Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

'ClickClickClick' Site Reveals How Much Browsers Know About Your Online Behavior (news.com.au)

Posted by BeauHD on from the creepy-websites dept.

mi writes: The site called ClickClickClick annotates your every move on its one and only page. Turn on the sound to listen to verbal annotations in addition to reading them. The same is possible for, and therefore done by, the regular sites as they attempt to study visitors looking for various trends -- better to gauge our opinions and sell us things. While not a surprise to regular Slashdotters, it is certainly a good illustration... Dutch media company VPRO and Amsterdam based interactive design company Studio Moniker have created the site to remind online users about the "serious themes of big data and privacy." Studio Monkier designer Roel Wouters said, "It seemed fun to thematize this in a simple and lighthearted way."

74 comments

  1. Not working. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Since I block all this crap, all I get is error messages.

    1. Re:Not working. by jandersen · · Score: 0

      Using NoScript, I only allow javascript when the benefits to me outweigh the cost by some, considerable margin.

    2. Re:Not working. by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Using NoScript, I only allow javascript when the benefits to me outweigh the cost by some, considerable margin.

      Bingo.

      Between Adblock and Noscript I almost never get to "enjoy" any of this wonderful "please spy on me" functionality.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  2. very dutch accent.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    funny how recognizable the dutch accent is... (mayebe an extra information to steal : sound and analyze the language)

  3. Empty page by evanh · · Score: 1

    just like my post :P

  4. Yeah so??? by codeButcher · · Score: 1

    Now, if it could illustrate something dramatically different and on a higher level than the very technical cursor moves and clicks, normal internet users might also find it interesting. "I moved 100px left? Well, duh, I know that."

    --
    Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
    1. Re:Yeah so??? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Whoosh!

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Yeah so??? by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 3

      I was disappointed. I expected an Orwellian experience where it told me what my sexual orientation was and who I vote for all I got was a load of crap I'd expect any piece of software to be capable of monitoring. I mean honestly slashdot clickbait much?

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    3. Re:Yeah so??? by codeButcher · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I was disappointed. I expected an Orwellian experience where it told me what my sexual orientation was and who I vote for all I got was a load of crap I'd expect any piece of software to be capable of monitoring. I mean honestly slashdot clickbait much?

      My point exactly. It rather trivializes the "serious themes of big data and privacy", rather than "thematize this in a simple and lighthearted way".

      --
      Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
    4. Re:Yeah so??? by sildur · · Score: 1
      Try Mozilla Labs: Prospector - about:profile for that. Quoting:

      This proof-of-concept experiment analyzes the domains in your browsing history to show your overall browsing interests based on ODP categories and Alexa siteinfo. All the analysis is done with your local Firefox data and nothing is sent out of Firefox.

  5. Entertaining at best... by x0ra · · Score: 1

    but is that really all they can figure out ?

  6. Scary! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, it knows when you have clicked stuff and moved your mouse around. I mean, you might as well freak out that the ATM machine knows which buttons you pushed on the keypad. How else is the machine meant to know how you want to interact with it?

    What would be scarier is if they hacked google's tracking system and showed you all the information 'don't be evil incorporated' knows about your online activities.

    1. Re:Scary! by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      How else is the machine meant to know how you want to interact with it?

      The "classical" web experience was that the user was always, and easily, aware that there wasn't "the" machine, but two machines: the browser and the server. And you were only interacting with someone else's computer who serves their interests over yours, when you request a page, submit a form, etc.

      Web 2.0 is that the browser runs javascript and therefore your own computer is their agent, using your electricity and hardware on their behalf, sometimes in direct conflict with your own interests. That might be pretty freaky to a time traveller from the 1990s or early 21st century. 1995 Guy would be laughing, "There's no way people are going to tolerate that." Decades later, many of us still think of our computers as ours and might not remember (*) that the modern web-browsing experience is very compromising.

