Talk:Web beacon/Archives/2021

Industry POV? Avoided: Email tracking, spying = Malware

The article assumes happy, legal, consensual usage by merely greedy, well-intended honest marketeers and organizations. (such as: Beacons are invisible solely for user convenience.) This leads to nonfactual sentences and awkward phrasing. News search results:

Judge orders release of Navy SEAL accused of war crimes ... https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/2019-05-30/judge-hears... According to court testimony, Cmdr. Chris Czaplak, the Navy’s lead prosecutor, sent tracking software in emails to the SEAL’s defense lawyers and to at least one reporter covering the case.

SEAL's Trial Delayed as Defense Seeks Info on Email ... https://www.military.com/.../23/seals-trial-delayed-defense-seeks-info-email-snooping.html SAN DIEGO — A judge delayed the murder case Wednesday of a decorated Navy SEAL to first make sure the government's monitoring of defense team emails did not compromise his right to a fair trial.

So government agencies used it to spy on a reporter and others, but that's not even the actual story, ho-hum. All those many news articles seem to assume email tracking for covert spying is common and well known. Our article never breaches the concept of email tracking (and web beacons etc) as intrusive or undesirable malware. ...As threat to privacy and agent of covert government power capable of compromising constitutional rights.

Also unmentioned is the possibility of innocent users accidentally implanting and sending beacons into their own emails, such by copying text from a website. Is this a threat?

Also unmentioned is the apparent paradox of browsers on one hand turning off email tracking, but on the other hand, not doing it effectively or even aiding beacons.

And what of anti-virus/malware software? ("None" is a characteristic.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:109E:F0B8:D19C:3255 (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

While your remarks verge on hyper-political (and have a bit of the odor of paranoid conspiracy theory), I do concur that web beacons are a privacy issue (exploited by both democratic-elected governments and non-democratic governments -- as well as by non-democratic "free enterprise" operations, and various other institutions, organizations and individuals).

And I do think the article might do well to have more content on that issue (if solidly and thoroughly documented from very relevant reference citations, from very substantial and reputable online sources)

For more of my comments on this issue, see the "Technical language" topic, above.

~ Penlite (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Technical language

This page is part of the larger and very hotly debated topic of internet privacy. As such it has high visibility and should be held to a high standard of editing.

I don’t believe at the moment this page serves its purpose of informing the general reader about a technical topic. It introduces technical language to explain technical points, which for the reader is like trying to pick himself up by the bootstraps.

I would edit the page myself to help improve it, but I can’t make out what is actually being said and I would fear misstating the facts. I think someone with a good understanding of the underlying technical specifications would need to do this.

-Wwallacee (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Upon rereading, I think another source of confusion is the change in perspective throughout the article from sender to receiver. In other words, a company that is embedding a tracking beacon in its web page is a sender of information and also of surveillance; an individual who reads this company’s web page is a receiver of such information and surveillance. I think it would help the article if these could be kept clearly distinct. One way to do this would be to frame the article entirely from the point of view of the sender. Even if readers are likely to be receivers who are trying to figure out what aspects of their life are trackable, this consistency of point of view would make the article more readable. -Wwallacee (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, I have just done a comprehensive stylistic edit on the page which I think will solve these problems. I hope I haven't diminished the technical accuracy - if I have, can someone please tweak? -Wwallacee (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks! I don't recall ever seeing such skill at "informing the general reader about a technical topic," —such mastery of communicating complex concepts in a technical subject. Most people don't recognize that effective communication requires time and effort. Especially experts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:109E:F0B8:D19C:3255 (talk) 09:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm impressed with the clarity (and very helpful "for instance..." examples) of this article -- though, admittedly, I come from a fairly strong technical background.

It does seem to provide some viable, and widely understandable, ways to counter the threat of web beacons (though does not make adequately clear the extreme difficulty of defeating them, or even detecting them -- particularly for the general public).

~ Penlite (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I will pile on the compliments, I think the article as it stands is useful and not too technical. Codexor (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Insufficient supporting reference citations

It is very troubling that nost of tne declarations in this article -- including whole headlined sections of the article -- are without any attribution to any cited reference -- in clear violation of WP:REFERENCES, one of the bedrock principles of Wikipedia.

While I admire the apparent thoroughness, detail -- and (to my technical mind) clarity -- of the article, I can't overlook that there is too little validation of it with any source citations -- implying that the article is merely a work of speculation or original research, a fundamental violation of Wikipedia standards (see: WP:NOR).

Moreover, the absence of source citations for the technical sections leaves the Wikipedia visitor with nowhere else to go on that section's topic/subtopics -- making the article a sort of "dead end" for the visitor/researcher.

~ Penlite (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Would we consider the EFF to be a reliable source for content? If I happen to buy paper about this topic for my own reasons, I might add some citations from it, and then make minor related content edits. Apart from that hypothetical, it would be nice to know any suggestions about what level of reliability we Wikipedians want here.

On the plus side, fewer citation boxes make for an easier read.  ;-) But seriously, I do think at least 2 or 3 a paragraph here would be a benefit. Codexor (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)