Race On To Fingerprint Phones, PCs 139
theodp writes "Advertisers no longer want to just buy ads, reports the WSJ. They want to buy access to specific people. In response, the race is on develop digital fingerprint technology to identify how we use our computers, mobile devices and TV set-top boxes. Start-up BlueCava, an anti-piracy company spinoff, is building a 'credit bureau for devices' in which every computer or cellphone will have a 'reputation' based on its user's online behavior, shopping habits and demographics. By the end of next year, BlueCava says it expects to have cataloged one billion of the world's estimated 10 billion devices, and plans to sell this information to advertisers willing to pay top dollar for granular data about people's interests and activities. It's 'the next generation of online advertising,' said Blue Cava's David Norris. As controversy grows over intrusive online tracking, regulators are looking to rein it in — the FTC is expected to release a privacy report Wednesday calling for a 'do-not-track' tool for Web browsers."
Fuck that! (Score:1)
Time to grab a copy of BeOS and start doing random stuff.
Cock-sucking mother fucking advertisers. Someone should start "removing" them from the gene pool.
Re: (Score:2)
You do not need to. Simply run your browser in a sandbox. they cant keep ANYTHING there.
Better yet, Run your browser in a VM that is a standard OS install and a sandbox inside that. They cant fingerprint that which looks like everything else. (XP standard install with no added fonts /etc...)
Also you can add a blocking hosts file. this really screws with advertisers as it destroys all their cookie attempts in any form.
Re: (Score:2)
"Also you can add a blocking hosts file.
Uh, yeah, about that... did it. Assuming you keep on top of it and updating it every time you don't like a particular host the file grows to be quite large, which isn't a problem, but keeping the file updated gets to be quite a chore. Best to use white/black lists with the help of community updates. You might add to the black list occasionally, but so does everyone else. And there's no Firefox add-on like NoScript; best way to keep those pesky java script hooks out of your hair at the browser level.
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.txt [mvps.org]
click, save as... all done. I have a batch file that does it weekly for me with the AT command.
not a chore at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Make [...] an easy, as in click and install, thing
Consider it as evolution in action : those who don't have the gumption as adults to have a reasonable understanding of their important services and how to manage them, get thrown to the wolves. I mean, "thrown to the advertisers."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic then, when your heating,
[breaks]
Of course I get down and fix it.
cooling
What the fuck would I need cooling for? Do you think I choose to live in one of those places which are excessively hot? I work in those places, sure ; if you pay me well enough to put up with that sort of shit.
or refrigerator breaks,
Fridges are so cheap as to not be worth repairing. And I've never in my life seen one stop working. (If you live in hot climates and have such problems, well that's just another reason for not living in such shitholes.)
you should fix it yourself, and not call a trained professional.
Professionals are available. Next week. At
Re: (Score:2)
Don't confuse spammers w/advertisers, and, unfortunately, in the US, w/o advertising, you won't have any support of media (TV, magazines, newpapers, radio, internet)....basically, everything goes away.
That's what you want?
You're so intelligent! But then, that was evident by your vocabulary.
Looks like it's time to: (Score:5, Interesting)
"monthly/weekly/daily device rentals, just pay your cell phone bill on time and we'll ship you a used device every month! just hang onto your SIM/SD card and we'll default the device/let somebody else use the 'fingerprinted hardware'"
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't the SIM/SD card make the process entirely irrelevant? If your number is sticking with you, your fingerprint will too.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
do I want to get a phone that the previous owner may have taken to every strip club, brothel, Al Qaida meeting, and presidential assassination attempt? No thanks. I get into enough trouble on my own.
Oh I know eh? It's hard to keep that sex-addiction-secret-terrorist life under-wraps with the Misses always checking my phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? it's not like the police will jail you because of what a mobile phone anonymous last user did.
Unless you are intending to put the phone in your mouth and suck hard trying to extract any residual crack or whatever you're expecting to find there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Plausible deniability.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. I did a quick skim of the summary and came to the incorrect (and scary) conclusion that they were developing tech for a cell phone to scan the user's fingerprints as they were using the phone so that advertisers could uniquely identify people. I'm sure law enforcement folk would be jumping on that tech as well.
So... What is the sensor resolution of a touch screen phone, anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like virtual machines? you can do that yourself.
Re:Looks like it's time to: (Score:4, Insightful)
can you say (Score:3)
Anonymous proxy?
