Bank of America doesn't respect customers' privacy...
Kristofer Andersson
submits tracking information from every single page in their system to
doubleclick.net. This really makes me upset because of the bad privacy
tracking record doubleclick have.
Is it even legal for a bank to share privileged banking information like
this with third parties? I know for sure that it wouldn't be in my home
country or several other European countries.
After all the colorful brochures about how Bank of America respect its'
customers privacy this really makes me upset. I have previously been
surprised over all the junk mail I receive under the (uniquely spelt) name I
have on my BOA credit card. Now I am pretty sure that the bank has been
selling that info to third parties despite me requesting them to not share
my information with third parties.
Below is a message I sent to the bank's customer service with an excerpt of
HTML from my account statement page. I modified some parts of the
querystring in the URL to prevent misuse. I will repost their reply here if
they reply to my mail.
To Bank of America's customer service:
"Can you please explain why your website sends tracking information to
doubleclick.net? This company is famous for misusing privileged information
and for selling such information to third parties, and here is a online
banking site that pass tracking information to them.
On top of that, the SSL certificates they use are invalid (which is why I
noticed it). I am seriously considering switching bank because of this.
Below is an excerpt of the html that submits usage activity to doubleclick.
<SCRIPT language="JavaScript">
var axel = Math.random()+"";
var a = axel * 10000000000000;
document.write('<IMG
SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/activity;src=[removed];type=custo[removed];c
at=billp[removed];dcovd=c;ord=1;num='+ a + '?" WIDTH=1 HEIGHT=1 BORDER=0>');
</SCRIPT>
<NOSCRIPT>
<IMG
SRC="https://ad.doubleclick.net/activity;src=[removed];type=custo[removed];c
at=billp[removed];dcovd=c;ord=1;num=1?" WIDTH=1 HEIGHT=1 BORDER=0>
</NOSCRIPT>"
Kristofer Andersson
information below. Just log on to your account, click on your checking
account, click on the browser's View menu and select Source. The HTML source
will now be displayed in Notepad. Press Ctrl+F and type 'doubleclick' (w/o
quotes). Click on the "Find Next" button.
Tim Smith
Andersson wrote:
> Because of invalid SSL certificates, I just discovered that Bank of
> America submits tracking information from every single page in their
> system to doubleclick.net. This really makes me upset because of the bad
> privacy tracking record doubleclick have.
This doesn't happen for me. I'm using Bank of America in Washington, and
since the hostname is something like onlinebanking-nw.bankofamerica.com, my
guess is that they use different servers for different regions or states
(I'm guessing the "nw" means "northwest").
No funny javascript on the site, and monitoring with "watch netstat -a -t"
(I'm on Linux) while I access my checking account, I see no connections
other than the single https connection to bankofamerica.com.
--
--Tim Smith
nospamatall
> Because of invalid SSL certificates, I just discovered that Bank of America
> submits tracking information from every single page in their system to
> doubleclick.net. This really makes me upset because of the bad privacy
> tracking record doubleclick have.
> On top of that, the SSL certificates they use are invalid (which is why I
> noticed it). I am seriously considering switching bank because of this.
I think most businesses will sell/buy info we consider private. If not
now, then soon. It seems to be the default position for them, only to be
altered if they get enough trouble, which usually they don't because
the vast majority of customers are completely oblivious that there could
even be a problem (until there is...).
Best to just be vigilant and block anything you don't want sent. I don't
know much about specific software for windows but a good thing to do in
any OS is to use your hosts file. See
http://accs-net.com/hosts/
for more about that. It will speed up your connection a lot too, not
having a load of parasites trailing after every click you make.
Better the devil you know and all that. There isn't much point in
forcing restraint on them, even when you can. If you cover a cat's claws
up, it will just bite you. If the will to spy on you is there, they'll
tell you they've disabled that 'feature' but like microsoft, they'll
just find another way, harder to spot.
A good program for Mac OS X is little snitch.
http://www.obdev.at/products/littlesnitch/
Better than blocking, would be a way of altering the info sent, giving
wrong information. does anyone know if this is possible? If information
is worth money to them, then wrong information might cost them? this is
standard procedure with spies.
Kristofer Andersson
> now, then soon. It seems to be the default position for them, only to be
> altered if they get enough trouble, which usually they don't because
> the vast majority of customers are completely oblivious that there could
> even be a problem (until there is...).
True, but BAC keep sending me colorful brochures about how they protect
their customer's privacy.
> Best to just be vigilant and block anything you don't want sent. I don't
> know much about specific software for windows but a good thing to do in
> any OS is to use your hosts file. See
> http://accs-net.com/hosts/
> for more about that. It will speed up your connection a lot too, not
> having a load of parasites trailing after every click you make.
This is a great idea, I will do that for now.
> Better the devil you know and all that. There isn't much point in
> forcing restraint on them, even when you can. If you cover a cat's claws
> up, it will just bite you. If the will to spy on you is there, they'll
> tell you they've disabled that 'feature' but like microsoft, they'll
> just find another way, harder to spot.
