Originally Posted by Majin SSJ Eric
Originally Posted by tpi2007
So you missed the entire second quote in the OP, is that it?
Here, I'll repost it for you:
Sure, nothing to see here, move along folks. Seriously now...
Well, I don't personally care if people know what meds I take. Here, I'll tell you myself, I'm currently taking Gabapentin and fioricet for my recurring migraine headaches. That said, I can at least understand why some people would be sensitive to that sort of info getting out (if they took something like Valtrex for instance), but if that is the case I would always recommend not using pharmacy websites in the first place (or any other type of site that deals in information you wish to remain private) since, as I've said over and over, you shouldn't have an expectation of privacy in a public domain such as the internet in the first place.
People should always consider getting on the internet as no different than leaving their homes and going out in public. A website is really no different than a store; you walk in and they have every right to video tape you for example. Remember, you do not own the websites you visit and you shouldn't expect to be able to dictate what that website does or doesn't do because of "Mah privacy!!"
Great, more selective arguments, despite having quoted it again. Let's do it a third time, shall we?
But first let me tell you, everything is being handled electronically and over the Internet these days, so your argument that you should not use a pharmacy site if you have some legitimate privacy qualms - which you understand exist - doesn't hold any water. When you go to a physical pharmacy you have the same problem - things are handled electronically. You can't apply a double standard to the trustworthiness of the parties you make deals with in 2017 based on whether they have a physical store or an on-line one. Newsflash: some have both and they don't have separate databases just because of some delusion of increased privacy on the physical location.
A deceiving party is a deceiving party. Insecure practices regarding customers' privacy are insecure practices, period. The main point here is to hold these people and corporations accountable, demand better practices and data handling standards and not try labyrinthine ways to try to relativize the issues.
Walgreens.com, for instance, sent medical conditions and prescriptions alongside user names to FullStory despite the extensive use of manual redactions on the pharmacy site.
Another example: the account page for clothing store Bonobos leaked full credit card details—character by character as they were typed—to FullStory. Adding insult to injury, Yandex, Hotjar, and Smartlook all offer dashboards that use unencrypted HTTP when subscribing publishers replay visitor sessions, even when the original sessions were protected by HTTPS.
1. You are being deceived. When the site applies redactions on the site, giving you a false sense of security and trust on the party you're doing business with, but then goes behind your back and shares everything without said redactions, are you ok with this? This is deception. Has nothing do with the Internet being public or whatever, that is a false question. There are security measures and protocols that you think are in place and thus have a higher degree of trust to conduct business with said party and then find out it's not so. Is that ok with you?
2. Glad to see that you completely missed that part where the clothing store was leaking all your credit card details character for character
to a third party site. Are you ok with that too? Because you didn't say a word about that.
3. Also glad to see that the Internet being public means that HTTPS should not exist by that account. After all, what's the problem with being deceived when you are in an HTTPS session but then everything you did on said site is transmitted over the Internet to a third party (first problem) without HTTPS (second, major
problem)? No problem here either, right?
We need better standards and not make up excuses.Edited by tpi2007 - 11/24/17 at 11:41am