[close04]

A similar line of argumentation has been historically used to push every outrageous thing on innocent people since forever. You sell the "abuse" as defense for a shocking crime. Ok, you only said DDoS when the usual is terrorism and child abuse. But the bottom line is the same: I need to take something private from you to defend myself.

What would you think if all stores took every measurement they could about you without disclosing it and eventually justified it by saying "how else would I know you're not a thief"?

[rubinelli]

A referrer header is not an outrageous amount of information. It's the store-equivalent of asking "Where did you learn about us?" Taking it away would hurt smaller sites and do nothing against large companies and ad networks.

[JohnFen]

> A referrer header is not an outrageous amount of information.

But it does reveal information that is none of the website's business.

> It's the store-equivalent of asking "Where did you learn about us?"

No, it's not. Actually asking that question would be the equivalent. What this is is surveillance.

[close04]

The store is asking, the site is not. And 99% of people are trained to click "Accept" after years of dark pattern abuse and they have very little understanding of what happens in the background. I hope you understand that my point isn't to bash a webmaster but rather bring in discussion the principle of the whole thing. Seems that everybody draws the line for what is acceptable in such a way that it perfectly covers their own needs.

I've seen people that insist that using facial recognition is not different from what humans are doing naturally, now done also with electronics. We can agree the implications are different.

[spiderfarmer]

  You sell the "abuse" as defense for a shocking crime.

This works the other way around too. You use the abuse of non-personally identifiable information (by combining it with other data points, illegal without consent in the EU) to take useful data away from innocent webmasters.

[JohnFen]

> to take useful data away from innocent webmasters.

Webmasters who are collecting data about me or my machines (excluding the data about my direct use of their site) without my permission are not "innocent webmasters".

[close04]

I'm surprised that in 2019 people (especially on HN) still believe/claim that users trying to hang on to their personal data "abuse" this to "take useful data away from innocent webmasters".

There are dozens of real life situations where covertly collecting such data would be considered completely unacceptable and yet my comment arguing this was still substantially downvoted.

But I guess my point is being in a technically literate community makes no difference when it comes to making a buck. Once one agrees to take a "not an outrageous amount" of private data for a bit of money, they'll agree to take an outrageous amount for outrageous money. And I think this is a perfectly accurate explanation for what FB, Google, [you name it] are doing.

[close04]

Doesn't your argument work against encryption just the same? With such an argument aren't you actually punishing 99.9% of the internet population for what the 0.1% is doing?