      (*) Or maybe a more accurate way to put it, is that we're living in denial.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    2. Re:Scary! by Falos · · Score: 1

      Seize control. You are the operator. You do as you wish with the pages/files that others publish. They are broadcast and offered unconditionally; any implicit obligation to obey their server's instructions to fetch+load extra data (ie ads), or even (God help you) execute things, on YOUR machine is to be done at your operator's discretion.

      Row row, fight the power.

    3. Re:Scary! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean, you might as well freak out that the ATM machine knows which buttons you pushed on the keypad.

      dang those Automatic ATM telling machines.

  7. Didn't reveal much by cerberusss · · Score: 4, Informative

    It didn't reveal much? Guessed the number of CPU cores wrong (says four, I've got two but perhaps it counts hyperthreading?). Using Firefox with an adblocker, on a Mac.

    It could've done OS and browser fingerprinting, show possible location based on IP, shown a number of social networks that I usually log into, etc.

    Somewhat disappointed actually :) Or perhaps relieved :)

    --
    8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    1. Re:Didn't reveal much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it didn't seem to find very much for me either - no adblocker as such, but I have the hidden tracking protection option enabled (which I can strongly recommend). It identified Firefox, though took a few minutes before this happened, but didn't seem to know the OS (which surprised me given it's in the user agent string). It was very confused about window size: small movements around the button would be treated as if I'd moved to the far corners of the window, and opening Firebug within the window was identified as a window resize... but it decided I'd *increased* the size of the window to >1000px (is that width? height?).

      Other than that, it seemed limited to mouse movements and clicks, cookie acceptance, and the fact I'd left and then returned to the site. Nothing particularly exciting or unexpected. I see there's a list of about a hundred things it could check, so maybe it could do more if allowed to?

    2. Re:Didn't reveal much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did. My i7-6820HQ gets a 10% performance increase from hyper-threading. Not that great.

    3. Re:Didn't reveal much by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

      You didn't hang out long enough. Trying figuring out how to earn "achievements".

      --
      Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    4. Re:Didn't reveal much by al0ha · · Score: 1

      Not only did it not reveal much, but after I left the browser and went to work on my second monitor, it made all kinds of wrong determinations regarding browser usage and interaction, including reporting the mouse was hovering over the button which is not possible since my mouse was nowhere near the browser window.

      JavaScript and NOT scientifically proven results - perfect combo for dodo marketers!

      --
      Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
  8. Thanks God by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · · Score: 0

    we have NoScript, though more and more retarded websites totally refuse to work without JS enabled. Luckily ./ is not one of them.

    1. Re: Thanks God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Slashdot requires that you whitelist slashdot.org and fsdn.com. At least on mobile, without those sites whitelisted, I get a blank page. And Slashdot attempts to load quite a few scripts to display ads and run trackers. I suppose it's redeeming that Slashdot doesn't force users to disable their adblocker in order to access the site, but that's not saying much.

    2. Re: Thanks God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Actually, Slashdot requires that you whitelist slashdot.org and fsdn.com

      Only on mobile, it seems. The "web" variant works fine with Javascript completely disabled (and Slashdot will lose me the day that changes).

    3. Re: Thanks God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can not write a comment without fsdn. and slashdot. allowed.
      But you can forbid a ton of other trackers in slashdot.

    4. Re:Thanks God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we have NoScript, though more and more retarded websites totally refuse to work without JS enabled. Luckily ./ is not one of them.

      Good luck having a website that is anything more than a wikipedia article.

    5. Re:Thanks God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      www.chansluts.com works just fine without javascript.

  9. How long till 1993 again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I honestly do not see the need for java, ecma or any other client side scripting. How long till we see an internet Butlerean Jihad and we go back to dumb browsers and apps that handle specific protocols? Even client side cookies are not nescessary. Would it increase server load? Sure, but server processing power is effectively commodity level.

    So what is really gained from all the cross domain scripting, cookies, in browser scripting etc that is worth more than privacy? The internet is ad driven these days, but that does not mean it needs to be. Charge everyone based on data output to the net, if you are a content provider, it is going to cost more, if you are a consumer, much less but wrap it into the bandwidth costs.

