 pizzFiber pleasePremium
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Mele20
Re: UTM cookies forced here on Fx and IE! HELP! This mele20 bashing is getting quite old here. If you, cannot reply to her post(s) without bashing her, then don't respond to them.
Been on this site for quite a long time here, and this forum is one of my favorites. But now, this forum is turning in the Pub and it's sister forum(s).
--
It's ok to say, 'I don't know'. It's even better when someone takes the time to explain what you, 'don't know'. |
|
 DownTheShoreHelp Moore OklahomaPremium
join:2003-12-02
Beautiful NJ
kudos:12
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Not true. I just think that most of us can't understand the degree to which she wants to remain untracked on the internet, not to mention the seemingly excessive time and effort she devotes to it. The gain doesn't seem to be worth the effort, because the information made public in an informed way causes no personal harm and actually helps to fund the continued existence of the current 'net.
While it's her choice to pursue this path (sorry for speaking about you in the third person, Mele), some of us apparently view this as an obsession, and being friendly acquaintances, try to inject a note of balance and commonsense (as defined by the majority). 
--
Patriotism is not waving a flag, it is living the ideals
I want to retire to the Isle of Sodor and ride the trains.
|
|
 Dude111An Awesome DudePremium
join:2003-08-04
USA
kudos:11 | Well Mele values her privacy,i dont see anything wrong with that and i dont want anyone to discourage her from safe/aware browsing technique! |
|
| reply to Mele20
Re: UTM cookies forced here on Fx and IE! HELP! For what its worth, I found the Google description of the UTM cookies here:
»developers.google.com/analytics/···sCookies |
|
|
|
 BlackbirdBuilt for SpeedPremium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3
·Frontier Communi..
| reply to Mele20
I believe Mele20's original questions involved how to stop the appearance of "outside" cookies employed by DSLR's web pages, and why they were appearing in the first place. Additionally, there have been a lot of back-and-forth contentions and assumptions about the purpose/nature of the cookies and the practices/nature of some of the posters themselves.
Cutting to the chase... as I understand it, the cookies are typical of those employed by a great many websites to provide site-navigation feedback about where site users go on the site and via what paths. They can be (and are, for many saavy users) blocked by cookie-blocking techniques ranging from browser cookie settings to blocking extensions or programs to using custom hosts files in the OS. As I also understand it, the privacy risks of such cookies to a given user depend in large measure upon the assumptions or trust/distrust levels a user brings to the table, as well as the user-inferred reputation of the data manipulation houses providing the services/functionalities at the other end of the cookies. One man's "safe" first-party cookie might be another woman's "unsafe" privacy-invasive tracking cookie. But, in any case, blocking them is not some hidden, black art... I've been blocking them here for years, without even knowing they existed at this site, by simply using a first-party cookie selection in Opera along with a custom (MVPS) hosts file. For those highly concerned about privacy, it should be just that simple. And for all of us, it shouldn't bring into question the character or personality of any of the posters involved.
--
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” A. de Tocqueville |
|
Zach 58Premium
join:2006-11-26
NW Minnesota | reply to Dude111
Re: said by Dude111:Well Mele values her privacy,i dont see anything wrong with that and i dont want anyone to discourage her from safe/aware browsing technique!
+1
While not quite as concerned (albeit damn close) as Mele20 is about this issue, her post(s) bring up many interesting points about 'net privacy. Many of her posts and topics send me looking to verify privacy holes don't exist on my machines or in my behaviour. These forums allow many to become educated consumers which, in the end, benefits everyone. As someone who holds the value of privacy and security in high regard, I'm thankful for Mele and others on this forum who openly discuss it and give back by helping others.
--
Zach |
|
| reply to Mele20
Re: UTM cookies forced here on Fx and IE! HELP! I'm only showing two cookies on this site. Someone previously posted that if some Google sites are blocked, then the UTM cookies don't get set. I'm showing some sites blocked as shown below, so that's probably what has to be done to prevent the UTM cookies from appearing.
RequestPolicy
There are various ways to block these sites. |
|
BlackbirdBuilt for SpeedPremium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| reply to Mele20
All that is getting through on my system (set up as noted in an earlier post) are:
one dslreports.com session cookie
one dslreports.com user-id/log-in cookie
--
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” A. de Tocqueville |
|
pizzFiber pleasePremium
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to DownTheShore
downtheshore, i understand where you're coming from and i respect your opinion (as i do with anyone). But she doesn't have an obsession in my view. She's just the type of person that wants privacy on the internet. Sure most of us (including myself) don't seem as possible. But as I respect your opinions, i respect hers as well, in terms of trying as i said above.
Btw as the other poster mentioned. Her posts make me research some stuff, as I do with so many others who post on the forum.
--
It's ok to say, 'I don't know'. It's even better when someone takes the time to explain what you, 'don't know'. |
|
 SnowymIRC unix.ro UnderNetPremium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:6
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Clearwire Wireless
1 edit | reply to Mele20
Re: UTM cookies forced here on Fx and IE! HELP! Not in response to any particular post reply but since the subject of appropriateness of post replies as been breached here's my view on the subject.
The OP sets the tone of the their thread.
I’m not talking about concise clarity of questions or perfection of grammar.
It is after all a self help security forum.
I am talking about how a question(s) is posed & why that can influence, even in a negative way how serious a thread is taken.
What were the OP’s questions?
The easiest way to get at the questions is to look for the punctuation mark that represents a question – the “?”.
