News for nerds, stuff that matters
Sections
About
Services
 DoubleClick DoubleCross |
Posted by michael on Wednesday January 26, @12:10AMfrom the where-did-you-go-today dept.
Slav writes "We've known for a while that tracking of Web users was possible and a few companies have been experimenting with it on a small scale. Now DoubleClick, Inc. has confirmed that it's tracking Web surfers [by name and address] with the help of the databases of its newly acquired Abacus Direct." Every site that you visit which has a DoubleClick ad - all 11,500 of them - can be notified of your name, address, phone number, etc., as soon as you visit the site. Or to look at it another way, your consumer profile in the gigantic Abacus database (hundreds of fields of data for essentially every person in the United States) will now include information about what Web sites you visit.
< eToys Inc. Drops etoy Suit - For Real This Time | Hope for Mars Polar Lander? >
| Slashdot Login |
| Don't have an account yet? Go Create One. A user account will allow you to customize all these nutty little boxes, tailor the stories you see, as well as remember your comment viewing preferences. |
| Related Links |
| This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted. |
| Bad (Score:2) by RickyRay (rickyray@patrickhayes.dont_spam_me.com) on Wednesday January 26, @12:14AM EST (#3) (User Info) |
| What's the best way to block them from knowing who you are without going through an anonymizing site? (I'm not a novice; I just want a list of any products/free packages to get current info) |
| Re:Bad (Score:3, Informative) by pen (digdug@hotmail.com?subject=notspam:[subject]) on Wednesday January 26, @12:21AM EST (#26) (User Info) http://altern.org/digdug/ |
| If you're a Windows or *nix user, you could try the Internet Junkbuster proxy. If you're willing to pay ($19.95) and use Windows, try interMute. The latter will auto-configure your browsers, including Netscape, IExplode, Opera, and AOL. -- |
| Re:Bad (Score:2, Informative) by znu (znu@znu.dhs.org) on Wednesday January 26, @12:27AM EST (#48) (User Info) http://znu.dhs.org/ |
| For Macs there's WebFree, which can block ads in IE and Communicator, or the rather nice but also rather beta iCab browser, which has ad filtering abilities built in. -- The revolution will not be televised. You'll have to watch the webcast |
| Re:Bad (Score:1) by Valheru on Wednesday January 26, @11:18AM EST (#358) (User Info) |
| Not sure if this is the case or not, but does just blocking the AD (and not displaying it) prevent DoubleClick from tracking you? When you load the web page I would assume that the cgi script is still processed and that doubleclick servers are hit to send the ad to your computer (which you then ignore). Thus, they already have your IP and know which web page you were on. Once again, I do not know if this is the case, and I hope that it isn't because it then you can just configure ipchains to block doubleclick.com (I think) |
| Re:Bad (Score:1) by MattJ on Wednesday January 26, @12:29PM EST (#388) (User Info) http://newsblip.com/ |
| Good question, but its a separate cookie. There's a security design issue (bug) in the browsers where they'll allow a cookie in the headers sent with an image. When your browser retrieves the URL for the ad image, it's in that request-response that the doubleclick cookie gets sent. |
| Re:Bad (Score:1) by MattJ on Wednesday January 26, @03:36PM EST (#425) (User Info) http://newsblip.com/ |
| (Actually, by the *security* issue I mean that the browser will accept cookies from the ad image's server, even if it's in a different domain than the web page. So you think you're only viewing xyz.com, but quietly your browser is accepting cookies from doubleclick.com via the ad image retrieval.) |
| Re:Bad (Score:1) by Ozwald on Wednesday January 26, @06:54PM EST (#449) (User Info) |
| No, Junkbuster (JB) does a lot of things really well. This is how it works: First: the browser sends the headers. This includes a server and file name, and the location of current url. JB reads this. If the server or file name look like an ad, the real web server (for example DoubleClick) never gets contacted and a dummy file is sent from JB to your browser; a couple byte html page or 1x1 transparent gif. Second: if the server and file name are cool, the headers are sent MINUS (this is important) the referrer tag. This prevents the web server from knowing what url you came from. Third: if the server requests cookie information, JB can decide whether or not to allow it. Depending on JB's settings, you can make that decision based on server. For example, cookies are good for Slashdot so you don't have to log in each time. Others are not allowed by default. In another words, DoubleClick doesn't even know you exist if JB is set up. As a side note, Altavista's and the Simpsons Free Internet ads are blocked by JB because they use the Internet Exploder ActiveX control to show the ads on the screen. Just an ironic side note is all. Ozwald |
| Re:Bad (Score:2) by jsm (james@jmarshall.com) on Wednesday January 26, @01:21AM EST (#128) (User Info) http://www.jmarshall.com |
| Yes! If I had points I'd moderate you up. If installing a CGI script somewhere is easier than installing the Junkbuster, then see my CGIProxy. Along with proxying pages, it can filter ads with either your own blocklist or a default one. |
| EVERYONE E-MAIL THESE ADDRESSES (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @01:31AM EST (#142) |
| And let them know you you REALLY feel, okay? support@doubleclick.net; info@doubleclick.net; hostmaster@DOUBLECLICK.NET; acct_payable@DOUBLECLICK.NET; ang@doubleclick.com; root@doubleclick.com; webmaster@doubleclick.com; www@doubleclick.com; web@doubleclick.com; sales@doubleclick.com; dns@doubleclick.com; dcquestions@doubleclick.com; jblum@doubleclick.com; kryan@doubleclick.com; koconnor@doubleclick.com; dmerriman@doubleclick.com; lianuly@doubleclick.com; csaridakis@doubleclick.com; drosenblatt@doubleclick.com; ptsigrikes@doubleclick.com; scollins@doubleclick.com; jepstein@doubleclick.com; dmerriman@doubleclick.com; bsalzman@doubleclick.com; wmillard@doubleclick.com; jblum@doubleclick.com; Go for it!!! |
| Re:EVERYONE E-MAIL THESE ADDRESSES (Score:4, Funny) by sterno (sterno@bigbrother.net) on Wednesday January 26, @01:56AM EST (#171) (User Info) http://www.bigbrother.net/ |
| I'd love to e-mail them but for some reason my firewall was just recently configured to block every IP address associated with doubleclick.com. Could you e-mail them once on my behalf? :) --- |
| Re:EVERYONE E-MAIL THESE ADDRESSES (Score:1) by niagaracyber on Wednesday January 26, @09:54AM EST (#325) (User Info) |
| What if the pro-privacy community dug up names and all kinds of personal info on the executives involved in making these decisions at Double-Click, and spread it all over the net? Sort of a taste of one's own medicine. Corporations don't feel anything, people do, and the people who make these kinds of decisions - and who lie about them - often feel they can act with impunity. -Dave |
| Webwasher is a free proxy for windows boxes (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @03:29AM EST (#207) |
| There is also a Webwasher from Siemens, which is for Windows and it's free. You can find it here, http://www.webwasher.de. |
| Re:Bad (Score:1) by Keepiru on Wednesday January 26, @10:15AM EST (#329) (User Info) |
| Alright, I'll admit I replied to this so that I could be near the top, but, instead of just blocking the ads, why not screw up thier database? The database is based off of the number in the cookie, that is how it identifies you, why not change it every 5 minutes, to a new random number, a simple cron job should do the trick, of for the more ambitious, take an active approach and create scripts that actually go out and give them false information. |
| Re:Bad (Score:2) by orabidoo (see@my.webpage) on Wednesday January 26, @11:04AM EST (#352) (User Info) http://www.iagora.com/~espel/index.html |
| who needs a proxy! just 1) delete your entire cookie file once a day or so, and 2) stick the 50 or so biggest ad servers in your /etc/hosts (that's \windows\hosts for you windows users), assigned to a bogus IP like 127.0.0.2. start with ad.doubleclick.net, and add hosts as you see ads (under netscape, right-click to "copy image location") in general, cookies are OK, and quite useful, for short-lived browser/server interaction state keeping. There is no real need for long-term cookies; at worst you'll have to enter a password a few times more. And clearing your cookie file very effectively dissociates any further browsing from any profile doubleclick may have of you. |
| Re:Bad cookie, bad bad bad (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @12:22PM EST (#385) |
| I empty my cookies every day or so any way (well, I don't exactly empty it, I keep /.'s, Hulka's, and a few other important ones. You know what, though? I fell like Bill Gates complaining about someone stealing his nickle, but I HATE it when some lame site I'll never visit again drops a cookie. A byte is a byte. It's MY hard drive, dammit, and I hate the fact that everybody from micro$hit to Joe Momma's Quake with 10 visitors and 11 ads puts crap on it I don't want. How about somebody publish a list of sites that carry doubleclick ads so we can boycott THEM? Also, does anybody have a freeware utility that will accept, then delete a cookie? I'll trade a copy (I hold the copyright) of Artificial Insanity for it. mailto:mcgrew@famvid.com -A.C. (password in the cookie at home) |