Re: (Score:1)
so if i surf a lot of pr0n and republican/conservative websites (not my usual fare) it might throw them off of me personally, but i wonder how popular of a customer i'd become? if i have multiple tabs open in a variety topics, how will they catalogue me?
or what if i use lynx? will they be able to tell i have a visual impairment?
Re: (Score:1)
Or that you have a case impairment?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I agree, my guess is they're using some techniques like panopticlick https://panopticlick.eff.org/ [eff.org]
I have a linux desktop with a couple programming fonts added, so i'm unique on the eff site.
Re: (Score:3)
What I wonder is if companies will start differentiating between "good consumers" and "bad consumers". Right now we have access to many services because of an implicit agreement: "I'll let you access the site but you'll see some ads". But if they have a very fine-grained way to determine what consumers respond t
Re: (Score:2)
Actually that's fine, too. If they start blocking people who don't spend enough money pre-emptively then suddenly they've sent potential future customers directly to their competitors. If you stop someone from even being able to be your customer, you can be certain they will never change their mind.
It's the same thing that happens to sites that have a following, then erect a paywall and discover nobody reads the site any more. They take the paywall down, but the users never come back. Any site that tries to
Could be a supporting reason for IPv6 (Score:2)
Any devices owned by the user would use those IP addresses..
Quite easy to manage I guess
Re: (Score:2)
If the race is on (Score:2)
threatmetrix.com [threatmetrix.com]
www.iovation.com [iovation.com]
Re: (Score:1)
>> There's already a few people doing similar things
Yep. My hosts file is full of them (and I am sure nowhere near being complete).
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. The Web sites are not going to do the analysis themselves: they're going to include a link to BlueCava. You and I will block BlueCava but they won't care because we are too small a minority to matter to advertisers. Thus we can "opt out" as we did with DoubleClick.
here's the real danger of this (Score:1)
Of course right now anyone who care enough can block tracking scripts, web bugs, ad servers, and so on.
But if something like this would ever catch on in a big way, the internet could eventually be increasingly closed off to those without a good "score". The very act of acting to avoid being tracked will also put ever increasing amounts of the internet off limits.
Make no mistake, the internet may have started as an open thing, but it is a HUGELY juicy target for people wanting to control it. Anything they
Interesting For Computer Forensics (Score:4, Interesting)
This has VERY interesting possibilities for digital forensics as well. I get the feeling that the bluecava guys aren't even aware of that possibility yet. This would allow web interactions to be more thoroughly traced to a particular machine. Given the ability of most companies to put a particular person behind that machine (whether surveillance or electronic controls), suddenly your machine AND your interactions are subject to investigation at any time.
Re:Interesting For Computer Forensics (Score:4, Insightful)
This has VERY interesting possibilities for digital forensics as well. I get the feeling that the bluecava guys aren't even aware of that possibility yet. This would allow web interactions to be more thoroughly traced to a particular machine. Given the ability of most companies to put a particular person behind that machine (whether surveillance or electronic controls), suddenly your machine AND your interactions are subject to investigation at any time.
I would be very surprised if it hasn't dawned on them yet. From an interview [adexchanger.com]:
Note in that interview, BlueCava CEO David Norris is very careful to portray the technology as linked solely to the device and not the user. And there is a lot of effort to portray BlueCava as providing control of information to the end user. But the reality is that linking user to device is trivial (as you noted) and end users tend to not grasp implications of data security. However, the initial money is unlikely to be in forensics and for the system to work, you have to convince people to not fight it.
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent points!
Re: (Score:2)
There is tons of technology on this, and, yeah, people working in forensics know about it. There are also countermeasures.
Redundancy? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
No, because the MAC address isn't visible beyond the first router.
Re: (Score:2)
True. That doesn't preclude the "fingerprint" technology using that as part of a unique hardware signature.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ALL MAC addresses are changeable. and they dont survive the first router.
how about (Score:3)
It looks like in this case they are trying to use the UserAgent and other info available to javascript, like the EFF warned about [eff.org]. Check that link out, you can discover how unique your browser is.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone can easily write a Firefox plugin that will munge the javascript data. Make it random every time or hide everything but "standard" stuff. if you look like everyone else, you can hide in plain sight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Within our dataset of several million visitors, only one in 394 browsers have the same fingerprint as yours.
Fun fact: a browser that doesn't send a User-agent header and uses a whitelist for cookies and JS is actually damn hard to fingerprint.
Better not tell the BlueCava guys about this super-secret hax0r trick...
