Did You Hear? Paypal and DoubleClick in Bed

[Grasshopper]

We live in an era where everyone wants to abuse the end user as an exploitable resource with no rights and no privacy.

So very true. And while I may disagree with the ethics and implementation of defense against this, 'tis very true.

Well, y'all have been warned. Paypal isn't the sweet little company you might have once taken them for. They'll sell you out just like any other commercial company grown too big and uncaring. Bottom line- maximize revenue, all else be da**ed. Looks like they are now sharing your personal data somewhat indiscriminately. Buyer beware. I never trusted these folks and I never let them through the door in the first place.

What if your global, corner bank did this? Do they do it already? I know they aren't in cahoots with Google like Paypal apparently is now, but in some other way do they want to gig (or Goog) the end user?

[lewmur]

So very true. And while I may disagree with the ethics and implementation of defense against this, 'tis very true. What if your global, corner bank did this? Do they do it already? I know they aren't in cahoots with Google like Paypal apparently is now, but in some other way do they want to gig (or Goog) the end user?

I am against allowing Google to buy PayPal myself. But I just don't see it as a "Security and Networking" issue. I'm against it from an anti-trust standpoint but I don't see it affecting my online transactions. A layer of insulation between buyer and seller online is a necessity. Clutter may have been lucky in having 300 transactions without a problem but a vast number of people have been burned badly. As to the privacy issue about farming buying trends from my transactions, I don't think that online buying has any legitimate expectation of privacy in public transactions. Even your supermarket tracts what you buy. If you aren't buying kiddy porn or C4, then who cares if some advertiser knows what you have bought.

[Cluttermagnet]

I am against allowing Google to buy PayPal myself. But I just don't see it as a "Security and Networking" issue. I'm against it from an anti-trust standpoint but I don't see it affecting my online transactions.

Yes! Yes! The large scale abandonment of antitrust is a staggering sellout of us all. And that proceeds at a breakneck pace today. We little sheep are under the yoke of a very much pro-wolf (pro- big business) government. Both nationally and world wide. "Stand still, little sheep, to be shorn..." (or eaten).

A layer of insulation between buyer and seller online is a necessity. Clutter may have been lucky in having 300 transactions without a problem but a vast number of people have been burned badly.

Acknowledged. You are right, lewmur, some folks are getting badly burned on Ebay. For some, Paypal is a definite improvement over 'going it alone'. But OTOH I and many others are doing great without this shield. I don't believe I am an anomaly. There are plenty of others like me who prefer to avoid paying the 'armorer', to instead be quick and skillful on the 'battlefield'. BTW I believe the vast majority of Ebay transactions are still basically safe and straightforeward. But indeed, one must constantly scan the horizon- the wolves (rogue Ebay sellers) hover nearby...I'd like to see some statistics on how widespread the problem really is on Ebay. My strong suspicion is that it has been greatly overblown. Paypal exploits fear to sell its services, making it just the same as MS and their infernal FUD. Bah Humbug! Then Paypal turns around and abuses your trust by sharing your personal info with DoubleClick. That's scummy. I would have expected better even from them (up to now).

As to the privacy issue about farming buying trends from my transactions, I don't think that online buying has any legitimate expectation of privacy in public transactions. Even your supermarket tracts what you buy. If you aren't buying kiddy porn or C4, then who cares if some advertiser knows what you have bought.

Now there, I respectfully differ with you. "They know us better than we know ourselves". That personal info, in aggregate, could definitely be deployed as a horrific weapon* against individuals. I'm not talking about data on misfits such as you describe. I'm describing the day to day transactions of normal people, gathered and used against them in many and devious ways. And let me be clear, I believe very strongly that we're talking about aggregations of personally identifiable data on individuals. I do not believe that the temptation to amass individualized profiles can be resisted. Industry claims of 'anonymous, aggregate' data fall on deaf ears with me. It may have started that way, but only because the tech was not yet up to the task. Well the tech is catching up real fast today! BTW your supermarket certainly does amass personal data on you with those dangerous 'club cards' which they demand you present at the register. It's the local market manifestation of the coming National ID Card in the US. It's coming. BTW I am able to patronize a local, warehouse type supermarket which has, to date, resisted collecting any personal data on my grocery shopping. "No card needed", but how much longer can that last. The data collected from those infernal cards has a very positive impact on those stores' bottom line. In effect, it enables them to skillfully, incrementally ratchet up prices because they know us better.Knowledge is power. It will probably take a few more generations, but this will be a big part of what the next 'wars' among humans are fought over. Basic liberty is, and will be, once again under heavy attack, and it will be a long term, pitched battle to see whether human liberty is defended or falls victim, reducing humans to little more than slaves. Compare and contrast with serfdom in the middle ages. Signs and portents point towards a new, high tech sort of enslavement. Is humanity up to the challenge? Can it see the danger in time, and overcome its own self- destructive tendencies? Asimov's Rules of Robotics are already tattered and badly in need of ammendment. We never anticipated the human factor in robotics. Not the ethics of robot treatment (by humans). Not the ethics of robot behavior (towards humans). But the ethics of human behavior regarding the deployment of robots against other classes of humans.*Horrific weapon: Has it ever occurred to you that humans are predictable enough that high tech, complicated, predictive software might become eerily prescient? I believe that is very much the case. In other words, the 'borg' could almost seem to be able to read minds. The machine's predictive capabilities, after data reduction and an adaptive learning period, would seem downright uncanny. Consider- there are machines today which can beat the best, world class human chess players. The implications for individual liberty are not good... Edited November 27, 2007 by Cluttermagnet

