Google plugs your surf history into ad money machine Google has unleashed a new behavioral ad targeting scheme onto YouTube and partner sites in its AdSense advertising network - though it has carefully avoided the term behavioral ad targeting. Google prefers "interest-based advertising." Whatever you call it, YouTube and AdSense sites are now showing ads to websurfers based on …
how this will work with a user that never accepts cookies and if a cookie is essential to view the content only allows the cookie for that session. A user that has also blocked google-analytics and *.doubleclick.* and every other damned ad server out there, blocks scripts by default again only allowing them to run if essential to the sites' function and refreshes his/her dynamic IP address every two days?
I would be impressed if Google could track and supply targeted advertising to that user, and if they can, could someone enlighten me as to how so I can do something about it.
Where's the no-entry icon? Ahh I guess stop will do
This post has been deleted by its author
Look into Front Porch, Inc. They have a product called a PorchLight that can do behavioral targeting based on IP address, not on name, credit card number, or anything else personally identifying. Best of all, it's a non-cookie based opt-out, so when you opt out, you opt out.
What Google is doing is serving up ads based on a tracking cookie on AdSense-containing web pages that the user visits. This is intrusive and annoying, but blockable.
What BT-Phorm are intending to do is sniff a user's entire traffic at ISP level. That is unacceptable, and probably also illegal.
Notwithstanding Google's slogan "do no evil", they don't give a shit about anybody's privacy. So much is obvious, and has been for quite some time.
When Google took over blogger. com, I deleted my blogs, then the Google profile I'd had to set up to retrieve them. Now, with the latest news about their snoopiness I've set my Firefox user agent string to "Fuck you Google!". This is a little more straightforward than the "Eye o'Sauron" I used to use.
And for most searches I no longer use Google, preferring ixquick.com.
Stop it. Google.
Scroogle SSL. Google get no information on you personally and it confounds DPI by being encrypted.
http://mycroft.mozdev.org/search-engines.html?name=scroogle+ssl
IXQuick SSL is another option.
http://mycroft.mozdev.org/search-engines.html?name=ixquick+ssl
I know, Mozdev, but these results include search plugins for IE7 and other browsers with OpenSearch compatible support. Be sure to use the SSL versions of these; there are non-SSL plugins, but that leaves you at the mercy of DPI and snooping from within your own ISP's network. Note: Konqueror does not support OpenSearch right now. You guys need to plug the string "https://ssl.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbwssl.cgi?Gw=\{@}" into the search setup.
...look on the good side. For the Yoof, it will be so much easy to.... "Find Happy Slapping On eBay".
As the wife is a Social Worker, going to be interesting what ad's will be server to her...."Find Domestic Abuse on eBay"
Of course could back fire for many, when there other halfs log in and get ads.... "Find Hot Leather Teen Action on eBay"
Mate, try this: the next time these miscreants leave unctuous deposits, get hold of a tin of Mr Muscle Oven Cleaner, take a deep breath and quickly cover the warm surface with foam. Then get the fuck out of Dodge and shut the door, preferably leaving your neuronically-challenged cooker-sharers inside. Oh, you can breath at this point. Those inside may have minor respiratory problems. This should enhance the importance of cleaning up after one's culinary adventures.
Oh, the Mr Mister Muscle Oven Cleaner is extremely effective - it'll clear the dingleberries off a rabid dog's freckle. I've used it on a motorbike not cleaned for twelve moths to great effect (watch out for the alloy parts though).
Sorry this is slightly off-topic but these things need to be addressed I feel.
/apron with pockets
"I'm fine, I run adblock"
no you're not, you just don't see them!
consider peer guardian.
this is all getting too much too quick, I'm looking forwards to the tabloid press realising that all this Deep Profiling is gonna screw their advertising revenue as greedy company's blow their wad on tracking Jo, John and Diane because they need incontinence pads.
if there is hope it lays with the paroles.
If you're a savvy Reg reader, you probably avoid using Google as much as possible. You probably run Firefox with NoScript and AdBlock Plus. You clear cookies on exit and don't accept third party cookies. You block AdServer, Akamai, Google Analytics, Doubleclick and the rest. You disconnect regularly to change your dynamic IP address. You may use Anonymous or Tor when searching.
It's the other 99% of web users that get tricked by the likes of Google. It's them whose interests we should be fighting for. The trouble is, of course, they *like* the apparent ease of so-called 'services' from free-to-use portals like MSN, Yeehaw and Google.
What does one do to protect the stupid and lazy from their stupidity and laziness?
Phorm suck ALL your content and use that to profile you.
Google seem to be saying that if you visit sites that use their "profiler" system (which seems to be limited at the moment) then what you look at on that site can then be used to target google ads delivered to you on other sites. In a way its a slightly extended version of the existing adsense program in that adsense delivers ads based on the content of the pages on the site you are looking at.
So if I go to a site that is not in Google's ad program then the cookie isn't tracked/updated and what I do on that site does not alter my google profile.
Very very different from Phorm isn't it, and webmasters will still get their cut from Googleads on their sites which are still content targetted, unlike Phorm who "steal" your content and use that to profile your readers and make money from your content without your permission.
