×

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!

Advertising May Soon Follow You From One Device To the Next

timothy posted about a year ago | from the for-that-twilight-zone-feeling dept.

Advertising 132

moon_unit2 writes "We're all familiar with ads that seem to follow you around as you go from one website to another. A startup called Drawbridge has developed technology that could let those ads follow you even when you pick up a smartphone or tablet. The company, founded by an ex-Google scientist, employs statistical methods to try to match and identify users on different devices. The idea is that this will preserve privacy while making mobile ads more lucrative, although some experts aren't convinced that the data will be truly anonymous."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

132 comments

My action on adds (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42209973)

I make an effort to avoid buying products that im bombarded with as much as possible , so im turning their advertising around,

Re:My action on adds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42210161)

I agree. I've never bought anything from an internet ad, although I may have clicked on a few out of curiosity. They actually impact me negatively, and I would probably avoid anything I saw being pitched like this, particularly if I got the impression it was geared specifically towards me. However some people fall for them, because it's a huge industry. Google being Google, however, it wouldn't surprise me if the order of search results are affected.

Re:My action on adds (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42210317)

You must be an exception, otherwise how would you explain the huge popularity of Apple products at every release?

Re:My action on adds (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42210915)

Fuck off, fanboy.

Re:My action on adds (1)

cdxta (1170917) | about a year ago | (#42212877)

Same here, all ads make me think is that a portion of my purchase price is going towards the ad instead of a better product. I tells me that their product does not have enough merit on its own that they have to advertize it to you instead of informed buyers choosing their product based on its ability alone.

Re:My action on adds (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about a year ago | (#42213505)

The current plan for most advertising is to raise brand awareness. So, when you see two competing products you pick the one that feels most comfortable and familiar, because you've seen the brand before. I make a conscious point of avoiding products that seem more attractive for a reason I can't consciously bring to mind, but not enough people do for this to work as a strategy.

Two words: (1)

oGMo (379) | about a year ago | (#42209991)

Got root?

Re:Two words: (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about a year ago | (#42210113)

Does it matter? I'm logged in to google almost 24/7 on all devices. I think Google has a pretty good idea its me when serving up its ads. Almost all tech ads, very few video games, pharmecutical or fashion products.

Re:Two words: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42210295)

Hearing these stories makes me wish I stayed logged in to Google all the time. As terrifying as having this much known about me would be, my mouth kind of waters to have meaningful ads served to me.

Re:Two words: (2)

wiedzmin (1269816) | about a year ago | (#42210335)

I stopped using Google services long time ago for that same reason. Used to be a huge fanboy... and I mean I used everything - email, docs, blogger, maps, adwords, adsense, freaking shopping site, everything. Now the only one I have left is Gmail, to make sure nobody steals whatever accounts I haven't moved off of it yet.

Re:Two words: (4, Insightful)

ickleberry (864871) | about a year ago | (#42210571)

Used to be a bit of a google fanboy myself. Now I realise they are no better than the rest and are also hell bent on world domination like Microsoft.

Re:Two words: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42210747)

The problem with Google is it's using its domination. Like showing 2-5 times more Romney news during election. It wasn't coincident. At the same time Microsoft showed slightly more Obama (which is understandable, he was a president) . Looks Google was using so-called "filter bubble" to influence. I'm trying to diversify now staying away from their Google+ or whatever its called. If it gets mails/shopping/news/all personal info how will it use that, whom this all will be sold, "advertisers"? A lot of things can be done with this info, especially if the person starts playing significant role (in business, politics).

Re:Two words: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42210851)

> I'm trying to diversify now staying away from their Google+ or whatever its called.

It's called Google+. You know it's called Google+. You can't pretend you thought it was called anything else, or that you forgot it. It's Google - that company who's site you use every single day, with a + at the end of it.

Re:Two words: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42213813)

it's using its domination

Hallelujah, correct grammar, and from an AC to boot. I thought I'd never see the day.

Re:Two words: (1)

JohnFen (1641097) | about a year ago | (#42210533)

If you're staying logged in on google services across several devices, then it clearly doesn't matter to you. You don't mind being tracked.

I avoid it on my phone by using Cyanogenmod (so I can selectively allow and deny specific access types to specific applications) and using a firewall so that google and other advertisers can't be reached. Pretty much the same way I do it on my laptop, desktop, and servers.

Oh Yeah? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42209997)

Catch me if you can.

good call (3, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#42210065)

some experts aren't convinced that the data will be truly anonymous

You don't say? In particular, note the complete lack of incentives for the company to actually care how good its anonymizing is.

Re:good call (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42211097)

I

A) Run a tor exit on my Android phone, unlimited bandwidth unlimited power just to fuck with them.

B) I block every *king ad I can by running the phone's data through an encrypted VPN to home which which has a spam filtering box. The data will be split up WTF knows how as it's some black magic a kid made that will pick the 'most available' VPN depending on what it thinks is fast or high quality. It's a blade server and it's some linux concoction but I do not pretend to know what it is. I use six VPNs on two business DSL (*sobs*) links.

