[Ryan_IRL]

I think it's some valid info here, and it's certainly worth being wary of the info Google collects, but I also sense a little bit of FUD here. The whole "...which can often uniquely identify you" makes me feel like this is playing on fear a little too much. It's not like that "big ebony booty" search is going to come up in a job interview any time soon guys.

[TomOfTTB]

Yeah but someday it might and if it does today's info will be there. Because these companies are collecting the info now.

So while there's not yet a company collecting, collating and selling this info from all the various sources the database that company will eventually sell is already being built.

[brudgers]

>"...which can often uniquely identify you" makes me feel like this is playing on fear a little too much.

A browser signature is somewhat akin to a physical finger print.

https://panopticlick.eff.org/

bigebonybooty.com can sell your data too.

[mikeocool]

The browser signature presented on panopticlick is really not akin to a physical finger print at all.

Most of the features that are called out as making up your browser's 'finger print' actually change fairly regularly on most users machines. Using these features, your finger print would change anytime you update your browser, add a new plugin, or disalbe an old font.

[epi0Bauqu]

I really tried hard with this not to perpetrate any FUD. I re-read all the recent WSJ reporting many times and ran this by a bunch of critical eyes. Tracking down to the individual level is certainly real.

[gyardley]

The 'F' in FUD stands for fear. While tracking down to the individual level is certainly real, it certainly isn't anything a typical user needs to be concerned about - at least not to the extent that the WSJ's encouraging.

(Many people in the ad industry assume the WSJ's spreading such FUD because the WSJ as a premium brand benefits disproportionately in a world with dumbed-down ad targeting. I don't have any evidence for this - but it would explain the WSJ's vituperativeness.)

To me, this looks like you've just reproduced the WSJ's FUD, since the FUD just happens to reflect favorably on DuckDuckGo. That's not exactly laudable, although it is understandable.

[redrobot5050]

In this case, the 'F' stands for Facts.

I know of at least two start-ups that are currently building advertising revenue streams on facebook apps and twitter that are also data mining like crazy. The goal is to replicate your "facebook friends" data and have it accessible on-demand without needing facebook. They also plan on extracting all your likes and interests. Then, if your friend (who is uniquely identifiable) buys something and its within your "liked" interests, you get a micro-targeted ad telling you your friend has bought it.

So, sometime soon, the Beacon-scandal from facebook (a few years ago, if people can remember -- users said that facebook "ruined christmas") is going to play out again on the greater web. And there will likely be no opt-out.

The company Gabe is afraid will come to be is already in the process of an alpha test. Consumers are largely ignorant of how powerful data mining software can be, and will continue to be until its "too late".

[epi0Bauqu]

I guess that is our point of disagreement. I don't think the WSJ stuff is FUD. I think it is a long overdue expose on what is actually going on in this industry that the average person is completely unaware of.

[jdp23]

Agreed. I didn't see FUD here, just an accurate presentation of how much tracking Google does. So I decided to start out the new year by switch my search to DDG and seeing how well it performs.

[benologist]

Once upon a time what you did on myspace and facebook had no impact on your work life.