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?"

Comments

Ghostery?

[vlm]

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.

Re:Ghostery?

[arbulus]

"You fail again in your understanding of the issue. The issue is that ISPs are hiring a company to do deep packet inspection to spy on a user's browsing habits. Adblock plus cannot help with this issue."

This is the part that scares the hell out of me. I use a number of addons to stop websites from tracking me (Ghostery, AdBock, NoScript, RequestPolicy, etc.). But DPI is horrfying, and I don't understand why it's legal. The postal service isn't allowed to open our mail and read our letters. It's a felony for anyone to tamper with your mail at all. So why should ISPs be allowed to inspect our packets? It's no different.

This is why you need to use non-logging VPNs and TOR. Don't giver your ISP an opportunity to inspect your packets. Plus, for the love of FSM, DO NOT use your ISPs DNS servers, or your ISPs email.

Don't accept cookies.

[couchslug]

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.

Re:Don't accept cookies.

[PopeRatzo]

2- Incognito/private browsing is not enough to avoid other trackers like pixels, scripts...

Can "other trackers like pixels, scripts" track actual identifying data? I don't know enough about this stuff to know.

And if I can remain anonymous enough, should I still care if data is collected?

I run ghostery but I really need to pay more attention to this stuff and educate myself about incognito/private browsing. Not so much that I browse somewhere illegal or that my crazy leftwing politics are going to get me in trouble, but I really can't stand the idea of data tracking.

I would gladly give up all the "benefits" that come with data tracking. But then, I thought the internet was just great in 1993, before the commercialization of the Internet. I would love to have seen how the Internet would have developed if it hadn't become a sleazy shopping mall/TV combo.

I really like this idea of "cookie camouflage". I never heard of this "antiphormlite" program before today. Too bad it seems to have been disappeared. I would enjoy showing these trackers the back of my hand.

This beats the HELL out of any browser addon

[Anonymous Coward]

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

noscript??

[apcullen]

Doesn't using noscript block most of the sites that track one's browsing?

Re:noscript??

[oldredlion]

It certainly blocks some.

I went to that cnet page and ghostery reported 5 trackers.

I then did noscript "temporarily allow all this page" and ghostery reported 11 trackers, so noscript seems to be blocking 6 out of 11.

Re:I don't just *think* this: I KNOW IT... apk

[Inda]

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.