dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5987
share rss forum feed

OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2
reply to Blackbird

Re: UTM cookies forced here on Fx and IE! HELP!

Thank you, Blackbird See Profile


Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5
reply to Mele20

I had simply forgotten that a hosts file (or other privacyware) blocking all Google stuff was necessary in order to block the UTM cookies here. It has been MANY years since I installed HostsMan and entered all Google addresses.

I apologize for not having a perfect memory and for dreaming that just maybe dslr no longer forced one to block Google addresses in a Hosts file or use Ghostery on Fx, Opera, Chrome and Safari in order to block those cookies. I believe it would be far preferable for Justin to simply require a $10 yearly fee from every registered member and then there would be no need to track folks who are registered members here.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson



Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..

said by Mele20:

I had simply forgotten that a hosts file (or other privacyware) blocking all Google stuff was necessary in order to block the UTM cookies here. It has been MANY years since I installed HostsMan and entered all Google addresses.
...
I believe it would be far preferable for Justin to simply require a $10 yearly fee from every registered member and then there would be no need to track folks who are registered members here.

Since DSLR is definitely not the only site with Google-related cookies, having a good custom hosts file in place (or whatever else might function to similar ends) makes a good practice, just on general principles. While I personally would have no real heartburn with the fee for members as you mention, I don't think such an approach is needed if having the hosts file (or whatever) in place makes sense to block this kind of stuff on any number of other sites anyway.
--
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” A. de Tocqueville

Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5

It has been implied here that anyone blocking the UTM cookies is a "bad" supporter of this site. I simply was making it clear, again, that I would be ok with Justin charging $10 a year to all members here. If blocking UTM cookies here makes me a "bad" supporter of this site then charge me $10 a year and charge everyone here who blocks those cookies. That is all I am saying.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson


OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2

1 recommendation

I disagree with you. Your contribution here is a way far more important, than your UTM cookies or your $10.
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...


mysec
Premium
join:2005-11-29
kudos:4

1 recommendation

reply to Dude111

Re:  

said by Dude111:

I wonder what exactly is calling for that cookie to be downloaded??
I just checked my cookie folder and i only have 1 cookie (The main one the site issues)


I think it's being called by a .js file retrieved from google-analytics.com:




Many years ago I investigated the UTM (Urchin Traffic Monitor). The Urchin Software Corporation developed this website traffic analysis tool for web masters. The tool analyzes the content in the web server's log file and creates traffic information statistics on that website based upon the log data.

Google purchased the company in 2005 and formed Google Analytics (GA). Google retained the name "Urchin" and designated the cookies as utm_.




Back then, I discovered that in addition to DSL Reports, the Internet Storm Center (isc.sans.edu), and the Christian Science Monitor (csmonitor.com) also use this analysis tool. In corresponding with the Center and csmonitor.com, I found nothing terribly invasive about this, so I forgot about it. It helps the web master manage the site.

Contrary to what some think, the cookie doesn't track the user from site to site, since it is not a 3rd party cookie (if we can believe the source):

Cookies & Google Analytics on Websites
»developers.google.com/analytics/···es?hl=da

Google Analytics sets or updates cookies to collect data required for the reports. Additionally, Google Analytics mainly uses first-party cookies. This means that all cookies set by Google Analytics for your domain send data only to the servers for your domain. This effectively makes Google Analytics cookies the personal property of your website domain, and the data cannot be altered or retrieved by any service on another domain.


regards,

-rich


Dustyn
Premium
join:2003-02-26
Ontario, CAN
kudos:11
reply to Mele20

Re: UTM cookies forced here on Fx and IE! HELP!

said by Mele20:

It has been implied here that anyone blocking the UTM cookies is a "bad" supporter of this site. I simply was making it clear, again, that I would be ok with Justin charging $10 a year to all members here. If blocking UTM cookies here makes me a "bad" supporter of this site then charge me $10 a year and charge everyone here who blocks those cookies. That is all I am saying.

I'm now actually very curious to hear what justin See Profile has to say about what you just said. I hope when he returns he may consider doing so.
--
Remember that cool hidden "Graffiti Wall" here on BBR? After the name change I became the "owner", so to speak as it became: Dustyn's Wall »[Serious] RIP