(Page 2 of 3)
One can deal with cookies from within a Web browser relatively easily. Most browsers offer a setting under the "preferences" or "options" menu items to control which cookies it will accept, or whether it should ask your permission before accepting them. In addition, most browsers allow you to delete cookies. Camino and Apple's Safari have reset functions that erase all cookies, while the latest version of Firefox includes a similar function, "Clear all private data." Doing this will obscure your past tracks, although it may require you to log in again for your Web-based e-mail and any member-only discussion boards.
More telling, and more difficult to mask, is your IP address. Every computer on the Internet has an IP address, much like every phone has a number. You can see what your computer's address is by visiting http://www.showmyip.com; and others can see this address, too. Google and other search engines note the IP address of each user, which can then be used to locate which Internet service provider (ISP) the user is on. Theoretically, a private company or government can then request the user's personal information from the ISP. This method could be used to locate a blogger in Iran, or to track an employee who has leaked records of a company's polluting habits.
What is worrisome for many about the recent standoff between Google and the U.S. Department of Justice is not what the government is currently asking for, but what it could ask for in the future. The current DoJ request would not reveal user identities; but if Google or its competitors were compelled to release the IP addresses associated with their search records, each user's habits could be tied to a name. (Google's policy is to release such information only when the company has a "good faith belief" that the request is valid. For more on Google's privacy policies, see http://www.google.com/privacypolicy.html.)
EFF's Palmer notes that there are ways to travel online while masking one's IP address. The EFF itself funded a piece of software, called Tor, for a year, after it was initially funded by the Office of Naval Research. (Currently, Tor is not funded, although its original programmers are seeking donors and volunteer programmers to help upgrade the system.)
Users install the Tor client on their computers, and the client communicates with a dedicated Tor server picked at random. (There are currently about 300 Tor servers worldwide, often called "onion servers" because they work together in layers.) The first server randomly picks another, which picks another; the data sent are encrypted at each step, and each server knows only of the one immediately connected to it.
However, according to the EFF, Tor protects mainly the transfer of data. Someone could still sniff out your identity by tracking down information related to your IP address, or through clues sent out through hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP), the very protocol that enables Web browsing.
Illegitimate pharmacies account for 90 percent of drug ads on Microsoft's Bing, according to a new report.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
Guest (Alan Root)
Another strategy
There used to be a site that explained somewhat precisely how to build a nuclear device. It started with the words: "First, you wash your hands". Just suppose a few million of us infrequently logged on to so-called "forbidden" sites or sent out diversionary email messages. That is just one of several ways we need to develop to win the contest in favor of more privacy and less prying into other people's business under the emotion-laden guise of "national security" or "anti-terrorism".
Reply
Guest (Gabe)
The only time spam is good...
Spam is the cancer of the internet, and we all hate it. But if every user, ocasionally sent out random messages with NSA catch phrases like "assasinate Bush", "blow up Congress" etc., then their electronic hoovering machinery would just get clogged with meaningless stuff. Eventually, they would have to give up monitoring regular citizens, otherwise they'd go bankrupt. This would be a peaceful, electronic civil disobediance against Big Brother.
Reply
Guest (Wade Roush)
Bad idea
The government shouldn't be snooping on average citizens, but I have to say that Alan and Gabe's suggestions sound very bad to me. By spamming the Internet with meaningless, diversionary messages bearing terrorist-related catch phrases, you would just be providing cover for real terrorists, who would be able to slip their own messages through the network more easily.
Reply
Guest (Gabe)
So what is the solution?
Obviously, no normal citizen would ever want to help a terrorist. But governments or corporations snooping on everyday citizens under the pretext of defense is a horrible scenario too. Besides, the privacy methods outlined in this article are impractical for the masses anyway. It's more likely that a terrorist would use them instead. And then we are back at where we started :(
Reply
Guest (hewhoknows)
something
> that's because the war on terror is at least in part, a war on individuals. Those conducting the war are organized. Individuals are not - by definition.
Reply