Why Do Websites like Boing! Boing! Collect So Much Data?

This exchange between Greg Yardley of Pinch Media and Joel Johnson of Boing! Boing! highlighted a fundamental hypocrisy about data collection and really begs the question of why so many websites think they need to collect so much data about visitors while really making this hard to suss out for normal users.

Yardley is co-founder of Pinch Media which makes spyware that is then baked into iPhone apps. When you use the iPhone app, the app gathers and transmits information about you back to Pinch Media. Johnson highlighted this, but Yardley responded that what company does is no different than what Boing! Boing! does,

Here’s what Boing Boing is running right now, right when I loaded this page:

Google Analytics
Quantcast
Federated Media
HitTail
Doubleclick
Google Custom Search Engine
Tribal Fusion
Six Apart Advertising
Adify
Chitika
AWStats

That’s no fewer than eleven different services that started tracking information about me without my consent. Most (not all) of these services track users across every domain where their code is placed, constructing a profile that’s then used for ad targeting. Some of these services go out of their way to circumvent user attempts to safeguard their privacy. A couple, for instance, store information in the much lesser-known – and rarely deleted – Local Shared Objects that come along with Flash, and have been known to use this information to ‘recreate’ user cookies after they’ve specifically been deleted. A couple more combine the information they’ve gathered about you here with information they’ve pulled in from social networks (where you’re also tracked) to work up a complete demographic profile for targeting. Some of these probably don’t even have a direct relationship with Boing Boing, but are served by other ad networks doing backfill – you could get a different set of trackers, potentially even more invasive, the next time you reload the page.

I didn’t consent to any of the tracking Boing Boing does – there’s no terms of service or privacy policy that pops up on first entry. Even if there *was*, by the time I got here, it’d be too late. If we went by the first commenter’s standards, Boing Boing’s running eleven different pieces of spyware.

The weird thing is that Johnson’s response is extremely weak (emphasis added),

And as far as Boing Boing‘s tracking and analytics goes, I can’t really argue against his general point. It’s useful for me as a writer and small businessman to have some basic stats (tracking pageviews to understand what sort of articles readers find compelling, for instance), and I think most people understand that a baseline of metrics is par for the course on commercial sites, but I hate the amount of tracking the comes out of the ad networks, too, and it only seems to be getting worse. There’s rarely more perfidious Javascript than that coded by an ad network programmer.

First, I think he’s totally wrong about the bolded part. Most people don’t have a clue just how much data the typical website is gathering about them. If you started talking to them about “baseline metrics” as Johnson does their eyes would glaze over.

But even assume that is true, so what? Saying it is useful and most people have come to expect it seem like the sort of weasel words we’d see from any industry trying to cover its ass.

Johnson continues and here’s where he really goes off the rails,

But there’s one difference between web-based tracking and the sort of analytics that Pinch Media gathers on the iPhone: it’s pretty simple to figure out what stats tracking occurs between a web site and a browser on a computer, as Yardley shows; it’s much more difficult to discern—or even be aware of—tracking that occurs in a closed system like the iPhone. And it’s not FUD to point it out so users can make their own decision.

That is a complete crock of shit. It is, in fact, extremely difficult for most people to figure out what is going on when they visit a website. I know pretty much what Boing! Boing! is doing in the background because I run Adblock and NoScript and can quickly look at all of the stuff Yardley points out.

The secretary down the hall has no clue. Moreover, my experience has been that once you show people and they understand, rather than being empowered they are resigned to going along with the system because they have little choice to do otherwise.

I can quickly right click on the NoScript button and enable the Flash movie that I want to see but that it blocked. The secretary has better things to do than spend all of her time trying to guess which script on the page is serving up necessary content and which is going to rat her out to some other server.

And before anyone beats me to it, I do run two services here — Google Ads and WordPress.com stats. Google Ads because I’m a greedy bastard, and WordPress.com stats because I wanted a basic stat tracking without the overkill that is Google Analytics. I’m not prepared to defend either one as motivated by anything other than crass self-interest.

Conspiracy Theories at Boing! Boing!

What always amazes me about partisans of any political stripe is the sort of cognitive dissonance that allows any given behavior to be justified or condemned based on who is carrying it out rather than what is actually being done. So the Republicans who until a few months ago were defending pretty much unlimited power for Bush are suddenly concerned about the concentration of executive power in the Obama administration.