[Guest LilBambi]

Yes, entrapment in the marketplace should be as illegal as it is for law enforcement.They have no right to know what I buy any more than they have a right to know what books I read from the Library.

[lewmur]

Yes, entrapment in the marketplace should be as illegal as it is for law enforcement.They have no right to know what I buy any more than they have a right to know what books I read from the Library.

When you take a book from the library that is between you and the govt. Whether that is a private matter or not depends on the govt. But when you buy a book there are two entities involved. You and the seller. You should have no expectation that the seller is going to keep the transaction private.I would not want to insult anyone by saying that expecting privacy in an online transaction is foolish, but, at best, it is naive. It isn't a question of whether or not they have the right to know it. They do know it. The question is, do you have the right to prevent them from using the knowledge?BTW, take a much closer look at the term "entrapment." AFAIK, that applies only to law enforcement. An individual may defraud you, or entice you, but only a cop can entrap you. Edited November 28, 2007 by lewmur

[lewmur]

I knew there was some reason why I have always studiously avoided Paypal. They had a bad reputation even before Ebay snarfed them up. I used Ebay a lot over the years, but I never forged a relationship with Paypal as a seller. What's more, if I come across an otherwise nice auction but the only payment method is Paypal, it's click! Buh bye. I want nothing to do with them as a buyer, either. I prefer to handle my own affairs, always.Google has a relationship with DoubleClick, you know. They bought 'em, in fact. I never trusted Google, either. I feel dirty just letting them look at my search habits. It's none of their d*** business. Going further than just deleting their cookies at times, I shifted over to a more anonymized search engine for most of my searches, a while back. And so far as Gmail, I was very suspicious of their motives from the getgo. I've never held any Google accounts, and I don't want any. Why on earth would I want to put my email stream in a vast, searchable data base for them to paw through? What, are you guys nuts? Some day, all your laxity is going to come back to haunt us all. I'm supposed to trust a huuuuuuge company whose motto is "don't be evil"? News flash: that horse is apparently long since out of the barn...But what does Google have to do with PayPal? Well, it turns out that Paypal has signed yet another deal with the devil, and a lot of (ostensibly) Paypal clicks, on their site, route you first through DoubleCross- er, DoubleClick before getting routed back to Paypal. And those guys no doubt strip off personally identifiable information on you as you pass through their evil server farm. They'll use it against you, mark my words. (Anyone remember "TIA"? It's probably still around, it just got forced underground) So far, just for more finely and acurately targeted sales pitches, but you wouldn't want to turn over too many rocks in that arcane world of the 'aggregators'. 'Aggregation' is nowhere near as anonymous as they'd have you believe. You probably wouldn't like what you'd find. You have no privacy. None. Don't kid yourself. But you could at least clean it up a bit, try to be a bit more careful in the future. Your life is increasingly an open book...I could cite dozens and dozens of links I've saved over the years regarding the privacy risks of dealing with these big outfits, and some of their more eggregious behaviors, but this one alone pretty much makes the case: Security Now #119 Yep, it's Steve Gibson again. He's still at it. 10 years ago, he began sounding the alarm on this sort of stuff. He was right then, and he's right today. Learn what you might do to fix this. Firefox gets a black eye in the matter, BTWHey, am I sounding anything like Andy Rooney- or John Dvorak? Good! Eeeuuuuwwww! I feel dirty. I'm going to go clean out most of my cookies and take a long, hot shower. I don't know if I can hope to ever completely get their smell off of me... <_<I've been too lax, must repent...

