What's that? Pino does not have a Facebook account? How awesome is that kid!?Guest said:
Actually the like button is on the top and being tracked on the internet is significant ( if FB can do it why not anybobdy else? )
Unless you use a proxy and fill them up with wildly false information and use NoScript + BetterPrivacy add-ons for Firefox. It's the facebook.net domain that is required for the "like" buttons and whatnot on external sites. That domain isn't actually required to use facebook.com though. So I think keeping facebook.net blocked on NoScript may help the issue to a degree.Win7Dev said:
Who cares. Plain and Simple. If you use facebook why are you worried about them tracking your browsing history? They already know where you live, what your interests are, and probably what you had for breakfast this morning, so why does it even matter if they know what sites you've been to. They could likely guess based on the info you've given them anyway.
Just exactly who's safety are they protecting by retaining the ability to track your browser activity? Isn't it more like "We want to retain this ability because we're making good money by selling this information". I would like to see Ms. Brooke Rutledge win this case in order to establish a legal precedent that would apply to all corporate entities engaged in this type of activity."Facebook has changed as much as they can change with the logout issue. They want to retain the ability to track browsers after logout for safety and spam purposes,"
Well, I'd rather live in a society that is unnecessarily paranoid about privacy when they don't need to be, than one that isn't and should be. Kind of like the phrase, "I'd rather have a gun and not need it than need it and not have it".Guest said:
it doesnt matter, using facebook and google you will always be tracked and all those so called cookies can always be filtered down to pinpoint a single individual. people nowadays are just paroniod about 'privacy' ; but there is no such thing.