Mark Frauenfelder at Boing! Boing! provides an excellent example of this in posting about Fox News’ Glenn Beck claiming that FEMA is building camps that are intended to house American dissidents. The headline at BB reads, “Fox’s Glenn Beck says Obama is building concentration camps for Republicans,” even though Beck never says the alleged camps are exclusively for Republicans.

Frauenfelder rightly dismisses this nonsense, writing,

Swiping material from the X-Files, Fox’s Glenn Beck warns that Obama is setting up FEMA concentration camps to warehouse the nation’s neocons, fundies, wingnuts, and dittoheads.

Of course the FEMA story has persisted through a number of presidencies. Back in the mid-1990s, it was Clinton who supposedly was going to round up conservatives for the camps, and then for most of this decade it was Bush who was preparing to incarcerate potentially millions of American dissidents in FEMA camps.

Absurd. No one would believe this, stuff, right? Hmmm…lets rewind to May 19, 2008, when Frauenfelder decided to post to Boing! Boing! a link to an article on that scholarly publication, Radar Online, that alleged the government was compiling a list of millions of American dissidents to track and possibly even detain. Frauenfelder, swiping material from the X-Files, wrote,

A feature in the most recent issue of RADAR is about a possible government program that tracks citizens’ behavior (online and otherwise) to compile a list of people to detain in case of martial law.

Now that’s cognitive dissonance.

Hey Target Market — Er, I Mean Happy Mutants

Damn. Boing! Boing! certainly took down David Pescovitz’s marketing survey request in a hurry. It’s too bad, because I would have loved to have seen the comment thread there.

Boing! Boing! Marketing Survey

The actual survey is still up here, and its pretty basic market droid stuff. What’s your household income, how much time do you spend online, do you pledge allegiance for Boing! Boing! in the ongoing slime war against Violet Blue (okay, I made that last one up).

For a site like Boing! Boing! that’s all over other people’s failures in this area, there’s not a  goddamned word about privacy or how the data will be treated beyond what you read above (for example, will they log my IP when I fill out the form? I don’t know — the survey doesn’t bother to say anything either way).

At this point, I’d recommend replacing the “Get Illuminated” text in the Boing! Boing! logo graphic to “You Are A Target Market”, but that’s just me. This could be good info for Douglas Rushkoff to have the next time he runs his infomercials — er guest blogs — for Boing! Boing!

At Boing! Boing!, You’ll Do What You’re Told, Understand?

This exchange at Boing! Boing! — in an item over companies lobbying against the stupid card check union bill that will almost certainly become law — left me giggling,

Libertarian fapping in 3… 2… 1…

Oh, wait.

They’ve already begun.

@5 Chris Tucker
“Libertarian fapping in 3… 2… 1…”
whats wrong with libertarians?

whats wrong with libertarians?

If anyone decides to answer that, the discussion needs to remain polite.

whts wrng wth lbrtrns?

f y wnt scty dtrmnd by blgcl mprtv ln, thn nthng.

Is that civil enough Antinous?

Dreaptha @16, Man on Pink Corner @17, OhhhSnap @67 if you have substantive complaints about the EFCA, fine. If you’re just here to dump lazy insults on labor unions, not fine.

MDH @83, I don’t know if it’s civil enough for Antinous, but it wasn’t civil enough for me. If you’re told a topic is off-limits, then the topic is off-limits.

Watching BB’s moderators is like witnessing some school yard insult contest.

Boing! Boing! Dumb-And-Resentful?

Jason Kottke decides to start a meme and Cory Doctorow can’t help but jump on the bandwagon about the WhiteHouse.gov robots.txt file which went from 2,400 lines to 2. Of course there must be some nefarious purpose there or lesson about the closed nature of the Bush administration vs. the new open Obama administration.

Kottke tells us the difference represents “a small and nerdy measure of the huge change in the executive branch of the US government today” and Doctorow tags his post with CIVLIB just to let us know this is not just some technical issue.

