Slashdot Mirror


Google Using DoubleClick Tracking Cookies

dstates sends news coming out of the letters the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent to a number of broadband and Internet companies about their policies and practices on user tracking. The committee has now made public 25 responses to its queries, and many companies, including Google, acknowledge using targeted-advertising technology without explicitly informing customers. The Committee is considering legislation to require explicitly informing the consumer of the type of information being gathered and any intent to use it for a different purpose, and a right to say "no" to the collection or use. The submitter notes that, while Google denies using deep packet inspection, if the traffic is a Google search or email to or from a Gmail account, Google does not need DPI to see the contents of the message. "The revelations came in response to a bipartisan inquiry of how more Internet companies have gathered data on customers. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) said 'Increasingly, there are no limits technologically as to what a company can do in terms of collecting information... and then selling it as a commodity to other providers.' Some companies like NebuAd have tested deep-packet inspection with some broadband providers Knology and Cable One. Google said that it had begun to use the DoubleClick ad-serving cookie that allow the tracking of Web surfing across different sites but said it was not using deep packet inspection. Google promotes the fact that its merger with DoubleClick provides advertisers 'insight into the number of people who have seen an ad campaign,' as well as 'how many users visited their sites after seeing an ad.' Microsoft and Yahoo acknowledge the use of behavioral targeting. Yahoo says it allows users to turn off targeted advertising on its Web sites; Microsoft has not yet responded to the committee."

41 of 175 comments (clear)

  1. Solution: Opera by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Informative

    1. Turn off cookies globally.
    2. Turn on cookies for sites that need it by hitting F12 and hitting 'Accept cookes only from the site I visit'.

    Done. No more doubleclick cookies.

  2. Why is this news? by vtavares · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Did anyone really believe Google wasn't doing this?

    1. Re:Why is this news? by haystor · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is an outrage! My advertising is relevant!

      --
      t
    2. Re:Why is this news? by mikael · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I noticed that the download of slashdot webpages would be delayed by some strange link to

      http://www.google-analytics.com/ga.js

      http://www.ad.doubleclick.net/adj/ostg.slashdot/yro_p1_leader;logged_in=1;dcopt=....

      You can check this by clicking on Adblock in Firefox.

      I do wonder if this allows doubleclick.net to see past "anonymous coward" postings.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  3. It's alright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I usually just single-click any urls I come across.

  4. And slashdot uses doubleclick & google-analyti by viking80 · · Score: 4, Informative

    And slashdot uses doubleclick & google-analytics as well.

    Try disabling scripts with firefox "noScript". I think /. is more readable without allowing doubleclick.net & google-analytics.com

    --
    don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
  5. Not a problem by gamanimatron · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ahem. STOP SPENDING MY TAX DOLLARS ON THIS CRAP.

    Anyone using a computer who doesn't understand why they shouldn't accept all cookies and scripts and click on everything shiny deserves (yes, really!) to have their actions remotely monitored and the resulting data sold to the highest bidder.

    I don't want to drown in regulation just because some idiots can't be bothered to pull their collective head out before they use their systems.

    --
    cogito ergo dubito
  6. Ummm by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ummm, isn't this exactly what we would expect them to do with all that information? The only people who should be surprised by this are the ones who have no idea how the internet works. That said, there are plenty of workarounds, including limiting accepted cookies only to sites you specify, or having your browser clear everything out upon closing. Sure it doesn't totally fix the problem (assuming you consider it a problem), but it certainly does limit the amount of tracking they can do.

    --
    This guy's the limit!
  7. A missprint in its mission statment. by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Don't Do Eval". not "Don't Do Evil". The guys at Google wanted to make sure all the employees wouldn't use the eval command to create possible security holes by executing string.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  8. Opt out if you're worried by SiliconEntity · · Score: 4, Informative

    Google makes it easy to opt out of the doubleclick tracking cookie:

    http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html

    "Anyone may opt out of the DoubleClick cookie (for both the Google content network and DoubleClick ad serving) at any time by clicking the button above."

    1. Re: Opt out if you're worried by rs232 · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Google makes it easy to opt out of the doubleclick tracking cookie"

      Or you could put doubleclick.net & google-analytics.com in your hosts file and point the entries to 127.0.0.1 The advertisers still don't get it, intrusive adverts like on television don't work on the Internet

      --
      davecb5620@gmail.com
    2. Re: Opt out if you're worried by MarkusQ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nothing wrong with cookies. It's not "private data". My name, credit card and home address aren't included. I WANT websites to know my desktop resolution, screen depth, and even processor speed if it means the website is presented in a manner tailored for and best suited to my needs!!

      I'll change my mind when they start tracking national IDs, bank accounts and capturing my webcam streams without my permission.