I'm only a power user of Linux. Most of that is to serve porn for cash but the rest is some clowd stuff.

The Tao of Poo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42210091)

There's only one way to accomplish this feat. It's too allow advertisers and all the other back end (no pun intended) interests to be able to track YOU in order to serve their own financial interests without regard for you, your privacy or your political preferences.

Welcome to the future... are you there yet?

How It "Works" (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#42210155)

From TFA:

Drawbridge works by looking at the cookie data that comes with a request from a mobile or desktop browser or app to an ad exchange, and using its “bridging” algorithm to assess the probability that any two arbitrary cookies from different devices are associated with the same person. The Web cookies that Drawbridge uses [allegedly] contain anonymous, relatively benign information, such as the browser client, the site accessed, and a time stamp. Unlike a method known as device fingerprinting, Drawbridge doesn't rely on technologies that directly track user activity, or report geolocation or other invasive device identifiers... Once they reach a threshold of certainty that two cookies represent the same person, they call it a match.

Here's hoping my own browsing habits don't match too closely with any person the government has decided to put on its "disposition matrix..."

Re:How It "Works" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42210327)

Thank you for your cooperation. Your post has been added to our database.

Just This Morning... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42210185)

Just this morning, at breakfast as I stared over the paper at the wife, I said; I really wish that DVRs would listen in on us and watch us and feed us "contextually accurate" ads.

She responded; it would be even better if the ads followed us from device to device, jump form the TV to your phone and then onto the tablet when you got to work.

I mused; that would truly be a great world.

Trends (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42210193)

No matter how sophisticated advertising gets, human needs appear to be reaching an asymptote. One is left wondering how much effort will be put into advertising by comparison to actually helping people.

Even more invasive (4, Insightful)

meerling (1487879) | about a year ago | (#42210197)

In their continuing quest to impose their marketing scum on every aspect and moment of your life, they are now taking yet another step in their bid to become omnipresent and unavoidable.

It's getting to the point where these marketing invasions need to have serious and painful repercussions to those creating or employing them.

Re:Even more invasive (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#42210331)

Why? hmm? Don't use the products that use advertising. Otherwise deal with the way people get paid for the stuff you use.

Re:Even more invasive (1)

JohnFen (1641097) | about a year ago | (#42210597)

Why? hmm? Don't use the products that use advertising. Otherwise deal with the way people get paid for the stuff you use.

No, I'll just block all the ads instead.

If people want me to pay them, they can charge me money. If they're offering a paid version that doesn't include any ads, doesn't track me, and doesn't phone home, I always it.

Re:Even more invasive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42211007)

Are you seriously that retarded to think that you can /not/ use products that use advertising?

Re:Even more invasive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42210885)

Hint: There is still a such thing as a dumb phone. While I find it convenient to browse the web using a smart phone, I also did many years without a smart phone. If they make it so ads are permanent on a smart phone, I will go back to the dumb phone.

Plus, my current smart phone gives me IP addresses that are geolocated in another city, miles away from my actual location. Even if the proxy server IP remains the same, my session IP address changes every power cycle of the phone.

Also, they don't have a way of cookie sync from one device to another--not without sync software that I don't have to run--so their plan already fails.

Re:Even more invasive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42212143)

Just installing a simple adblocker should be sufficient for such a simple idea like this.

Re:Even more invasive (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year ago | (#42212965)

Do you really need statistical methods? I mean, the vast majority of internet users use Google in some shape or form, and probably have a Google account.

Android phones account for 3/4ths of all smartphones out there, and most will also be associated with a Google account, most likely the same account as their desktop PC.

That would match a good chunk of people right there - Google's already got all that information to tie people together. Hell, Google probably knows which computers are public use by seeing how many different people login from it (made easier with IPv6 - a bit tricky with IPv4...).

Hell, Facebook's in an even better position - login from their PCs, tablets and smartphones, thus linking them all together. And I'd be surprised if Twitter didn't have such similar information as well.

The three of them together can probably positively identify who owns what devices. (I'd add Apple, but they're a minority player - an Apple ID can only identify a PC and tablet, and a minority of smartphones...).

Too late (4, Funny)

davidbrit2 (775091) | about a year ago | (#42210207)

Adblock already follows me from one device to the next.

Re:Too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42211059)

custom hosts files do to more devices than adblock http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3299759&cid=42210887 [slashdot.org]

Re:Too late (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | about a year ago | (#42211197)

Hosts files don't follow people around, pretty much by definition. That's the point of having it local to begin with.

Re:Too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42211241)

hosts files are already there natively on a device with a bsd based ip stack ahead of the user even owning it

Re:Too late (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | about a year ago | (#42212255)

Yes, congratulations on your Network+ certification. Each client has its own hosts file, which would have to be updated individually, manually, which is why FSM gave us DNS instead and, in this case, subscription-based ad-blocking.