Yup, but the nice thing about a market economy is that customers can turn
their back on these creeps. I think I will do.
> Better than blocking, would be a way of altering the info sent, giving
> wrong information. does anyone know if this is possible? If information
> is worth money to them, then wrong information might cost them? this is
> standard procedure with spies.
This is a great idea, but it would take some effort to gain insight in how
the information is used. Otherwise it won't be easy to garble it enough to
mess up their statistics.
Kristofer Andersson
news:eHBXb.5656$hm4...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> In article <8NAXb.45642$8a5....@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, Kristofer
> Andersson wrote:
> > Because of invalid SSL certificates, I just discovered that Bank of
> > America submits tracking information from every single page in their
> > system to doubleclick.net. This really makes me upset because of the bad
> > privacy tracking record doubleclick have.
>
> This doesn't happen for me. I'm using Bank of America in Washington, and
> since the hostname is something like onlinebanking-nw.bankofamerica.com,
my
> guess is that they use different servers for different regions or states
> (I'm guessing the "nw" means "northwest").
Mine is onlineeast.bankofamerica.com so I think you are correct; they have
different versions of the website in different parts of the country. Maybe
they have better ethics in the north west. (I'm in Florida). Or maybe they
just started doing it here first. Keep an eye on them.
Kristofer Andersson
"And, rest assured that Bank of America does not sell or share Customer
Information with marketers outside of Bank of America who may want to offer
you their own products and services."
http://www.bankofamerica.com/privacy/index.cfm?template=privacysecur_onlin
"We do not sell or share customer information with marketers outside Bank of
America who may want to offer you their own products and services. You don't
need to take any action to receive this benefit. "
http://www.bankofamerica.com/privacy/index.cfm?template=privacysecur_cnsmr
Yeah, right. So this either means either that DoubleClick is now part of
Bank of America Corp or that BAC is a bunch of lying weasels.
Sending information to DoubleClick every time I view my checking account
statement to a company who also knows what articles I read on various news
website and can combine that information is something I feel is a serious
violation of my privacy as a BAC customer.
danny burstein
>Sending information to DoubleClick every time I view my checking account
>statement to a company who also knows what articles I read on various news
>website and can combine that information is something I feel is a serious
>violation of my privacy as a BAC customer.
Or... there's something else on board your computer that kicks over to
doubleclick and has no specific relation to your connection to BAC.
Do you get d-click referrals at other unlikely places? Have you
checked recently for worms/trojans/spyware?
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Chris
"Kristofer Andersson" <kaatpocodotse.ihatespa...@aol.com>
wrote in message news:bjCXb.47578$Ch.3...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
No sign of doubleclick here...
Bob Ward
It doesn't show up for California accounts, either.
Bob Ward
Or, you could be the lying weasel...
Anyone reason you are posting 4,000 plus line messages to a non-binary
newsgroup, or are you just an incompetent asshole who likes to pretend
he knows more than he does?
nospamatall
> From BAC's website:
>
> "And, rest assured that Bank of America does not sell or share Customer
> Information with marketers outside of Bank of America who may want to offer
> you their own products and services."
> Yeah, right. So this either means either that DoubleClick is now part of
> Bank of America Corp or that BAC is a bunch of lying weasels.
These are weasel words, aren't they? DoubleClick doesn't sell us
anything, so they don't qualify as outside marketers 'who may want to
offer" etc. In other words, with this clause they can sell or share
customer info with outside marketers who _don't_ want to offer you stuff.
and maybe they don't regard site tracking and user tracking as
'customer' info, because they don't tell doubleclick who you are. (or do
they?) That's left to doubleclick to work out from your other surfing
activities.
It's good being able to thwart them, but lots of people don't have the
time to find out how. But that's the way of the world, there's nothing
wrong with that, what's wrong is the implicit dishonesty, the
implication that these organisations are something other than money
making machines for their owners.
Then again, taking advantage of a weakness is perfectly natural, as is
deception. Maybe we expect too much.
default
Maybe we (you) expect too little?
There's a lot of things wrong with the people of the world, but too
much integrity, honesty, loyalty, compassion, etc. aren't the problem
(as I see it).
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Kristofer Andersson
news:040avvo2fqjplk21f...@4ax.com...
> It doesn't show up for California accounts, either.
Ok, so it seems they are doing it differently in different parts of the
country. Is your account summary called 'GotoWelcome'? Check the end of the
HTML source for that page. That is one of the places where it is present for
me.
Kristofer Andersson
news:c0mtds$ob1$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> Or... there's something else on board your computer that kicks over to
> doubleclick and has no specific relation to your connection to BAC.
Nope, checked that already. This code is only there when I am logged on to
BAC online banking. Interesting that the "ad banner" is a blank 1x1 gif. Not
like they are trying to sell me something.
> Do you get d-click referrals at other unlikely places? Have you
> checked recently for worms/trojans/spyware?
Nope, nothing like that.
Kristofer Andersson
>
> Or, you could be the lying weasel...