Why use PayPal? Check this link.Identity theft

[Guest LilBambi]

When you take a book from the library that is between you and the govt. Whether that is a private matter or not depends on the govt. But when you buy a book there are two entities involved. You and the seller. You should have no expectation that the seller is going to keep the transaction private.I would not want to insult anyone by saying that expecting privacy in an online transaction is foolish, but, at best, it is naive. It isn't a question of whether or not they have the right to know it. They do know it. The question is, do you have the right to prevent them from using the knowledge?BTW, take a much closer look at the term "entrapment." AFAIK, that applies only to law enforcement. An individual may defraud you, or entice you, but only a cop can entrap you.

I understand the 'difference' between them. But technically, the meaning is very much the same.No one should be coerced into making a decision. I know it happens all the time. Watched a great movie one time called "The Grift" ... great movie material; not so great real life material.As far as privacy goes. I am not entirely sure I agree with what you say, but I certainly would stand here and back your right to say so.

[Cluttermagnet]

Why use PayPal? Check this link.Identity theft

Of the victims, 3.2 million experienced unauthorized use of their existing credit card accounts, according to an FTC survey. Another 3.3 million reported misuse of non-credit card accounts and 1.8 million victims said that new accounts were opened or other frauds were committed using their personally identifying information.

The "8 Million" headline reduces as soon as you separate out those which weren't involving active credit card accounts.

3.2 million experienced unauthorized use of their existing credit card accounts

Now which of these involved compromise due to Ebay activity without Paypal? Probably relatively few. I'd like to see hard data. The more familiar identity theft methods are many and varied. Inside agents in a variety of companies including restaurants will steal customer data. Companies selling on Ebay are but one of many possible ways of being victimized. Theives also intercept and steal mail, for example. I have all my credit card bills sent through a PO box for security.

I would not want to insult anyone by saying that expecting privacy in an online transaction is foolish, but, at best, it is naive. It isn't a question of whether or not they have the right to know it. They do know it. The question is, do you have the right to prevent them from using the knowledge?

I don't agree with that at all. I believe I have a fundamental right to privacy. The matter is not entirely settled in law, what with fast changing communications channels popping up. The internet didn't really much exist, 15 years ago. The Supremes (court) will chip away at this issue for years to come. The companies which abuse us certainly seem to acknowledge at least some degree of privacy. To avoid getting sued all the time, they have published privacy policies. They often posture as being respectful of user privacy. A few actually do respect it. Many do not. Paypal is one of those. So is Google- it owns DoubleCross- er, DoubleClick. Ebay, who owns Paypal, got drawn to the dark side, in allowing Paypal and DoubleClick to get together. Edited November 28, 2007 by Cluttermagnet

[lewmur]

I don't agree with that at all. I believe I have a fundamental right to privacy.

You have the right to privacy when dealing with your Doctor, Lawyer or Priest. But not with the butcher, baker or candlestick maker.

[cybormoron]

this is a step in the right directionhttp://news.google.com/nwshp?tab=wn&hl...213&topic=thttp://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9824635-38.html?tag=cd.blog

[Guest LilBambi]

Ah, yes, Clutter! 2005 ... the start of a majorly ugly time frame in Identity Theft/Identity Fraud. A great place to keep up on that timeframe as well as 2006, and 2007 is PrivacyRights.org, specifically their page entitled, "A Chronology of Data Breaches" where things like the ChoicePoint fiasco in 2005 started and was expanded considerably. But that was ONLY one of so many! Privacy Rights Clearinghouse reports: TOTAL number of records containing sensitive personal information involved in security breaches: 216,176,736.And the methods of breaches are quite varied and include financial institutions, colleges/universities, health organizations, insurance companies, realtors, banks, the government, etc. Some online and some offline; some that cross the line between online and offline.And yes, Cybormoron, that is an excellent step in the right direction! The "Orwellian perception" that the courts were concerned about were very telling:

In both cases, the judges worried about public perception. California's Judge James Ware was concerned about the "perception by the public" that Google search terms are "subject to government scrutiny." In the Amazon case, Judge Crocker predicted that "rumors of an Orwellian federal criminal investigation into the reading habits of Amazon's customers could frighten countless potential customers into canceling planned online book purchases, now and perhaps forever."Instead of giving the Bush administration what it wanted, Crocker split the difference, saying that Amazon could send letters to its customers asking them whether they voluntarily wanted to contact the Feds.After losing the subpoena fight, Daniel Graber, the assistant U.S. Attorney in Madison, gave up and rescinded his request for the customer records.