Hosts = easily update controlled easily (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42212925)

DNS has recursion issues and wastes cpu cycles, ram, plus other kinds of I/O (more if setup as a separate system but still does if only operating as a service or daemon) as well as adding complexity. AdBlock doesn't block all ads anymore by default, and Ghostery tracks you by ghostrank by default.

Re:Too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42212455)

AdBlock is going to be really, really detrimental to the internet, for two reasons:

1) Sites that rely on advertising revenue won't be able to succeed any longer, and the web will switch from being overwhelmingly free to pay services.

2) Ads will become much, much, much more intrusive and unskippable. Why do you think interstitials started to become more and more popular? Just wait, and you'll see far, far worse things popping up and becoming very prevalent.

So screw you ad blockers, You're ruining it for everyone.

Re:Too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42212871)

Yeah, except, nobody came to the internet thinking bandwidth was free. I pay for my bandwidth, you pay for yours, and stop acting like your blog/vlog, childish jokes and pirated shit is worth ad money.
1) Sites that rely on advertising are complete bullshit and should be taken down ASAP. If you need advertising to keep your site alive you have failed as a webmaster.
2) No, they won't. It's all running on my side and I have control here.
Screw you non-ad-blocker. You are ruining it for everyone.
Once we get all this bullshit Ad sites removed our internet will have reasonable latency all the time again. Every time I try to connect to a site these days, there are all these extra 3rd party connections open that do nothing but pollute my monitor with hi-rez punch the bullshit monkey buzzer all those connections increase the time it takes to load a page and increase the amount of bandwidth I used, but I did not request so basically I'm paying to see ads? No, I'm not. I block them.. The internet was made for research not advertising.

Re:Too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42212981)

So screw you ad blockers, You're ruining it for everyone. by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 06, @11:22PM (#42212455)

When ads infect me with malicious code it's ok, right? When they suck up my bandwidth I pay for out of pocket, that's ok too, right?? When processing them adds to my electricity bill on top of that above also's ok, right??? Wrong. People like ourselves do something about it is all. The strong sites will survive, those that aren't, won't.

Re:Too late (1)

davidbrit2 (775091) | about a year ago | (#42214081)

Ads will do that anyway, as they all have to compete with each other for your attention. By accelerating the process, we're just drawing attention to the awful tactics, rather than letting everybody slowly get accustomed to them over time.

Re:Too late (1)

antdude (79039) | about a year ago | (#42212629)

Which ones? Where's Adblock Plus [adblockplus.org] for iOS? :P

Re:Too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42212959)

Re:Too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42213541)

The nice thing about open source is that when the author sells out, somebody can just make a fork. In the case of Adblock Plus (already a fork of Adblock), that fork is named Adblock Edge (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/adblock-edge/).

Data is never anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42210213)

Given enough quantity you can deduct all kinds of things.

Already done for at least a year (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42210223)

I've been to conferences where advertising companies were bragging about doing this already. One of the problems they were working on was the fact that this would, for example, match a tablet that's used by several people to one person's computer. But yeah, not new.

We are? (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year ago | (#42210239)

We're all familiar with ads that seem to follow you around as you go from one website to another.

Ads? Do companies still use those silly things? Between Ghostery and Adblock Plus when I'm in Chrome at work on my Windows 7 box and Adblock Plus and a modified hosts file when I'm at home in Safari on my Mac, I haven't seen an ad in months, let alone one following me around.

Re:We are? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42210321)

fucking leech.

Re:We are? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42210687)

There is NO EXPECTATION or REQUIREMENT that a visitor to a site be served ads. There is no implied contract, even. Stop being such a capitalist already. NO IMPLIED CONTRACT. If a site cannot make it via some other method besides ads, they possess a poor business model.

I've not seen an ad on my personal machines in several years thanks to adblock plus, hosts files, no cookes enabled, etc.

I already pay to access the Internet via my ISP; I will not pay with my privacy. I and everyone else has the RIGHT to privacy and anaonymity if we so choose to exercise that route.

Re:We are? (1)

nukenerd (172703) | about a year ago | (#42213737)

If you are in marketing, it is you who is the leach. I pay for my internet access and dont want you riding on my bandwidth.

I remember when most "sites" were bulletin boards and they were not that bad for the time. There were mostly free apart from the phone call, for which I still pay the equivalent today. There were plenty of them on many topics, without adverts, and they mostly kept relevant to the topic.

I have several web sites which are free, have no adverts, and anyone is welcome to visit. I pay for the hosting which is actually quite cheap. Here [demon.co.uk] is one. As it happens it is about Mrs Thatcher who also believed that nothing could or should exist unless it was commercialised.

I have no objection to web sites which are meant as advertising, such as when I want a new camera I go to camera shop web sites to see what they have got. The internet will always exist for such sites.

Re:We are? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42210351)

and a modified hosts file

We've found the real identity of APK!

