tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI
| Just kill the cookies
I run analogX's "cookiewall". Have over 2k cookies listed to KILL as soon as they are dropped on my PC. If they are making money off me, it's just my IP connection, not my browsing habits.  |
|
DaneJasper
Sonic.Net
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA
clubs:
| They track your browsing by intercepting every packet and seeing where it's going to/from - not using cookies. If your ISP imposes this on you, there's little you can do aside from participate in their "opt out" process (if you trust it).
-Dane |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
|  Anti-phishing sales pitch a weak argument
Only problem with that is that now the 2 main browsers(IE FF) that everyone uses already provide that capability anyway.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
baj475
join:2004-11-02
Chico, CA
 ·Future Nine Corpor..
| reply to DaneJasper
Re: Just kill the cookies
said by DaneJasper  :They track your browsing by intercepting every packet and seeing where it's going to/from - not using cookies. If your ISP imposes this on you, there's little you can do aside from participate in their "opt out" process (if you trust it). -Dane Dane,
Can we correctly assume that Sonic does not impose this on its customers?
If it is used to provide "ads more tailored to your interests," as the article says, would not blocking the ad sites in my router defeat their stated purpose?
Robert |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs: |  Guestimate
I hate that word. Take two words that mean the same thing. Merge them together to into a word that makes you look like an idiot. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Someone needs a nap. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Who watches the watchers ?
Since this company works in the background, and has full access to sniff and resell your traffic, who is going to ensure that these companies operate legit ?
Absolute power corrupts... absolutely.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Yeah I really see no transparency here with either NebuAD or this UK outfit. I'm not sure who exactly will be confirming claims of privacy protection in an age where everybody wants their regulators blindfolded and toothless. |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs: | reply to Karl Bode
Re: Guestimate
said by Karl Bode :Someone needs a nap. ;) |
|
DaneJasper
Sonic.Net
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA
clubs: | reply to baj475
Re: Just kill the cookies
No, of course we don't. That's for big national corporations who care little about your privacy. 
-Dane |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
2 edits | reply to Karl Bode
Re: Who watches the watchers ?
said by Karl Bode :Yeah I really see no transparency here with either NebuAD or this UK outfit. I'm not sure who exactly will be confirming claims of privacy protection in an age where everybody wants their regulators blindfolded and toothless. To me this relates back to so-called wiretapping and amnesty. The government's not allowed to maintain a database of personal information about individuals. So, an industry has developed (Lexus Nexus, et. al.) to do it, and the government is their largest customer. Without it being governed by law, they lose data all the time, selling it to imposter businesses, etc.
I suspect that will be the same thing that happens as the government has a need to examine network "demographic" information using raw data they are prohibited from collecting. Industries like the one under discussion will pop up as long as there's money in it (serving the government as the largest customer).
Mark |
|
gjrhine
join:2001-12-12
Pawleys Island, SC | .
Does Phorm rhyme with porn? |
|
rodriro
join:2007-05-21
Palo Alto, CA
| ISPs Make a Tidy Profit Selling Your Browsing History
Amendment 4. Search and Seizure
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This amendment protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures. A reasonable search is defined as one authorized by a judge who issues a search warrant. A warrant is issued only if there is probable cause. This means that it is likely the search will produce evidence that a particular crime has been committed. A warrant must specify the exadt place to be searched and the things to be seized.
Courts have ruled that in some cased searches are permissible without a warrant. For example, courts have held that police may search a person who is under arrest. The Supreme Court has also upheld the right of police to stop and search a person if the officer reasonably concludes that the suspect may be armed. Furthermore, a warrant is not needed if a person freely consents to a search.
The Supreme Court has ruled that items discovered in the course of an unlawful search may not be used as evidence against the accused during trial for a criminal offense. This ban is called the exclusionary rule. |
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| said by rodriro :Amendment 4. Search and Seizure
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
That's really nice that you know what the 4th Amendment is and all, but if the telcos don't have to follow any laws when it comes to snooping, and they're just going to get retroactive immunity anyway thanks to their pets in Congre$$, then nobody else has to follow the laws, either. That's the beauty of having the funds to buy a Senator. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to rodriro
said by rodriro :This amendment protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Bill of Rights were originally intended as a bar against Congress only. This is instructional because the Founders weren't necessarily opposed to these things at the state or private level. Just at the Federal level.
It wasn't until 70 years later that the 14th Amendment *intended* to apply the BoR to state and private infringement. I emphasize "intended" because it wasn't for another 60 years that the Supreme Court began "selectively" incorporating the BoR into the 14th Amendment. Therefore, it wasn't reality until the 1920s, to the 1970s (depending on the clause of the BoR).
However, even after the 14th Amendment and 50 years of "selective incorporation" nobody would say that your consensual, contractual relationship with an ISP that chooses to inspect your packets is an "unwarranted search."
It might be bad. There may be reasons to lobby for greater regulation of ISPs. But, it's not a violation of your 4th amendment protection against unreasonable search.
Mark |
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| said by amigo_boy :
However, even after the 14th Amendment and 50 years of "selective incorporation" nobody would say that your consensual, contractual relationship with an ISP that chooses to inspect your packets is an "unwarranted search."
Right idea. Wrong analysis. |
|
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
 ·Hollis Hosting
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Fairpoint Communic..
| History and Anti-Phishing
I'm at a loss to understand how monitoring my browsing history will protect me from Phishing exploits. The last company I'd trust with protecting me from Phishing attacks is someone compiling information on my browsing habits to sell to the highest bidder.
I just want my ISP to deliver the bits.
1) I don't want them to protect me from objectionable material.
2) I don't want them to spy on me and provide my browsing habits to the government.
3) I don't want them to suggest which web site I may mean if I mistype a URL.
4) I don't want them to monitor download/uploads because it might infringe on RIAA/MPAA material.
5) I don't want them to prohibit VPNs on residential accounts because "that is business class usage."
6) I don't want third parties to compile information on me to inundate me with even more advertising.
Currently we are in the market to upgrade our TV and over-the-air antenna system, repair a 25 year old electric dryer, and install a while house sediment filter. Using the power of the Internet I have managed to find out what I need to know about all these items without someone looking over my shoulder.
/Tom |
|
mikenolan7
Premium
join:2005-06-07
Torrance, CA
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Browsing History
We can't stop deep packet inspection at our ISP's. But it is not difficult at all to stop ads from reaching our desktops. Kill the revenue stream, and you will kill this privacy intrusion. Use AdBlock, Privoxy, Proxomitron, etc. One of the few times that we can actually fight back. |
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| reply to tschmidt
Re: History and Anti-Phishing
said by tschmidt :Currently we are in the market to upgrade our TV and over-the-air antenna system, repair a 25 year old electric dryer, and install a while house sediment filter. Using the power of the Internet I have managed to find out what I need to know about all these items without someone looking over my shoulder. /Tom C'mon Tom...you know that's not nearly enough due diligencing...you need some middle man peering over your shoulder "selling" you on the FABs and injecting the FUD at appropriate junctures of the spiel.  |
|
DataDoc
My avatar looks like me, if I was 2D.
Premium
join:2000-05-14
Greenville, NC | reply to Maxo
Re: Guestimate
It's a perfectly cromulent word. |
|