That judge was right to worry about customer's perception if they had intentionally allowed such a thing!

[Guest LilBambi]

Not Applicable?(by Lady Liberty on the Price of Liberty website):

Of all the horrible things that Nazi Germany showed the world, perhaps the saddest was summed up by the Reverend Martin Niemoller in 1945 when he wrote: First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.In just a few sentences, Rev. Niemoller conveyed the tragedy of those whose own fear or apathy permits the destruction of things and lives others hold dear even as the eventual destruction of all they themselves love becomes more inevitable with precedent. In looking back some 60-odd years, I doubt there are any who would suggest that that the Nazi government offered its citizens too many good things. To be sure, as the saying goes, "Hindsight is 20/20." At the same time, we're supposed to be learning from the lessons of the past, and few lessons are clearer than those of Hitler's regime. That's why I cringe whenever I hear people say things like, "Well, if you don't have anything to hide..." or "Well, if it keeps us safer..."

Much more in the article ... it's certainly worth a read, IMHO.

[Guest LilBambi]

Just one quick quote from the end of the article,

So rest peacefully in your assumption that none of the invasive new laws or procedures applies to you because you don't have anything to hide. You'll be just fine as long as the police never make a mistake. You won't be a target of an investigation as long as you don't want to do anything to generate suspicion, like drive, work, open a bank account, or rent an apartment. Your name won't be on myriad databases encouraged by government regulation and your identity won't be stolen as long as you never buy anything, never misplace anything, never tell anyone anything, and never, ever send e-mails or fill out online forms. You won't be humiliated in front of strangers by being forced to stand naked as photos are taken of your unclothed body provided you never fly again.You will, in fact, remain utterly free as long as you do absolutely nothing. And as long as you choose to do nothing, the scope of freedom for everyone else - even those who, like you, have nothing to hide - will continue to narrow.

[Cluttermagnet]

Thank you so much, Fran. Your credentials as a champion of liberty are top notch. Sad, however, that you are a relatively rare bird in America today.

You will, in fact, remain utterly free as long as you do absolutely nothing. And as long as you choose to do nothing, the scope of freedom for everyone else - even those who, like you, have nothing to hide - will continue to narrow.

Sadly, it's even worse than that. In my part of the country, as in many others, there is a thriving drug trade, so fairly often there are major 'no knock' raids on dwellings. All too often, we hear that the local authorities burst in at the wrong address. That's right, they can't even get the address right, and they smash in the door and pour in wearing armor with face masks and bullet proof vests, guns sometimes blazing. And innocent people sometimes get killed over nothing- because of making instinctive, reflexive bodily moves which are misinterpreted as 'threatening' to the invading police. Yikes! The point is, we the people allow this sort of thing to happen, and we the people, even if totally innocent and law abiding, might, therefore, pay the ultimate price for this foolishness. In those circumstances, I might. My instinct would be to counter deadly force with deadly force. But that can get you killed if you miscalculate and end up taking on a local 'swat' team in your own home. But OTOH, the number of violent, armed, sometimes fatal home invasion robberies (by violent criminals) is increasing in my area. I would tend to resist that. I'm not going to just lay down and be somebody's victim. I'm not going down without a fight. But could I make the wrong, split second decision, if invaded by a swat team, and resist? That could cost me my life. If they anounced themselves, I'd surrender, and live to fight another day. After all, I'm not guilty of much of anything, other than being a bit picky about my rights. It's all merely a question of degree. Either you believe in liberty or you don't. So many sheeple today. The information wrongfully stolen from us on the internet can and sometimes will be used against us. In time, the consequences of that will become increasingly worse than the relatively mild circumstances we see today.I have no need to put on camoflage clothing and go running around in the woods playing with guns, etc. But I will stand up for myself day to day and not give ground on the little things. As they say over in the middle east, if you let the camel even get his nose in the tent, soon the whole camel is in the tent. And camels have fleas. And the camel will eat your dinner, etc. Think of it this way- a million bucks is nothing more than a big collection of pennies. About a hundred million of them. And the worst imaginable, nightmare police state scenario is nothing more than the logical result of giving ground on the little things- a million little concessions, all lined up in a row. Food for thought...