    Right now, we all pay for these stupid ads and click bait. Now some of you will say they use noscript or adblock or whatever, even you still pay for the clickbait because someone has to pay for it. We may not pay for it directly, but we pay for it in costs elsewhere. Where do you think the advertising budgets come from? The products that get sold.

    And then you say that you never buy that product, fine, but as the cost of items go up, all the associated costs go up also. So while I may not click on the tabobrain clickbait, someone does and when you go around the drain enough times, we all wind up paying for it in inflation.

    What is the ad budget for a medication, not the marketing budget, just the ads? 30%? 40%? More? How much bandwidth is consumed by all the junk ads? Imagine if all that went away...

    Yeah it is 5:30 and I am old and dreaming but still imagine

    1. Re:How long till 1993 again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How long till we see an internet Butlerean Jihad and we go back to dumb browsers and apps that handle specific protocols?

      the day we find out an automated hospital running java has been terminating pregnancies for no medically good reason.

    2. Re: How long till 1993 again by rednip · · Score: 0

      Actually seems more like a right wing nut job wet dream. Perfectly healthy intentional pregnancies every time is the Planned Parenthood's goal. Republicans only stir up hate against women's issues because it's a big 'winner' with wedge issue fools.

      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    3. Re: How long till 1993 again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish such was the case, however evidence and plain observation say otherwise. Must be nice in your world though.

    4. Re: How long till 1993 again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are low-income healthcare providers, often the only option. Read what they actually do, look at what they actually do, look at where they actually are.

    5. Re: How long till 1993 again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have and I am not a utilitarian, no good can ever outweigh the harm they do.

    6. Re:How long till 1993 again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, let's vilify an entire programming language because it could be used for things we'd rather not have. I wonder, what programming language should be used? Make sure it's one that a person couldn't write software you don't like in.

    7. Re:How long till 1993 again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, let's vilify an entire programming language because it could be used for things we'd rather not have. I wonder, what programming language should be used? Make sure it's one that a person couldn't write software you don't like in.

      No one vilified any language until you vilified english by not being able to read. The point was there should be no client side scripting, no dynamic content, no cookies

  10. Let Google do the same by BlackPignouf · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let Google do the same :
    * Your credit card number is 5500 4567 3436 7804
    * You spent $3754.17 on Amazon in 2016
    * Your coordinates are 39.2904 N, 76.6122 W
    * Your dad has undiagnosed cancer since may 2016.
    * Your wife cheated on you yesterday. Twice! At 39.166537, -76.624614 and 39.204198, -76.655321, with Google users #5465487874 and #497987544

    Have a nice day, and remember : "don't be evil"!

    1. Re:Let Google do the same by michelcolman · · Score: 5, Funny

      Reminds me of this joke.

    2. Re:Let Google do the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook knew all of that weeks ago after they created that shadow profile complete with mugshots of all your hold out friends and family members still not on Facebook.

    3. Re:Let Google do the same by dlb101010 · · Score: 1

      It's not often a joke makes me laugh out loud. If I had mod points, I'd give you one.

  11. Brilliant by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

    "Looking at subjects timezone, he probably should be at work!"

    :-)

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  12. It knows where my cursor is! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Horry shiet!

  13. Not much shown,.. by luvirini · · Score: 0

    All I get is a white page with a link:

    https://www.google-analytics.c...

    I mean who really runs javascript from unknown sites?

    1. Re:Not much shown,.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much everyone.

    2. Re:Not much shown,.. by AAWood · · Score: 5, Informative

      who really runs javascript from unknown sites?

      Roughly 99% of internet users. About 0.2% deliberately disable javascript. That data is from 2013. A quick search didn't bring up anything more recent, but I doubt there's been a humongous sway in javascript use among the general populace. Keep in mind that Slashdot users such as us are, almost by definition, not representative of the average internet user; just because it's common amongst your circle to disable javascript by default, doesn't mean that's common for everyone else.

