CONGRESS WILL LET INTERNET PROVIDERS SELL YOUR DATA—SO REBELS

All of your genuine online activity will still be available to buyers and sellers, but it will be bundled up with so much automatically generated nonsense data, no one will be able to sort out what was really you and what was just noise.

The problem with these tools and strategies—which are undoubtedly well-intentioned—is that it’s actually pretty hard to generate convincingly realistic-looking noise. After all, most of our online searching doesn’t happen on a rigorously timed schedule of one search every 10 seconds.

These kinds of regularized, repeated patterns make it pretty easy for a search engine to figure out they’re not coming from an actual person, and flag and block them. Furthermore, most random combinations of common nouns or phrases strewn amidst a person’s genuine browsing history are likely to stand out as artificial and deliberate attempts at obfuscation.

That doesn’t mean there’s zero value to these tactics. If your goal is simply to make it a little harder for advertisers to figure out what sorts of things you might be interested in buying, then inserting even some fairly rudimentary random noise into your browsing habits may do the trick. But a slightly more sophisticated analysis algorithm—to say nothing of a person actually looking at your data—would likely be able to strip away the noise fairly easily.

Still, the challenge of generating realistic-looking noise is not an insurmountable one. People may yet improve on the existing tools and find ways of making the noisy data more persuasive and indistinguishable from your actual online activity. One strategy might be to have large groups of people all agree to merge each other’s online browsing histories—in other words, to use actual people’s online activity as your “noise” so it displayed the characteristics of genuine user behavior.

Should the strategy of making internet noise catch on, it is likely to face some fairly formidable adversaries. Search engines, though they are not impacted by the rules overturned by Congress, also have a vested interest in being able to collect accurate data on their users. They could pretty easily block many of these automated obfuscation efforts simply by using their existing tools to detect bots.

After all, search engines often make money by selling ads based on user data, too. And they tend to create and fine-tune their search algorithms based on what people search for and what they click on. So if everyone’s computers are performing lots of randomly generated searches and clicking on the results, that has the potential to skew search engine data and degrade the quality of search results for all their users.

It’s always encouraging to see people fighting for their online privacy, and to see smart people designing tools to address the mistakes of policy-makers. But these tools have limitations—which should be a reminder even the cleverest workarounds are no substitute for sensible policy.

>>128421
>Noisify, a Chrome extension
>Using a bot net and pretending to care about your privacy.

>>128422
>then inserting even some fairly rudimentary random noise into your browsing habits may do the trick.
I'm pretty sure this doesn't work and this article is disinformation. I don't like Alex Jones but I *really* don't like when people prove him right about things.

>>128437
there are other browser that can install chrome extensions
or just use lynx or whatever

>>128438
not even sure what convincing random searches would be

>>128438
>rudimentary random noise
Anons Search History:
Wikipedia
Google
Youtube
PewDiePie channel
PopStar of the month channel
4chan
/news/
Wikipedia
/lit/
CNN
Gay Sex with Hats on
/out/
Google
Youtube
PewDiePie channel
PopStar of the month channel
Unless the "noise" is a literal VPN then its going to be pretty easy to spot what you were doing

>>128422
>>128880
If it's so hard to come up with fake browsing data why not make an app that collects actual browsing histories from it's userbase, then echoes it randomly?

As a bonus you could secretly collect the real data and sell it at an increased price.

#ThanksTrump

>>129194
>If it's so hard to come up with fake browsing data why not make an app that collects actual browsing histories from it's userbase, then echoes it randomly?

>As a bonus you could secretly collect the real data and sell it at an increased price.

Legit, the best way this would work would be a pass down system. User one and two share Web data being spit out, searching for the same things. User three joins the channel and now each user broadcasts the info of the user n-1. So user three echos user 2s data and 1 echos user three. Ad infinitum and sanitize certain illegal terms. Salt with a dash of obvious bait to distract the foolish and throw off algorithms that'll pull out based off personal browser timing patterns.

>>129273
Or just use a VPN?

If you don't care about sending all your searches to a middle man it's a technology that already does the job of preventing a search engine tracking you by your IP.

>>129194
This tech exists currently as a paid service that doesn't require extra bandwidth (as yours would) as it instead chops up the data stream among an enormous pool of user requests, but it is in the end only one stream of data either way. Sort of like >>129273 .

I forget what the service is called -- somewhat expensive though.

>>129194
>If it's so hard to come up with fake browsing data

it's not hard tho
why are people assuming it's hard

What if it's a cost vs size thing. If the program generates a pile of garbage would it drive up the overall cost of buying the data? Make it super stupid expensive and unrealistic to purchase in the first place.

Everyone should use this because I get paid six figures by corporations to press a button and let one of my data analysis scripts pull a 3D magic eye on what you think is useless, noisy garbage.

Shit, use one that will actually do something that I can't undo in five minutes. It's not like they're gonna quit paying me or using advertisements.

I want to use a proxy but 4chan blocks most of them, and shitposting is important to me.

How are Trumpcucks spinning this one?

>>129386
Something along the lines of YEAH BUT HER EMAILS.. Like always.

>>129385
Blame those who have shitposted before you then.