[Guest LilBambi]

Unfortunately, as rare as they would like you to think that sort of thing happens -- it doesn't really matter how rare it is. It's still wrong and no amount of apology, or compensation will fix the wrong those people were done, and in the cases where a life was taken mistakenly (all because someone tried to protect their family and home), they will never be able to bring back that life -- the father, the husband, the wife, the grand parent, etc.Thank you Clutter for your kind words. I do my best. It's not much but someone has to ring the bell for Liberty's sake. I really appreciate the sites like Lady Liberty's website, and so many others out there that are trying to wake us all up...before it's too late to fix this spiraling mess we are in.

[Cluttermagnet]

this is a step in the right directionhttp://news.google.com/nwshp?tab=wn&hl...213&topic=thttp://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9824635-38.html?tag=cd.blog

Yes it is. I'm amazed these days when I see someone with some backbone standing up to them. It does take some guts. Especially since standing up for liberty can sometimes get you branded a traitor in this mean- spirited era. Edited November 29, 2007 by Cluttermagnet

[Cluttermagnet]

You have the right to privacy when dealing with your Doctor, Lawyer or Priest. But not with the butcher, baker or candlestick maker.

Isn't that supposed to be "...doctor, lawyer, indian chief..."? Anyway, it is impossible to have a law to cover every possible creepy act, but that doesn't render such things un-creepy. Say I have a job inside someone's home, providing some sort of service, a repair, whatever. That would put me in (approximately) the

butcher, baker or candlestick maker

category. I overhear some things I really shouldn't, nothing illegal, but perhaps something compromising, something highly personal. No law prevents me from blabbing what I know, but if I do that I can hurt reputations, perhaps even jobs or carreers. After all, there is no law against speaking the truth. Any truth. (so far as I know- 'national security' excepted- heh!) Do I talk? Of course not! I'm an ethical person, not some scummy organization like Paypal or DoubleCross- er, DoubleClick. I don't talk. Ethics constrain me from behaving so. So my client's privacy is protected because I am a decent person, not because I'm bound by law. And most important, not only because there might also be negative consequences for me if I betrayed my client's trust, but also because there would be serious cumulative consequences for society as a whole, if enough people are all scummy in that way.Whether it's a right under law or merely an expectation, I believe I am entitled to my privacy, as a fundamental human right, and likewise, I should respect others' privacy. Because it's the only right and decent thing to do, and because not respecting it can hurt others, even badly. It's the golden rule, plain and simple. No legalistic mumbo jumbo, just doing the right thing every time and expecting others to do so as well- hoping against hope for the best in others. When not under direct attack or the influence of demagogues, most people are pretty decent folks. I believe all humans are basically good. Edited November 29, 2007 by Cluttermagnet

[lewmur]

Isn't that supposed to be "...doctor, lawyer, indian chief..."? Anyway, it is impossible to have a law to cover every possible creepy act, but that doesn't render such things un-creepy. Say I have a job inside someone's home, providing some sort of service, a repair, whatever. That would put me in (approximately) the category. I overhear some things I really shouldn't, nothing illegal, but perhaps something compromising, something highly personal. No law prevents me from blabbing what I know, but if I do that I can hurt reputations, perhaps even jobs or carreers. After all, there is no law against speaking the truth. Any truth. (so far as I know- 'national security' excepted- heh!) Do I talk? Of course not! I'm an ethical person, not some scummy organization like Paypal or DoubleCross- er, DoubleClick. I don't talk. Ethics constrain me from behaving so. So my client's privacy is protected because I am a decent person, not because I'm bound by law. And most important, not only because there might also be negative consequences for me if I betrayed my client's trust, but also because there would be serious cumulative consequences for society as a whole, if enough people are all scummy in that way.Whether it's a right under law or merely an expectation, I believe I am entitled to my privacy, as a fundamental human right, and likewise, I should respect others' privacy. Because it's the only right and decent thing to do, and because not respecting it can hurt others, even badly. It's the golden rule, plain and simple. No legalistic mumbo jumbo, just doing the right thing every time and expecting others to do so as well- hoping against hope for the best in others. When not under direct attack or the influence of demagogues, most people are pretty decent folks. I believe all humans are basically good.

How you behave and how you expect others to behave should be two entirely different things. The key is the word expect. If you expect everyone else to behave according to your ethical standards, then you are naive.But to put your scenario into proper perspective, if the person you hire to perform a service in your home warns you ahead of time that they may use any info they garner for their own profit, then they are still behaving ethically as well as legally. One may read PayPal's written privacy policy and then chose whether or not to avail them self of the service. You chose not to. But that doesn't make PayPal unethical. You not only don't have a legal right to such privacy, you shouldn't have any such expectation.