You might like this for your Windows rig then (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42210991)

IF you want to update your custom hosts file from 12 reputable & reliable sources, & you DON'T want to be:

A.) Tracked
B.) Spammed
C.) Speed/bandwidth hogged by ads (as well as electricity, CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O as well)
D.) Hit by malware or malicious scripts (for better "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth")
E.) Hit by DNS poisoning redirection (OR DNS servers being "downed") losing reliability
F.) Blocked out & have even more 'anonymity' (to an extent vs. DNS request logs) + being able to "blow by" what you may feel are unjust blocks (in DNSBL's)... ...& more?

---

APK Hosts File Engine 5.0++ 32-bit & 64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74 [start64.com]

---

Custom hosts files gain me the following benefits (A short summary of where custom hosts files can be extremely useful):

---

1.) Blocking out malware/malscripted sites.
2.) Blocking out Known sites-servers/hosts-domains that are known to serve up malware.
3.) Blocking out Bogus DNS servers malware makers use.
4.) Blocking out Botnet C&C servers.
5.) Blocking out Bogus adbanners that are full of malicious script content.
6.) Blocking out known spammers &/or phishers.
7.) Blocking out TRACKERS.
8.) Getting you back speed/bandwidth you paid for by blocking out adbanners + hardcoding in your favorite sites (faster than remote DNS server resolution).
9.) Added reliability (vs. downed or misdirect/poisoned DNS servers).
10.) Added "anonymity" (to an extent, vs. DNS request logs).
11.) The ability to bypass DNSBL's (DNS block lists you may not agree with).
12.) More screen "real estate" (since no more adbanners appear onscreen eating up CPU, Memory, & other forms of I/O too - bonus!).
13.) Truly UNIVERSAL PROTECTION (since any OS, even on smartphones, usually has a BSD drived IP stack).
14.) Faster & MORE EFFICIENT operation vs. browser plugins (which "layer on" ontop of Ring 3/RPL 3/usermode browsers & are generally written in slower INTERPRETED languages (e.g. AdBlock = python/perl/javascript)- Whereas by way of comparison, the hosts file operates @ the Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode of operation (far faster) as a filter for the IP stack itself which is written in C & Assembly language...).
15.) Custom hosts files work on ANY & ALL webbound apps (browser plugins do not).
16.) Custom hosts files offer a better, faster, more efficient way, & safer way to surf the web & are COMPLETELY controlled by the end-user of them.

---

* There you go... & above all else IF you choose to try it for the enumerated list of benefits I extolled above?

Enjoy the program!

(However, more importantly, enjoy the results in better speed/bandwidth, privacy, reliability, "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth", & even anonymity to an extent (vs. DNS request logs & blowing past DNSBL's) + more, that custom hosts files can yield...)

Of course, THIS is NOT going to "go well" with 3 types of people out there online, profiting by advertising & nefarious exploits + more @ YOUR expense as the consumer:

---

A.) Malware makers & the like (botnet masters, etc./et al)
B.) ADVERTISERS - Offended ones since it's their "lifeblood" in psychological attack, tracking, & more, etc.!
C.) Webmasters (who profit by ad banners, but fail to realize that those SAME adbanners suck away the users' bandwidth/speed, electricity, CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O they PAY FOR, plus, adbanners DO get infested with malicious code, & if anyone wants many "examples thereof" from the past near-decade now? Ask!)

---

APK

P.S.=> Lastly - It does a BETTER JOB than AdBlock &/or Ghostery (both of those are OWNED BY ADVERTISERS & are crippled in the former by default, + track you via the latter)

AND

It also circumvents Apache's b.s. as well as anything in ANY browser that attempts to defeat blocks (or other webbound programs):

---

Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option:

http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/12/2213233/adblock-plus-to-offer-acceptable-ads-option [slashdot.org]

---

and

---

Evidon, which makes Ghostery, is an advertising company. They were originally named Better Advertising, Inc., but changed their name for obvious PR reasons.

Despite the name change, let's be clear on one thing: their goal still is building better advertising, not protecting consumer privacy.

Evidon bought Ghostery, an independent privacy tool that had a good reputation.

They took a tool that was originally for watching the trackers online, something people saw as a legitimate privacy tool, and users were understandably concerned. The company said they were just using Ghostery for research.

Turns out they had relationships with a bunch of ad companies and were compiling data from which sites you visited when you were using Ghostery, what trackers were on those sites, what ads they were, etc., and building a database to monetize.

When confronted about it, they made their tracking opt-in and called it GhostRank, which is how it exists today.

They took an open-source type tool, bought it, turned it from something that's actually protecting people from the ad industry, to something where the users are actually providing data to the advertisers to make it easier to track them.

This is a fundamental conflict of interest.

To sum up: Ghostery makes its money from selling supposedly de-indentified user data about sites visited and ads encountered to marketers and advertisers. You get less privacy, they get more money.

That's an inverse relationship.

Better Advertising/Evidon continually plays up the story that people should just download Ghostery to help them hide from advertisers. Their motivation to promote it, however, isn't for better privacy; it's because they hope that you'll opt in to GhostRank and send you a bunch of information.