Re: (Score:2)
So there are only around 1100 people in the whole United States using Firefox 3.6 on Ubuntu Lucid running on a 64 bit system? Really? Maybe, just seems hard to believe.
With all those variables I'm surprised there are that many: [personal experience in parenthesis]
Re: (Score:2)
10.04 is LTS, which - by definition - means his version is not "out of date."
Re: (Score:2)
10.04 is LTS, which - by definition - means his version is not "out of date."
That depends ENTIRELY on your point of view. I would argue it was out of date but supported. Much like Vista.
Re: (Score:3)
You think that's weird, try it with JavaScript enabled. My browser signature is *unique*. Apparently no one in the 1.2 million or so person sample group is using the latest Firefox on WinXP with my particular combination of add-ons (yes, it could see my add-ons). Which means... Relatively more "power-users" are easily identifiable by this technology than "normal people". The more vanilla your browser set-up is, the harder you are to recognize (at least through this metric)
Re: (Score:2)
We are the easiest to track because we are more likely to install add-ons, fonts, etc. Flash block is a dead give-away, according to the documentation.
We're all doomed.
So where's the Firefox fingerprint changer plugin? (Score:2)
n/t
Techniques (Score:2, Insightful)
So, lets make fun of their proposed techniques. From the fine article:
1) Delta T between local clock and webserver clock. solution, NTP brings that to zero aside from timezone, and also don't let your browser tell the server what time it thinks it is.
2) Fonts. You gotta be kidding. Surrogate for the combo of OS and locale. I have not installed a font on a microsoft product since winders 3.11 era.
3) Screen size. Again, you gotta be kidding. Also tell your browser not to tell the server, or lie with a
Re: (Score:2)
1) Except for the round trip time for you to talk to the server. It only makes it better for them that NTP makes this more accurate.
2) You manually did not install it, but some applications still install fonts they use.
3) You would be identified as someone who changes screen size too often and after awhile become unique.
4) Refer 3. Besides the version of flash, acrobat reader, you are running also make you unique
5) That makes you unique. You must be the only one with user agent as "recently updated FF, MSIE
Re: (Score:2)
So I'm forced to use hardware and software I don't want to use and not allowed to use hardware and software and fonts I do want just so I can avoid being tracked? BS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So we need laws? No, we need counter-tactics.
Ideally we need to get rid of Javascript and Flash. Allowing people to run arbitrary code on your computer from a remote system was always going to turn out to be a really bad idea.
On the plus side, by blocking Javascript and Flash from sites which do this tracking your 'unique fingerprint' suddenly becomes a lot less unque.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1) Delta T between local clock and webserver clock. solution, NTP brings that to zero aside from timezone
I suggest you go back and re-read "Time, Clocks and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System". I don't think you understood it the first time.
Re: (Score:2)
There have been fingerprinting systems posted to Slashdot that were surprisingly specific.
Panopticlick [eff.org], the one that EFF runs for awareness says I'm unique, out of 1.2M visitors.
My plugin config is unique. My font config is 1 / 16,000 users. Admittedly, I'm using a non-default browser on a niche operating system, but you'd be surprised what does install things like fonts and plugins - applications (like Office), etc.
Re: (Score:2)
1 - send random time to javascript and flash. Foiled.
2 - send ONLY standard OS install font list to javascript and Flash. Foiled.
3 Screen size send 1024X768 only.. Foiled.
4 List only standard plugins.
5 User Agent, again munge it to only send a generic.
Firefox is open source. all of the above can easily be done to make a "screw you" version of firefox that will hurt fingerprinting. if a LOT of people use that version then it goes even further to destory the fingerprinting.
Honestly, why are the creator
Re: (Score:2)
3. Yeah foolproof unless it measures the size of the banner that has been set to stretch till it fits the width of the screen
4. Until the server tries to poke you by sending a flash video (when you claim to not have it) and may be try to display an ad (when you claim to not have adblock)
5. Depending on the User Agent you send, the server can send you a set of Javascript tests that run on your machine and see if you are lying.
Besides you only have to go wrong once and you become completely unique henceforth.
Re: (Score:2)
Try your own computer [eff.org] (and that's using very basic fingerprinting).
That a tiny percentage of users may take measures against such fingerprinting is irrelevant. At worst they are an irrelevantly small number and the fact such machines would appear to be attempting to avoid fingerprinting might be enough of a risk identifier in itself (for ecommerce transactions for example).
Re: (Score:2)
My granular data... (Score:2)
My profile will tell advertisers to leave me the f*ck alone. I don't want all their crap. I don't want them tracking me. I won't buy the crap they push on me. They're wasting their time and money by trying to track me and advertise to me.
