that implement GA with the ga.js code are using the same master file from Google, a visitor that has previously visited any other website with this code implemented, will also have the file cached on their machine. The result is that the page overhead of including the GATC on your web pages is kept to a minimum.

In addition to broadcasting information to Google servers, the GATC sets first party cookies on each visitor's computer. This is used to store anonymous information such as whether the visitor has been to the site before (new or returning visitor), what is the timestamp of the current visit and what was the referrer site or campaign the visitor came from e.g. search engine, keywords, banner, email etc.

said by clickie :

Quite simply, this is a dangerous box sitting on a network because while I use a network that permits Nebuad, *MY* security is irrevocably tied to Nebuad's security. All it takes is one compromise and all my traffic can be monitored because they're sitting square in the middle of communications.

said by clickie :

The dangers of Nebuad are far beyond privacy implications. It's going to be a target for criminals looking for an easy way to snoop on encrypted communications. And as big of a kludge as their system is, I highly doubt their boxes are anywhere near as secure as they need to be.

said by clickie :

No, you can't block data collection, you can only block the display of advertising utilizing that data.

You get watched regardless.

said by wifi4milez :

This is what I mean about uninformed statements ... Google does put their data on 3rd party pages. In fact, those 3rd parties actually incorportate the Google tracking mechanism without you realizing.
... Nebuad isnt doing anything different than what Google and countless other search engines are doing today. While the methods are slightly different (but just as easy to block/opt out for those intelligent enough to figure out how), the end result is the same.

said by wifi4milez :

you can in fact block all aspects of Nebuad. It involves placing their cookie on a black list of sorts, and then using Adblock. This prevents tracking and delivery of ads.

said by wifi4milez :

There was a user earlier this week who pointed out that you can in fact block all aspects of Nebuad. It involves placing their cookie on a black list of sorts, and then using Adblock. This prevents tracking and delivery of ads. I wont disagree that they need to have a clearly defined opt out procedure, in fact I would demand that they do. Realistically however, even if they dont you can still block them.

said by wifi4milez :

There was a user earlier this week who pointed out that you can in fact block all aspects of Nebuad. It involves placing their cookie on a black list of sorts, and then using Adblock. This prevents tracking and delivery of ads. I wont disagree that they need to have a clearly defined opt out procedure, in fact I would demand that they do. Realistically however, even if they dont you can still block them.

said by TKJunkMail :

Do you? What about all the other web sites where they collect information in behalf of Google and you don't even know they are doing it.

said by TKJunkMail :

You are correct. Given the way that Nebuad collects the info, it can be blocked. This thread ( »Consumer Groups Dig Inside NebuAD Technology ) has an extensive dialog on the subject where funchords(the author of the Nebuad study) admits that collection can be blocked - at least the way that Nebuad currently implements the collection process.

said by lookielookie :

Google doesn't look at the content of email you send/receive using an email client program. NeduAd does.
Google doesn't look at the content of files you send/receive. NeduAd does.
Google doesn't look at the content of IM you send/receive. NeduAd does.
Google doesn't look at ALL the packets you send/receive. NebuAd does.

said by swhx7 :

Unfortunately you are misunderstanding several things and the person you're replying to is correct.

1. Website owners contract with Google and put the Google tags in their own pages to get the benefits - ad revenue, analytics. Nebuad, however, adds javascript into pages and cookies into headers by forgery, without permission of website owners. Only some site owners contract for the Nebu-ized ads but all get their pages tagged on the way to the site visitor because that's how Nebuad builds the profiles on web users.

said by swhx7 :

2. "those 3rd parties actually incorportate the Google tracking mechanism without you realizing" - Every major browser has a "view source" option. Anyone astute enough to be reading this can simply look and see whether there are links to Google stuff in the page.

said by swhx7 :

3. "methods are slightly different (but just as easy to block/opt out for those intelligent enough to figure out how" - You can prevent your browser from ever retrieving a single cookie or script from Google by simply black-holing certain domains. Now explain, please, how the customer of a Nebuad-using ISP can prevent his traffic from going through the Nebuad machine? There's no way unless the ISP offers a true opt-out.

said by swhx7 :

4. "Nebuad isnt doing anything different than what Google and countless other search engines are doing today" - When websites serve cookies and scripts on a "clean" (non-Nebu-ized ) internet connection , the user can accept or reject each item (or decide whether to let his browser request them in the first place), and can be confident that a request to a given server really retrieves only from that server. Nebuad (if it works like Phorm) intercepts 100% of a person's web traffic, coming and going, data-mines it and inserts foreign content forged to appear as coming from remote domains. Claiming that there isn't "anything different" between these scenarios is either ignorance or shilling for the spybox people.