This post has been deleted by its author
If people are that concerned, just use Opera, then right click and select "block content". Easy peasy.
Alternatively, click on all the ads but never ever buy anything from those companies. In the long run they will realise that such advertising is producing decreasing conversion rates and will give it up.
Tim#3
I find this works a treat in FF,
As for Google gathering statistics, Im not sure if customise google removes this, but it certainly takes out a lot of crap
You could always use Trackmenot FF add in which runs low priority & broadcasts random search stuff making the real searches hard to analyse
Alternatively you can always use a different search engine.
For "If you're a savvy Reg reader..." read "If you're a tinfoil-hat-wearing paranoid..."
Good grief, man ! Do you ever use a debit/credit card for online payments or in bricks-and-mortar shops ? Guess what ? You're being profiled ! If not, then my apologies for my presumption.
You continue: "The trouble is, of course, they *like* the apparent ease of so-called 'services' from free-to-use portals like MSN, Yeehaw and Google.
What does one do to protect the stupid and lazy from their stupidity and laziness?"
Google provides the best search engine - by far - in the Interwebz and the reason it's free to use is that they get an income from advertisers. If we geeks supply every 'lazy and stupid' web user in the world with the means to defeat ads, guess what'll happen ? That's right - the best damned search engine on the Web becomes a subscription-based fee-paying service. Thanks, mate !
Let's keep the AdBlockPlus trick (and its ilk) secret for us and our immediate friends and family.
"What does one do to protect the stupid and lazy from their stupidity and laziness?" Er... Fsckall, we need the patsy. I also think all warning labels should be removed, let evolution sort things out.
If one was swimming in shark infested waters the best form of defence would be to throw children over ones shoulder and swim real fast. /metaphor I don't condone sacrificing children to ensure ones safety.
Seriously, just inform and attempt to make them aware, if they are not smart enough or too lazy to protect themselves when provided with the information needed, so be it. Besides, if people have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear, so let's just let the people who believe this take the flak.
As several people have rightly pointed out, this seems cookie based, so it's easy to disable without having to accept an opt-out cookie. At the URL linked from the article, I get the message
"Your browser's cookies seem to be disabled. Ads Preferences will not work until you enable cookies in your browser."
All well and good. As long as Google doesn't switch to tracking by IP.
So: how long are ISPs going to allow broadband customers to get a new IP address every time they want one? My DHCP lease is over a week long, and I'm not convinced that my ISP wouldn't just give me the same IP back again even if I did switch my cable modem off long enough. Certainly that's what it does if I deliberately release and refresh.
With sites like Wikipedia blocking by IP address, customers are going to be less and less impressed with the idea that their ISP has given them a ropey, pre-owned IP address that some vandal or unsuspecting bot-owner has managed to get banned from half the web. Prior to IPv6, the only solution is one IP address per customer, and if you break it, tough luck.
Once Google can rely on one household per IP address (at least within blocks it knows are residential ISPs), then why *wouldn't* it target ads by IP, in cases where cookies are blocked? Sure, you conflate a small number of users, and advertise tellytubbies to Dad and porn^Hcars to the kids, but it's still better than no targeting at all.
That's why log anonymisation matters, at least for those not already using TOR. Your IP address either already is personally identifying information, or will be soon.
Toastan:
Firstly, I don't have a credit card and even if I did I would be extremely wary of using it online anywhere.
I agree that Google is probably the best search engine for general use. And with Adblock Plus, one isn't annoyed by the adverts. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be very suspicious of Google.
You make the point that there's no such thing as a free lunch - that it is advertising revenue that keeps Google alive. That assumes that we want Google kept alive.
adnim:
You say: "I don't condone sacrificing children to ensure ones safety." Why ever not? They are small, cheap and expendable. Making new ones is easy and fun.
Yes, anyone who cannot see the danger in that "nothing to hide" bullshit deserves what they get.
Both:
You advocate keeping technical knowledge to ourselves. Nah. The more people who know what's going on behind their backs the better. Our responsibility as technically literate people - in as much as we have any general responsibilty - is to educate, not smile smugly behind our firewalls.
I am proud to be called a "tinfoil-hat-wearing paranoid." I'm paranoic with good reason - they really are out to get us all.
Well... that's the thing about being paranoid, you say 'they really are out to get us all'. That's just a defining characteristic, not a radical pronouncement that's going to make any scales fall from any eyes.
And it's fair enough to not care if you're called a tinfoil-hat-wearing paranoid, but I'm not sure I'd be proud of it - it's kind of um, derogatory (which we defined elsewhere yesterday).
Hey ho.
(I'm not out to get you though. Or *am* I?)
...but plenty of AdBlock etc.
Of course, Scroogle *could* be untrustworthy also, but, they don't have the global reach of Google, so are comparitively, a safe bet.
If I were Google, I'd be asking Scroogle how much money they wanted, for selling their IP logs!
Perhaps TOR to Scroogle, just to be sure? ;)
Matt :)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