Which, of course, it is. You can view the entire robots.txt file here. For every /directory/ on the Whitehouse.gov site, the Bush administration created a text-only /directory/text/ subdirectory. The robots.txt file tells Google not to index the text-only version so that the complete page remains canonical for Google. In fact, this is exactly what Google suggests doing for sites that have large amounts of duplicated content (on this site, for example, most pages have a print-only option and the robots.txt file instructs Google not to index any URLs that contain /print/).

I wonder if this sort of nonsense is what Teresa Nielsen Hayden meant by “dumb-and-resentful” political commentators.

Mark Fraunfelder’s Logical Fallacies On Nut Allergies — And the Helpful Censors at Boing! Boing!

The British Medical Journal recently published a piece arguing that the concern over nut allergies in Western society has gotten to the point where it more closely resembles a mass hysteria rather than a legitimate health concern. The claim is not that there are not people with extremely severe allergies to nuts, but rather that from that point there is a wide ranging exagerration of the risk of such allergies and a corresponding overreaction in efforts to protect people with those allergies.

Joel Stein wrote an op-ed for the LA Times referencing the BMJ article which has the very unhelpful title, Nut allergies — a Yuppie invention (however, at most newspapers, op-ed columnists do not write headlines, so the headline is probably due to some smart ass editor rather than Stein). The article itself is very clear — echoing the BMJ article, Stein says there are a small number of people who have severe nut allergies but that the absurd overreaction at publich schools and elsewhere is really due to a mass hysteria-like condition.

Mark Fraunfelder at Boing! Boing! then chimes in with what is little more than a non-sequitur,

I wonder if he would have written this piece had he witnessed a child go into anaphylactic shock, as my daughter did when she ate a cookie with hidden nuts in it. It was very scary.

If Stein had said there was no such thing as people with severe allergies to nuts, that might be a valid complaint, but that wasn’t Stein’s point at all. This is a bit like someone chiming in everytime Boing! Boing! posts about the latest failings of the TSA with “I wonder if they would have written that piece if they’d had a friend who almost died on 9/11. That was very scary.”

And, of course, because this is Boing! Boing!, Mark is free to introduce his daughter as a trump card over science, but commenters on the blog are not free to call him on it.

A poster who claims he is a biologist points out that while he’s sorry to hear about Fraunfelder’s daughters problem, that the issue Stein is raising is a scientific question that you can’t simply dismiss by invoking a single anecdote (and goes on to say the post sounds a little like Jenny McCarthy’s explanation of her anti-vaccination/autism nonsense).

Of course this is what it looks like after the Teresa Nielsen Hayden brigade gets done with it,

Whl ‘m srry bt yr dghtr’s llrgy, Mrk, yr s f hr spcfc cs t nswr Jl’s cs tht sm ppl s thngs tht rn’t thr — wll, t mks y snd lttl lk Jnny McCrthy nd hr ntvccntn/tsm wrrrs. Thr’s scntfc qstn hr tht sn’t ddrssd by th xstnc f spcfc ncdtl css, nd yr drvby n-lnr t th nd f yr pst msss th pnt. Cngrtltn n sng th pwr f lrg nmbrs t mk nc gy’s lf dffclt fr fw wks.

It’s not enough that Mark invoking his daughter in that context is simply a cheap emotional trick to try to shut down debate, but TNH and her minions have to go the rest of the way and censor anyone who calls him out on it.

Well, that’s Boing! Boing! these days.

Apple C&D’s Wired — But People Who Talk About Radical Transparency . . .

John Brownlee over at Gadgets.BoingBoing.net (about the only BB property worth reading these days) has a basic overview of Apple sending a cease-and-desist to Wired Gadget Lab over a piece there showing how to install OS X on an MSI Wind. Yeah, newsflash — Apple sucks. They’re just Microsoft with a much smaller market share.

However, this part of Brownlee’s post had me snorting diet Coke through my nose,

Ars Technica’s Clint Ecker then asks if Chen (and other Conde Nast writers) are allowed to discuss it publicly, or cover it as news.

Chen’s Twitter response (since deleted):

Probably. We’re supposed to favor radical transparency here, right?

It certainly doesn’t look like it. The video to the guide in question has already been pulled and replaced with a random stream of CES 2009 videos. The YouTube mirror has been pulled as well.