| Re:Bad cookie, bad bad bad (Score:1) by Ominous Coward (Coward@mad.scientist.com) on Wednesday January 26, @12:48PM EST (#392) (User Info) |
| If you don't want cookies loaded into your computer, change your prefs so that you're asked before a cookie's loaded. Simple, easy, elegant. Ceci ne pas un sig. |
| utility that will accept, then delete a cookie (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @01:03PM EST (#394) |
"Also, does anybody have a freeware utility that will accept, then delete a cookie?" If you're using Netscape, you can just lock the cookies file ("magiccookie" or something like that on a Macintosh, "cookies.txt" on Win32, "cookies" on Unix) This will allow a site to write a cookie that persists throughout the 'browser session', but disappears when you close the browser. You may be able to accomplish the same thing by locking the 'cookies directory' with MSIE, I haven't tried. |
| Re:utility that will accept, then delete a cookie (Score:2) by um... Lucas (lk@caralis.com) on Wednesday January 26, @04:22PM EST (#432) (User Info) http://www.caralis.com/us/lucas/ |
| I wish that in netscapes prefs, you could list all the sites you go to and specify whether or not to accept cookies from them, so you could always accept cookies from Slash or Amazon but never from AdFu or Doubleclick... Maybe it could happen in Mozilla? |
| Re:utility that will accept, then delete a cookie (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @06:42PM EST (#446) |
| Lynx does. |
| Re: Intermute (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 27, @06:02PM EST (#492) |
| >If you're willing to pay ($19.95) and use Windows, try interMute. interMute is terrific & does more than block ads and cookies. Their web site says they plan Linux & Mac support this Spring... |
| Use the Junkbuster Proxy (Score:1) by Ethan Butterfield (primus@bayarea.net) on Wednesday January 26, @12:21AM EST (#27) (User Info) |
| http://www.junkbuster.com You can run the proxy server on either a UNIX box or a Win32 one, and it has the ability not only to filter out ad banners, but also to block cookies and to change the browser-type header you send. I've been using it for several months, and it's just peachy. |
| Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes (Score:5, Informative) by KMSelf (kmself@SPAMmeNOT.ix.netcom.com) on Wednesday January 26, @12:50AM EST (#94) (User Info) http://www.netcom.com/~kmself/ |
...that's full agreement with all points above. For Linux users, deploying Junkbuster is as easy as downloading the RPM or DEB file and installing it. For Windows users, either NT or Win9x, you can also use the proxy. Both the banner and cookie action are way cool. The following blockfile eliminates pretty darned near all the banner ads (and the sites associated with them if a full site or domain is listed). Note that I've allowed banners at a number of Linux-friendly sites, on principle, though you could change this if you wanted. /*.*/ad/ Those few lines block virtually all the ad traffic I see. For cookies, I block all, then selectively allow a limited number of sites with which I do business. Mostly message boards. There was a really good program Online Profiling on NPR's Talk of the Nation a couple of months back. Other useful resources are Center for Democracy and Technology, and for a look at the other side, NetworkAdvertising.Org and Direct Marketing Association If setting up a proxy is too much for you, the following tricks will prevent a permanent cookie file from being generated:
I'm not sure what the corresponding IE trix are. For Linux, lynx and other browsers can use the link to /dev/null trick. What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? |
| Re:Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes (Score:1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @01:50AM EST (#168) |
| #some additional notes...junkbuster can't block #cookies coming in from SSL connections...so #do this : #blocks all ports ~:80 #except for port 80 ~datek.com:443 #except for SSL to datek (I trade :-) #block these guys too focalink.com ngadcenter.net avenuea.com #block these guys..biggest hit tracker on net hitbox.com #take out the whole domain #biggest sex tracker on net sextracker.com/clit #YAHOO ADS #SAMPLE AD: http://a32.g.a.yimg.com/7/32/31/000/us.yimg.com/a/ya/yahoomail/promo1.gif yimg.com/.*us.yimg.com/a |
| here (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @02:35AM EST (#188) |
| linuxtoday.com/ltbs/* *.bfast.* ads*.*.* ads*.*.*.* *.flycast.* *.netscape.com messenger.netscape.com 209.207.224.220 www.clickXchange.com email.cnn.com /blipverts/ static.wired.com www.hotwired.com rd.yahoo.com nsads.hotwired.com www.tek.com x25.futurequest.net usa.nedstat.net w23.hitbox.com *.hitbox.com view.avenuea.com /*.*ad.info.gif tracker.clicktrade.com rd.yahoo.com as5000.wunderground.com http://www.gamefan-network.com/ www.about.com www.123webhost.com www.hitbox.com www.amazon.com www.findcommerce.com *.valueclick.com www.pcworld.com ngserve.pcworld.com *.flycast.com www.graverobber.com #/*.*cgi-bin images.cnn.com /shop/ /SHOP/ /*.*ad-bin/ /*.*redirect www.cnn.com/cgi-bin/redirect?free_email gc1.freeshop.com pic.geocities.com a196.g.akamaitech.net www.cnn.com/event.ng/ /event.ng/ /jump/ barnesandnoble.bfast.com # Illustrative Blockfile for the Internet Junkbuster # The following line illustrates how to block a port (port 23 is telnet) :23 # for more detail see http://www.junkbusters/com/ht/en/ijbfaq.html#attack # To block a particular URL, you can list it in full (omit the http://): www.junkbusters.com/images/space.gif ads2.zdnet.com ad.uk.doubleclick.net gp2.deja.com web2.deja.com gp.deja.com # Almost all the following examples are commented out. To make them work, # remove the comment so that this: # www7.suckerfinder.com/cgi-bin/compost_tumbler/strayed-in-from=14387 # looks like this: www7.suckerfinder.com/cgi-bin/compost_tumbler/strayed-in-from=14387 gp2.dejan.com gp2.dejan.com g.deja.com q.deja.com *.zdnet.com # You can chop off parts on the left and right to get a broader block: suckerfinder.com/cgi-bin/compost_tumbler/ # To block an entire site, simply include its domain name: # ad.manipumedia.net # patentlyoffensive.com gp.*.* # With no hostname, a pathname blocks regardless of the domain name: # /images/banners/mindless/ # /bandwidth-hogs/ /adverts/ *.valueclick.* ad.*.* # Provided pattern matching option was used in the Makefile (now the default) # you can use patterns such as # the /*.* allows matches anywhere in the URL /*.*banner #/*.*cgi-bin /ads/ *free.email* /*.*click www.dejanews.com/jump/ web2.dejanews.com # /*.*/DespisedProductName.*.gif # you can put * in the domain part only, not the path. www.himemsys.com/ ad*.*.* ads*.*.* ads2.*.* /*.*ads # For more details see http://www.junkbusters.com/ht/en/ijbfaq.html#regex # The ~ character in column one stops blocking if a previous pattern matched. # The last match wins, so these exceptions are usually placed at the end. # ~mycompany.com image.pathfinder.com |
| Re:Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes (Score:2, Informative) by cloudmaster (cloudmaster@cloudmaster.com) on Wednesday January 26, @02:27AM EST (#182) (User Info) http://www.cloudmaster.com/cloudmaster |
| As a junkbuster alternative, you can use squid and this redirection script to block out web pages, and also do some cool caching proxy stuff that made squid popular (it's great if you have a masq'd dial-up with a few machines that all check similar pages). My blocklist is available here, and via anonymous rsync at rsync://cloudmaster.com/redir/redir
|
| Re:Yes, solution for IE (Score:3, Interesting) by kimihia (kimihia@YUMMYmail.com) on Wednesday January 26, @02:57AM EST (#197) (User Info) http://surf.to/kimihia |
| For IE, add advert sites to your 'Restricted Sites' zone, and then set that zone not to allow cookies. |
| Re:Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes (Score:1) by DrXym on Wednesday January 26, @04:46AM EST (#246) (User Info) |
| Stefan Waldherr maintains a much superior version of Junkbuster here that not only blocks adverts but also replaces them with 1x1 transparent gifs (that stretch to fit if necessary) so you don't see broken links. There are also lots of other little improvements too. He also has an impressive block list that catches pretty much everything. The Windows NT/95/98 version in particular is considerably improved with a menu driven GUI and a natty taskbar icon that twirls when it's doing something! |
| Comparison (Score:2) by KMSelf (kmself@SPAMmeNOT.ix.netcom.com) on Wednesday January 26, @02:55PM EST (#418) (User Info) http://www.netcom.com/~kmself/ |
I haven't downloaded Stefan's junkbuster, but reviewing his page:
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? |
| Thanks! (Score:1) by Jake_Man (Jake@TheKeyboard.com) on Wednesday January 26, @02:43PM EST (#416) (User Info) |
| I just wanted to drop a note of thanks for the blockfile you whipped up. I've been meaning to play with Junkbuster for some time now, and you just removed my last excuse not to do so. |
| Re:Bad (Score:3, Informative) by Will_Malverson on Wednesday January 26, @12:22AM EST (#30) (User Info) |
Alias their site to 127.0.0.1. If you're running Windows, edit the 'hosts' file. Here's mine, just to get you started: 127.0.0.1 localhostAll it takes is an annoying ad to get your site added to this list. |