I can assure you I am not. Apparently people on the west coast don't get
this code, but anyone who's hostname is onlineeast.bankofamerica.com should
have it. When the URL ends with "GotoWelcome", view the HTML source and
scroll to the very bottom. That is where the code appears for me.
> Anyone reason you are posting 4,000 plus line messages to a non-binary
> newsgroup, or are you just an incompetent asshole who likes to pretend
> he knows more than he does?
Sorry about the binaries, I didn't know that it was not allowed here. The
reason I posted them is that I think it is interesting that I got SSL
certificates from DoubleClick's German and Swedish subsidiaries. Probably
because of something misconfigured on DoubleClick's servers.
I can not think of any valid reason why BAC would include a 1x1 blank gif
banner from DoubleClick in the online bank. Maybe someone else can come up
with a good reason?
Using external advertising companies on marketing pages is one thing, but
when I check my account balance I do not want doubleclick to be able to
match that information with information they have collected from other sites
(news agencies, search engines and other DoubleClick customers). The cookies
that uniquely identify my browser to DoubleClick are the same if I visit
xyz.com as if I visit bankofamerica.com.
nospamatall
>>Then again, taking advantage of a weakness is perfectly natural, as is
>>deception. Maybe we expect too much.
>
>
> Maybe we (you) expect too little?
>
> There's a lot of things wrong with the people of the world, but too
> much integrity, honesty, loyalty, compassion, etc. aren't the problem
> (as I see it).
Well I never suggested that they were. On the contrary, I was pointing
out that the opposite is usually the case. And that there is nothing
wrong with that. Most of the companies we deal with are predators rather
than allies. The mistake lies in our perception of them, and they use
that weakness; reinforce it with misleading advertising about their
purposes. The solution is not to try to make them fit that illusion,
they never will. It's our perception that needs to change.
It's quite possible to maintain your own standards of honesty etc. while
dealing with dishonest sharks, and to protect yourself against them
without compromising your own values.
But it is folly to expect someone you don't know and will probably never
meet to have your own best interests at heart. There's nothing wrong
with maintaining a suspicious attitude.
nospamatall
> I can not think of any valid reason why BAC would include a 1x1 blank gif
> banner from DoubleClick in the online bank. Maybe someone else can come up
> with a good reason?
Kristofer Andersson
news:uHOXb.2872$rb.5...@news.indigo.ie...
That article sums it up pretty good. Thanks for the link!
Kristofer Andersson
by some C/S clerk who don't have a clue what this is all about.
"
Dear K------- Andersson,
Thank you for your inquiry dated 2/14/04 regarding Other Online Banking
Features. We apologize for any inconvenience you may have experienced.
We apologize for any inconvenience that you may have experienced in this
matter. Bank of America's site is secure. Online Banking uses several
different methods to protect your information, including 128 bit SSL
security. When accessing your account information, your browser sends
messages via a Secure Socket Layer (SSL) to us. We respond by sending a
certificate, which contains a public key. This certificate and key are
interpreted by your browser that generates a specific random session key
to transmit back. Once received by the bank, the communication then
continues via the specific session key transmitted by your browser.
Bank of America does partner with third parties to track the usage of
our web site. However, this information is not personally identifiable
and is subject to our industry-leading privacy and security policies.
The integrity of our site has not been compromised.
We invite you to review the Privacy and Security statement on our web
site at http://www.bankofamerica.com/privacy/
If we may be of further assistance, please contact us again by e-mail.
Thank you for choosing Bank of America.
Sincerely,
Lonnie Johnson
Bank of America
"
James E. Morrow
> Bank of America does partner with third parties to track the usage
> of our web site. However, this information is not personally
> identifiable and is subject to our industry-leading privacy and
> security policies. The integrity of our site has not been
> compromised.
>
>
The is the main part of their argument. Whether it is true or not is
another matter.
--
James E. Morrow
Email to: jamese...@email.com
Kristofer Andersson
Dear Bank of America,
Your response looks very much like you copied and pasted from some "standard
replies" database, or maybe you just do not understand this issue or the
technology involved.
If you have been following the news the last five years, you may be aware
that DoubleClick have been sued numerous times by states, privacy
organizations etc over privacy issues. They have settled many of these
lawsuits outside of court.
Also, I am sure your tech people have an understanding of how DoubleClick's
ad system works, but in case they may have failed to communicate this to the
rest of your organization, please allow me to do a quick recap.
Whenever a user (user account on a computer) encounters a DoubleClick ad
banner or "web bug", the DoubleClick web servers will issue a couple of
cookies that uniquely identifies the PC/browser/user combination. This
uniquely identifying information will be sent to DoubleClick whenever that
browser encounter a link to a DoubleClick ad banner or web bug again.
This means that if I go to a web site that has a contract with DoubleClick,
for example yahoo.com, DoubleClick will "tag" my browser with a piece of
information that uniquely identifies my browser (and thereby me) on all
subsequent encounters for many years ahead. If I register some personally
identifiable information on any member web site, that information can be
combined with my DoubleClick cookies (read: personal serial no) for tracking
purposes.