Okay, if I were writing about Boing! Boing! the last thing I’d want to bring up is other sites’ lack of transparency given the whole Violet Blue episode and the more recent efforts by the ongoing efforts of Boing! Boing! comment moderators like Teresa Nielsen Hayden to insult and disemvowel anyone who dares show up with a different point of view.

Quietly Idiotic Xeni Jardin Post

Over at Boing! Boing!Boin, Xeni Jardin links to an “interview” with Karl Rove by Deborah Solmon in the New York Times and says,

Meant to blog this when it came out, but it’s one of the funniest/creepiest things I’ve ever read in the Times: a really odd Q&A with Karl Rove. By the time you reach the end, you half expect the guy to bust out the chianti and liver and start hissing at you:

Well of course it is funny and creepy because Deborah Solomon subscribes to the Xeni Jardin school of journalism — she doesn’t care about truth or accuracy but rather feels free to hide and manipulate what actually happened in order to make her subjects appear goofier and creepier.

Solomon’s interviews are remixed to the point that then-New York Times Ombudsman Clark Hoyt once wrote that the Times,

. . . should publish with each column a brief description of the editing standards: the order of questions may be changed, information may be added for clarity, and the transcript has been boiled down without indicating where material has been removed. If such a disclaimer destroys the illusion, maybe ‘Questions For’ needs to be rethought.

But hell, why take responsibility for our words when we can simply remix and unpublish?

The Circle Is Now Complete — Antinous Is the Master

Antinous, one of the moderators of the comment threads over at Boing! Boing! has finally surpassed Teresa Nielsen Hayden in his moderation skills. I am in awe after running across an exchange between Antinous and a user going by the handle “Harveyboing.”

Good old Harvey made the mistake of posting a comment critical of a CNN piece claiming George W. Bush had been snubbed at the G20 summitt. Harvey made the mistake of opening his post by saying, “Hey, give me a break” which Antinous righteously transformed to “h, gv m brk” before disemvoweling other parts of the post.

Harvey found this a bit hypocritical and the following exchange ensued,

Let’s see:

“i hate bush”

“Dumber than YouTube”

“Bush is the weird pale kid who lives with his grandmother, eats liverwurst sandwiches for lunch every day, and that no one pays any attention to at all”

“an alcoholic, middle aged man desperately looking for approval one last time”

“bush is one of the shittiest leaders we ever had”

But, asking for a break, and making a factual statement about the pro-left bias in this particular CNN report, and I get disemvoweled?

Hey, Antinous…inconsistent much?

Take a look at this

Harvey,

If you haven’t figured it out yet, I doubt that you ever will.

Antinous is right, some of us will never get it. And, frankly, I hope I never become the sort of person who does.

Barack Obama, Bill Ayers and Political Violence

Xeni Jardin over at Boing! Boing! highlights an absurd interview with Bill Ayers featuring (in Jardins words) “his suggestions on what those swept up in the current wave of hope following [Barack] Obama’s election might do to harness that excitement.”

Ayers, of course, is the former Weather Underground terrorist and Obama associate whom McCain tried (way too late and in a lousy way) to make an issue of when it was clear that he was going to lose the election.

It is odd to see just how easily left wingers who commit acts of political violence can be mainstreamed. It is difficult to imagine that happening in a similar way on the Right.

For example, imagine that John McCain had repeatedly associated with an anti-abortion activist who had led an underground group that attempted to bomb abortion clinics around the country during the 1980s. Does anyone seriously think that such an association would have been downplayed by the mainstream media the way Ayers was? Would left-liberals like Jardin approvingly cite, say, National Review if it made the mind boggling decision to run a political advice piece from such a former terrorist? In fact, anti-abortion advocates are generally considered beyond the pale when they coordinate plain old non-violent civil disobedience.

Somehow, I don’t think so. This is the same sort of dynamic that allows some left-liberals to deplore the regime of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet while cultivating the cult of Che Guevera. It’s the sort of dynamic that Bill Clinton relied on when he pardoned 16 members of the Puerto Rican nationalist FALN in 2000, knowing that even though the group was reponsible for carrying out deadly bombings in the United States, his legacy wouldn’t suffer (even after the 9/11 attacks outraged Americans, Clinton’s pardoning of the FALN terrorists has never really harmed his public image).

On the other hand, I assume if George W. Bush pardoned Michael Griffin that this would quickly become a defining incident of his presidency.