Slashdot Mirror
CNET, IDC Find Rapid Increase In Behavioral Data Tracking
retroworks writes "According to columnist Elinor Mills at CNET, efforts to track consumer browsing behavior are 'rising dramatically.' In an interview with Gordon McLeod, CEO of data mining company Krux.com, advertising targeted at browsing habits has increased fourfold since 2010. IDC, according to McLeod, projects the browser-search-term-targeted advertising industry to grow from 'zero to $5 billion in less than 5 years.' Will health insurance companies see us crawling for information on family illnesses? After reading the article, I went hunting for a download of 2008 program antiphormlite, and found nothing remaining at any download site (including CNET). Is there another 'cookie camouflage' alternative to polluting the cookie stream with false positives? Or are we left to 'do not track' pledges and trusting Tor redirectors?"
Ghostery?
I have not read the article but the summary sounds like a lot of effort to avoid directly naming the FF/Chrome extension called ghostery.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Incognito/private browsing FTW. Use (for example) one browser for browsing where you don't mind cookies, and a second for items you don't want tracked.
You can have many browsers, any decent PC can run many browsers, so have at it.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Mainly in efficiency - it runs in Ring 0/RPL 0/PnP Kernelmode (on Windows), as merely a filter for the IP stack (no overheads of more driver layers OR browser level slower less efficient addons):
21++ ADVANTAGES OF CUSTOM HOSTS FILES (how/what/when/where/why):
Over AdBlock & DNS Servers ALONE 4 Security, Speed, Reliability, & Anonymity (to an extent vs. DNSBL's + DNS request logs).
1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program). A truly "multi-platform" UNIVERSAL solution for added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity to an extent (vs. DNS request logs + DNSBL's you feel are unjust hosts get you past/around).
2.) Adblock blocks ads? Well, not anymore & certainly not as well by default, apparently, lol - see below:
Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option
http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/12/2213233/adblock-plus-to-offer-acceptable-ads-option )
AND, in only browsers & their subprogram families (ala email like Thunderbird for FireFox/Mozilla products (use same gecko & xulrunner engines)), but not all, or, all independent email clients, like Outlook, Outlook Express, OR Window "LIVE" mail (for example(s)) - there's many more like EUDORA & others I've used over time that AdBlock just DOES NOT COVER... period.
Disclaimer: Opera now also has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc..
3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF (non-mozilla/gecko engine based) family based wares, So AdBlock doesn't protect email programs like Outlook, Outlook Express, Windows "LIVE" mail & others like them (EUDORA etc./et al), Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.
4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 5-7 next below).
5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, OR make you reach them faster since you resolve host-domain names LOCALLY w/ hosts out of cached memory, hosts do ALL of those things (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions (in-addr.arpa) via NSLOOKUP, PINGS (ping -a in Windows), &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).
* NOW - Some folks MAY think that putting an IP address alone into your browser's address bar will be enough, so why bother with HOSTS, right? WRONG - Putting IP address in your browser won't always work IS WHY. Some IP adresses host several domains & need the site name to give you the right page you're after is why. So for some sites only the HOSTS file option will work!
6.) Hosts files don't eat up CPU cycles (or ELECTRICITY) like AdBlock does while it parses a webpages' content, nor as much as a DNS server does while it runs. HOSTS file are merely a FILTER for the kernel mode/PnP TCP/IP subsystem, which runs FAR FASTER & MORE EFFICIENTLY than any ring 3/rpl3/usermode app can since hosts files run in MORE EFFICIENT & FASTER Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode operations acting
Well, there is firephorm:
http://www.ghacks.net/2008/10/14/firephorm-the-anti-phorm-firefox-extension/
Maurice W. Hilarius Voice: (778) 347-9907
Collusion plugin for Chrome/Safari from Disconnect.me blocks all known trackers. Since using it for a while, I have noticed a disappearance of eerily targeted ads in Google searches, etc.
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
Tor? Why? How about in Firefox or IE8 or 9 hit ctrl-shift-P. Tada, temporarily no more non-session cookies are preserved (among other privacy perks).
Doesn't using noscript block most of the sites that track one's browsing?
How many users did they have to track to obtain that finding?
I use Opera and the Ghostery extension along with WOT. Then I run CCleaner a few times a day. I ALWAYS log out of any site once I'm done with what I logged in to do, and that goes double for Google. Then run CCleaner. I take a small hit with some occasional unpredictable behavior on some sites with Ghostery running, but screw 'em. If they want my junk, I can find (95% of the time) what i want elsewhere. Strategy seems to work pretty well, low spam incidence in gmail and my "real" email addresses are rarely spammed as well. Recently checked Google's data on me through the privacy page and all clear.
"If the only tool that you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." Donny Rumsfeld
I think you're confused. My post, with my complete lack of interest, is not there to prove or disprove your rantings about AdBlock.
I get no joy from provoking emotional responses on the internet. Your response actually made me shed a tear. All that typing on Slashdot for fuck all.
#No one cares
Stick that in your newly invented hosts file.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
especially because I haven't logged into any web services on that machine
Let me guess, except for google because you're using chrome on both browsers.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Not sure why it was happening, either. It was on both XP and 7. Everything with MSE was the default settings. I've seen malware fiddle with hosts files before, but it seemed odd that it would assume that all modifications are malicious.
I was using hosts for web filtering for a small business client of mine. They wanted some computers to have limited access to the web, while allowing others full access. Hosts files were the easiest solution. But not long after I implemented it, MSE flagged them all as viruses and removed my modifications.
This was several months back, though. Maybe MSE has had an update that resolved the issue since then.
Having a custom hosts file is all fine and good, but that does not mitigate Deep Packet Inspection:
FTA:
The company's proposed advertising system, called Webwise, is a behavioral targeting service (similar to NebuAd) that uses deep packet inspection to examine traffic... and the ISP BT Group has been criticised for running secret trials of the service.