Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Comments
Advertisers Evade 'Do Not Track' With Supercookies
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Mathew
50%
50%
Mathew,
User Rank: Apprentice
10/11/2013 | 9:49:09 AM
re: Advertisers Evade 'Do Not Track' With Supercookies
Arms race is the right metaphor. For every tracking technology that gets excoriated by privacy rights groups or interrogated by regulators/legislators, another one springs up.

That's why having a higher-level take on this might create the concept of user rights that aren't tied to technology, and thus subject to abuse, and get more people on the same page.
NG11209
50%
50%
NG11209,
User Rank: Apprentice
10/10/2013 | 9:15:12 PM
re: Advertisers Evade 'Do Not Track' With Supercookies
I remember the do-not-track debate from my time working at a direct & digital marketing trade publication. This report makes it seem that the debate has shifted more to a steroids-in-baseball-style arms race, with one side racing to stay ahead of the rules. The New York Times has some recent reporting on the subject as well, so it's clearly in the public consciousness G I wonder (if we ever have a functioning government again) if some legislation to codify what's appropriate is coming.
OtherJimDonahue
50%
50%
OtherJimDonahue,
User Rank: Apprentice
10/10/2013 | 8:31:49 PM
re: Advertisers Evade 'Do Not Track' With Supercookies
Ah, got it. Thanks.

And I'd say the answer to your question is: Both.
Mathew
50%
50%
Mathew,
User Rank: Apprentice
10/10/2013 | 8:15:01 PM
re: Advertisers Evade 'Do Not Track' With Supercookies
First, this type of personal information is a commodity -- it can be bought and sold (for profit). The more information, the more valuable the record associated with a given person.

Second, it gives advertisers "richer" insights into individual consumers (i.e. you and me). Visit a website that's concerned with menopause, pregnancy, erectile disfunction, baseball or divorce -- and the advertiser's algorithms can spot that and serve up more targeted (and thus theoretically likely to get clicked on and converted to a sale) advertising. And every click or completed sale equals revenue for the advertiser and commissions for affiliates.

The "benefit" for consumers, or hit to our privacy? That's open to debate.
OtherJimDonahue
50%
50%
OtherJimDonahue,
User Rank: Apprentice
10/10/2013 | 7:05:05 PM
re: Advertisers Evade 'Do Not Track' With Supercookies
I'm not entirely clear on why sites need/want to track us THAT closely. What's the payoff, exactly?


Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
I Smell a RAT! New Cybersecurity Threats for the Crypto Industry
David Trepp, Partner, IT Assurance with accounting and advisory firm BPM LLP,  7/9/2021
News
Attacks on Kaseya Servers Led to Ransomware in Less Than 2 Hours
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/7/2021
Commentary
It's in the Game (but It Shouldn't Be)
Tal Memran, Cybersecurity Expert, CYE,  7/9/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
How Enterprises Are Assessing Cybersecurity Risk in Today's Environment
The adoption of cloud services spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in pressure on cyber-risk professionals to focus on vulnerabilities and new exposures that stem from pandemic-driven changes. Many cybersecurity pros expect fundamental, long-term changes to their organization's computing and data security due to the shift to more remote work and accelerated cloud adoption. Download this report from Dark Reading to learn more about their challenges and concerns.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2022-0238
PUBLISHED: 2022-01-16
phoronix-test-suite is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
CVE-2021-44537
PUBLISHED: 2022-01-15
ownCloud owncloud/client before 2.9.2 allows Resource Injection by a server into the desktop client via a URL, leading to remote code execution.
CVE-2021-33828
PUBLISHED: 2022-01-15
The files_antivirus component before 1.0.0 for ownCloud mishandles the protection mechanism by which malicious files (that have been uploaded to a public share) are supposed to be deleted upon detection.
CVE-2021-33827
PUBLISHED: 2022-01-15
The files_antivirus component before 1.0.0 for ownCloud allows OS Command Injection via the administration settings.
CVE-2021-35969
PUBLISHED: 2022-01-15
Pexip Infinity before 26 allows temporary remote Denial of Service (abort) because of missing call-setup input validation.