They named their company Better Advertising for a reason: their incentive is better advertising, not better privacy

---

Advertisters never intended to honor "DNT" (Do Not Track):

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/09/23/1334258/advertisers-never-intended-to-honor-dnt [slashdot.org]

---

AND, neither do others:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/09/30/1435231/think-tanks-website-rejects-browser-do-not-track-requests [slashdot.org]

---

The webserver program folks even "jumped on the bandwagon" in Apache, as far as "DNT":

http://apache.slashdot.org/story/12/09/08/0053235/apache-patch-to-override-ie-10s-do-not-track-setting [slashdot.org]

---

Talk about "crooked" & telling 1/2 truths (as well as making software that was ONCE quite useful & effective, NOT QUITE AS USEFUL & EFFECTIVE by default anymore!)

... apk

Re:You might like this for your Windows rig then (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about a year ago | (#42211885)

If you are going to that much effort why not run your own DNS sever? Bind9 is fairly light weight. Hell I run it on my Linux laptop without noticing much of anything in the way of a performance hit, and it will fallow you from device to device if you set your dns service provider to your home server.

Saves electricity, cpu cycles, RAM, I/O & more (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42212901)

Plus, what I do adds "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth", for less cost, since I supplement using hosts with filtering DNS servers!

However - Filtering DNS servers that are external to MY home & power bill here.

Thus, saving the electricity on doing it with a separate system especially (or just on cpu cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O dns has if run as a service or daemon) + added complexity.

That's in BOTH my IP stack settings for DNS, as well as in my router, for "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth"... My p.s. below has the list I use.

What I do in my last posts' no trouble - happens for me "automagically", every 12 hours (or manually if I wish) - I designed it that way!

I do both (and a lot more security-wise) as a "security-supplement"'s to one another, & that's also no trouble @ all either - Despite DNS' known issues with recursive setups issues - yes, it's a known issue...

* So, & even if say, ICANN gets compromised & you pointed your DNS to it? I won't be @ least... how/why?

Well, since where I spend a good 99% of my time online's "hardcoded" @ the VERY TOP of my hosts file as favorites!

Thus - I resolve them, myself... & they are "reverse DNS" ping resolved (vs. the in-arpa "TLD" that keeps that information...) right when the hosts file's built...

APK

P.S.=> FILTERING EXTERNAL-TO-MY-HOME DNS SERVERS I UTILIZE IN COMBINATION WITH A CUSTOM HOSTS FILE (and a lot more, like NoScript in Mozilla based browsers etc./et al):

---

Norton DNS:

http://setup.nortondns.com/ [nortondns.com]

198.153.192.1
198.153.194.1
198.153.192.60
198.153.194.60
198.153.192.50
198.153.194.50
198.153.192.40
198.153.194.40

OpenDNS:

http://www.opendns.com/home-solutions/ [opendns.com]

208.67.222.222
208.67.220.220

ScrubIT DNS:

http://scrubit.com/ [scrubit.com]

67.138.54.100
207.225.209.66

Comodo Secure DNS:

http://www.comodo.com/secure-dns/switch/windows_vista.html [comodo.com]

8.26.56.26
8.20.247.2

---

Again - I use those BOTH my IP stack settings for DNS, as well as in my router - for "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth"...

... apkb

Re:We are? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42212139)

I haven't seen an ad in months, let alone one following me around.

You can escape from the ads that follow you, but not from the ones you follow. Any Hollywoodian movie, for instance, is filled with ads. Some subtle, others obvious. Even some games have ads. And people pay to watch them.

Re:We are? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42214037)

Exactly! People should never get used to ads any more than getting using to a man poking a finger in your ass.

WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42210275)

Seriously. What in the fuck makes these people think that I want any advertisements at all? I purposely go out of my way to not buy things in advertisements.

I know what I need and what I want. Nobody needs to come along and try to convince me otherwise.

Re:WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42210369)

What in the fuck makes these people think that I want any advertisements at all?

Because their actual customers pay them to think so? You didn't actually think you were the customer did you? Silly product.

Not new... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42210293)

I've encountered this some 4 years ago already. One day, while at the office, I noticed an ad on my work laptop for something that I just recently had spent a few hours searching for on my home machine. Nice coincidence, I thought. But it wasn't. I noticed over the next few weeks that it was not just one ad. I was being targeted with stuff related to that earlier search. I think they linked the two devices because both regularly go onto the network via my home router.

Since that event I've become really extreme as far as ads & cookies & ... are concerned. Nowadays I block & filter & rewrite so much that I'd never see such targeting anymore even if they still manage to link my devices to each other. I also "dropped" all Google stuff from my set of regular web tools.

Before any typical juvenile /. reader jumps on this story: No, the stuff in question was not NSFW rated. If it would have been, I'd never have noticed as it would not have gotten the company filters. I was at the office when it happened, remember?

AdBlock goes cross-platform (1)

wiedzmin (1269816) | about a year ago | (#42210407)

In other news - AdBlock Plus announces support for other platforms.

