Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Tynt Insight Is Watching You Cut and Paste

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the peeking-at-your-poke dept.

Privacy 495

jerryasher writes "In recent weeks I've noticed that when I copy and paste text from Wired and other websites, the pasted text has had the URL of the original website appended to it. Cool, and utterly annoying, and how do I make that stop? Tynt Insight is a piece of Javascript that sends what you copy to Tynt's webservers and adds the backlinks. Tynt calls that a service for the site owner, many people call that a privacy invasion. Worse, there are some reports that it sends not just what you copy, but everything you select. And Tynt provides no opt outs. Not cookie-based, not IP-based, but stop-it-you-creeps-angry-phone-call-based. It ain't a pure useful service, and it ain't a pure privacy invasion. But I sure wish they'd go away or have had the decency never to start up in the first place. I block it on Firefox with Ghostery."

cancel ×

495 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

use noscript! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30768096)

Only run the javascript you want.

Re:use noscript! (1)

Kral_Blbec (1201285) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768194)

It seems to me the advantage of ghostery over noscript is that (as I understand it) it has a database to identify what the javascript and urls are. I use noscript occasionally, never used ghostery though so idk

WHAT HOSTS DO THEY USE? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30768574)

Please, we need to know ALL of the hosts that they use so we can add them to our hosts file.

in Opera... (5, Informative)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768634)

Just make sure that the option "Allow scripts to detect context menu events" is left unchecked (this is the default). Then you can select text/graphics/whatever, and copy operations via right mouse click are not observable by javascript.

In fact, javascript can't detect any right click actions in Opera unless you explicitly allow it. So copy, paste, translate, search, dictionary, encyclopedia, etc. actions can't be monitored by javascript in a web page.

This feature was in earlier versions of Opera as well, but the checkbox was named differently.

Re:use noscript! (3, Interesting)

c0d3g33k (102699) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768854)

I actually have both installed, and haven't noticed any adverse effects or conflicts. NoScript handles the "selectively allow this", while Ghostery tells me about web bugs and such, and lets me identify the JS and urls, as you point out. Ghostery seems to stay out of the way quite nicely, while NoScript does the heavy lifting.

Re:use noscript! (4, Informative)

melikamp (631205) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768200)

I have to second this. NoScript is now my favorite extension, with ABP being a close second.

Re:use noscript! (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30768502)

NoScript users are going to be a minority of internet users, but you have to be INSANE to browse without it.
I whitelist base 2nd level domains, but noscript really highlights the amount of CRAP that many sites use, like fuck-up-you-shit-apis.com

A page rarely appears, or functions differently with all 3rd party scripts blocked. It also might be blocking some advertising, but I can't tell if Adblock got there first.

Re:use noscript! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30768798)

Maybe I'm doin' it wrong, but NoScript broke an awful lot of the web when I was running it using default settings. AdBlockPlus, on the other hand has a 0% false positive rate for me.

If you want widespread adoption, I think the ABP route is the one to go for, even at the expense of letting some new/unknown scripts through.

Re:use noscript! (2, Interesting)

Montezumaa (1674080) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768290)

I read their website, and it looks like they offer a program for users to install. Is this what the article is referring to, or are webmaster running a script to allow Tynt Insight to track what I copy and paste, irrespective of whether or not I install Tynt's program? If it is the former, then do not install the damned program. This is just like the whole social-networking sites and people bitching about privacy.

If it is the latter, then install No-Script(which everyone should have) and block the shit out of Tyrant....err, Tynt. I have No-Script running because I was tired of Google tracking my every move, along with the other tracking site.

Re:use noscript! (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768342)

I am also a NoScript fan. I love it's use of the 'whitelist' security model. Instead of making me tell it everything I want to block, it blocks it all by default and I tell it what I want to see. I wish all security products used this model.

Re:use noscript! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30768386)

Not cookie based, not IP based, but stop it you creeps angry phone call based.

You are not know English?

Re:use noscript! (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768538)

"Stop it, you creeps," angry phone call-based.

But yeah, the editors and most of the submitters not knowed the English.

Re:use noscript! (1)

NeoSkandranon (515696) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768806)

I found that when i was using noscript firefox's responsiveness plummeted and it often ballooned up to 600+ mb of space when tabs having javascript going (say, MSDN, gmail or slashdot) were left open. Disabling noscript immediately solved the issue.