Even if BofA don't submit any information that directly identifies me to
DoubleClick, such as name, address, phone no or Social Security no, parts or
all of this information is usually readily available for them through other
sources thanks to the DoubleClick cookies.
Every time I log in to BofA's onlineeast.bankofamerica.com site, my browser
will be instructed by BofA to submit my DoubleClick cookie along with other
information to ads.doubleclick.net where it will be stored with other
profiling information in DoubleClick's databases.
Below is a part of a captured HTTP header that was submitted to DoubleClick
when I logged on to my BofA account:
Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg,
application/vnd.ms-excel, application/vnd.ms-powerpoint, application/msword,
application/x-shockwave-flash, */*
Accept-Language: en-us,sv;q=0.7,th;q=0.3
Connection: Keep-Alive
Host: ad.doubleclick.net
Referer:
https://onlineeast.bankofamerica.com/cgi-bin/ias/YRUYLPXLSVD21BLOQGLWLKY/1/bofa/ibd/IAS/presentation/GotoWelcome
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR
1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
Cookie: id
=80000033235fd; test_cookie=
CheckForPermission
Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate
Below is a corresponding part of a captured HTTP header that was submitted
to DoubleClick when I visited Yahoo.com where I have registered my name,
email address, postal address and posted messages on sensitive topics:
Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg,
application/vnd.ms-excel, application/vnd.ms-powerpoint, application/msword,
application/x-shockwave-flash, */*
Accept-Language: en-us,sv;q=0.7,th;q=0.3
Connection: Keep-Alive
Host: ad.doubleclick.net
Referer: http://www.yahoo.com
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR
1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
Cookie: id
=80000033235fd; test_cookie=
CheckForPermission
Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate
As you can see, my DoubleClick "serial number" or "social security number"
was sent to DoubleClick in both instances, along with other information that
I and other BofA customers may not want to share with DoubleClick when
accessing the online bank. Whether you pass on my name and address to
DoubleClick or not doesn't matter. By using their "web bugs" on the online
site you have enabled them to profile my access to your website and to
continue their violations of consumer integrity. To me, this is similar to
allowing DoubleClick officers to stand in the door and request a photo ID
from customers entering a BofA branch.
In this case you are not even using DoubleClick for serving ad banners. The
"ad banner" in this case is a 1x1 pixel blank gif image. This is very clear
from the HTML code that loads it:
This means no ad banner or information about the tracking will be shown to
the user. The only purpose of this is to make sure the user's browser will
submit tracking information to DoubleClick. I can not think of any valid
reason why BofA would need to use an outside source to track usage of your
website. Your own web server logs contain all information you may need for
tracking purposes, but this is appears to be a very convenient way to
circumvent privacy laws and policies. In several European countries, this
form of misuse of customer information would most likely send the
responsible bank officers to prison or result in hefty fines to the EU.
Below are a few links to more reading about DoubleClick and their history of
privacy right violations:
http://www.internetnews.com/IAR/article.php/1143021
http://www.internetnews.com/IAR/article.php/1452461
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,92303,00.asp
http://news.com.com/2100-1017-243077.html?legacy=cnet
http://news.com.com/2104-1017_3-243077.html
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=DoubleClick+privacy+lawsuit
Please send me a mail (email or postal mail) where you explain how allowing
a company like DoubleClick to profile your customers is in line with your
privacy policies. Please be aware that I will share all communication in
this matter with outside parties, including the general public.
Best regards,
Kristofer Andersson
Kristofer Andersson
"James E. Morrow" <jamese...@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9490E28FB6A0Ej...@205.188.138.161...
My argument is that this part is incorrect: "However, this information is
not personally identifiable and is subject to our industry-leading privacy
and security policies."
I have identified myself by name, adress, email etc to several other
websites that uses DoubleClick's advertising system. This information can be
linked to my online bank usage through the uniquely identifying cookies
issued to my webbrowser by doubleclick.net. By including a blank image
reference loaded from doubleclick.net, they are instructing my browser to
send the following information to ad.doubleclick.net:
1) the URL I am visiting on BofA's online bank
2) my DoubleClick unique ID
3) my IP address
4) my browser and system configuration and other information that is part of
standard HTTP 1.1 headers
The bare minimum they can extract from this information is me being a BofA
customer, when and where I do my online banking and then combining that with
my usage of several leading news websites, political websites and other
potentially sensitive information.
Brian Macke
> The bare minimum they can extract from this information is me being a
> BofA customer, when and where I do my online banking and then combining
> that with my usage of several leading news websites, political websites
> and other potentially sensitive information.
But that is not BofA's action - it's Doubleclick's. BofA is not violating
your privacy by using Doubleclick to provide usage data. It's a very thin
distinction, but it's one necessary within the confines of the GLBA.
Besides, there are bigger data mining firms out there with real hard core
data on you. Doubleclick isn't anywhere as bad as a Lexis-Nexis or Trans
Union.