Re:AdBlock goes cross-platform (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42210887)

hosts files are already cross platform if it uses a bsd based ip stack.

Back to the land (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42210607)

OK, maybe not all the way back; but some. I see this in terms of the "progress" of technology:

1. Scientific theory or curiousity. 2. Expensive device that serves as a toy for the wealthy, or for military purposes. 3. Availability to the upper middle classes. 4. Perception that you "must have" the device to be upper middle class. 5. Down-market sales. 6. De factor realization of point (4), due to the social ubiquity of the device.7. Realization that the device or technology isn't all it's cracked up to be, and a subculture develops of those who find a way out of it. The "find a way to avoid it" subculture bares some resemblance to (2) or (3) in terms of demographics.

We've seen this progression with the automobile. Point (7) is well in effect, with elites preferring urban centers after a long hiatus. I don't think it's too early to trash your phone to some degree. I know I'm pretty happy with my "dumb phone" and have no desire for a "smart" one. Smart phones, dumb people. They're doing everything they can to make smart phones the "car" of the 21st century. Fuck 'em. I'm not moving to digital suburbia and filling up a data guzzler.

I have seen no ads on my devices for a decade. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42210727)

None. Zero. I have no TV or broadcast radio, since I'm not a backwards redneck from the 20th century. I have an ad blocker in my browser and e-mail client, and ditto for my phone.

What ads are they speaking of? Slashvertisements? RADdit posts?

Like fuck it will. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42210907)

WTF would I do without AdBlock and NoScript? Have to look at ads I guess.

Re:Like fuck it will. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42211253)

Re:Like fuck it will. (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about a year ago | (#42211911)

You can tun that "feature" on and off with a simple check box in the plugins configuration dialog.

Re:Like fuck it will. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42212941)

"Feature"? Crippler is more like it. How many do? Not most.

If I don't buy first time I see an add (2)

kawabago (551139) | about a year ago | (#42211045)

If I don't buy something first time I see an add, showing it to me again is just going to fail again. Repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting a different result is one of the hall marks of insanity!

I'm sure it does, already (3, Insightful)

DogDude (805747) | about a year ago | (#42211077)

I'm sure that advertises follows people across devices, already. Most people I know are either logged into Google or Apple at home, at work, and on all of their gadgets. Of course, they're already being tracked.

IF the device has a BSD based IP stack? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42211211)

Then this is your cross-platform solution, "1 device to the next": Custom hosts files.

IF you don't want to be:

A.) Tracked
B.) Spammed
C.) Speed/bandwidth hogged by ads (as well as electricity, CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O as well)
D.) Hit by malware or malicious scripts (for better "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth")
E.) Hit by DNS poisoning redirection (OR DNS servers being "downed") losing reliability
F.) Blocked out & have even more 'anonymity' (to an extent vs. DNS request logs) + being able to "blow by" what you may feel are unjust blocks (in DNSBL's)... ...& more?

---

APK Hosts File Engine 5.0++ 32-bit & 64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74 [start64.com]

---

Custom hosts files gain me the following benefits (A short summary of where custom hosts files can be extremely useful):

---

1.) Blocking out malware/malscripted sites.
2.) Blocking out Known sites-servers/hosts-domains that are known to serve up malware.
3.) Blocking out Bogus DNS servers malware makers use.
4.) Blocking out Botnet C&C servers.
5.) Blocking out Bogus adbanners that are full of malicious script content.
6.) Blocking out known spammers &/or phishers.
7.) Blocking out TRACKERS.
8.) Getting you back speed/bandwidth you paid for by blocking out adbanners + hardcoding in your favorite sites (faster than remote DNS server resolution).
9.) Added reliability (vs. downed or misdirect/poisoned DNS servers).
10.) Added "anonymity" (to an extent, vs. DNS request logs).
11.) The ability to bypass DNSBL's (DNS block lists you may not agree with).
12.) More screen "real estate" (since no more adbanners appear onscreen eating up CPU, Memory, & other forms of I/O too - bonus!).
13.) Truly UNIVERSAL PROTECTION (since any OS, even on smartphones, usually has a BSD drived IP stack).
14.) Faster & MORE EFFICIENT operation vs. browser plugins (which "layer on" ontop of Ring 3/RPL 3/usermode browsers & are generally written in slower INTERPRETED languages (e.g. AdBlock = python/perl/javascript)- Whereas by way of comparison, the hosts file operates @ the Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode of operation (far faster) as a filter for the IP stack itself which is written in C & Assembly language...).
15.) Custom hosts files work on ANY & ALL webbound apps (browser plugins do not).
16.) Custom hosts files offer a better, faster, more efficient way, & safer way to surf the web & are COMPLETELY controlled by the end-user of them.

---

* There you go... & above all else IF you choose to try it for the enumerated list of benefits I extolled above?

Enjoy the program!

(However, more importantly, enjoy the results in better speed/bandwidth, privacy, reliability, "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth", & even anonymity to an extent (vs. DNS request logs & blowing past DNSBL's) + more, that custom hosts files can yield...)