So you're a deadbeat :/ (Score:1)
That is an interesting take. Let the advertisers target the hyper-consumerists (ie, the majority) and leave the rest of us alone.
Of course, then they might object to giving "deadbeats" access to "free" content which is ad-based. Why allow us to watch X if we're not going to pony up for the shiny things being advertised between bits of content?
Re: (Score:2)
That is an interesting take. Let the advertisers target the hyper-consumerists (ie, the majority) and leave the rest of us alone.
Of course, then they might object to giving "deadbeats" access to "free" content which is ad-based. Why allow us to watch X if we're not going to pony up for the shiny things being advertised between bits of content?
Do they have the right to discriminate who to provide service to if they claim their service is free? I don't know.
I love capitalism (Score:2)
Damn, I love capitalism!
You have every right to track my activities and I have every right to purchase back my own privacy.
Is everybody happy? I am.
Re: (Score:3)
You have every right to track my activities and I have every right to purchase back my own privacy.
Why should you have to purchase back something that rightfully belongs to you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good Luck (Score:2)
They not only have to profile all devices on almost all sites, they also have to get merchants to share who made a purchase. Vendors aren't going to share this for free and without any control. Then they'll have to get the EU to approve it.
Raise the Noise Level (Score:1)
The way I see it, people need to share their surfing. Make the tracking companies see the aggregate of several (random) people's surfing habits rather than just one. Maybe random swapping of IP addresses from time-to-time? (I'm not trained in internet protocols, so I have no idea how this would be done.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is this (Score:2)
The movies might not be wrong... (Score:1)
In a few years, we can all dine out at Taco Bell as we watch President Schwarzenegger discuss how our corporate overlords love and cherish us, and how they have our best interests at heart.
This has 1984 written all over it. This technology can and will be abused.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to need one of two things then: (Score:2)
Terminology (Score:5, Insightful)
When one person does it to another, it's called stalking. When a corporation does it to everyone it's called marketing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's Fine But... (Score:2)
...I don't view ads on the internet. Ever. Not on my phone, not on my desktop/laptop, nowhere. The only advertising I see is on live sporting events on TV. Otherwise I watch TV delayed on my DVR and zap through the ads. They can waste all the money they want on me. I'm not looking at ads.
BlueCava, an anti-privacy company spinoff (Score:2)
There I fixed their shithole tag-line. (Making a note not to ever do work or business with these annoying assholes.)
Status (Score:2)
So the new status symbol will be constantly complaining that you're being spammed by the Bentley Dealer's Association to come to their annual golf outing to Dubai.
If i get unsolicited ads.. (Score:2)
I vow to never buy from the company advertising. If everyone did that, the problem would cease to exist.
Who made this system? (Score:2)
The internet is built by geeks... yet geeks hate what this internet is becoming. I think it's high time tech workers built a world wide union and got themselves some professional standards.
Scarlet Letter 2.0 (Score:2)
Counter it with plug-ins? (Score:2)
How about this for a plug-in:
It will upload addresses you visit to a huge anonymous pool, and retrieve random addresses from this pool as well, loading them (fully) in the background. Say a random page once every 10 seconds (or even better - at random time intervals). It will also visit a minimum of four links from each page it visits.
It will install random plug-ins as well (preferably making them inactive, but without revealing it), just to hide that as a potential signature.
It uploads tracking cookies to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This would be the reaction:
Your post advocates a
( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find
Re:Will the United States of America be renamed... (Score:4, Insightful)
Psst ... you're supposed to check the appropriate boxes or it's not funny. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
See, now that's funny. :-P
Re: (Score:2)
If it was this intrusive, I suspect not so well either.
It's not like we've shown whole-sale support for "enhanced" pat-downs and invasive scans in the name of looking for bad guys. Most of us will be ready to pillory any idiot who says "if you're innocent, what are you worried about" -- because it's bullshit.
This level of invasiveness is just not something most of us
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
not really.
if you love privacy then you jailbreak/root your phone. and disable this crap or install safeguards. My iPhone for example serves up ZERO ad's in any apps and the browser, easy to do once you have access to the hosts file inside.
Re: (Score:3)
Odd, a business can stalk you and it's "just business", but if I stalk you I'm a felon.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
There ya go.
Re: (Score:3)
In Soviet USA, advertisers control YOU!
Re: (Score:2)
In Soviet Russia, you control cell phone!