I'd love to go back to using it, but such behavior really isn't acceptable to me. Any ideas how to streamline it a bit? (OP or anyone else reading)

Re:use noscript! (1)

dannydawg5 (910769) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768840)

I've noticed that RequestPolicy...
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/9727/ [mozilla.org]

requires much less management. NoScript constantly updates and constantly requires white-listing sites to be able to use them. RequestPolicy defaults to denying just the off-site JavaScript, which is the JavaScript I care the most to deny.

Thought JavaScript clipboard was opt in? (3, Informative)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768124)

I thought that to allow JavaScript to access the clipboard, you had to opt in, and even then, you can't really do it the right way under FireFox or Chrome. Like, JavaScript clipboard access is an IE only thing.

  Are we sure this isn't a Java application or something?

Re:Thought JavaScript clipboard was opt in? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30768202)

This can be done by overloading the Ctrl+c keypress event, etc.

Re:Thought JavaScript clipboard was opt in? (4, Interesting)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768226)

This can be done by overloading the Ctrl+c keypress event, etc.

Then from there, you can get the selection...

I got you.

Re:Thought JavaScript clipboard was opt in? (4, Informative)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768224)

It's plain JS. It doesn't actually access the clipboard. It just tells what you're highlighting through mouse interaction.

In any case, I blacklist *.tynt.com in hosts.

Re:Thought JavaScript clipboard was opt in? (4, Interesting)

rhsanborn (773855) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768280)

Is anyone else half-tempted to write a script to post back random text from Pride and Prejudice, or something to that effect?

Re:Thought JavaScript clipboard was opt in? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30768430)

Or an ASCII art version of goatse.

Re:Thought JavaScript clipboard was opt in? (5, Funny)

lattyware (934246) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768766)

'ASCII art version of goatse.' +4 Interesting
Only on slashdot.

Re:Thought JavaScript clipboard was opt in? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30768866)

=O=

Re:Thought JavaScript clipboard was opt in? (1)

gknoy (899301) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768750)

Do it with something that is in the public domain. Perhaps random snippets from a random Project Gutenberg article.

Re:Thought JavaScript clipboard was opt in? (1)

metrometro (1092237) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768838)

>> Is anyone else half-tempted to write a script to post back random text from Pride and Prejudice, or something to that effect?

> Do it with something that is in the public domain. Perhaps random snippets from a random Project Gutenberg article.

Like, perhaps, Pride and Prejudice?

Copyright awareness win. Literature awareness fail.

Re:Thought JavaScript clipboard was opt in? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30768868)

Perhaps some of the code from the Linux kernel would be good? If we could get 50% of the people copying text to have this silly site think they are all copying snippets of Linux code it would be pretty funny.

Based on Selection (5, Informative)

CritterNYC (190163) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768372)

It's based on selecting text, not copying and pasting it. So when you select the text in your browser, as soon as you finish making the selection, it sends the info on what you selected back to Tynt. It also adds in the attribution link to the selected text (although you won't see it in the web page). Then when you CTRL-C or right-click and copy as usual after making the selection, you get your selected text and the attribution link.

That's how it avoids needing to use Javascript to do anything to directly touch the clipboard (which is disabled by default in your browser for security reasons).

Re:Based on Selection (1)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768794)

Yes but how does it translate from knowing that a mouse drag was performed to exactly which characters are selected? AFAIK, it is very hard in Javascript to tell what character corresponds to which mouse coordinates. Whatever Tynt's solution is, it must be something pretty cool.

Re:Thought JavaScript clipboard was opt in? (1)

mystik (38627) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768684)

My quick 'how it works assessment w/o tracing the code' is that it detects when you create a range of highlighted text, the inserts an invisible image with alt text @ the very end of the selection. It's not touching the clipboard, it's simply "altering" what you selected to copy @ the last second before the user copies it to the clipboard.

Other script blockers will work, as well (5, Informative)

srmalloy (263556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768142)

NoScript will also block it, and if you configure it to block by default, Tynt's code will never execute unless you specifically permit it.

Re:Other script blockers will work, as well (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30768536)

Somebody's been insulted by the story. Half the replies to this story have been down-modded as Troll.

Make note, meta-mods!

Re:Other script blockers will work, as well (1)

pdboddy (620164) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768560)

How the hell is the parent of this a troll?