Of course, THIS is NOT going to "go well" with 3 types of people out there online, profiting by advertising & nefarious exploits + more @ YOUR expense as the consumer:

---

A.) Malware makers & the like (botnet masters, etc./et al)
B.) ADVERTISERS - the TRULY offended ones, as it is their "lifeblood" in psychological attack galore, tracking, & more, etc.!
C.) Webmasters (who profit by ad banners, but fail to realize that those SAME adbanners suck away the users' bandwidth/speed, electricity, CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O they PAY FOR, plus, adbanners DO get infested with malicious code, & if anyone wants many "examples thereof" from the past near-decade now? Ask!)

---

APK

P.S.=> Lastly - It does a BETTER JOB than AdBlock &/or Ghostery (both of those are OWNED BY ADVERTISERS & are crippled in the former by default, + track you via the latter)

AND

It also circumvents Apache's b.s. as well as anything in ANY browser that attempts to defeat blocks (or other webbound programs):

---

Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option:

http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/12/2213233/adblock-plus-to-offer-acceptable-ads-option [slashdot.org]

---

and

---

Evidon, which makes Ghostery, is an advertising company. They were originally named Better Advertising, Inc., but changed their name for obvious PR reasons.

Despite the name change, let's be clear on one thing: their goal still is building better advertising, not protecting consumer privacy.

Evidon bought Ghostery, an independent privacy tool that had a good reputation.

They took a tool that was originally for watching the trackers online, something people saw as a legitimate privacy tool, and users were understandably concerned. The company said they were just using Ghostery for research.

Turns out they had relationships with a bunch of ad companies and were compiling data from which sites you visited when you were using Ghostery, what trackers were on those sites, what ads they were, etc., and building a database to monetize.

When confronted about it, they made their tracking opt-in and called it GhostRank, which is how it exists today.

They took an open-source type tool, bought it, turned it from something that's actually protecting people from the ad industry, to something where the users are actually providing data to the advertisers to make it easier to track them.

This is a fundamental conflict of interest.

To sum up: Ghostery makes its money from selling supposedly de-indentified user data about sites visited and ads encountered to marketers and advertisers. You get less privacy, they get more money.

That's an inverse relationship.

Better Advertising/Evidon continually plays up the story that people should just download Ghostery to help them hide from advertisers. Their motivation to promote it, however, isn't for better privacy; it's because they hope that you'll opt in to GhostRank and send you a bunch of information.

They named their company Better Advertising for a reason: their incentive is better advertising, not better privacy

---

Advertisters never intended to honor "DNT" (Do Not Track):

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/09/23/1334258/advertisers-never-intended-to-honor-dnt [slashdot.org]

---

AND, neither do others:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/09/30/1435231/think-tanks-website-rejects-browser-do-not-track-requests [slashdot.org]

---

The webserver program folks even "jumped on the bandwagon" in Apache, as far as "DNT":

http://apache.slashdot.org/story/12/09/08/0053235/apache-patch-to-override-ie-10s-do-not-track-setting [slashdot.org]

---

Talk about "crooked" & telling 1/2 truths (as well as making software that was ONCE quite useful & effective, NOT QUITE AS USEFUL & EFFECTIVE by default anymore!)

... apk

Google account (3, Insightful)

Tony Isaac (1301187) | about a year ago | (#42211229)

What's the first thing you do when you set up a new Android phone? Log in to your Google account.
You probably search for things on Google using your Google account.
If you use Chrome, you probably log in with your Google account.
Who is the biggest Internet advertiser?

It already doesn't matter what device you are using.

Re:Google account (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42212281)

The first thing I do when I set up a new Android phone is create a new Google account. The current one is something like kjagsjjgag@gmail.com. I then never ever use gmail or anything Google with it. See? I truly hate ads and tracking so much that I refuse to use gmail or google maps. I do use google search though.

Re:Google account (1)

TractorBarry (788340) | about a year ago | (#42214047)

I don't even set up a Google account. I can live without all that crap thankyouverymuch - The only two "apps" I wanted I wrote and compiled myself, temporarily allowed my phone to load unsigned apks so I could install them and er.. that's it :)

Re:Google account (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42213955)

And who's the least intrusive advertiser?

I don't mind ad's as long as their not screaming/singing/dancing for my attention.

Advertising is fine as long as it's not equivilant of some glitzy hooker asking telling you she'll love you long time.

No it wont. (3, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year ago | (#42211861)

In fact I get no advertisements on any of my phones, tablets, TV or computers.

you see, I'm one of those evil terrorists that blocks advertising. I block it in my devices, I record TV with MythTV that strips out Commercials.
I am evil incarnate. Children go to sleep hungry because of my actions, and the enture economic collapse is my fault due to the adblocking.

Want to know what is even more evil? I block telemarketing calls, and I dont read any spam. I am evil Incarnate and utterly proud of who I am.