    3. Re:Not much shown,.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole Internet...

    4. Re:Not much shown,.. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I mean who really runs javascript from unknown sites?

      Everyone who wants the internet to work without babying it. So pretty much everyone. Heck for most people administering an adblocker is too much effort.

    5. Re:Not much shown,.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and it's really tiresome when you're part of the 0,2 % and a yet another web site you frequent does a facelift and no longer displays anything at all without JS ...

      I don't bother to complain to them any more. I just stop visiting the site.

      Web designers today, bah. It's as if the HTML course in their university was optional.

    6. Re:Not much shown,.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean who really runs javascript from unknown sites?

      I temporarily allowed all the site on NoScript. After all, it is a respectable Aussie site. What could go wrong?

      I got disappointed tough.

    7. Re:Not much shown,.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try a Pi-Hole on a properly configured router. I use a Mikrotik RB450G.

      Protects all devices on your LAN without the need for individual blockers.
      No babying required. Stops ads for anyone that attaches here at home. Visitors say "Why do I not get ads when I am here"?

      If I or my adult children use their devices elsewhere then the game is on. Privacy Badger, NoScript, uBlock, the list goes on.
      Configuring the browser of your choice helps too.

      https://pi-hole.net/

      Glenn. Think my slashdot uid is 18978.

  14. Cores by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The website was able to determine how many cores I have.... and that's about it. I hope they don't try to sell that highly classified information to the Chinese government.

  15. NoScript? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Better even: go into about:config and gut as much javascript functionality as possible. That's my default profile.

    For pages that insist on javascript (and which I have to use: not many, perhaps once, twice a month) I use a throwaway profile.

    I trust my browser... only a bit. I'd prefer a proxy (independent from my browser) to do the gutting, something akin to Privoxy. Some day I'll be there (this proxy could, e.g. instead of dropping cookies and single-pixel-parasites, just send some phantasy values (or even better: pick a random value from an aggregator).

  16. They know nothing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somehow I don't believe that.

  17. What is this shit crypro ad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This page sucks. Boring and doesn't reveal anything interesting.
    Which one paid liberal moron put it on slashdot's main?

    1. Re:What is this shit crypro ad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      msmash or manishs or some other mishmash of letters. oh, BeauHD.

  18. Unimpressed by bradley13 · · Score: 1

    Color me unimpressed. It tells me I moved my mouse on its page. It tells me when I click on its page. I would surely hope a web page gets those events. It does not seem to tell the user about all the fingerprinting information it can get, or much about cookies, beyond the fact that it sets one.

    Embarrassing: it actually gets some things wrong, like the saying that I moved the mouse to the upper left (when I did not).

    The idea is good, but the implementation seems to be pretty limited...

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Unimpressed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the UI doesn't show you everything it captured. It quietly found out who you are and what and what color underwear you are wearing :)

      (Ok, I am a slashdot reader, I didn't even click the link).

    2. Re:Unimpressed by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Keep using it. It comes up with more information the longer you use it. The events can be somewhat delayed, sure, but it does more than you seem to think it does...

    3. Re:Unimpressed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could have done so much more with this,

      How about displaying a site with lots of fake article links, images, ads and videos. Then comment as you mouse around looking and clicking.
      ----
      Your mouse moved to the left 20pixels
      You are near the add for Aspirin, do you have a hangover
      Nope, you've moved on
      Oh, interested in men with big boobs?
      clicking on it?
      nope moving on
      Ah, now your interested in women with big butts.
      You clicked on it. Gotcha, recording that you really like women with big butts. ....
      ------------

  19. clickbait by cecemel · · Score: 0

    clickbait...

    1. Re:clickbait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      ClickClickClickBait

  20. wasn't impressed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So it was able to detect how many cores my CPU has, and my cursor navigation and how many clicks. I don't see this kind of thing a privacy issue. Now if it could access my email address, my computer name, or any more personal information that would be more shocking. I actually would be fine if sites could only gather this kind of information. Unfortunately we know that's not the case, but the site really fails to get its point across.