      The problem is, a disturbingly small amount of information is needed to distinguish you from everyone else, creating a virtual "national ID" without you even being aware of it.

      Let's do some math.

      With 300 million people in the US, as few as 28 bits suffice to uniquely identify you (this assumes that the bits are independent in both source and distribution; in practice some redundancy will be required to make up for the fact that neither is strictly true). Now let's look at how many bits are contained in commonly tracked or easily trackable items:

      • Your zip code, 16 to 30 bits
      • Your gender, 1 bit
      • Your age, 6 bits
      • Your birthday, 8 bits
      • Your first name or nick, 10 to 30+ bits
      • The fact that you are on the internet at all, 2 bits
      • When you were on the internet, 10 bits or so each time
      • System details, 4 to 20 bits (fewer bits for generic MSWin boxes)
      • Your IP address, 32 or 80 bits (inet vs. inet6)
      • Your MAC address, 48 bits
      • Your interests, 4 to 30+ bits
      • Your browsing history...?
      • You address, 25 bits

      It doesn't take too many of these to add up to the 30 or so needed to uniquely identify you, "national ID" or not.

      --MarkusQ

  9. I can turn off targeted advertising... by XanC · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...With or without Yahoo's option.

    AdBlock Plus

  10. Block all cookies by default by mlwmohawk · · Score: 2, Informative

    In this day and age, just block all cookies by default, and allow ones from sites you use. This will even block "doubleclick" cookies as those aren't from the site you are visiting.

    This doesn't address IP address, but it is a step.

  11. Use CS Lite if you're using Firefox by HomerJ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    CS Lite

    This will let you block all those types of cookies, and as well give you MUCH better cookie management in Firefox. It lets you just deny cookies globally and just enable them for sites you want, without being a total pain in the ass

    Combine that with Adblock Plus, with the tracking filters, and you can get past all this tracking stuff without having to use no-script, which considering how javascript heavy most sites are today, is like swatting a fly with a sledgehammer

  12. DFP by binaryseraph · · Score: 2, Interesting

    After they sort this cookie stuff out, I hope they hold a House Commity on forcing DoubleClick (google) to make an ad-server that doesnt crash every 5 minutes (or at least one that you can log-into with firefox). -Disgruntled Ad Trafficker

  13. Disingenuous much? by BobMcD · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I find it ironic that this government, who greedily gobbles up vast volumes of data at every opportunity, would be barking up this tree.

    1. Re:Disingenuous much? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Do as I say, don't do as I do".

      It's not just for religion anymore.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Disingenuous much? by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Informative

      The US does not have a parliamentary form of government. The adminstration (the "government" in European parlance) is distinct from the Congress, which is what is holding these hearings and is controlled by the opposition.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  14. Not the same by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google's targeted advertisements seems reasonable; When you decide to use their free services, you should know that advertising is a part of the deal.

    Broadband providers using DPI, on the other hand, is like the USPS opening your private mail and then profiting off of what they learn about you. It's all about the expectation of privacy. Broadband providers need to transfer bits and stay out of the content business. If they start doing this, there will be no way to use the internet with any modicum of privacy.

  15. And Doubleclick doesn't need DPI either... by nweaver · · Score: 4, Informative

    You see, they don't just get the cookie, they also get the referrer field, so Google doesn't just get to see that it is "Nicholas Weaver" who's surfing the web, but can see that I am composing a reply to this article, because the referrer field in the doubleclick adds and google analytics on slashdot allow them to know this!

    --
    Test your net with Netalyzr
  16. Solution: Options by bunratty · · Score: 5, Informative

    Or use Firefox and uncheck Accept third-party cookies in the Privacy Options. Or use Internet Explorer and block third-party cookies. Or use Safari and disallow third-party cookies. I don't see any reason to switch browsers just to access a basic feature.

    --
    What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    1. Re:Solution: Options by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, I wasn't implying that one should switch browsers per se. You're right about the other browsers, except that turning off third party cookies doesn't work the same for IE or Firefox as it does for Opera.

      But Opera does give you a finer degree of control. You can actually either set 'Accept cookies only for the site I visit' or you can set 'Accept cookies' for the individual site. From the operawiki.info site cookies entry:

      If you set the site preference to "Accept cookies", while visiting this domain, in addition to the cookies allowed by the "Accept cookies only from the site I visit" rule, content coming from a remote domain can set cookies for its corresponding domain and subdomains IF AND ONLY IF the remote domain also has a site preference that allows cookies for itself. This means that if you want to allow remote domains while visiting this domain, you need to manually add a site preference for each remote domain and set it to "Accept cookies only for the site I visit" or "Accept cookies".