| creating the hosts file (Score:2, Informative) by jesser on Wednesday January 26, @12:47AM EST (#88) (User Info) http://www.palosverdes.com/jesse/ |
If you don't already have a hosts file, the easiest way to create one is to type the following into start, run: notepad C:\windows\hosts. Note that there's a period at the end - that tells notepad not to try to add a .txt extension. Replace c:\windows\ with your windows directory if necessary. Windows allows you to include comments in the hosts file by beginning the line with a # symbol. (For the clueless, when you connect to a web server, it's usually a two-step process: first, look up the IP address for a hostname like "www.slashdot.org" and get an IP address like 209.207.224.42; then, connect to the computer with the IP address 209.207.224.42 and request the webpage. Adding entries to the windows hosts file short-circuits the IP address lookup, so your browser and other programs on your computer think that the IP address for "ads.doubleclick.net" is 127.0.0.1. But 127.0.0.1 is a special address called the loopback address, meaning that it always refers to the computer you're using. Since you probably don't have a web server on your computer, your browser fails in connecting to "ads.doubleclick.net" and displays an empty banner. This attempted connection to your own computer happens without wasting any of your bandwidth, by the way.) -- |
| Re:creating the hosts file (Score:1) by Skim123 (mitchell@4guysfromrolla.com) on Wednesday January 26, @01:26AM EST (#135) (User Info) http://www.4guysfromrolla.com/ |
| You can look at C:\Windows\hosts.sam to see a sample hosts file. No sig right now |
| Re:creating the hosts file (Score:1) by Trombone8vb (johnbonehead@hotmail.com) on Wednesday January 26, @01:33AM EST (#149) (User Info) http://members.tripod.com/Trombone8vb |
| I certainly don't like my privacy being invaded like this. I'd like to try what you've suggested. I'm not going to do it now, because I'm getting ready to go to bed. You said, "Since you probably don't have a web server on your computer, your browser fails in connecting to "ads.doubleclick.net" and displays an empty banner. I do have a web server on my system, sort of. I'm using the MS Personal Webserver to create a site offline. Is this still going to work because the PWS is a POS? Could I just add an extra line to the host file? Or can I not even do this because of the PWS? |
| Re:creating the hosts file (Score:1) by jesser on Wednesday January 26, @01:43AM EST (#162) (User Info) http://www.palosverdes.com/jesse/ |
| It will probably still work, but you'll get hits on your web server looking for nonexistant files like /ad/homepgtable.av.com/sponsor-button/minibadge;sz=230x33;ord=642143351. I tried doing traceroutes to the various "local network" address spaces in RFC 1597, but each of them made my modem light up. Maybe I'm just looking at the wrong RFC.. I'm not an expert at this. -- |
| Re:creating the hosts file (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @03:21AM EST (#202) |
| All IP addresses are routable, even 127.0.0.1. By convention the IP 127.0.0.1 gets assigned to a loopback interface and called localhost. The other "Private Address Range" IP numbers *must* be blocked at the border router. Your machine is trying to access those IP adrresses because it is supposed to. If you get host unreachable or timeouts, then you ISP has done their job properly. If not, find another isp. |
| Re:creating the hosts file (Score:1) by Erik Hensema on Wednesday January 26, @06:10AM EST (#268) (User Info) http://www.xs4all.nl/~hensema |
There is nothing special to the private ranges, except they're not on the internet. Your PC just looks in its routing table to figure out where it should send packets to 192.168.*, and is sees it should send them to the default route, eg. the internet. Your ISP's router is likely to be configured to drop packets to private ranges, so the trace will stop there. One way or another, your packets aren't going to make it to any machine on the net, they are going to be dropped somewhere. If you want to drop them locally on your machine, you should configure a firewall. In Linux 2.2, it should become something like: ipchains -A input -S 192.168.0.0/24 -J drop And similar lines for the other private ranges. When you're running a private net, you ofcourse shouldn't block the addresses when originating from your own net ;-) ipchains -A input -I ! eth0 -S 192.168.0.0/24 -J drop Or something like that. RTFM. MySQL internal error #241: ESIGTOOSTUPID |
| Re:creating the hosts file (Score:1) by chrisbolt (chris@/*spamsucks*/nysus.com) on Wednesday January 26, @01:50AM EST (#167) (User Info) http://chris.nysus.com/ |
| You can, but it will fill up your error log. If you don't want to fill up your error log, you can just put an invalid IP, such as 192.168.0.1 which is reserved for internal networks. |
| Re:creating the hosts file (Score:1) by jesser on Wednesday January 26, @03:24AM EST (#206) (User Info) http://www.palosverdes.com/jesse/ |
| yeah, that works, but 127.0.0.1 had the advantage that it didn't send any packets over your modem (and therefore didn't cost you any bandwidth). also, some isps (like mine, cox@home) actually do use 192.168.* internally. -- |
| Re:creating the hosts file (Score:1) by djdead (Seth@blowme.com) on Wednesday January 26, @01:38AM EST (#159) (User Info) |
| okay i tried this. i then rebooted. and ads still seem to come up. also i don't have that hosts.sam file. |
| Re:creating the hosts file (Score:1) by jesser on Wednesday January 26, @01:49AM EST (#166) (User Info) http://www.palosverdes.com/jesse/ |
You might search for the hosts.sam file.. it's possible that your windows decided hosts.sam and hosts should be in a different place. If that doesn't do it, try this procedure:
Hopefully that will work.. btw, adding and modifying hosts is one of those occasional changes to windows that doesn't require a reboot :) -- |
| Re:creating the hosts file (Score:1) by Jomolungma on Wednesday January 26, @11:08AM EST (#353) (User Info) |
| I've tried this host file thing and everytime I come to a page with a doubleclick banner, my IE gives me a "couldn't find page" page, instead of just ignoring the ad. Does this method not work on IE? Or is it possible my office network that is doing the messin? |
| Re:creating the hosts file (Score:1) by jesser on Wednesday January 26, @03:43PM EST (#426) (User Info) http://www.palosverdes.com/jesse/ |
| Try getting a newer version of IE.. I think IE 5.01 handles it correctly, but if not get IE 5.5 beta (which unfortunately introduces lots of new bugs in areas where features weren't even changed as it fixes some old bugs). -- |
| Re:creating the hosts file (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @12:09PM EST (#379) |
| Hi, I followed these steps, and then went to http://www.altavista.com to try it out... The page took a *long* time to load; it was paused for a long time on the ad. Is there a way to speed this up? Thanks in advance, Thomas |
| Won't work for some (Score:1) by Jenova (rebooting@hotmail.com) on Wednesday January 26, @02:24AM EST (#181) (User Info) |
| Well just a note. That method won't work if you are forced to connect through a non transparent http proxy. |
| Re:Won't work for some (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @08:33AM EST (#299) |
| It should work if you tell your browser not to use the proxy for those domains, or possibly just for the loopback address. |
| On NT it in \WINNT\System32\drivers\etc (Score:2) by bridgette (megaland@at@home@dot@com) on Wednesday January 26, @04:44AM EST (#243) (User Info) |
| On NT it in \WINNT\System32\drivers\etc - bridgette |
| Re:creating the hosts file (Score:1) by Trombone8vb (johnbonehead@hotmail.com) on Thursday January 27, @12:17AM EST (#469) (User Info) http://members.tripod.com/Trombone8vb |
| I've been fiddling with this for a while now. Every time I save it, notepad will only allow me to save it as a .txt file. If I put the period after it, it still comes out as .txt. Is there any extension at all for it? |
| Re:Bad (Score:2) by m3000 (m3000@tampabay_dot_rr_dot_com) on Wednesday January 26, @06:33AM EST (#272) (User Info) http://m3000.1wh.com/linux |
| Alias their site to 127.0.0.1. If you're running Windows, edit the 'hosts' file. And for all you Linux guys, do the same thing, except to the /etc/hosts file. It's very nice to surf with a lot less ads. |
| Re:Bad (Score:2) by PooF (aaron@fish.pathcom.com (remove fish...)) on Thursday January 27, @10:49PM EST (#497) (User Info) |
| Everyones forgeting a bunch of servers. 127.0.0.1 ad2.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad3.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad4.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad5.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad6.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad7.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad8.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad9.doubleclick.net you might want to add in these for when they grow... 127.0.0.1 ad10.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad11.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad12.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad13.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad14.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad15.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad16.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad17.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad18.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad19.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad20.doubleclick.net There ;-) Aaron "PooF" Matthews E-mail: aaron@fish.pathcom.com To mail me remove "fish." ICQ: 11391152 Quote: "Success is the greatest revenge" |