  21. terrible media website by johnjones · · Score: 0

    no comment on the DNS query nor on the route

    basically this site is new media, it gathers data but uses a pre recorded voice to describe it i.e. it uses predefined comments about a users state....

    it's a bit like the Huxley comment on society... it may be valid but really its recycled can we please have a new comment ?

    thanks this is the internet its a little different (not huge but a little)

    John Jones

  22. More troubling than I expected by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 1, Funny

    Subject has dragged the body

    Hey, how did it find out about the body? Hmm, I'd better cover my traces.

    --
    My first program:

    Hell Segmentation fault

  23. uMatrix FTW! by hymie! · · Score: 2

    All I get is a blank white page with a little spinning cursor.

    Yet another reason why i love uMatrix

    1. Re:uMatrix FTW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try a Pi-Hole on a properly configured router! Same result but protects all devices on your LAN without the need for individual blockers.
      Leave uMatrix installed but onlt\y enable it when the device "leaves home"'
      https://pi-hole.net/

  24. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    tried to view page, but NoScript blocked all content ! Oh well , nothing to see here!

  25. Underwhelming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CPU Cores
    Webbrowser type
    Window Size
    Cursor Position
    Cursor Velocity
    Cursor Acceleration
    Averages of these last three
    Button Clicks

    Not even slightly scary.

  26. Re:Didn't reveal much. HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They got you to click. Now they have a lot more data-points on you.

    Along with the army of other cross-scipting javascript based sites your failure is complete.

  27. Software non-freedom should make you feel unsafe. by jbn-o · · Score: 1

    It's good you're using free software, and you should use more of it (preferring a free software OS and a computer that runs nothing but a free OS with free software on top of it). But you shouldn't feel relieved. Just because your browser got things wrong in this test doesn't mean your proprietary (therefore untrustworthy-by-default) OS will fail too. People visit these sites and erroneously think they're safer using a proprietary OS to run their free software browser (or worse, they endorse a proprietary browser written by a company known to spy on its users). I'm guessing you chose MacOS for some convenience. You should know that software in control of the keyboard, mouse, camera, and mic find that a convenient choice for their interests too.

    --
    Digital Citizen
  28. Nothing to show? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't get it. All it does it is tell me where I move my mouse. It's like an intro to javascript site. My anti-tracker-fu is the bomb!

  29. JustAnotherWebmaster likes crippled AdBlock? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course YOU like it - it doesn't work! Adblock can't do (or do as well) 16 things hosts do 4 speed, security & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. bad sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnet C&C servers
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnet C&C servers
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnet C&C servers
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned/downed dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam payloads
    9.) Protect vs. phish payloads
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get past dns blocks
    12.) Keep off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up 2 ways (adblocks & hardcodes)
    14.) Work on anything webbound multiplatform.
    15.) Ez data edit
    16.) Block ads more efficiently in cpu/ram/I-O use

    APK

    P.S.=> Ab+ does less vs. hosts less efficiently (a 128-151mb memory hog http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...)

    ClarityRay defeats it

    Ab+'s bribed not to work by default http://www.businessinsider.com...

    AdBlock's SLOWER: http://superuser.com/questions...

  30. Hosts = best adblocker & more, bar-none by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?...

    Ads rob speed, security (malvertising) & privacy (tracking).

    Hosts add speed (hardcodes/adblocks), security (bad sites/poisoned dns), reliability (dns down), & anonymity (dns requestlogs/trackers) natively.

    Works vs. caps & PUSH ads.

    Avg. page = big as Doom http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... & ads = 40% of it.

    Hosts != ClarityRay blockable (vs. souled-out to admen inferior wasteful redundant slow usermode addons)

    Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus (slows you) + less security issues/complexity.

    Compliments firewalls (blocking less used IP addys vs. hosts blocking more used domains) & DNS (lightens dns load).

    Gets data via 10 security sites.

    APK

    P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/... (Verified by Malwarebytes' S. Burn "seen the code & it's safe" http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... )