It is to laugh. (5, Funny)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768148)

Epic Win for Irony.

Currently on the front page of Wired.Com

"WebMonkey:

Warning: This site may be sharing your data"

Re:It is to laugh. (1)

pdboddy (620164) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768576)

Not sure how the parent of this is a troll either. Are people who are moderating even reading what they're rating?

Re:It is to laugh. (1)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768856)

Oh, they are reading it all right.

They just don't want other readers to get educated.

If its just JS break it. (4, Interesting)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768160)

If its just J/S it must be useing the browser to get or post the information back to their web server. Figure out what there net block is and black configure your firewall to send you a nice reset packet anytime your box tries to hit it.

Re:If its just JS break it. (5, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768288)

I often randomly click on a page while I'm reading and select bits of text. If I visit any site that uses this, then they'll get a lot of data but no useful information from me.

Re:If its just JS break it. (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768572)

Who the hell is modding everything -1 Troll? There are way more than 5 posts unjustly modded so it's not just some single jackass.

Re:If its just JS break it. (1)

winthrop (314632) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768714)

They'll get how long you stayed on the page and were actively reading it.

Re:If its just JS break it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30768740)

Append this to /etc/hosts:
#tynt makes browser bitch when you highlight things
#I have never seen a worse idea
#ever
#ever!
#seriously, screw that so much
#first one is the JS script host
#second is recipient of highlightings
0.0.0.0 tcr.tynt.com
0.0.0.0 w1.tcr70.tynt.co

I've known about this for ages because it makes Firefox act like it's loading a page whenever you highlight text. I do that habitually while reading.

Scripting? (2, Interesting)

Nexzus (673421) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768180)

Probably uses the script onmousedown or onselect events for the page. So don't allow scripting for that site, and you should be fine.

Isn't disabling javascript an opt-out? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30768184)

I agree that the talk-back makes me a bit uncomfortable, but ultimately anything that makes it to my browser window is under my control.

NoScript (5, Insightful)

leoc (4746) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768188)

Personally I have stopped browsing without NoScript enabled. I sincerely hope that the functionality it provides is adapted as a base feature in future browsers. Javascript is simply too dangerous to be trusted by default. Sites need to earn that trust, IMHO.

What? NEXT! (-1, Flamebait)

showmeshowyoukikoman (659208) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768204)

You have no idea what you're talking about. NEXT!

Everything selected, not only copied? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30768236)

In that case I hope they have enough server space.

Snopes (2, Interesting)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768258)

Snopes was (is?) using java to prevent site viewers from right-clicking and selecting text at all (not to mention using java to present copious pop-up and pop-under ads). I had no idea until I was watching a friend go to Snopes in a browser without NoScript running. Showed him how to user get NoScript and now he is free to copy/paste text with impunity!

Re:Snopes (4, Informative)

Unbeliever (35305) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768316)

I don't use noscript, but have been noticing lots of disabled copying on more and more websites.

The simple fix I use is to Ctrl-U/View source and copy from that window.

Re:Snopes (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768722)

That would work sort of. For Snopes they put a manual line break after every line, and they have a lot of in-line advertisements that will clutter up the code.

Habits (4, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768272)

I have a habit of repeatedly selecting and deselecting text as I read it. I probably selected the story blurb here 10 times while reading it. It would be hard for them to mine that data for anything useful. Not that I run strange javascript anyway.

Re:Habits (1)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768330)

I do the same thing. I think it is because light text on a dark background is easier to read.

Re:Habits (4, Interesting)

LMacG (118321) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768370)

I'm a "highlight while reading" guy too. That's what first made me notice Tynt, and that's what made me swich back to Firefox (w/ NoScript) from Chrome.

Re:Habits (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768524)

Wow, who (or what) came through and troll modded everything? One of the editors have a really bad day?

Re:Habits (3, Interesting)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768690)

Probably Derek Ball [tynt.com]

Re:Habits (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768792)

Somebody with a god-like sense of humor.

O' Megamod Troll, I beseech thee and offer thee a faded black semen-crusted Rush t-shirt!

As Seen @ DemoCamp (1)

Akoman (559057) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768284)

DemoCamp in Edmonton got a demo of this backbreakingly suit-oriented piece of software. It's a sign of how all DemoCamps slowly become lame as shit that all of the Q & A was spent with the suits asking about how they make money or providing advice on that point rather than commenting or asking about the technology.