If it bothers you, ask BofA to provide a non-DC server for your secure
communications stating that you wish to make a formal request that BofA
not share your information with DC, a recognized affiliate.
--
-Brian James Macke ma...@strangelove.net
"In order to get that which you wish for, you must first get that which
builds it." -- Unknown
CalamityKen
> Because of invalid SSL certificates, I just discovered that Bank of
> America submits tracking information from every single page in their
> system to doubleclick.net. This really makes me upset because of the
> bad privacy tracking record doubleclick have.
Have you installed a good HOSTS file that blocks doubleclick sites?
http://webpages.charter.net/hpguru/hosts/hosts.html
HOSTS file explained http://www.accs-net.com/hosts/
Han
> all snipped
>
You need to learn about the hosts file. Hosts (no extension) resides on my
machine (XP Home) in c:/windows/system32/drivers/etc. Insert lines like
this:
127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
and your machine will not go to ad.doubleclick .net, but to the localhost,
therefore no info goes to doubleclick. Note that this is address specific,
and no wildcards are allowed.
Read more, DAGS (acronymfinder.com)
An alternative is DNSKong
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
default
OK, I see your point.
I choke at "And there is nothing wrong with that." I do think that if
"civilization" is to continue (or at least not degenerate further)
"we" have to be loud and vocal with the miscreants - not just justify
it as normal human behavior.
It is "normal" human behavior - no argument there either.
The problem is what was right for tribal societies in a limitless
world. (all the human failings are just good evolutionary adaptation
to the world as it was - AS IT WAS). We change the game - stamp out
any and all competition with other animals and proceed to continue the
same behavior that got us here.
This won't work. For the "most adaptable animal" on the planet - we
can't/don't adapt fast enough to the world we have produced.
That's where I think the changes should be - the president SHOULD be
held to a higher standard than the troops he commands. Corporations
(and people) do have a civic duty that transcends their greed.
Not getting vocal is the same as condoning bad behavior. For a
positive change (and fast enough to save us) there has to be the
perception that while these jackasses are behaving "normally," well,
that just ain't good enough . . .
"They can because they think they can." and all the corollaries of
that statement.
"And there is something wrong with that."
nospamatall
> But that is not BofA's action - it's Doubleclick's. BofA is not violating
> your privacy by using Doubleclick to provide usage data.
It's interesting if they claim it is for usage data. They already have
all the possible usage data in their server logs. This is a sign that
there is not just innocent misunderstanding on their part, but an
intention to deceive.
If they said doubleclick is paying them to access their usage data, and
no personal info is given and all that reassuring guff, it would be
possible to think they are just naiive, or they know and don't care so
long as it's within the law.
I think the legal stuff is all relevant to the Bank, and to the user if
litigation is looming, but what is more relevant to the user of a bank
is how careful they are with your privacy, regardless of legalities.
Change can only be forced on them by a significant number of their
customers letting them know they are watching them, and threatening to
close their accounts. That doesn't seem likely for a while.
Until the rivers start to run uphill, it's good to have fora such as
this to keep each other informed of the sharks' activity. Reminds me of
the crows in our back garden. While a few of them feed, the rest have
the whole area staked out, watching for cats etc.
Andy
Kristofer Andersson
> Brian Macke wrote:
>
> > But that is not BofA's action - it's Doubleclick's. BofA is not
violating
> > your privacy by using Doubleclick to provide usage data.
>
> It's interesting if they claim it is for usage data. They already have
> all the possible usage data in their server logs. This is a sign that
> there is not just innocent misunderstanding on their part, but an
> intention to deceive.
Yes, if it was just usage data their server logs contains more information
than DoubleClick will ever give them. The only "advantage" DoubleClick would
give them is the ability to combine usage with statistics from other
websites. They now have the ability to see if I shuffle around money after
reading certain news articles, they have the ability to see what type of
information their customers are interested in and in some cases they will
have the ability to profile customers' political preferences.
> If they said doubleclick is paying them to access their usage data, and
> no personal info is given and all that reassuring guff, it would be
> possible to think they are just naiive, or they know and don't care so
> long as it's within the law.
Their first response was just some standard "this is what we reply to
security related inquiries" letter. It will be interesting to see if they
will reply to my follow-up.
> I think the legal stuff is all relevant to the Bank, and to the user if
> litigation is looming, but what is more relevant to the user of a bank
> is how careful they are with your privacy, regardless of legalities.
> Change can only be forced on them by a significant number of their
> customers letting them know they are watching them, and threatening to
> close their accounts. That doesn't seem likely for a while.
Very unlikely. I have posted this information in several usenet news groups,
web based discussion forums, sent to privacy organizations etc, but the
reaction is not overwhelming. So I guess most people think this is ok. As I
indicated earlier, individual freedom and privacy is better protected in
many European countries. In Luxembourg, bank officers would go to prison
over this. In France, the farmers and truck drivers would blockade the
country. In Sweden, the state run commie media would go berzerk. I have a
hard time understanding why US consumers accepts this type of behaviour from
corporations.
