10 ms·

>The vulnerability is already being exploited by at least two display ad analytics companies across billions of page impressions per month. Who are these compa

>The vulnerability is already being exploited by at least two display ad analytics companies across billions of page impressions per month. Who are these companies?

3825 14y ago
Name no names please. Don't want a witch hunt when we are in a glass house.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- javajosh 14y ago
  Honestly, I don't understand this reluctance to name wrongdoers, especially for something like this where verifying the wrong is trivial (e.g. load up a client site and find the offending code in source). It seems to me that the harm is greater not naming names - reputation is important and if you take steps to invade user's privacy then your reputation can and should suffer for it.
  - baddox 14y ago
    "Witch hunt" generally refers to persecution of someone without any regard to whether they're innocent or guilty, so I presume the comment was intended to admonish against guessing which ad companies may be using this technique.
    - 3825 14y ago
      Yes. I am sorry I was not clearer.
- saraid216 14y ago
  My first thought on reading this was, "Ah. 3825 works for one of them."
  - 3825 14y ago
    Who are these ad companies is a question that addresses the wrong topic. VP for Internet Explorer effectively said[1] that the vulnerability in Internet Explorer would not be an issue if nobody exploited it. [1]: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2012/12/13/update-to-alleged-information-and-security-issue-with-mouse-position-behavior.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2012/12/13/update-to-alle...
mtgx 14y ago
So much for Microsoft's automatic Do Not Track. It seems users are less safe, not more with IE, from ad companies.
- Already__Taken 14y ago
  Do Not Track was always a sham. It's a symbolic flag to respect users preferences or browser vendors are going to make ad-block standard by default just like pop-up blockers. If ad companies ignore DNT they are digging their own graves. It's not about protecting users. It's about heading off an arms race to help protect the ad industry.
  - nodata 14y ago
    How was DNT a sham until IE screwed it up by making it opt-out?
    - jiggy2011 14y ago
      If you are an ad company or a company that relies on ads in some way for revenue, what possible reason would you have for respecting it?
      - TheHegemon 14y ago
        Generally because anyone tech savvy enough to opt out of it would be worth less to advertisers anyway.
        jiggy2011 14y ago
        I have no idea why that would be true? I assume pretty much anyone with enough money for an internet connection has some value to advertisers.
        brokenparser 14y ago
        You still get advertisements, but with DNT they wouldn't be targeted to your profile.

>The vulnerability is already being exploited by at least two display ad analytics companies across billions of page impressions per month. Who are these companies?

3825 14y ago

Name no names please. Don't want a witch hunt when we are in a glass house.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
javajosh 14y ago
Honestly, I don't understand this reluctance to name wrongdoers, especially for something like this where verifying the wrong is trivial (e.g. load up a client site and find the offending code in source). It seems to me that the harm is greater not naming names - reputation is important and if you take steps to invade user's privacy then your reputation can and should suffer for it.
- baddox 14y ago
  "Witch hunt" generally refers to persecution of someone without any regard to whether they're innocent or guilty, so I presume the comment was intended to admonish against guessing which ad companies may be using this technique.
  - 3825 14y ago
    Yes. I am sorry I was not clearer.
saraid216 14y ago
My first thought on reading this was, "Ah. 3825 works for one of them."
- 3825 14y ago
  Who are these ad companies is a question that addresses the wrong topic. VP for Internet Explorer effectively said[1] that the vulnerability in Internet Explorer would not be an issue if nobody exploited it. [1]: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2012/12/13/update-to-alleged-information-and-security-issue-with-mouse-position-behavior.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2012/12/13/update-to-alle...

mtgx 14y ago

So much for Microsoft's automatic Do Not Track. It seems users are less safe, not more with IE, from ad companies.

Already__Taken 14y ago
Do Not Track was always a sham. It's a symbolic flag to respect users preferences or browser vendors are going to make ad-block standard by default just like pop-up blockers. If ad companies ignore DNT they are digging their own graves. It's not about protecting users. It's about heading off an arms race to help protect the ad industry.
- nodata 14y ago
  How was DNT a sham until IE screwed it up by making it opt-out?
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    If you are an ad company or a company that relies on ads in some way for revenue, what possible reason would you have for respecting it?
    - TheHegemon 14y ago
      Generally because anyone tech savvy enough to opt out of it would be worth less to advertisers anyway.
      - jiggy2011 14y ago
        I have no idea why that would be true? I assume pretty much anyone with enough money for an internet connection has some value to advertisers.
        brokenparser 14y ago
        You still get advertisements, but with DNT they wouldn't be targeted to your profile.