JimJames

IIRC HTTPS would encrypt your data from your ISP.

IIRC it depends how the ads are routed. The ads could be piped through duckduckgo so Bing only receives searches to return contextual ads for but has no knowledge of the IPs for each search. Duckduckgo then embeds the ads in the search page and returns it to the searcher, then forgets their IP.

On the other hand if there's just a bit of javascript on the search page that says "Tell bing to put ads on this page using the search bar text" then bing would be able to link the search to an IP and you lose your privacy.

This doesn't look good for ghostery but hypothetically both of these statements can be true.

They may be referring to the idea that they don't sell an individuals data, only massed results, so no one can be singled out. This is how census data is used, the data itself is never sold but companies can ask for certain queries to be done on the data which are then performed by the census bureau and returned to the client.

Our media does an amazing job at presenting labor and liberal as the only two options. Especially by suggesting that voting third party is throwing your vote away (which it isn't because of our preference system).

I have no faith in Australian politics anymore, every campaign seems to be entirely focused around mud slinging and fear mongering.

Isn't the algorithm just, filter out the greenscreen, for each remaining pixel draw it to the buffer, draw the buffer to the screen?

That doesn't seem more complicated than the examples they showed.

I will not be sad to see "rape a bitch" macros go but having their ads next to stuff like this is exactly what they signed up for. They signed up for their ads to be displayed next to whatever anyone posted.

Anyone who has used the internet for any length of time knows there are large amounts of disturbing content on it which will definitely spill into any user generated content site. I find it hard to believe that 15 separate companies failed to realise this, especially since I would expect their advertising departments to be well read on "the internet".

What I think may be happening is one company latching onto a group of activists with a very reasonable request to get some positive press and a bunch of companies "me too"ing along behind them. 4 companies were named in this article and 2 of them got airtime on NBC with the most inoffensive sound byte ever ("we are against rape"). That's free TV air time in a news slot appealing to your core demographic.

I find it strange that there is pressure from companies advertising on facebook about this. They signed up for ads on a user generated content site and then are displeased with some of the content?

Why are they even concerned about this? "Sexual assualt 'humor'" is in the extreme minority of posts on facebook. Maybe they don't want their ads next to it but that's what they signed up for. They wanted their ads next to whatever people posted on facebook knowing that the content was out of their control.

Some communities might even preemptively sabotage natural oil reserves if the alternative is a possible military occupation.

That was my thinking too. Along the lines of the anarchists cookbook.

Out of curiosity, would it be illegal to do that? I mean ethically it's definitely wrong, and I'm sure it's illegal to sell it to someone if you know they are going to try and exploit it for profit, is there a technical loophole to hide behind?

Say, you sell it to someone and to the best of your knowledge they want to claim the reward for themselves. To justify the increased price you received by selling it to a third party instead of submitting it for the bug reward you could say that the third party intends to claim the bug as his own work and the professional cred they'll receive justifies the increased price.

Especially since the only part of the market they can hope to capture with this move is "people who already pay for game of thrones legally over itunes". I would think that most of those people also know how to torrent but choose not to and foxtel just pissed them off, I doubt they happily switch services.

Yes, Foxtel is moving to block the itunes episodes from getting a speedy release. Not until next season though so we'll see if they succeed.

Ah, I thought they offered that for everywhere, not just australia (and they're cancelling it in australia). Sorry to get your hopes up.

It's out on itunes the same day in HD for $3.5 an episode (unless you are in australia).