More of the same? (3, Insightful)

Qubit (100461) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768292)

So let me get this straight. Because there are websites that are doing shady stuff with the text I select and such, you want me to install a Firefox Extension [mozilla.org] that theoretically won't do anything shady with my stuff, even though its license [mozilla.org] consists of

Source code license for Ghostery 2.0.2
Copyright Ghostery, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

And there's no source available.

Why should we trust the people behind Ghostery any more than a random website out there? If you're writing software to protect privacy and prevent data snooping, why make people trust more closed-source software?

rename extension.xpi to extension.zip ... profit! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30768438)

... closed-source software?

1. rename extension.xpi to extension.zip
2. open extension.zip with unzipper of your choice
3. read all source-code
4. ???
5. profit!

Adblock the javascript (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30768322)

Same thing works to get rid of that stupid answers.com script that makes an ajax call whenever you select any text on a page.

Easy Adblock Plus Filter (5, Informative)

CritterNYC (190163) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768326)

Just add a filter to to Adblock Plus in Firefox. Go to Adblock Plus's preferences page, click Add Filter and enter:

http://tcr.tynt.com/* [tynt.com]

Then just click OK or Apply.

Re:Easy Adblock Plus Filter (5, Informative)

bheer (633842) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768858)

They also use http://wau.tynt.com/javascripts/TyntLite.js [tynt.com] for some pages, so I'd recommend adding http://*.tynt.com/* if your blocking system supports multiple wildcards.

Why collect that data? (3, Interesting)

gmueckl (950314) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768360)

The URL appending when cutting and pasting is easily defeated by pasting using the middle mouse button. That script still sends selection information, though. Can anybody tell me what this data is collected for? I don't see any value in it.

Re:Why collect that data? (3, Informative)

LMacG (118321) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768444)

I wonder if they tracked me copying the URL for their page - Why Tynt Insight [tynt.com] ?

Re:Why collect that data? (4, Interesting)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768552)

Many password storage utilities use the paste buffer to keep you from needing to type the password, although the good ones will blank it out after a short period of time. This has the potential for some fairly serious abuse.

Re:Why collect that data? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30768602)

The URL appending when cutting and pasting is easily defeated by pasting using the middle mouse button. That script still sends selection information, though. Can anybody tell me what this data is collected for? I don't see any value in it.

And the ability for most slashdotters to think beyond their own heads is made blindingly apparent yet again. Having some idea of what specific text people are highlighting or cutting/pasting from any given page is imminently useful. Hell, it can even be useful for a Linux HOWTO site -- the site owner could see that 10 out of every 15 people that visit the HOWTO always select the same block of text, which means that there are a shitload of people out there looking for that very specific piece of information. You could then move that block of text somewhere where it's more prominent, or add it to the FAQ, or whatever. I'm not saying they should be using this Tyntcrap to do it, but I'm merely pointing out how your failure to "see any value in it" is exactly that -- a failure of imagination on your part.

Re:Why collect that data? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30768614)

People using an OS that actually matters do not paste using middle click.

JS messing with clipboard (1)

Al Dimond (792444) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768402)

This isn't the first instance of Javascript messing with the clipboard. One of my former co-workers encountered a real estate search site that repeatedly overwrote his clipboard. He had the page open while he was working and discovered the issue while trying to copy-paste some database queries from one file to another or something.

My first thought was that the browser shouldn't even allow that. But since each of the individual components (looking at the selection, capturing keystrokes, writing the clipboard) can be used in JS for useful things it's hard for browser makers to do much about it. Of course, we should all be surfing with JS under tight control...

Why do they even need the text posted back? (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768420)

I don't get it - why does the JavaScript even need to send the text to a server? I mean, the browser knows what page you are on. Why not just have the JS snag the URL from the browser and append it to the text, so the selected text never leaves your computer? This whole setup just sounds like an excuse to send something back to the server, when it's technically completely unnecessary.

Re:Why do they even need the text posted back? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30768566)

The response it sends back to the server tells the site owner what you selected / copies off their site.

Why site owners want to know that, I don't know; but, then, I'm not an evil marketing schmuck who can think up all sorts of clever ways to abuse customers for personal gain.