Idiotic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42212165)

Targeted advertizing is stupid. People who see the same damn ad twenty times a day are still never going to click on it more than once. They won't click at all if they already know about the subject matter and consequently aren't interested. This is why advertizing revenues are going down. They need to do the exact opposite: make sure you don't show the same ads repeatedly, and show people ads about things they aren't already experts on.

If data is the new oil, hand helds are oil wells. (0)

Volastic (2781511) | about a year ago | (#42212291)

www.Flurry.com sells analytical services to it's customers (ASTRO, Angry Birds, to name two), ie what AD's to show on YOUR hand held. Flurry.com does keep identifiable information. Reading the Flurry.com ToS nowhere does it mention it's Google. That Flurry.com was Google could only be found (by me) through http://www.robtex.com/ [robtex.com] also a Google service :} http://top.robtex.com/flurry.com.html#records [robtex.com] To block Flurry.com tracking, download ANDROID_ID from the google store, obtain your ID (16 digits long) and paste it here http://www.flurry.com/user-opt-out.html [flurry.com] anytime you change ROMS you will need to reopt-out as your ID will of changed.

Say It Ain't So! (1)

Taigitsune (1450245) | about a year ago | (#42212295)

"...some experts aren't convinced that the data will be truly anonymous." By virtue of the fact that advertisers are trying to link mobile data to desktop/laptop data, I'd say it's pretty far from anonymous. Advertisers will do anything to waste our time with irrelevant data in the interest of making a few bucks. In other news, the sun will rise tomorrow.

What advertising? (1)

Galestar (1473827) | about a year ago | (#42212339)

Adblock+Ghostery+Downloading all my movies/tv. I don't get any advertising, let alone that which "follows" me.

2 things you ought to know (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42213041)

Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option:

http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/12/2213233/adblock-plus-to-offer-acceptable-ads-option [slashdot.org]

---

and

---

Evidon, which makes Ghostery, is an advertising company. They were originally named Better Advertising, Inc., but changed their name for obvious PR reasons.

Despite the name change, let's be clear on one thing: their goal still is building better advertising, not protecting consumer privacy.

Evidon bought Ghostery, an independent privacy tool that had a good reputation.

They took a tool that was originally for watching the trackers online, something people saw as a legitimate privacy tool, and users were understandably concerned. The company said they were just using Ghostery for research.

Turns out they had relationships with a bunch of ad companies and were compiling data from which sites you visited when you were using Ghostery, what trackers were on those sites, what ads they were, etc., and building a database to monetize.

When confronted about it, they made their tracking opt-in and called it GhostRank, which is how it exists today.

They took an open-source type tool, bought it, turned it from something that's actually protecting people from the ad industry, to something where the users are actually providing data to the advertisers to make it easier to track them.

This is a fundamental conflict of interest.

To sum up: Ghostery makes its money from selling supposedly de-indentified user data about sites visited and ads encountered to marketers and advertisers. You get less privacy, they get more money.

That's an inverse relationship.

Better Advertising/Evidon continually plays up the story that people should just download Ghostery to help them hide from advertisers. Their motivation to promote it, however, isn't for better privacy; it's because they hope that you'll opt in to GhostRank and send you a bunch of information.

They named their company Better Advertising for a reason: their incentive is better advertising, not better privacy.

NO! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42212565)

it motherfucking will NOT follow me from one device to the next.

fuck you pieces of shit who even thought of this. fuck you hard.

Preaches to the Choir (1)

Roachie (2180772) | about a year ago | (#42213039)

In current implementations of the scheme many of the ads I see on webpages using this type of system are to products and services I have already purchased.

A good example is when I log into my student account at my local university and I then get start getting inundated with ads about what a cutting-edge school it is.

Not quite as clever as it seems.

Re:Preaches to the Choir (1)

Roachie (2180772) | about a year ago | (#42213055)

P.S.

As a matter of fact one company that does this type of marketing is literally across the street from the aforementioned university ( you know who you are ).

Speak for yourself (1)

nukenerd (172703) | about a year ago | (#42213631)

From TFA : "We're all familiar with ads that seem to follow you around as you go from one website to another"

Speak for yourself moon_unit2. I never notice the adverts

Two privacy concerns (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42213959)

There are two privacy concerns:

1. The data the ad companies collect about your activities and preferences.
2. What they disclose about your preference to anyone who can see what's on your display.

When ads are served that match your preferences then it's unavoidable that those ads disclose your preferences. Perhaps you don't want your employer to wonder why so many gay bsdm related ads appear on your smartphone. Ad companies have no business displaying your preferences when you haven't chosen for them to be shown at that particular moment.

I don't see how following you across devices will preserve your privacy. The ad companies will know more about you, obviously, so that reduces your privacy, and your ability to keep private behaviour private will be reduced if they are succesful, then those bsdm ads or whatever it is you're interested in privately will show up in situations where you don't want them to despite your efforts to keep different parts of your life separate. Again privacy is reduced.

sancho clause is cumin on ur town (ICLEI is sancho (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42214087)

bitchez!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...