| Re:Bad (Score:1) by the phantom (NahenOdersSon@pPomonaA.eduM (figure it out)) on Wednesday January 26, @12:30AM EST (#55) (User Info) http://pages.pomona.edu/~ahenderson/act.html |
| Netscape will allow you to reject all cookies or it can be set to warn you before accepting cookies. This may not be the most efficient way of stopping them, but it does work. To refuse cookies, go to the preferences menu and highlight "Advanced." You can mess with cookies from there. |
| Re:Bad (Score:1) by Audin (amalmin@halcyon.com) on Wednesday January 26, @02:15AM EST (#177) (User Info) http://www.halcyon.com/amalmin/ |
Netscape will allow you to reject all cookies or it can be set to warn you before accepting cookies. This may not be the most efficient way of stopping them, but it does work. This isn't terribly safe, though... letting just one doubleclick cookie through will let them track you from that point on. It's quite easy to screw up when you're trying to work your way into some site which tries to set 20 cookies per page. A much better option is either a blocker like Junkbuster, or aliasing. |
| Re:Bad (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @04:32AM EST (#239) |
| What about a program to selectively choose those sites you want to accept cookies from and under what terms? I'd like to find something I can set for folks in my company that's easy to apply across a network. Any ideas? |
| Re:Bad (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @12:12PM EST (#383) |
| Junkbuster. You can specify certain sites that are allowed to set cookies, and any site connected to you over port 443 to set them. You can even allow cookies to go out but no new cookies to be set. Junkbuster is a network server, and netscape or some other browser is the client which can be running on any host with access to your network. Thus on my little LAN, where my Linux system is the gateway to the Internet, my Mac surfs through the Junkbuster server (netscape setting use proxy 192.168.1.1 port 8000) on the PC just like when I use netscape on the PC where Junkbuster is running. It's transparent. Really many thanks are due Jason Catlett the Junkbuster author. |
| Re:Bad (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @04:58AM EST (#253) |
letting just one doubleclick cookie through will let them track you from that point on. Even if you tell Netscape to not send cookies and delete your cookie file? How is that possible? |
| Re:Bad (Score:1) by Audin (amalmin@halcyon.com) on Thursday January 27, @04:02AM EST (#480) (User Info) http://www.halcyon.com/amalmin/ |
Even if you tell Netscape to not send cookies and delete your cookie file? How is that possible? It isn't. The original suggestion was to set netscape to "ask befor accepting cookie". Turing cookies completely off and deleting the cookie file should do the trick. |
| Dynamic IP? (Score:1) by ffatTony on Wednesday January 26, @12:34AM EST (#62) (User Info) |
Do they just log IP addresses? What about us with dynamic IPs? Will each site try to palce a cookie and then store that info in the database for the other sites to share? I've never heard of this company, can anyone name some of the sites they provide? |
| Re:Dynamic IP? (Score:2) by MattMann on Wednesday January 26, @12:49AM EST (#90) (User Info) |
| they provide the ads for many many many sites. do a view-image on an Altavista ad, for example. |
| Re:Dynamic IP? (Score:1) by jesser on Wednesday January 26, @12:50AM EST (#93) (User Info) http://www.palosverdes.com/jesse/ |
| Doubleclick abuses a "misfeature" in http (or is it in the browser implimentations?) that allows sites to attach cookies to images. Since you request the banner from a hostname like ads.doubleclick.net, doubleclick gets to look at your cookie each time you go to a site with a doubleclick ad. -- |
| Cookies with Images? (Score:1) by ffatTony on Wednesday January 26, @12:52AM EST (#100) (User Info) |
Can you tell me more? How does someone do this? (I'm on my way to read the rfc right now) |
| Re:Dynamic IP? (Score:1) by plague3106 (ajj3085@rit.edu.no.spam) on Wednesday January 26, @12:59AM EST (#109) (User Info) |
| A cookie is a small text file that the browser (if set to accept them) will place on YOUR computer. So it doesn't matter if your IP changes the file is still on your computer. If you're running IE5, look in c:\windows\temporary internet files and look for files with the text icon. some will be called cookie:whaterver.com...delete them. (NOTE: that is how amazon remembers your credit card, so if you delete the cookie for amazon, the website will ask for your info again). Now the question is, are you going to trade your privacy for some convience? |
| Re:Dynamic IP? (Score:1) by pen (digdug@hotmail.com?subject=notspam:[subject]) on Wednesday January 26, @02:48AM EST (#191) (User Info) http://altern.org/digdug/ |
| are you going to trade your privacy for some convience? You don't have to. Just use a proxy. Allow only the sites where you want cookies to be enabled, and then deny all others. Try JunkBuster. -- |
| Re:Dynamic IP? (Score:1) by plague3106 (ajj3085@rit.edu.no.spam) on Wednesday January 26, @08:52AM EST (#302) (User Info) |
| Hehe....i know, i was asking the reader? I DO have junkbuster on my system already. I was attempting to drive home that maybe convience is not tht important comparied to privacy but i guess i goofed :) |
| Re:Dynamic IP? (Score:2) by sterno (sterno@bigbrother.net) on Wednesday January 26, @02:29AM EST (#183) (User Info) http://www.bigbrother.net/ |
| Double Click does not actually provide any content. All they are is an ad banner company. You've probably run across countless sites that use double click's banners, but you never noticed. The tracking works regardless of IP address because the information is stored as a cookie. The cookie remains consistent on your browser even if you change IP addresses. --- |
| One possible way? (Score:1) by Petethelate (pdbrooksatpacbelldotnet) on Wednesday January 26, @12:34AM EST (#63) (User Info) http://home.pacbell.net/pdbrooks/index.html |
| What's the best way to block them from knowing who you are without going through an anonymizing site? I'm trying something right now that should/might help. First, I edited the *DO_NOT_EDIT* cookies file that Netscape puts in my directory. Then, I set permissions to read-only. I tried a couple of sites with cookie warning enabled. Even let doubleclick try to set a cookie. It (IIRC) lets cookies run during a Netscape session, but it cannot write the file. This wasn't my idea--read it somewhere else, but never got around to trying it. We'll see if any complications arise. At least, I got back into Slashdot.... |
| Re:One possible way? (Score:1) by Bad-Tech on Wednesday January 26, @12:41AM EST (#74) (User Info) |
| If all you want is not to have cookies be set, you could sybolic link your cookie file to /dev/null. |
| Re:One possible way? (Score:1) by Petethelate (pdbrooksatpacbelldotnet) on Wednesday January 26, @12:50AM EST (#97) (User Info) http://home.pacbell.net/pdbrooks/index.html |
| If all you want is not to have cookies be set, you could sybolic link your cookie file to /dev/null. Well, if I were on a linux box, yep, but this thing is on Windoze. BTW, I tried re-logging and couldn't get back into Slashdot. Evidently, there is some odd reformatting in a cookie file that really does prevent you from effectively editing it. So, for the MK II attempt, I let Slashdot set a cookie, then reset permissions to read only. It looks like a cookie will be set (if you let it), but it's only active for the length of the session. As is my habit, I'll keep manually refusing cookies for the while. I've found very few sites where a long term cookie really needed to be set. I stopped doing business with Amazon, so that's another cookie not needed..... |
| Re:One possible way? (Score:2) by Zach Baker (zach@zachbaker.com) on Wednesday January 26, @01:44AM EST (#165) (User Info) |
| Evidently, there is some odd reformatting in a cookie file that really does prevent you from effectively editing it. Yes, it's actually a cute little hack... It's a text file with lines ending in \n\n\r, i.e. two carriage returns, then a line feed: 0D 0D 0A in hex. Most text editors will convert this weirdness to more traditional line endings, at which point Navigator knows some hapless luser has edited the file. Simple solution: use a hex editor (or, of course, a capable enough text editor). For the record, I use the "Accept all cookies" option with a read-only cookies.txt that contains only a small list of hand-picked cookies (Slashdot, for instance). Works splendidly. |
| Re:One possible way? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @08:27AM EST (#297) |
| I edit my cookie.txt file using wordpad. It seems to preserve the weirdness of the file so that it still works with netscape. I've been editing my cookies.txt file for years, making random changes. Changeing true to false, and vice versa, modifying serial numbers, etc. |