Kind of One Sided Review of the Service (4, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768448)

I can't get it to work when I copy paste from Wired (must be something with my setup and javascript) but I will make the unpopular statement of saying that 1) you are copying and pasting Wired's content and 2) as early as high school I was taught that if I was copying information verbatim, I had better have some sort of reference (MLA preferred [cornell.edu] ).

Now, on Slashdot I drop in a link on some text like just did up there. But if I'm quoting it, I'll throw in a quote block and lead up to who said it and call it a day. Now, let's imagine a world where all that was automated when you copied something and the text you copied came with XML metadata saying all the things like where you got it, when you got it, who wrote it, etc. That could potentially be pretty useful. If you think of the web as actual works belonging to people then you can start to see how legitimately referencing other works could be made a lot easier with stuff like this. And maybe text editors could have plugins to digest it?

Unfortunately the submitter and editor of this site seem to cry privacy violation at any attempt to move past the wild wild west anything goes attitude of the world wide web. That's fine as this has an element of privacy concerns what with the phoning home. But please consider the issue from Wired's side, from the side of the author and content creators. They might just trying to help us with what we were taught in school.

Lastly, I would like to point out that another solution aside from Ghostery or Noscript is just to not use Wired's site at all. Vote with your feet and bring your eyeballs elsewhere for pageviews and adclicks. I'm sure Wired's not losing a whole lot of adclicks if you do.

Re:Kind of One Sided Review of the Service (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30768606)

If that's all they wanted to do, it could be easily accomplished without sending whatever you copy to some third party webserver. It would be fairly trivial to track what you copied, so that when you copied, you copied the extra url, and that would be all.

What they're doing here (from what I understand from TFA, and not from actually seeing it happen) is sending whatever you select to some server to be (possibly) stored. This is what everyone's decrying, not the fact that an URL tail comes attached to the copied text.

Re:Kind of One Sided Review of the Service (3, Informative)

LMacG (118321) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768608)

Part of the problem is that the script seems to want to communicate to the server even when you've only highlighted text. As mentioned in another post (that the mods on acid seem to have gotten to), I highlight when I read. I don't know why, but it's what I do. I'm NOT copying, but tynt is still tracking me; the "cite your references" argument doesn't apply.

As far as just not using Wired.com, that completely ignores the fact that many other sites have this POS JS running; I first noticed it at the New Yorker magazine site.

Re:Kind of One Sided Review of the Service (5, Informative)

guido1 (108876) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768678)

The copy/paste/autolink behavior is not the privacy concern. I didn't read anyone here saying that it was.

The privacy concern is (from the summary): sends what you copy to Tynt's webservers...

So I, as a user of a random webpage, copy something for later pasting. That info, and my IP address, is sent to a third-party, theoretically for the purpose of appending a URL to the end of the text. Is that data also used for something else? Most likely. What company wouldn't try to make use of data it receives?

Since the same append functionality can be done trivially with some JS without contacting a home server, we immediately hop on the privacy horn.

Re:Kind of One Sided Review of the Service (2, Informative)

pdboddy (620164) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768710)

Yes, it is Wired's content, but there are rules for fair use.

Some folks just use the highlighting part of copy to read.

Some folks copy and paste links to email themselves so they can find it later. Likewise some folks copy and paste articles, in part or in whole, to themselves to read later.

People do get annoyed when websites do things without saying such things are being done. Wired has every right to defend its content, however, it should do so in an open manner.

Re:Kind of One Sided Review of the Service (1)

fotbr (855184) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768734)

Didn't notice anything on wired.com with either FF or IE.

hmmm (1)

xaositects (786749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768482)

seems like a CTRL+A, CTRL+C by a few thousand slashdotters might cause some issues.

It's insane, that guy's Tynt (2, Funny)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768484)

Noscript FTW.

X FTW (1)

d3matt (864260) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768500)

Selection to alternate clipboard (or whatever it's called) doesn't suffer from this nonsense :D

How Tynt.com says to avoid being tracked... (5, Informative)

landrew (45088) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768504)

This from their FAQ - Technical Topics (http://www1.tynt.com/faq-technical-topics):

Q. How can I block Tynt Insight from monitoring my actions?

A. Tynt understands that some people are uncomfortable having events from their web browsing recorded in a database. We take your privacy concerns seriously and we are therefore investing considerable effort into developing a feature that will allow users to block Tynt software across all the sites that are using it, from within their own browser. Until we have this blocking feature ready, it is possible to achieve a similar effect by using one of the many ad blocking components available on the net. For Firefox users, we have found Adblock plus to work well, and Super Ad Blocker is effective for IE users.