      "Accept cookies" for a site preference DOES NOT cause Opera to behave as if the global is set to "Accept cookies" when visiting the domain. This way you're not automatically getting opted in to remote domains. You have control over what remote domains you want to allow.

      This is different then setting unchecking 'Accept third-party cookies'.

    2. Re:Solution: Options by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Informative

      An even better option is the Cookie Button extension for Firefox. It is basically a shortcut to add and remove sites from the exceptions list for cookies. That way you can set Firefox to accept but clear all cookies when closed, except those you elect to keep (to stay logged in to forums etc).

      This protects your privacy by preventing tracking over sessions, while screwing things up for advertisers. It would be even better if there was some way to delete cookies over an hour old automatically, as that would prevent tracking ever within the session from being reliable.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Solution: Options by beckerist · · Score: 3, Informative
  17. Evil... by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems like DoubleClick is Google's evil twin. When Google wants to get something using "do no evil" it is Google, if they want to do something that is evil, they use DoubleClick

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  18. Tinfoil hats are the way to go by pseudorand · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This isn't news to me. I proudly wear a tinfoil hat and therefore have always assumed Google and every other search engine does everything technically possible to track my internet usage. And I behave accordingly. Firefox deletes ALL private data each time I close it. I don't do ANYTHING on the Internet that would be upsetting if it were public knowledge.

    So, you see, those of us wearing tinfoil hats aren't recluses that hide in the forest and survive on nuts and berries to avoid the grid. Instead, we are people who simply avoid the grid if and when we do want privacy and don't get upset when we get some confirmation of what we've known all along: the grid ain't private.

    And as for targeted advertising, everyone's got it all wrong. Targeted advertising is the ONE thing that I DO want them to track me for. After all, seeing ads for things I might actually want to buy rather than crap I don't want is a Good Thing. Targeted Advertising IS consumer friendly. It's feeding the data into health insurance eligibility and credit scores and potentially inaccurate data into legal proceedings that's scary.

    So everyone needs to stop worrying about advertising and start demanding that congress pass a law stating that if a company collects information about you and shares it with a third party without your explicit consent, that information is considered "public" in that it can count towards liable claims. Don't worry about what they share. Worry about your right to sue them if sharing the info causes you harm.

  19. An observation by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe it's just me, but has anyone else noticed the pattern of a roughly daily "Google invades your privacy" story?

    I'm not saying they're accurate or not: for all I know it's just an astroturfing campaign. It's just a significant trend around here.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  20. Re:But But ... by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 5, Funny

    >> their motto is "Don't be evil"
     
    ...where "don't be" approaches "be" for some values of evil.

  21. Full Disclosure. by Ohrion · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Full Disclosure is the only thing I think Google needs to have, which it appears they already do. If you disagree and want to opt out, there is an easy solution (use another search engine). What I personally care about, is if my Internet Provider starts doing this. I believe there is a big difference between the 2.

  22. But isn't Google already opt-in? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    while Google denies using deep packet inspection, if the traffic is a Google search or email to or from a Gmail account, Google does not need DPI to see the contents of the message.
    ..
    Markey said he and his colleagues plan to introduce legislation next year, a sort of online-privacy Bill of Rights, that would require that consumers must opt in to the tracking of their online behavior and the collection and sharing of their personal data.

    Isn't DELIBERATELY having all your email intentionally sent to Google, about as opt-in as things can get? We have known all along that Google reads the email that the users opt to have sent to them.

    I am starting to really get pissed off at the weirdo "modern" privacy movement. It used to be that we worried someone was watching us. But now we're taking active steps to push our "private" information into other people's faces, while still expecting them to not pay attention to what we are giving them. It's starting to get really absurd.

    The first step to protecting your privacy isn't to regulate the spies. No, the first step is to stop cooperating with the spies. If you won't take that step, then your privacy obviously doesn't mean jack shit to you, so quit crying to the government to do something about it.

    Stop sending I-looked-at-this-webpage packets to doubleclick. Stop sending your private email to Google, and stop sending your search requests to Google. You are giving them this stuff. You fucking opted in.

  23. Re:Solution: about:config, not Options by Kargan · · Score: 3, Informative

    The developers of Firefox removed the option to disable third party cookies in Firefox 2.0 and later, stating the reason that it was not possible to block all third party cookies with this function.

    There are basically two options to disable third party cookies in Firefox 2 versions.

    The first would be to disable it manually by opening about:config from the address bar. Search for network.cookie.cookieBehavior and take a look a the value. If it is set to 0 you accept all cookies, 1 means you only accept cookies from the same server, 2 means you disable all cookies. Setting it to 1 has the same effect that the option in the old firefox browsers had: it disables third party cookies.