| Re:Bad (Score:1) by Vandermar on Wednesday January 26, @12:43AM EST (#81) (User Info) |
| Apparently, the way the system works it requires another site as a sort of referrer. That site is supposed to give you the option of not participating in the privacy section of their terms. Whether this will happen or not we'll just have to wait and see. The only other options that I can think of would be to not accept cookies or possibly pick through your cookies frequently. I'm not going to sack him straight away. I'm going to kill him straight away. Chef! |
| Re:Bad (Score:2, Informative) by jburroug (jburroug@*NOSPAM*lib.uaa.alaska.edu) on Wednesday January 26, @12:47AM EST (#87) (User Info) http://www.customcpu.com/personal/pointless |
| Since I run an IPMASQ/Firewall, at home, I just use ipchains rules to block out all traffic TO their servers: /sbin/ipchains -A output -j REJECT -d 199.95.207.0/24 /sbin/ipchains -A output -j REJECT -d 204.253.104.0/24 /sbin/ipchains -A output -j REJECT -d 199.95.208.0/24 /sbin/ipchains -A output -j REJECT -d 208.211.225.0/24 I only started doing this a few days ago (kinda profetic eh?) so I know i'm missing a few of the subnets their servers use (my rough guess is about 1 in 8 gets through ;-( ) since i block traffic to their sites, their servers don't even get my IP address ;->. If your machine isn't behind a firewall you control you can still run firewall rules locally to keep out unwanted crap and/or visitors ;-> "The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad." - Salvador Dali |
| Re:Bad (Score:4, Informative) by Seth Morabito on Wednesday January 26, @01:07AM EST (#115) (User Info) http://www.loomcom.com/ |
I got a full list of their subnets through ARIN, conveniently listed below. Some of these guys may not actually be Double Click, but since they all have "Double Click" somewhere in their names, they all get blocked at my router level: [root@foo /root]# whois "double click"@arin.net [arin.net] Double Click (NETBLK-UU-208-211-225) UU-208-211-225 208.211.225.0 - 208.211.225.255 Double Click (NETBLK-UU-208-203-243) UU-208-203-243 208.203.243.0 - 208.203.243.255 Double Click (NETBLK-UU-204-178-112-160) UU-204-178-112-160 204.178.112.160 - 204.178.112.191 Double Click (NETBLK-UU-204-253-104) UU-204-253-104 204.253.104.0 - 204.253.105.255 Double Click (NETBLK-CYPC-2162306564) CYPC-2162306564 216.230.65.64 - 216.230.65.79 Double Click (NETBLK-UU-63-77-79-192) UU-63-77-79-192 63.77.79.192 - 63.77.79.255 Double Click Computers (NETBLK-DCLICK-T1-BLK) DCLICK-T1-BLK 204.186.74.0 - 204.186.74.255 Double Click Imaging, Inc. (ICO-HST) NS1.ICONETWORKS.NET 204.94.129.65 Double Click Imaging, Inc. (NET-DOUBLECLICK2) DOUBLECLICK2 192.65.80.0 Double Click, Inc. (NETBLK-DOUBLECLICK31-60-18) DOUBLECLICK31-60-18 128.11.60.64 - 128.11.60.127 Double Click, Inc. (NETBLK-DOUBLECLICK-92-19) DOUBLECLICK-92-19 128.11.92.0 - 128.11.92.255 Double Click, Inc. (NETBLK-DOUBLECLICK-210-08) DOUBLECLICK-210-08 199.95.210.0 - 199.95.210.255 Double Click, Inc. (NETBLK-DOUBLECLICK3) DOUBLECLICK3 199.95.206.0 - 199.95.209.255 |
| Re:Bad (Score:1) by whatever3 on Thursday January 27, @12:45AM EST (#470) (User Info) |
| Don't forget "doubleclick" (without the space). Here's my preliminary list...if anyone can improve on it, please do so: 199.95.206.0/23 199.95.210.0/24 208.211.225.0/24 208.203.243.0/24 204.178.112.160/27 216.230.65.64/28 63.77.79.192/26 128.11.60.64/26 63.160.54.0/24 208.210.202.0/24 216.94.59.64/27 208.228.78.0/24 208.228.86.0/24 209.167.73.128/27 208.229.75.0/24 208.32.211.0/24 btw, I'll lay $10 on them not actually using more than 10% of these addresses. Bunch of pigs, really. |
| Me Too! ;) Re:Bad (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @01:19AM EST (#126) |
| I've done the same thing. Input and output from all my know doubleclick addresses is blocked. I also ban flycast.com in the same fasion. I don't remember where I first saw them, but they seemed to be behaving similar to doubleclick. (Note that some of the masks are /23, or some other odd number. When I looked these up on arin.net, there were holes in their assignments as seen.) I hope this is useful to som people. Please post bug reports, too. :) One more thing, don't forget to use junkbuster as well. (My firewall/router redirects port 80 through squid which then goes through junkbuster. Quite nice. :) Here are the addresses I have so far: # undesirable sites, init here for uniformity elsewhere BANNED_SITES="" # doubleclick.net BANNED_SITES="$BANNED_SITES"\ "208.10.202.0/24 216.94.59.64/27 208.228.78.0/24 208.228.86.0/24 "\ "209.167.73.128/27 208.229.75.0/24 208.32.211.0/24 208.211.225.0/24 "\ "199.95.206.0/23 199.95.208.0/23 209.67.38.99 " # flycast.com BANNED_SITES="$BANNED_SITES"\ "216.32.96.0/21 207.240.119.0/24 192.216.105.0/24 216.52.4.0/22 "\ "209.191.72.0/26 207.251.152.224/31 " for BANNED in $BANNED_SITES ; do ipchains -A input -d $BANNED -j REJECT -l ipchains -A output -d $BANNED -j REJECT done |
| All of Doubleclick's Networks! (Score:2) by sterno (sterno@bigbrother.net) on Wednesday January 26, @02:37AM EST (#189) (User Info) http://www.bigbrother.net/ |
| For those of you who want to set up ipchains to block everything vaguely associated with doubleclick, I went over to ARIN and looked up what IP blocks have been assigned to them. This should block everything. On a couple I went a bit overboard and blocked an entire 0-255 subnet when they only had a small chunk. But i figure, better safe than sorry :). Here ya go: ipchains -A output -d 199.95.206.0/24 -j REJECT --- |
| Re:All of Doubleclick's Networks! (Score:1) by Rasha on Wednesday January 26, @04:05AM EST (#227) (User Info) |
| I added all these rules yet I still get some ads. for example at dilbert.com This list may not be exhaustive. |
| Re:All of Doubleclick's Networks! (Score:1) by coolgeek on Wednesday January 26, @12:11PM EST (#380) (User Info) |
| I guess it's just the wirehead in me (and maybe I'm paranoid, too), but I prefer to filter them out at the router, rather than trust an http proxy to block the traffic. |
| Re:Bad (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 27, @08:46AM EST (#484) |
| Sites that try the sort of crap that doubleclick does deserve an immediate blocking to bring them to their financial knees. If you're running linux then setup your computer with ipchains and bind-utils. try nslookup ad.doubleclick.net to find their various subnets. So far: ipchains -A input -j REJECT -s 199.95.207.0/24 ipchains -A input -j REJECT -s 204.253.104.0/24 ipchains -A input -j REJECT -s 199.95.207.0/24 ipchains -A input -j REJECT -s 199.95.208.0/24 ipchains -A input -j REJECT -s 208.211.225.0/24 ipchains -A input -j REJECT -s 209.67.38.0/24 ipchains -A input -j REJECT -s 208.184.29.0/24 ipchains -A input -j REJECT -s 204.253.104.0/24 If you're running windows, then change the security level for doubleclick.net and doubleclick.com to refuse any cookies. If possible install software to refuse any sort of connection to or from doubleclick. Pretty soon these sorts of companies will need to realize when they've over-stepped their bounds, if not then they'll stay blocked from any computer under my control until they do. Matt. -- Every morning is a Smirnoff morning. |
| Re:Bad (Score:1) by lizrd (bumpusad@hotmail.com) on Wednesday January 26, @12:51AM EST (#98) (User Info) |
| The best way I've found to block them (and also speed download times) is to add a line to your hosts file (/etc/hosts c:\windows\hosts) to direct that domain to the null IP address 0.0.0.0 . Then they won't be able to track you and you won't have to look at the adds. ________________ Just because I can |
| Re:Bad (Score:1) by plague3106 (ajj3085@rit.edu.no.spam) on Wednesday January 26, @12:52AM EST (#101) (User Info) |
| Or you could just tell your broswer to refuse all cookies...that may break some sites, but so will blocking software...blocking software will give you better control, you can accept cookies only from certain sites and only specific ones from those sites |
| Re:Proxomitron Filter (Score:1) by seoman70 (seoman.Green.Eggs@zinkproductions.Spam.com) on Wednesday January 26, @01:09AM EST (#116) (User Info) http://thornvalley.zinkproductions.com/ |
| I've gotta put in a plug for a filter that I'm fond of: The Proxomitron. It is Win32 only (unfortunately; if you use a different platform, Junkbusters is probably the way to go), is much more user-friendly than JunkBusters, and probably just about as configurable. Since it is a proxying filter, it works with all browsers. Hey, it's even skinnable. :) [Seoman] "A conclusion is simply the place where you got tired of thinking." |
| Yet more proof that COOKIES AND JAVA ARE EVIL!!!!! (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @01:17AM EST (#124) |