I can't wait to download and install software they've written to help me block them from tracking me with their software. Good thing I'm using Ad Block Plus and NoScript while I wait, or they'd know I cut-n-pasted that...

Trolls? (4, Interesting)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768510)

Does Tynt have multiple /. accounts or something? I've never seen so many posts marked Troll

Re:Trolls? (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768776)

It looked like two people used their whole 10 points each to mark every post Troll when the thread was young.

Re:Trolls? (5, Interesting)

TyntGuy (1721234) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768844)

We're not a big company, and I can tell you I'm the only Tynt guy commenting here. Derek

All Your base are belong to us (3, Insightful)

TibbonZero (571809) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768512)

"Not cookie based, not IP based, but stop it you creeps angry phone call based. It ain't a pure useful service, and it ain't a pure privacy invasion. But I sure wish they'd go away and have had the decency to never start up in the first place."

Please tell me that the writer is either a non-native English speaker, or they didn't read that twice?

Does anybody else not care? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30768518)

They give me content, I give them data so they can make their website and their ads better suit my needs, personally I don't type out my secrets on random websites then copy and paste them else where, I love the cock, If this technology means that a website author can analyse their site and see that most people selected TLAs (probably to google them) and as a result next time they use a TLA they expand it the first time then i can only see that as a win, if they see that I selected "hustler for young gay men" (probably to buy it) then they can replace the text with an affiliate link to amazon and make some money, while saving me a copy/paste, then i see that as a good thing too. In fact i wish wikipedia would do this so that they linkify the words when people actually look them up not just the where the editor decided to put the link or every single time (that would make it a mess)

Re:Does anybody else not care? (1)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768610)

I would not care if they simply appended the url without sending it to a central server first (though I do find it a bit annoying when cutting multiple small sections of text).

Equally as annoying is the NYT. I'm not sure when this change happened as I'm not a big user of their site but I can no longer highlight a word and google (or other) search via context menu on any page except their front page. Instead they want you to use their own reference search wish is decidely not the same thing.

Fiddler is helpful is monitoring a site... (1)

klubar (591384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768528)

Fiddler (HTTP Debugging Proxy) is a pretty cool tool for checking on what a site is doing -- and much easier and more useful than looking at the TCP stack). Fiddler works with any browser and acts as a proxy between the browser and the web. It's also scriptable.

Highly recommend Fiddler [fiddler2.com] for keeping tabs on who your browser is talking to. (Also, indespensible for debugging ajax.)

hosts file seems to work (4, Informative)

jtroutman (121577) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768550)

I seem to have stopped this by adding the following to my hosts file:
127.0.0.1 www1.tynt.com
127.0.0.1 tynt.com
127.0.0.1 www.tynt.com
127.0.0.1 w1.tcr112.tynt.com

Re:hosts file seems to work (2, Informative)

jtroutman (121577) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768624)

and... fail. For some reason it stopped and has now started again. I'll look into it further when I'm back in front of a computer.

Quick and easy "plaintextify" for Windows (1)

terrahertz (911030) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768586)

1) Copy desired formatted/linked/etc text to clipboard.
2) Windows key-R (opens Run box)
3) Ctrl-V (paste the text into the Run box)
4) Shift-Home (select the now-plaintext)
5) Ctrl-C (copy the now-plaintext)
6) Esc (close Run box)

I use this all the time when copying and pasting in Windows, and it works great for me.

I'm torn on this one ... (1)

abbynormal brain (1637419) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768630)

We seem to be moving into a "corporate" model where everyone can use anyone's material without worry about plagiarism because - after all - it belongs to the company. The difference is, when I write a good piece of something for the company and it is re-used - I get paid. Not always so outside of corporate.

Concerning The Software and People Using It:
I don't think the software is evil. I think it helps those who do honest hard work. And if someone happens to choose this software and you don't like it, don't use their stuff. And if you do use their stuff, give them the goddamn credit.

Concerning These Types of Software:
And we should continue keeping companies like this in check by discussing them just like this. For now, we can still vote with our feet and wallets.

Concerning Hobbits:
Well, you know that story ...