[Cluttermagnet]

Paypal is indeed unethical. When you place a button on your website which ostensibly points to another part of your site, then run those who click on it through Doubleclick, first, that is both misleading and unethical. It matters little that Doubleclick returns these poor, abused souls afterwards to the page they thought they were clicking on. They have been had. They have been tricked into entering into a first party agreement with Doubleclick which they were never even advised of. No amount of fine print boilerplate, no amount of weasel words buried in their 'agreement' somewhere is going to remove the stench of what they are doing to their customers, most of whom are unsuspecting, I imagine. It's scummy.I'm not naive and you know it. I'm probably just as cynical and worldly wise as you. I haven't abandoned my ideals, however, nor have I abandoned hope. Tricking people is unethical. Unless Steve Gibson has greatly misrepresented what he found on their website, what Paypal is doing is deception, plain and simple, regardless of any dubious boilerplate 'notice'. It's wrong, and no amount of semantical argument or splitting hairs is ever going to make it right. I have high expectations of others- nonetheless I know that much of the time people are going to disappoint me. That won't make me either surrender or lower my standards, however. I now have even more reason that ever to warn people away from Paypal. Written policies change, and quite often at that. It is totally, even ridiculously unrealistic to expect that people are going to fully read, let alone constantly reread such lengthy, mind numbing documents. Let alone fully comprehend them. You can get away with murder if that's your standard of ethics. A sad commentary on such companies today.Hey, I'm going to rob some people later this week. It'll be illegal, all right, but it won't be unethical because I mailed them a warning in real fine print. I doubt they read it, probably they just threw it out with the other junk mail. But I gave 'em fair warning of my intentions, so when I rob them, it won't be unethical. There, that's about right. It's what you are saying, in essence. In effect, nowadays, 'ethical' people do things which are morally wrong to others. But they are 'ethical' because they gave advance warning that they were going to be scummy with us.You're darned tootin' I don't do business with them!

Edited November 30, 2007 by Cluttermagnet

[lewmur]

Paypal is indeed unethical. When you place a button on your website which ostensibly points to another part of your site, then run those who click on it through Doubleclick, first, that is both misleading and unethical. It matters little that Doubleclick returns these poor, abused souls afterwards to the page they thought they were clicking on. They have been had. They have been tricked into entering into a first party agreement with Doubleclick which they were never even advised of. No amount of fine print boilerplate, no amount of weasel words buried in their 'agreement' somewhere is going to remove the stench of what they are doing to their customers, most of whom are unsuspecting, I imagine. It's scummy.

The fact that they use another site to gather the info they told you they were going to gather is irrelevant. Actually, the case could be made that those that block DoubleClick are the ones being unethical. They are using PayPal's services without paying the agreed upon price.

[Guest LilBambi]

Many of us have been with PayPal and/or eBay for a very long time. DoubleClick was never part of the bargain till --- like most business, software, and entertainment cartels of late -- PayPal changed the water by introducing DoubleClick into the equation. Before that, I believe it was Google Analytics, wasn't it?I proudly use my cookie settings, AdBlockPlus and a HOSTS file to block third parties from having access to what I am doing, whether they are paid by the first party or not. I did not authorize them to make use of my data.When I and others who make use of the PayPal service -- such as receive a payment while using PayPal as the merchant vendor to help us sell a good or service, auction/eBay item, receive a donation -- we are already paying for the 'pleasure' of using their service.We are not stealing from PayPal. We are blocking DoubleClick a dubious service many believe to invade our privacy in order to build their database (at our expense and to be used against us), by DoubleClick ... not just for PayPal's benefit but for all their customers to whom they charge real money for the data they 'gleaned' for free AND for pay from a company foolish enough to pay them.IMHO.IMPORTANT: Please, keep your arguments ON THE TOPIC, not directed at each other. This is an excellent discussion, but we need to have the arguments made on the merit of the topic, not directed at members of the forum. --Thanks.

[Cluttermagnet]

The fact that they use another site to gather the info they told you they were going to gather is irrelevant. Actually, the case could be made that those that block DoubleClick are the ones being unethical. They are using PayPal's services without paying the agreed upon price.