| Keep cookies and java(script) disabled and keep yourself safe. Always be anonymous. When it's necessary to create accounts (like with New York Times web site), always supply bogus data, bogus names, and bogus email. For truly evil sites that require a valid email address to mail your real password back to, which you must receive before access is granted, get an anonymous throw away account (yahoo, hotmail, etc.) to receive this password. Never give out any real information. For regular email, use anonymizers (replay.com). Use SSL proxy servers to mask yourself behind. They are all against you. If some site needs geographical data (like to get TV listings), give zipcodes near you, but not your actual one. Within 50 miles is good enough for TV. And for better security use combinations of the above to anonymize yourself better. Chain through many proxies, remailers, anonymizers, preferable located in many different nations to make tracking you a logistical and bureaucratic nightmare. Go through nations that don't like your nation to deliberately hamper trace attempts. Would Cuba or Serbia help the US attorney general track down some h4x0r? Or Libya? Take advantage of political strife to hide yourself. As for your ISP, dynamic IP is your enemy (though static IP assigned only to you is worse). Dynamic IP can be linked to specific phone calls. Go for multi-user shell ISPs that have many users all logging on and off of the same machine (IP). Prepay service with money orders (use false name on them). Get the address off of a (distant) streetlight controller box and give that to the ISP as your home address. Surf from a laptop via telephones in motel rooms. Pay cash for your stay. And move around a lot. If you need to make LD calls, get one of those phone cards from the vending machine at 7-11. Using crypto wherever possile goes without saying. Use "n/a" and your name and company name for all software you install on your laptop, and bogus addresses. You never know what MS is sending back to the black helicopters. Do all of this and keep the information goons in check for another day. B1t Thr45h3r, |
| More privacy tips... (Score:1) by guardian-ct on Thursday February 03, @09:10AM EST (#515) (User Info) |
| Also, never post to slashdot using your real name. Build a real firewall around the inside walls of your apartment. Design carefully, so that a few pyrotechnics can start a fire that will burn all the evidence, even if the feds get in. Lock all food items in the refrigerator. (sorry, too much conspiracy theory) |
| E-MAIL them NOW!!!! (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @01:33AM EST (#147) |
| support@doubleclick.net; info@doubleclick.net; hostmaster@DOUBLECLICK.NET; acct_payable@DOUBLECLICK.NET; ang@doubleclick.com; root@doubleclick.com; webmaster@doubleclick.com; www@doubleclick.com; web@doubleclick.com; sales@doubleclick.com; dns@doubleclick.com; dcquestions@doubleclick.com; jblum@doubleclick.com; kryan@doubleclick.com; koconnor@doubleclick.com; dmerriman@doubleclick.com; lianuly@doubleclick.com; csaridakis@doubleclick.com; drosenblatt@doubleclick.com; ptsigrikes@doubleclick.com; scollins@doubleclick.com; jepstein@doubleclick.com; dmerriman@doubleclick.com; bsalzman@doubleclick.com; wmillard@doubleclick.com; jblum@doubleclick.com; |
| even better (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @09:13AM EST (#307) |
| I'll post that list to alt.sex and alt.2600 for the spam bots to pick up :) |
| Better Yetter (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 28, @11:41AM EST (#503) |
| Sign those addresses up with XOOM. They (XOOM) will sell the addresses to every company on earth. |
| Netscape Configuration (Score:1) by Fellgus (wiz@post2.tele.dk) on Wednesday January 26, @03:43AM EST (#214) (User Info) http://www.cs.auc.dk/~larsch/ |
| Now how do they track you? Using cookies of course. In netscape, you can disable cookies from other hosts than the page being viewing. This effectively blocks Internet-wide tracking like doubleclick.net. Host cookies are still allowed, which I think is OK. -larsch |
| Re:Netscape Configuration (Score:2) by Mr. Slippery (tms@spambefuddler-infamous.net) on Wednesday January 26, @06:10PM EST (#442) (User Info) http://www.infamous.net/ |
In netscape, you can disable cookies from other hosts than the page being viewing. This effectively blocks Internet-wide tracking like doubleclick.net.NO. IT DOES NOT. Sorry to shout, but I fear many people share the same misapprehension. Cookies can be attached to images as well as to web pages. By attaching cookies to banner ads or invisible GIFs served from a common source, servers can pass information about you between themselves. Since the cookie comes from the same source as the image, the "Only accept cookies originating from the same server" option will gladly accept them. You must block or delete cookies if you wish to prevent this tracking. (Also note that even the mighty, mighty Junkbuster won't protect you fully - cookies can still get thru in Javascript and SSL.) For a detailed explanation see Chapter 9 of Phillip and Alex's Guide to Web Publishing (scroll down about halfway for the relevant section). Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/ "What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?" - Nick Lowe |
| Re:Netscape Configuration (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 01, @06:30PM EST (#512) |
| To Stop Doubleclick I simply deleted all my cookies. Then I went to the two places That I wanted to recognize me. I verified that I only had cookies from where I wanted, then changed the file attribute on my cookie file to read only... A low Tech solution... BTW Who uses Doubleclick? I was surprised to find it on my favorite web site cnet.net, www.nydailnews.com, anybody think of keeping a list of sites that use it, then complaining to the sites ? |
| Re:Netscape Configuration (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 01, @06:51PM EST (#513) |
| Great idea, but I think you meant cnet.com. How about a simple program called Doubleclick catcher, that blocks and makes one aware of a doubleclick attempt. |
| Re:Bad (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @05:46AM EST (#263) |
| It's all quite simple really :- bash-2.03$ cat /etc/hosts # Entry to stop doubleclick badness 127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net bash-2.03$ Now, is it just me, or is this so blindingly obvious that you guys really should have thought about it before. :)) And what's more this will actually work on Windoze boxes as well (yes, Win95 and up does have a c:\windows\hosts file if you want one). Only problem with this technique is if you aren't running a httpd on localhost, you might get some browsers complaining all the time, and even if you are running httpd, your logs will start looking weird, but at least you're not getting ads, doubleclick aren't getting your hit, your privacy isn't being invaded, AND you're not spending 20 bucks on some badly written code that will 'junkbust' - whatever that is. :) |
| junkbuster is "free" code. (Score:1) by guardian-ct on Thursday February 03, @09:17AM EST (#516) (User Info) |
| No payment of 20 bucks necessary. Just download, compile, and install (well, maybe not That easy...) Someone else out there has modified the junkbuster code to return 1x1 blank GIFs in place of banner ads. www.junkbuster.com (basic junkbuster code nearby) www.waldherr.org (blank GIFifier) Junkbuster does have a logging function, but you can turn most of it off if you like. If you turn off all the debugging log functions, the only things left are "program started" sorts of log entries. If you turn them all on, everything that passes through the proxy gets logged, including all the data from the http connection. You can be your own paranoid delusion, and try to track yourself down. enjoy... |
| Simplest solution. (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @06:15AM EST (#270) |
| Set doubleclick.net to point to 127.0.0.1 Doing this is easy just stick the following entry into c:\windows\hosts :- doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 In most linux distros i think the file is /etc/hosts I did this ages ago as i pay for my bandwidth and dont like recieving banner ads. |
| foil double click by... (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @09:20AM EST (#309) |
| using www.cyberarmy.com, www.anonymizer.com free services of allowing you to go through their proxies (you look like your coming from www.cyberarmy and your name is cyberarmy, and you live at cyber army etc)... it will slow your browsing down abit, but you will remain anonymous, even more so than now... you could also go to www.zdnet.com and look for their privacy pages... they have some good links to US NAvy pages that will do the same thing. It's a military excercise in encryption which keeps you commpletely in the dark to others |
| Re:Bad (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @10:20AM EST (#331) |
| i am almost sure their system works with cookies. so going into the browser properties and disabling them should do the trick. --AC (too lazy to register) |
| Re:Bad (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @10:53AM EST (#347) |
| In the M$ Windows world, there is a utility called CookiePal from Kookaburra Software http://www.kburra.com that allows you to selectively accept and reject cookies. It also allows to always or never accept a particular cookie. I have found this to be very useful, because there are some sites that I need to go to that require cookies. *I am in no way associated with Kookaburra Software, except that I use their software. |
| Need cookie control in browsers (Score:1) by skelter on Wednesday January 26, @11:22AM EST (#362) (User Info) http://www.skelter.net |
| We need to demand selective cookie control in our browsers! -- They say you die a little bit each day. Have a nice day! |
| Re:Bad ... You could always enter the lion's den (Score:1) by Buskaatt on Wednesday January 26, @11:50AM EST (#369) (User Info) |