> Until the rivers start to run uphill, it's good to have fora such as
> this to keep each other informed of the sharks' activity. Reminds me of
> the crows in our back garden. While a few of them feed, the rest have
> the whole area staked out, watching for cats etc.
Crows? Reminds me of vultures... :)
kimmy
>
> Very unlikely. I have posted this information in several usenet news
> groups, web based discussion forums, sent to privacy organizations
> etc, but the reaction is not overwhelming. So I guess most people
> think this is ok.
>
don't notice. Hosts files, Spywareblaster, cookie blockers, etc. You can't
change the world, users just have to protect themselves.
Kristofer Andersson
"kimmy" <ki...@kimmy.ru> wrote in message
news:1032q7p...@corp.supernews.com...
A minority of all users protect themselves through any of these means. Most
just shrug their sholders and don't care. Too bad, a country that was once
the role model when it comes to individual freedom just let it rot away.
Brian Macke
> It's interesting if they claim it is for usage data. They already have
> all the possible usage data in their server logs. This is a sign that
> there is not just innocent misunderstanding on their part, but an
> intention to deceive.
Not quite. If BofA is using proxies, there won't be any useful usage
information. It will look like all connections come from the same host.
Trust me in this respect - that's a good thing. It's better to use a proxy
and lose your marketing information than to allow unsanitized connections
to reach the web server.
> If they said doubleclick is paying them to access their usage data, and
> no personal info is given and all that reassuring guff, it would be
> possible to think they are just naiive, or they know and don't care so
> long as it's within the law.
More likely BofA is paying Doubleclick to collect marketing information on
its customers. BofA doesn't need DC's money.
> I think the legal stuff is all relevant to the Bank, and to the user if
> litigation is looming, but what is more relevant to the user of a bank
> is how careful they are with your privacy, regardless of legalities.
Best to talk to a lawyer about those odds.
> Change can only be forced on them by a significant number of their
> customers letting them know they are watching them, and threatening to
> close their accounts. That doesn't seem likely for a while.
Because litigation is unlikely.
> Until the rivers start to run uphill, it's good to have fora such as
> this to keep each other informed of the sharks' activity. Reminds me of
> the crows in our back garden. While a few of them feed, the rest have
> the whole area staked out, watching for cats etc.
Agreed - I think that this is a great place to share data. It's best to
keep pragmatic about this sort of thing and keep a firm stock of Occam's
razors nearby.
> Andy
kimmy
all users protect themselves", since you were talking about news groups,
discussion forums, and privacy organizations, it's more likely that a
majority of people protect themselves.
Kimmy
Kristofer Andersson
I would agree that a majority of the readers in this forum probably know how
to protect themselves. But my intention is to spread this information
outside this forum too. So far I have been unsuccessful.
Kristofer Andersson
"nutcase" list and dismissed the whole thing.
I would like to recommend all other BofA customers who are concerned about
this type of profiling to drop them a line and ask what is going on. The
email address is cust...@bankofamerica.com and there is also a secure email
feature on the online bank website.
Randall Bart
in awe as "Brian Macke" <ma...@strangelove.net> uttered:
>> If they said doubleclick is paying them to access their usage data, and
>> no personal info is given and all that reassuring guff, it would be
>> possible to think they are just naiive, or they know and don't care so
>> long as it's within the law.
>
>More likely BofA is paying Doubleclick to collect marketing information on
>its customers. BofA doesn't need DC's money.
I think Bank of America wants money if they can get it, but perhaps you
are right. It could be that BA is paying Doubleclick to correlate the BA
users with other DC marketing data. Thus BA's privacy statement is
correct. BA isn't selling the data to DC but buying data about their
customers from DC. It is possible that all BA sends to DC is IP address
and DC cookie, and DC gives BA their customer dossiers. BA would not be
sharing "customer information" as they understand the term, ie, names
addresses, balances, transactions. Are IP address and DC tracking cookie
customer information.
--
RB |\ © Randall Bart
aa |/ ad...@RandallBart.spam.com Bart...@att.spam.net
nr |\ Please reply without spam I LOVE YOU 1-917-715-0831
dt ||\ Weebl and Bob: http://weebl.brainthru.com
a |/ Smart Greek Dude: http://aristarchus.brainthru.com
l |\ DOT-HS-808-065 The Church Of The Unauthorized Truth:
l |/ MS^7=6/28/107 http://yg.cotut.com mailto:s...@cotut.com
Brian Macke
> Are IP address and DC tracking cookie customer information[?]
I don't work for BofA, but I'm guessing that's a "no" since the
information by itself is not customer-identifiable information.
nospamatall
> I choke at "And there is nothing wrong with that." I do think that if
> "civilization" is to continue (or at least not degenerate further)
> "we" have to be loud and vocal with the miscreants - not just justify
> it as normal human behavior.
Well after reading what you wrote I find myself agreeing with pretty
much all you say. I think the only difference is that while you
concentrate on the need for humans to change (which I agree is needed),
I feel more like questioning the civilization itself; that is, I think
civilization needs to change.