Do you, by any chance, hold stock either directly or indirectly in any of the companies presently being discussed? Or are you merely invested in winning your point in this argument? I'm very unlikely to give ground on any of the major points presently in contention. I've made my points, and I certainly have no illusions about persuading you to reconsider. So we're probably beating a dead horse at this point.

those that block DoubleClick are the ones being unethical

Is that one of the positions you mean to defend here? Wow! I have no answer for that. You're pulling my leg, playing 'devil's advocate', right?

the agreed upon price

We'll never agree on what the 'agreed upon price' is. Creeping errosion of rights is very common today, at both government and commerce levels. Many times, those who have the law behind them abuse it shamelessly, use it as a weapon against others, use it to disenfranchise others, marginalize others, impoverish others- even, ultimately, to destroy others. Laws which are unjust garner little respect, and 'ethics' which nowadays torture the very root meaning of the word seem nonetheless to be the order of the day. But people know the difference between right and wrong in their hearts, provided they are still capable of listening to and heeding that wise counsel.

[lewmur]

Clutter:Not only do I not own stock in PayPal or Google, I have already stated my opposition to the deal. The problem, as I see it, is one of focus. Attacking PayPal for doing something that is a standard business practice, takes the focus away from where the problem really lies and that is defacto monopolies. I dislike Big Brother govt but I dislike Big Brother businesses just as much. Co.s like MS, Paypal and Google become so large that can drive out all competition simply by buying them out, buying the govt regulators and using the legal system as a tool of destruction.IOW, I'm not defending PayPal, I'm trying to remove a "red herring." Crying "the sky is falling, the sky is falling,' just takes attention away from the fact that we are "walking in quicksand."Lewedit: I have a second problem with attacking PayPal on this basis. There may well be a lot of readers that are scared off from using PayPal and thereby placed in real danger of identity theft. PayPal serves a legitimate need. I just wish there were alternative sources for the same protection.

Edited December 2, 2007 by lewmur

[Guest LilBambi]

I dislike Big Brother govt but I dislike Big Brother businesses just as much. Co.s like MS, Paypal and Google become so large that can drive out all competition simply by buying them out, buying the govt regulators and using the legal system as a tool of destruction.IOW, I'm not defending PayPal, I'm trying to remove a "red herring." Crying "the sky is falling, the sky is falling,' just takes attention away from the fact that we are "walking in quicksand."Lewedit: I have a second problem with attacking PayPal on this basis. There may well be a lot of readers that are scared off from using PayPal and thereby placed in real danger of identity theft. PayPal serves a legitimate need. I just wish there were alternative sources for the same protection.

Now, I begin to see your point. And I agree that there are serious issues between business and government and citizens. IMHO, until they stop assigning citizen/personhood rights to corporations, we will never see the end to those conflicts of interest.It is therefore why I do what I can to 'just say no' since I can't change the fact that we are "walking in quicksand" -- i.e., blocking third parties like DoubleClick that some people seem to think is totally legit. Why do they think so? Because those people feel it's OK to make money by giving up other people's data. Huh?! However, I also agree that to a large degree PayPal does provide a legitimate service, and they do help afford some protection to both the seller and the buyer; but particularly to the buyer by insulating the buyer from needlessly providing credit card information to an unknown third party who may or may not handle that information safely.The problem is everyone seems to think in the digital world that THEY HAVE THE RIGHT to have feedback on number of listeners, number of views of movies, commercials, number of clicks to other channels during a show or skipping commercials on remotes on the TiVo or other PVRs, and probably cable boxes and satellite boxes as well these days. Sure it's nice to know, but it's not a right. And it's invasive.They also think they should take your picture hundreds of times while passing through a city on your way to visit family in some other city or state within your country.It's the old statement, "give an inch, they take a mile." And man do they take a mile!We did not choose our country of origin as our home to be part of a surveillance state. It's mentally, spiritually, emotionally and physically UNhealthy.

[lewmur]

Many of us have been with PayPal and/or eBay for a very long time. DoubleClick was never part of the bargain till --- like most business, software, and entertainment cartels of late -- PayPal changed the water by introducing DoubleClick into the equation. Before that, I believe it was Google Analytics, wasn't it?I proudly use my cookie settings, AdBlockPlus and a HOSTS file to block third parties from having access to what I am doing, whether they are paid by the first party or not. I did not authorize them to make use of my data.When I and others who make use of the PayPal service -- such as receive a payment while using PayPal as the merchant vendor to help us sell a good or service, auction/eBay item, receive a donation -- we are already paying for the 'pleasure' of using their service.We are not stealing from PayPal. We are blocking DoubleClick a dubious service many believe to invade our privacy in order to build their database (at our expense and to be used against us), by DoubleClick ... not just for PayPal's benefit but for all their customers to whom they charge real money for the data they 'gleaned' for free AND for pay from a company foolish enough to pay them.IMHO.IMPORTANT: Please, keep your arguments ON THE TOPIC, not directed at each other. This is an excellent discussion, but we need to have the arguments made on the merit of the topic, not directed at members of the forum. --Thanks.

