Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EFF Hints At Lawsuit Against Verizon For Its Stealth Cookies

Posted by timothy on from the as-well-they-might dept.

An anonymous reader writes A few weeks ago I noted how security researchers had discovered that Verizon has been injecting a unique new 'stealth cookie' identifier into all user traffic that tracks user online behavior, even if the consumer opts out. Using a unique Identifier Header, or UIDH, Verizon's ham-fisted system broadcasts your identity all across the web — and remains intact and open to third-party abuse — even if you opt-out of Verizon's behavioral ad programs. Now the Electronic Frontier Foundation has filed a complaint with the FCC and has strongly indicated that they're considering legal action against Verizon for violating consumer privacy laws.

7 of 81 comments (clear)

  1. Not a simple carrier of bytes ? by Alain+Williams · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If Verison is fiddling with the packets going back & forth does it not lose its 'data carrier' status and become one with the end user ? So: if Disney/... sues an end user for downloading it's lastest film: then Verison should be part of the lawsuit as well and liable to pay Disney for the ''theft of its IP''.

    .Verison cannot have it both ways, it either copies bytes and the user is 100% responsible or it fiddles with them and so is aware of the content and is thus vicariously liable for any wrong doing.

  2. Wait, what? by canadiannomad · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just reading through the EFF page on this and it sounds like they got a patent on setting a header to track... Wow. That just sounds, ... , I don't know, but :(

    --
    Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
  3. slashdot censorship Soviet Union stye! by Browzer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While viewing stories in "0 Abbreviated and 0 Hidden" mode I noticed threads where the parent comment was missing but the replys are still there!

    Censorship Soviet Union style (pre photoshop) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

  4. Copyright? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why can't I claim copyright on my http requests, and deny them the ability to create a derivative work?

  5. So, what happens ... by PPH · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... if my web browser already uses the X-UIDH header label? If Verizon monkeys with it, they could be breaking some app. And get charged with tampering. Never mind that I just set it to:

    X-UIDH: Go suck an egg.

    And if only a few people directed their web traffic through a simple proxy that rewrites the X-UIDH header, we could really screw with Verizon's plans.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  6. So, what happens ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I tried this. They delete your header and replace it with a new one.

    IANAL, but I think this violates wire tapping laws, copyright laws, and trespass of chattel laws. Under copyright and trespass of chattel laws you don't need to prove actual damages. If you can claim a "per incident" bases, the money could add up quickly.

    It also looks like it violates their own terms of use and privacy policy pages.

    What would be interesting is to use their arbitration clauses against them. They say that the arbitrator has all the powers of a court, so you should be able to ask for relief as both money and an injunction that they add this header to "your" connections. If the arbitrator cannot rule this way, then they lose their protection against class action suits.

  7. What about intercepting and hacking my data? by Kludge · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is this not an illegal man-in-the-middle intercept and hack of my data?
    I created (via my web browser) the http header and request. My device sent that http header and request to another computer with whom I want to communicate. Someone (ATT, Verizon) intercept my data, read it, hack it, and send it along. How is this not completely illegal.