A comment from Tynt (5, Informative)

TyntGuy (1721234) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768638)

I work for Tynt. I appreciate the discussion here and want to make sure that everyone knows we want to be respectful of the opinions here. Not sure i I will get flamed just for wading in, but I hope not. To clarify on a few points 1. Tracking and Attribution – the attribution feature is separate from the tracking features. The tracking features work very much like any other analytics tool. We do not store any personally identifiable information, but we do want to help publishers learn what content people are choosing to preserve and promote. In addition, publishers can turn the attribution feature on or off on their sites. If you want to see what is actually collected - sign up for an account and look at the dashboard, you will see that we are tracking the content, not the user. 3. What if I don’t want this behavior? We are currently working on a global opt out for users who would rather not have Tynt monitor them. In the interim you can opt out on a site by site basis (i.e. the opt out for the SF Gate is here: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/faq.shtml#faq1.5%23ixzz0bxLIAbL7 [sfgate.com] ). More info on how to not have Tynt monitor you is available in our FAQs here: http://www1.tynt.com/faq-technical-topics#ixzz0bxGzIgPZ [tynt.com] but as pointed out in the comments here, NoScript is a very effective tool for this. Derek

Re:A comment from Tynt (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768822)

we are tracking the content, not the user.

And when the content is personally identifiable?

We are currently working on a global opt out

Why not an opt in?

Terrible Summary (1)

RealErmine (621439) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768646)

Not cookie based, not IP based, but stop it you creeps angry phone call based. It ain't a pure useful service, and it ain't a pure privacy invasion.

This is barely English and is a grammatical cluster-fuck. Come on editors, read past the first two lines please.

No big deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30768652)

Sites already track which page you're looking at, so we're quibbling about which bits of content are more meaningful to you. If it bothers you that sites are tracking which fragment of a page you're copying, either disable scripts or save the source and muck with it offline. If the part that offends you is the added hyperlink, just delete that after you've pasted. It's a convenience for webmasters and for bloggers who want to quote bits of a site with automatic attribution. You do want to credit your sources, right?

Mouse clicks (1)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768672)

A website can monitor practically anything it wants. One idea is to record the user's mouse movements and report the areas he mouses-over the most (presumably for site optimization).

Incidentally, this is one reason Flash is evil: Flash provides 1) hidden cookies, and 2) clipboard access. It's evil.

Makes so much sense now... (1)

FreakinSyco (873416) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768720)

This must have been placed on a bunch of websites recently. I'm a habitual "highlight as I read" person. I noticed a couple months back that quite a few websites started the FireFox activity indicator spinning when I highlighted (New York Times included).

I wonder how much useful information this "service" is actually providing to content hosters. I must send dozens of small chuncks of text every time I read an article.

Can I disable this through AdBlock?

It's a Feature (1)

ffejie (779512) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768774)

I don't understand what the big deal is. I'm stealing someone's content to quote verbatim in an email, or something like that, they have the right to know they're being quoted. Maybe not the "right", but they should have the ability.

I also like that it recently added the trackback URL below the text I was copying. This is something I usually do when I send a quote to someone, and this saved me step. Pretty cool feature, if you ask me. I could see how it would be annoying, but it can also be handy.

mod dow@n (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30768780)

prospects are All our times have That suuports dead. It is a dead

Or, to summarize... (1)

marcsherman (300604) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768826)

Taint: not quite assholes, but pretty close.

Privacy invasion? (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768846)

OK, I'll probably be in a small percentage of /.'rs here; but I don't see how this a privacy issue. According to Tynt Insight's page, no individually identifiable info is provided. It seems reasonable, to me, for a website to want to know what information is actually of interest to viewers; this provides a tool get that information. I realize some people want to be absolutely untrackable and anonymous when surfing; but I happen to think site owners have a right to implement tracking tools as they see fit, and users can chose wether or not to visit a site or to use blocking tools. Ghostery blocks doubleclick on /.; should we be offended that /. tries to make money off their site?

Civil Disobedience (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30768848)

To me, this would just prompt me to write a small script that randomly selected text on a page, copy, repeat... and let it spam their servers all night. Eventually, one would hope, with enough people sending in trash data, they would get the idea to KNOCK IT THE FUCK OFF.

Just my 2 cents.

As someone who compulsively selects... (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 4 years ago | (#30768850)

As someone who compulsively selects articles as i read them (repeatedly and randomly) let me just say I'm glad to see that my compulsive behavior is corrupting their 'service'.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>