There were a total of 5 question marks, here they are.
said by Mele20:I just don't understand this! I am a premium member here for 12 years now and dslr thinks it is acceptable to SPY on me? How do I stop this?
I don't have HostsMan installed yet (plus I have to figure out about stopping Windows defender from messing with the Hosts file- what is its address to add to Defender exclusions?) - so I am not blocking google analytics.
Why am I getting these? Why does SeaMonkey seem immune to this nasty spying? I can see unregistered users getting these and maybe even registered non- premium users getting them, but us loyal old timers? NO WAY should I be getting this tracking crap here.
The only question that wasn’t framed around a snide or negative comment was about the address to add to Defender exclusions.
That raises the larger question of my own.
Are these rants posing as questions or questions posing as rants?
Toss in what could be seen as a humorous event it’s no wonder the thread has been a mixed bag of replies.
said by Mele20:I decided to add the screen shot. I have now click NO to UTM cookies over 100 times here now just so I could start this thread.
(You either see the humor in that or you don’t.)
Bottom line: It's not how much thought goes in, it's how much thoughtful thought that goes in & I know the OP could have presented the thread sans the editorial.
Edit to correct: 6 question marks. |
|
| said by Snowy:Bottom line: It's not how much thought goes in, it's how much thoughtful thought that goes in & I know the OP could have presented the thread sans the editorial.
+1
--
Gadgets |
|
 BloggerJedi PosterPremium
join:2012-10-18
·Champion Broadba..
| reply to Snowy
said by Snowy:Bottom line: It's not how much thought goes in, it's how much thoughtful thought that goes in & I know the OP could have presented the thread sans the editorial.
Edit to correct: 6 question marks.
If it were a capital crime to editorialize, make typos or grammatical and spelling errors, or submit posts that fail to rise to the level of a college essay, then half the members of this site would get the chair. Yours truly included. |
|
 NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 | reply to Dude111
Re: But her (and your) constant use of the term, "Sheeple" for folks who aren't as devoted to the cause as she (and you) are feels ... abrasive.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
SnowymIRC unix.ro UnderNetPremium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:6 Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·Clearwire Wireless
| reply to Blogger
Re: UTM cookies forced here on Fx and IE! HELP! said by Blogger:If it were a capital crime to editorialize, make typos or grammatical and spelling errors, or submit posts that fail to rise to the level of a college essay, then half the members of this site would get the chair.
Well yeah, the post you referred to was an editorial.
It wasn't intended as a primer for a "better way of posting" or even a rough guideline.
It was intended to point out how & why the thread was trivialized to me. |
|
 ashrc4Premium
join:2009-02-06
australia | reply to Mele20
Here is an article that is related to the discussion i was having and manages to tie in the concern people should now have with first party cookies on sites that make profiles of their users.
»www.theage.com.au/it-pro/busines···yus.html
The idea that just IP address based profile costs will be the end of this is only the start.
--
Paradigm Shift beta test pilot. "Dying to defend one's small piece of suburb...Give me something global...STAT! |
|
Mele20Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:4 | Thanks! That was an interesting article. It mentions Safeway and Kroger experimenting with individual pricing. Safeway certainly does and the result has been that I go in the new flagship store as little as possible. I have been appalled at what they are doing and the naivete of many...the sheeple who just suck it up happily and, if confronted, claim that they love living in a glass house. I did recently overhear two ELDERLY persons passionately telling the cashier why they will never give up their privacy. They got it but most either don't get it or have already given up on freedom and liberty.
The last Safeway register tape I was handed (bought some fruit on sale...nothing else) on the back stated that I could receive $10 off any $20 purchase between now and the end of January 2013 if I go to Safeway's web site and enter the code from the back of the tape. Doing that would mean I had joined "just for U" and would get special pricing from then on for items I have shown interest in. I'm not joining that spy program. It angers me to see the person in front of me pay ONE HALF the price I am about to pay for the SAME item because they have sold their privacy/soul and I haven't. Integrity comes at a high price sometimes and is particularly hard on those who are low income or on fixed incomes.
I now shop almost exclusively at the one local grocery store that has never tried to rape its customers.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson |
|
BlackbirdBuilt for SpeedPremium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| reply to ashrc4
said by ashrc4:Here is an article that is related to the discussion i was having and manages to tie in the concern people should now have with first party cookies on sites that make profiles of their users.
»www.theage.com.au/it-pro/busines···yus.html
The idea that just IP address based profile costs will be the end of this is only the start. Actually, the idea itself of pricing to fit the seller's perception of the buyer and his ability to pay is as old as the "common" marketplace. Anybody who's traveled outside the US or Western Europe will find much of the world's marketplace business is conducted in literal 'marketplaces'... places where the seller sizes up the buyer and begins his end of a price-haggling process based on the seller's perception of what the buyer might be willing to ultimately pay. Only in a relatively small part of the world is the plastic-encased, fixed-retail-price concept employed for the typical buyer. Apart from the negative privacy implications of Internet tracking, the main problems with the pricing scheme described in the article are that it's essentially one-sided, hidden, and exploits the assumption that the buyer doesn't know it's occurring... and the buyer, even if he knows it's happening, is never given an opportunity to negotiate over price. However, the buyer's ultimate recourse is to know the 'going' price of what he buys - and to go elsewhere when he finds it too high or if he feels he's being "ripped off". In the end, it's always caveat emptor.
The key revelation of the article, however, is the hidden "practical" potential that cookie tracking has for directly and negatively impacting a computer user. And those impacts will indeed ultimately expand over time as a result of the creativity of marketeers and others...
--
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” A. de Tocqueville |
|
