[shadowgovt]

Technically, the only thing stopping them is SSH, and that can be handled (as Snowden publicized) by tapping latimes.com's systems on the other side of decryption.

Old-school me would not have expected that to happen. Post-Snowden? It's a definite possibility.

[martin_a]

> Old-school me would not have expected that to happen. Post-Snowden? It's a definite possibility.

And... Is that a "favorable" (hope that's the right word, non-native here) thing?

[shadowgovt]

It's neither favorable not disfavorable to me; it just is. Something I file away in the back of my head about how the Internet works right now. Individual uses can be favorable or disfavorable.

If I walk into a store and buy some gum, my face is on their security camera. If the cops are hunting for a murderer, they can pull that camera feed. Is this favorable? shrug. I like my privacy but I also like catching murderers. And I have no expectation of privacy when I step in someone's store; similarly, once I've shipped 1s and 0s to someone else, my expectation is they'll use them as they will, and if I don't like it I'll stop shipping 1s and 0s to them.

This is probably just my American sensibilities talking, but growing up in a culture where I was building a credit score before I knew what that was, I'm not surprised services like Google Analytics are e-gossiping on my preferences (any more than I'd have been surprised if two BBS owners, back in the day, gossiped about their users).