(December 4, 2010 at 2:28 pm)tackattack Wrote: @Adrian, This is how I see it. When I get on the web it's the same as me going down the street to a coffee shop or driving to the store. People can film me and follow me there. Just because my computer is in my home, doesn't mean I can eschew responsibility for where I go on it. I think, like many things,it boils down to intent. If people are tracking you via web or in real life with the intent to harm you or steal from you then it's invasion of your personal safety (not privacy). If people are just trying to determine whether you're legit or to market something for me.. why not, it's been done for years, why make it illeal now? I think those who hide behind anonimity or believe that where they go on the web is private are deluding themselves. (And that's coming from a ChristianI understand that, but bear in mind this is my field of study (information security / privacy), and we have very good criteria for what a violation of privacy is. In short, I would define it as "any attempt to access personal material that is not usually publicly available". The history in your browser is supposed to be private, and remain on the browser only (until deleted by the user). Any attempt to gain access to the contents of the history is a violation of privacy, and it doesn't matter if this is done via some automated script (as is the case here), or by someone directly accessing your browser when you leave your computer unlocked.I should know delusion right!)
It may be true that those who think that where they go on the web is private are deluding themselves, but that doesn't mean what they believe shouldn't be the standard we aim for. Indeed, in recent years many browsers (notably Firefox and Chrome) have made steps to make the web more private. So called "private browsing" is not vulnerable to the attack that was outlined in the paper I posted.