But that is my point. Whether they use DoubleClick or Google Analytic is irrelevant. They collect the info and sell it. That's how they make a profit. As to blocking DoubleClick, if I were the least concerned about the info collected, I'd block it in a heartbeat. I was just a little miffed at the presumption of "higher ethical standards." PayPal could easily stop you from blocking DC so I'm presuming they allow it intentionally. Therefore there is no ethical reason not to do so.

[Guest LilBambi]

Actually, I didn't say I like Google Analytic any better than DoubleClick. That was just an aside comment actually as I was trying to remember who they used previously.Before Google Analytic, PayPal didn't use anything (other than maybe their webspace stats) for tracking, and trackback of their images on their site and on other sites; but even that was not required. You could host the PayPal images yourself if you wanted.This pervasive invasion of privacy and stripping of The People's Rights and Liberties is becoming endemic and worse than that, due to the pervasiveness, it is becoming accepted as a cost of doing business or traveling, or dealing with government these days!?! That should never have happened. The corps, the banks, the government have been conditioning The People to give up little slices of their rights and liberties for so long, that The People have no idea what cumulatively they have lost over time.

[lewmur]

This pervasive invasion of privacy and stripping of The People's Rights and Liberties is becoming endemic and worse than that, due to the pervasiveness, it is becoming accepted as a cost of doing business or traveling, or dealing with government these days!?! That should never have happened. The corps, the banks, the government have been conditioning The People to give up little slices of their rights and liberties for so long, that The People have no idea what cumulatively they have lost over time.

This is a beautiful speech. It echoes some of my own feelings. Now if you can document what personal info PayPal is passing to DC then it might be relevant. Otherwise it is emotional hype.

[Guest LilBambi]

Don't need to document it. Great Britain is supposed to be even better at protecting citizens private data and take a look at these discussions:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=s...amp;btnG=SearchHow long till our government and corporations are 'sharing?' As if they aren't already at times:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=c...amp;btnG=SearchIf they don't have the data to start with, there's no question about whether they should share it.Thanks for a great discussion. I see you are concerned about similar things. Not everyone will agree on the level to which our liberties and rights should be allowed to be invaded. I respect your opinion even if we don't don't agree entirely.That's the beauty of freedom and liberty. We can all have our own opinion.

[lewmur]

Don't need to document it. Great Britain is supposed to be even better at protecting citizens private data and take a look at these discussions:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=s...amp;btnG=SearchHow long till our government and corporations are 'sharing?' As if they aren't already at times:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=c...amp;btnG=SearchIf they don't have the data to start with, there's no question about whether they should share it.Thanks for a great discussion. I see you are concerned about similar things. Not everyone will agree on the level to which our liberties and rights should be allowed to be invaded. I respect your opinion even if we don't don't agree entirely.That's the beauty of freedom and liberty. We can all have our own opinion.

Sorry. I don't do links. It was a simple question that shouldn't require that I read any propaganda pieces. Do they pass on your name? Your email address? Your mailing address? Anything else that can identify you individually? Or, as they claim, are they just passing along what was bought from where and for how much?There is enough to be really worried about without getting paranoid about what is really no more than what the advertising industry has been doing since there was an advertising industry. Want to get paranoid? Does your supermarket have one of the little bar coded "membership cards" that gives you a discount on most items in the store? Guess what. Those cards not only track what was bought but WHO bought it. Want to ban those? Edited December 3, 2007 by lewmur

[Guest LilBambi]

Anything that tracks you and what you buy...while we are at it, how about the RFID trackers? And they can also track you through your purchases with Credit and Debit cards too, right?Maybe we should go back to a plain real non-paper money standard so they can't put trackers in the worthless (or nearly so) 'paper money.' Then maybe we'd have money that was actually worth something?Can anyone be truly free as long as all they do could be scrutinized down to the tittle and jot? I don't know, but it doesn't seem possible, does it?Yes, there are many very worthy things to worry about ... and this is only one seemingly tiny sliver of the very large pie.But while there are people on this planet who are dying and being silenced for the cause of some sort of freedom in their lives, this certainly does seem superfluous.