In a world of people all well adapted to living in civilization, we
wouldn't need any privacy rules because no-one would even dream of
violating the personal space of others without their consent. If people
could change then this and other aspects could work out ok, but I dont
think people will, so I think civilization must be adapted to our
natural behaviours, otherwise, well, doom n gloom an all that.
But both are pretty futile aspirations, I suppose.
> It is "normal" human behavior - no argument there either.
It's strange, but when I discuss this with 'political' types, who claim
to be well versed in such matters, this idea seems to cause them great
grief. It's a shame because this understanding would be fundamental to
any possible solutions.
> The problem is what was right for tribal societies in a limitless
> world. (all the human failings are just good evolutionary adaptation
> to the world as it was - AS IT WAS). We change the game - stamp out
> any and all competition with other animals and proceed to continue the
> same behavior that got us here.
I agree except to say that there are still primitive societies on earth
whose only problem is the fact that our civilization wants the 'raw
materials' where they live. Plus the odd religious nutter or
"development" zealot who blunders into them. It would be interesting to
find out what primitve people regard as privacy; how they interact with
each other. I can't see how there would be much in a tribal society.
Perhaps they don't need it as much because there is little or no class
as we have it.
As individuals we can cope quite easily with workmates, neighbours and
so on. Where the problems arise is when we have to interact with a
powerful person or organisation. We have little or no info on them, and
little ability to affect them at all. There is an imbalance of power and
that's when privacy becomes important; when one is at a disadvantage in
relation to the other. The power relations in our society are completely
wrong. Such aggregations of power should not be possible. There doesn't
seem to be any solution. Nature itself will sort out this nosense
eventually, it just would be much better for us we sorted it out
ourselves before that happens. We've seen how nature deals with problems.
> This won't work. For the "most adaptable animal" on the planet - we
> can't/don't adapt fast enough to the world we have produced.
>
> That's where I think the changes should be - the president SHOULD be
> held to a higher standard than the troops he commands. Corporations
> (and people) do have a civic duty that transcends their greed.
>
> Not getting vocal is the same as condoning bad behavior. For a
> positive change (and fast enough to save us) there has to be the
> perception that while these jackasses are behaving "normally," well,
> that just ain't good enough . . .
No it's not good enough for the civilization we are in. And i think with
low expectations (which I think are realistic) individuals will be less
prone to disappointment and costly errors of judgment. But of course,
scream and shout and rant about our 'rights' and stuff like that, if it
has a chance of achieving anything. Use all the tools in the box.
default
<nospa...@eircom.net> wrote:
>default wrote:
>
>> I choke at "And there is nothing wrong with that." I do think that if
>> "civilization" is to continue (or at least not degenerate further)
>> "we" have to be loud and vocal with the miscreants - not just justify
>> it as normal human behavior.
>
>Well after reading what you wrote I find myself agreeing with pretty
>much all you say. I think the only difference is that while you
>concentrate on the need for humans to change (which I agree is needed),
>I feel more like questioning the civilization itself; that is, I think
>civilization needs to change.
>
>In a world of people all well adapted to living in civilization, we
>wouldn't need any privacy rules because no-one would even dream of
>violating the personal space of others without their consent. If people
>could change then this and other aspects could work out ok, but I dont
>think people will, so I think civilization must be adapted to our
>natural behaviours, otherwise, well, doom n gloom an all that.
>
>But both are pretty futile aspirations, I suppose.
>> It is "normal" human behavior - no argument there either.
>
>It's strange, but when I discuss this with 'political' types, who claim
>to be well versed in such matters, this idea seems to cause them great
>grief. It's a shame because this understanding would be fundamental to
>any possible solutions.
I think a problem with political types (if you mean politics in
government) is they have a limited view and lack of vision beyond the
immediate future. (and too frequently their own agendas and self
aggrandizement)
>> The problem is what was right for tribal societies in a limitless
>> world. (all the human failings are just good evolutionary adaptation
>> to the world as it was - AS IT WAS). We change the game - stamp out
>> any and all competition with other animals and proceed to continue the
>> same behavior that got us here.
>I agree except to say that there are still primitive societies on earth
>whose only problem is the fact that our civilization wants the 'raw
>materials' where they live. Plus the odd religious nutter or
>"development" zealot who blunders into them. It would be interesting to
>find out what primitve people regard as privacy; how they interact with
>each other. I can't see how there would be much in a tribal society.
>Perhaps they don't need it as much because there is little or no class
>as we have it.
I like the tech toys and comfort as well as the next person, but the
idea of living in a tribal society doesn't seem that daunting. In a
lot of respects freedom is a lack of possessions. I survived quite
well and very happily with a tent, fishing pole, motorcycle and zero
stress . . . The more "things" one acquires the more limited the
choices. My idyllic dream is where the only choice I make in the
morning is whether to slip under the boat for a lobster or swim to
shore for a piece of fruit.