    You could install an add-on as well that blocks third party cookies. One of the many extensions that does that is called CookieSafe. This one makes it possible to disable all cookies and allow them only for specific sites (whitelist).

    --
    Palaces, barricades, threats, meet promises
  24. You'd better turn off Javascript too by MacDork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    1. Turn off cookies globally.
    2. Turn on cookies for sites that need it by hitting F12 and hitting 'Accept cookes only from the site I visit'.

    That's not only overkill, it's annoying. Just do the "Accept cookies only from sites I visit" part and be done with it.

    Besides, disabling cookies hardly stops them from tracking you. They could still hit you with a doublescript.js, which can be much more invasive than a cookie. Their server could glean your browser history based on link color, instead of just track you around affiliated sites. And most doubleclick site already drop doubleclick javascripts on you for banner rotation. All doubleclick has to do is change their code a bit if they aren't doing it already. At least with cookies, they have to be affiliated with the website to know you've been there.

    You also need to disable swf files because they can store info cookie style too. You might diable cookies, but if you load doubleclick SWFs you're just as screwed.

    Personally, I just use Omniweb and since I can filter links with perl-like regular expressions, I just drop everything from doubleclick... among other offenders.

  25. I always thought by bogie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That people who used Gmail for anything remotely personal are fucking nuts. 5 years, 10 years down the road do you really think that all of your personal Gmail information won't be either a) sold to advertisers, insurance companies, and financial institutions and b) stolen by hackers?

    The original Google founders have no idea what a monster they are creating. An essential, and most times helpful monster, but a monster none the less that will someday turn on everyone. I'm looking into only using a proxy for all Google searches, you should too.

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
  26. Re:Solution: about:config, not Options by bakuun · · Score: 4, Informative

    They added the function again in firefox 3.0, so it is again possible to block third-party cookies without any extensions or other software than just a fresh firefox installation.

  27. Re:And slashdot uses doubleclick & google-anal by afabbro · · Score: 2, Informative
    ...well, it does except for all of us who speed up our surfing by putting

    127.0.0.1 google-analytics.com

    in our hosts file...

    --
    Advice: on VPS providers
  28. IF your browser handles 3rd part cookies properly by schwaang · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not all versions of major browsers behave the way you expect them to when you try to disable third-party cookies.
    Check out Steve Gibson's cookie forensics page.
    Here's a neat browser stats page showing graphically how GRC visitors have their 3rd party cookies configured by browser.

  29. Re:And slashdot uses doubleclick & google-anal by christefano · · Score: 3, Informative

    Don't forget these, too:

    127.0.0.1 www.google-analytics.com
    127.0.0.1 ssl.google-analytics.com

    While you're at it:

    127.0.0.1 doubleclick.net
    127.0.0.1 www.doubleclick.net
    127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
    127.0.0.1 ads.doubleclick.com
    127.0.0.1 ads.doubleclick.net
    127.0.0.1 ad2.doubleclick.net
    127.0.0.1 ad3.doubleclick.net
    127.0.0.1 ad4.doubleclick.net
    127.0.0.1 ad5.doubleclick.net
    127.0.0.1 ad6.doubleclick.net
    127.0.0.1 ad7.doubleclick.net
    127.0.0.1 ad8.doubleclick.net
    127.0.0.1 ad9.doubleclick.net

  30. CustomizeGoogle by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There's CustomizeGoogle, a Greasemonkey script which will, among other things, randomize the replies to Google's cookies. Unfortunately, it's rather slow, and may result in Javascript "script running too long" errors. Right idea, though.

  31. ESSENTIAL ADD-ONS by zobier · · Score: 2, Informative

    Like others have said, CookieSafe and CS Lite are like NoScript for cookies with the option to allow cookies for a specific site: permanently, for each session or once-off.

    I currently use the above extensions as well as Adblock, Filterset.G and RefControl. The latter set to "forge" (send the root of the site as the referrer).

    I consider these the essential privacy/security add-ons for Firefox. I'm interested if anyone has any others to add to the list.

    --
    Me lost me cookie at the disco.
    1. Re:ESSENTIAL ADD-ONS by I)_MaLaClYpSe_(I · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Sorry, hit submit accidentally:

      I use:

      • Adblock Plus, for blocking Advertisement
      • CustomizeGoogle, for making gmail use HTTPS only
      • Firekeeper, IDS/IPS for Firefox
      • FormFox, shows you where a form submitted gets sent to
      • McAffe Site Advisor,
      • NoScript,
      • SafeHistory, defends against visited-link-based web privacy attacks
      • Site Security Policy, enforces security policies for how a websites's content should behave
      • TrackMeNot, protects against data profiling by search engines
      • User Agent Switcher, lets me surf as googlebot