| Go to http://www.doubleclick.net/optout/default.as and set your cookie to OPT_OUT. You lose your PID and its relationship to the Abacus database. |
| Re:Bad (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @11:55AM EST (#372) |
| Where exactly do the banner sites get the info from? I've entered bogus info in most places, i.e. netscape's identity section and windows' user registration during installation. The only place where I entered real info was when I created my user under Linux. Would it be possible for them to get the info from there? |
| Re:Bad -- use Muffin (Score:1) by boyns on Wednesday January 26, @12:32PM EST (#389) (User Info) |
| Muffin can filter out doubleclick and much more. It's very powerful, allows users to write their own filters in Java, runs on linux/win32/mac, and it's freely distributed under the GPL. http://muffin.doit.org/ |
| Re:Bad (Score:1) by Dimes (Dimes@fake-email.duh) on Wednesday January 26, @01:26PM EST (#402) (User Info) |
| This probably doesn't help much, but on my machines doubleclick.net resolves as 127.0.0.1, Not sure if this screws with the tracking info.....but it sure is nice not to have to wait for the adds to come up ;-) dimes |
| ummm... (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @12:14AM EST (#4) |
| Shall all the ISP's start firewalling DoubleClick at the router level? |
| Just e-mail them, and let them know how you feel! (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @01:33AM EST (#148) |
| support@doubleclick.net; info@doubleclick.net; hostmaster@DOUBLECLICK.NET; acct_payable@DOUBLECLICK.NET; ang@doubleclick.com; root@doubleclick.com; webmaster@doubleclick.com; www@doubleclick.com; web@doubleclick.com; sales@doubleclick.com; dns@doubleclick.com; dcquestions@doubleclick.com; jblum@doubleclick.com; kryan@doubleclick.com; koconnor@doubleclick.com; dmerriman@doubleclick.com; lianuly@doubleclick.com; csaridakis@doubleclick.com; drosenblatt@doubleclick.com; ptsigrikes@doubleclick.com; scollins@doubleclick.com; jepstein@doubleclick.com; dmerriman@doubleclick.com; bsalzman@doubleclick.com; wmillard@doubleclick.com; jblum@doubleclick.com; |
| Router-level blocking (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @05:07AM EST (#257) |
| We already do at my company, all routers are configured to block ad sites such as doubleclick. Advert companies (online or not) do really suck anyway. |
| SECOND (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @12:14AM EST (#6) |
| #RIT OWS * LET THAT BE KNOWn FEAR US |
| first post (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @12:15AM EST (#7) |
| first post doodz |
| E-mail them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @01:32AM EST (#145) |
| support@doubleclick.net; info@doubleclick.net; hostmaster@DOUBLECLICK.NET; acct_payable@DOUBLECLICK.NET; ang@doubleclick.com; root@doubleclick.com; webmaster@doubleclick.com; www@doubleclick.com; web@doubleclick.com; sales@doubleclick.com; dns@doubleclick.com; dcquestions@doubleclick.com; jblum@doubleclick.com; kryan@doubleclick.com; koconnor@doubleclick.com; dmerriman@doubleclick.com; lianuly@doubleclick.com; csaridakis@doubleclick.com; drosenblatt@doubleclick.com; ptsigrikes@doubleclick.com; scollins@doubleclick.com; jepstein@doubleclick.com; dmerriman@doubleclick.com; bsalzman@doubleclick.com; wmillard@doubleclick.com; jblum@doubleclick.com; |
| first post--i think (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @12:15AM EST (#8) |
| I think this is the first post, but anyway... this is BS... This just proves my theory that the commercialization of the internet is the worst thing to happen to computers. wow... the internet's on computers now... |
| *** IMPORTANT: e-mail them **** (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @01:33AM EST (#153) |
| support@doubleclick.net; info@doubleclick.net; hostmaster@DOUBLECLICK.NET; acct_payable@DOUBLECLICK.NET; ang@doubleclick.com; root@doubleclick.com; webmaster@doubleclick.com; www@doubleclick.com; web@doubleclick.com; sales@doubleclick.com; dns@doubleclick.com; dcquestions@doubleclick.com; jblum@doubleclick.com; kryan@doubleclick.com; koconnor@doubleclick.com; dmerriman@doubleclick.com; lianuly@doubleclick.com; csaridakis@doubleclick.com; drosenblatt@doubleclick.com; ptsigrikes@doubleclick.com; scollins@doubleclick.com; jepstein@doubleclick.com; dmerriman@doubleclick.com; bsalzman@doubleclick.com; wmillard@doubleclick.com; jblum@doubleclick.com; 4 543 |
| 1st? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @12:15AM EST (#9) |
| Hmmm... |
| Re:1st? *** EMAIL THEM *** (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @01:33AM EST (#151) |
| support@doubleclick.net; info@doubleclick.net; hostmaster@DOUBLECLICK.NET; acct_payable@DOUBLECLICK.NET; ang@doubleclick.com; root@doubleclick.com; webmaster@doubleclick.com; www@doubleclick.com; web@doubleclick.com; sales@doubleclick.com; dns@doubleclick.com; dcquestions@doubleclick.com; jblum@doubleclick.com; kryan@doubleclick.com; koconnor@doubleclick.com; dmerriman@doubleclick.com; lianuly@doubleclick.com; csaridakis@doubleclick.com; drosenblatt@doubleclick.com; ptsigrikes@doubleclick.com; scollins@doubleclick.com; jepstein@doubleclick.com; dmerriman@doubleclick.com; bsalzman@doubleclick.com; wmillard@doubleclick.com; jblum@doubleclick.com; eee |
| Enough with the complaining... (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @12:15AM EST (#10) |
| How can we avoid that tracking? I mean... What can *I* do on *MY* computer to avoid them knowing who I am? Shutting off cookies isn't an option at all, nor is manually filtering all my cookies. |
| Re:Enough with the complaining... (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @12:17AM EST (#17) |
| How about pouring hot grits down your pants... 11th post... Yee-UHh.. |
| Re:Enough with the complaining... (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @12:20AM EST (#24) |
| Check out Zero Knowledge's new software at http://www.freedom.net for anon surfing while still using cookies |
| Avoid it or destroy it? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @12:30AM EST (#56) |
| Better than figuring out how to avoid it why not figure out how to destroy it and make it illegal? Why not make an example of these bastards so that no one will ever want to do this shit again? THIS IS BIG BROTHER. They are tracking everything you do, what you look at, THEY KNOW. This is so fundementally wrong. We need to organize ourselves and stop them. Immediatly. |
| PISS THEM OFF (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @01:33AM EST (#150) |
| support@doubleclick.net; info@doubleclick.net; hostmaster@DOUBLECLICK.NET; acct_payable@DOUBLECLICK.NET; ang@doubleclick.com; root@doubleclick.com; webmaster@doubleclick.com; www@doubleclick.com; web@doubleclick.com; sales@doubleclick.com; dns@doubleclick.com; dcquestions@doubleclick.com; jblum@doubleclick.com; kryan@doubleclick.com; koconnor@doubleclick.com; dmerriman@doubleclick.com; lianuly@doubleclick.com; csaridakis@doubleclick.com; drosenblatt@doubleclick.com; ptsigrikes@doubleclick.com; scollins@doubleclick.com; jepstein@doubleclick.com; dmerriman@doubleclick.com; bsalzman@doubleclick.com; wmillard@doubleclick.com; jblum@doubleclick.com; |
| Re:Enough with the complaining... (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @04:08AM EST (#229) |
| Why can't you shut off cookies? I do. |
| Re:Enough with the complaining... (Score:1) by m3000 (m3000@tampabay_dot_rr_dot_com) on Wednesday January 26, @06:41AM EST (#275) (User Info) http://m3000.1wh.com/linux |
| Because a lot of cookies are very usefull to me. For example, thanks to cookies, I only have to log in once to Slashdot. Or it saves my preferences at places like zdnet.com and other personalization sites. It also saves some of my login's and passwords to certain sites, which, while I guess would be a security risk to yall, I trust my family. Of course, I could selectivly get cookies, but I tried that once, and spent about half my time clicking "no" to 5 at each website I visted, totally wasting my time. I don't really mind cookies when they're useful, it's just that sometimes they're not. |
| Re:Enough with the complaining... (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @10:25PM EST (#465) |
| Browsers need to enable a "cookie zone" feature. This way you can deliberately add the useful sites and make all others not bother you at all with the question. |
| Re:Enough with the complaining... (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 27, @09:47PM EST (#495) |
| Internet Explorer 5 has this feature. In addition to general Internet and Intranet security settings, you can define custom security settings for Trusted Sites and Restricted Sites. All you have to do is add sites you trust to Trusted Sites, then disable cookies for Internet sites generally (and Intranet sites, if you don't trust your local network; they're disabled by default for Restricted Sites, which is a good place for sites you definitely don't trust). |
| Re:Enough with the complaining... (Score:1) by atholbrose (cinnamon@one.net) on Wednesday January 26, @08:01AM EST (#288) (User Info) |
| If you go to www.doubleclick.com, click on "privacy policy" and follow a few more links, tey can send you an opt-out cookie. It sets your doubleclick user ID to "OPT_OUT". Is this good enough? I dunno. I'm going to see, though. |
| Rights? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @12:16AM EST (#12) |
| You have no rights online! Ask any OSU computer user! Taylor 5 represent Napster RIP |
| cookies... (Score:1) by JustShootMe (rmilleratduskglowdotnospamdotcom) on Wednesday January 26, @12:16AM EST (#13) (User Info) http://www.duskglow.com |
Isn't it possible to reject any cookies from doubleclick.com? Not that I think this ia good thing, I think it's abhorrent. But one would think that's one way to combat it... If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't. Catch your very own geek - http://www.singlegeek.com |
| Re:cookies... (Score:2, Informative) by Jonathan C. Patschke (jp@nospam.totalaccess.net) on Wednesday January 26, @01:43AM EST (#161) (User Info) http://celestrion.totalaccess.net/ |
| It's ``easy when you know how''. If you've got (or use) a Linux box nearby, and have an Ethernet card in it and your PC, it's possible to build a firewall and use the Squid web-proxy to block all content from DoubleClick.net. The blocker I use is available at http://www.zip.com.au/~cs/adzap/index.ht ml and makes my "Internet Experience" far more enjoyable as it blocks almost all banner ads, and even kills a decent number of popups and consoles. Since my browser cannot make a connection to DoubleClick.net, I cannot trade cookies with them. Oppress Frank Rizzo on Slashdot. Moderate him to Hell. |
| An Obvious Solution... (Score:1) by Tsian on Wednesday January 26, @12:16AM EST (#14) (User Info) |
| This is quite obviously a horrendous invasion of privacy on the part of doubleclick, and a boycott (of sorts) should begin immediately. I would presume that very few users want to be in the doubleclick database, and as such i submit a simple sollution. Simply put the doubleclick domain (in ie, i presume netscape has a similar feature) into the restricted sites area, and adjust security in that zone as necessary to as not accept cookies. Without light there is no darkness. Without darkness there is no light. |
| Re:An Obvious Solution... (Score:1) by Binar1 (use_my_public_key) on Wednesday January 26, @12:25AM EST (#42) (User Info) |
| Might want to add *.flycast.com to that restricted list, too. |
| Re:An Obvious Solution... (Score:1) by fougasse on Wednesday January 26, @12:55AM EST (#103) (User Info) |
No, don't add flycast to that restricted list. This discussion is about the privacy violations of DoubleClick. I agree that what they're doing is a violation of privacy and that they should certainly be boycotted because of it. But you certainly can't extend that argument to "block all advertising". Flycast, for example, has a privacy policy that explicitly forbids associating personal information with your website-viewing profile. Advertising is increasingly unfashionable to defend, but if it weren't for advertising, much of the content on the Internet wouldn't exist. Without advertising, it is essentially impossible to put a useful page up on the web and not lose money. The only real alternative is paying for content... now which would you prefer? If users start blocking ads, then sites which advertise will make less money. As it is now, ad-blocking is generally restricted to techies, people who use the Web a lot and know a lot about it too. And so if this demographic (or psychographic, I'm not sure which applies here) blocks ads, sites which appeal to this demographic (to use advertising terms) will receive less revenue per visitor. That is, tech sites will make less money. Or, in other words, there will be fewer tech sites. In an Internet where content is almost universally supported by advertising, no advertising simply means no content. (And let me also point out that there's a banner at the top of this very page...) |
| Re:An Obvious Solution... (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @02:53AM EST (#196) |
| Without advertising, it is essentially impossible to put a useful page up on the web and not lose money False. |
| Re:An Obvious Solution... (Score:1) by fougasse on Wednesday January 26, @09:54PM EST (#461) (User Info) |
| Thank you, Anonymous Coward, for your in-depth response. |
| Re:An Obvious Solution... (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, @03:52AM EST (#218) |
| As for Flycast, well... things can change. It takes a minute to change the policy. Every ad I've come across (including the ads at Slashdot) end up to my shitlist. I don't want to see them. So yes, I'd say put Flycast to your blocklist and sleep easy. Without advertising, it is essentially impossible to put a useful page up on the web and not lose money. Right, but wrong. There are many, many useful sites which do not advertise, for example www.gnu.org There are no banners there. And as for content, it's the top. Excellent tools. In an Internet where content is almost universally supported by advertising, no advertising simply means no content. It is not completely like this, and it would not have to be like this at all. It is sad to see the Internet gradually turn into a mindnumbing TV-like apparatus simply because "there can be no content unless you advertise". That is no free speech. It is free speech for those who have the money, because "you sing the songs of those whose bread you eat." (And let me also point out that there's a banner at the top of this very page...) I've felt so much better after I installed Waldherr's version of junkbuster. Windows-users might want to look at an easy-to-use and gratis Webwasher. Install them today and spare yourself from that corporate brainwashing... |
| Re:An Obvious Solution... (Score:1) by fougasse on Wednesday January 26, @10:08PM EST (#462) (User Info) |
| Right, but wrong. Oh no. Not paradox, please. I hate those. There are many, many useful sites which do not advertise, for example www.gnu.org There are no banners there. And as for content, it's the top. Excellent tools. I didn't say that there were no good sites without advertising... I said that you usually couldn't put up a good site without advertising and not lose money. And the only reason GNU does not lose large amounts of money is that they receive grants and donations. Grants and donations can't sustain more than a minuscule percentage of the Web... I assume you don't want search engines to have PBS-style pledge breaks. (We'll get back to your search in just a few minutes now, but wouldn't you love this novelty AltaVista heated blanket, available at the $85 level?) It is sad to see the Internet gradually turn into a mindnumbing TV-like apparatus simply because "there can be no content unless you advertise". That is no free speech. It is free speech for those who have the money, because "you sing the songs of those whose bread you eat." The cases in which advertising would limit free speech are very rare. But they certainly do exist. This is the case in many other media, though -- newspapers with, for instance, anti-capitalist views cannot be supported by advertising. So these newspapers either charge readers or operate at a loss (and solicit donations). The same is applicable to the Internet; nobody said that you can't put content up without advertising, only that you have to find an alternative revenue source or operate at a loss. And yes, as is the case with other media, this will make it more difficult to make anti-advertiser views heard. Capitalism inherently limits some forms of free speech, and this is one of them. However, without advertising, speech would be much more limited: those without enough money couldn't operate a web page. A case of "you can only sing if you have bread". That, it seems to me, would damage free speech much more. |
| Re:An Obvious Solution... (Score:1) by dhml on Wednesday January 26, @07:46AM EST (#285) (User Info) |
| Question: if flycast are innocent why have I just found a flycast cookie in my file? What possible innocent use is it to anybody? Another question: anybody used CutTheCrap (filter proxy)? I have it installed & I thought it was working (don't know how old the cookies are). Any reason to trade it for junkbuster which seems to be the favourite here? Michael |
| Re:An Obvious Solution... (Score:1) by fougasse on Wednesday January 26, @09:44PM EST (#457) (User Info) |
| Because cookies are not evil by definition. Cookies are used to, among other things, track which ads you've seen and which ads you tend to click on. Calling this a privacy violation is going overboard -- what private information is revealed? Is the fact that the user at IP 112.43.82.48 has already seen the ad with the dancing penguin and tends to click on ads about food a serious violation of your self? |
| Re:An Obvious Solution... (Score:1) by dhml on Thursday January 27, @05:12AM EST (#482) (User Info) |
| Clearly the above scenario is not a violation of self: however it is of no possible __benefit__ to me (the point of cookies) and could concievably be used for targetted marketing etc if the the info ever got married up with any of my pid. Bottom line: I do not think I should be sent cookies unless they are for my benefit eg user preferences. |
| Re:An Obvious Solution... (Score:1) by kurumi on Wednesday January 26, @01:50PM EST (#408) (User Info) |
| Advertising is increasingly unfashionable to defend, but if it weren't for advertising, much of the content on the Internet wouldn't exist. Without advertising, it is essentially impossible to put a useful page up on the web and not lose money. The only real alternative is paying for content... now which would you prefer? |