>As individuals we can cope quite easily with workmates, neighbours and
>so on. Where the problems arise is when we have to interact with a
>powerful person or organisation. We have little or no info on them, and
>little ability to affect them at all. There is an imbalance of power and
>that's when privacy becomes important; when one is at a disadvantage in
>relation to the other. The power relations in our society are completely
>wrong. Such aggregations of power should not be possible. There doesn't
>seem to be any solution. Nature itself will sort out this nosense
>eventually, it just would be much better for us we sorted it out
>ourselves before that happens. We've seen how nature deals with problems.
Individuals in small groups cooperate, in larger groups they compete.
A carry-over from tribal groups?
>
>> This won't work. For the "most adaptable animal" on the planet - we
>> can't/don't adapt fast enough to the world we have produced.
>>
>> That's where I think the changes should be - the president SHOULD be
>> held to a higher standard than the troops he commands. Corporations
>> (and people) do have a civic duty that transcends their greed.
>>
>> Not getting vocal is the same as condoning bad behavior. For a
>> positive change (and fast enough to save us) there has to be the
>> perception that while these jackasses are behaving "normally," well,
>> that just ain't good enough . . .
>
>No it's not good enough for the civilization we are in. And i think with
>low expectations (which I think are realistic) individuals will be less
>prone to disappointment and costly errors of judgment. But of course,
>scream and shout and rant about our 'rights' and stuff like that, if it
>has a chance of achieving anything. Use all the tools in the box.
I guess you and I are not that different. I wonder if all (thinking)
human individuals are that different. Seems likely that large groups
(over population) and organizations are the real problem. Problems
between individuals may be more in the nature of a communication
difficulty.
Enjoyed your reply. Thank you.
Thomas E Dewey
blacklisted and not allowed to work for the rest of my life. I didn't just
whine about the state of things, I did all I could to change them. One
person against an entire society, I hadn't a chance. You'd think there'd be
some appreciation by the military personnel Who's lives were placed in
jeopardy because of anti missile data falsification. As a result many non
working class investors kept their fortunes and several highly questionable
accidents took the lives of many of our young people in the military, as
well as civilians. Also three on my kids were unable to finish college
because I wasn't able to help when they needed it, Nature's way of dealing
with an honest genetic string. Reality is man is and will always be greedy
and interested only in him/herself and propagating his own genes into future
generations of greedy self interested people. Anyone "foolish" enough to
follow my example will pay dearly.news:Kra_b.3928$rb.6...@news.indigo.ie...
Randall Bart
in awe as "Thomas E Dewey" <mr...@access-4-free.com> uttered:
>As a result many non
>working class investors kept their fortunes and several highly questionable
>accidents took the lives of many of our young people in the military, as
>well as civilians. Also three on my kids were unable to finish college
>because I wasn't able to help when they needed it, Nature's way of dealing
>with an honest genetic string.
But do your children respect you for what you did?
Lucky225
Not only is their 'non-customer' customer services shitty, ($5 to cash
a check drawn from their bank.) But now they resort to submitting
tracking info in their online banking. Not just a couple days ago did
a friend of mine's brother who works at Bank Of America abuse his
posistion in the company to find out Social Security Number
information about an enemy of his using only her name to bring her
checking account information up. These banks look at me like a deer
in headlights when I reply I won't open a checking account b/c of
their policy requring an SSN on non-interest bearing accounts, and
wonder what MY problem is with not giving out my personal information,
gee I wonder why.
"CalamityKen" <YK...@home.invalid> wrote in message news:<s6ZXb.3887$Cd6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
Brian Macke
> These banks look at me like a deer in headlights when I reply I won't
> open a checking account b/c of their policy requring an SSN on
> non-interest bearing accounts, and wonder what MY problem is with not
> giving out my personal information, gee I wonder why.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=31&PART=103&SECTION=34&YEAR=2000&TYPE=TEXT
It's not a requirement, but if you're not one of the exceptions you should
expect a deer-in-the-headlights response.
Anthony Brant
social security numbers all the time.
When you're looking up a customer, it comes up in big numbers at the top of
the screen; it's used to track referrals and sales. Without going into
specifics, it's almost as bad for employees because the employee SSN comes
up all the time.
I think there's more justification for a bank to have an SSN than when your
school has it and it's on your ACT test results. It's sickening that people
don't take more security precautions for other people's privacy.
"Brian Macke" <ma...@strangelove.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.03.02....@strangelove.net...
Lucky225
"Brian Macke" <ma...@strangelove.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.03.02....@strangelove.net>...
Randall Bart
awe as "Anthony Brant" <ele...@element.cx> uttered:
>I think there's more justification for a bank to have an SSN than when your
>school has it and it's on your ACT test results. It's sickening that people
>don't take more security precautions for other people's privacy.
I am Data Processing Manager at a college and we need SSNs for financial
aid reasons. Eligibility is tied to your income (an parent's income).
The SSN is used by the National Student Clearinghouse, who need to
determine if a student is getting aid at more than one school, and to
report to the lenders when a student is out of school and needs to start
repayments. We also need to report how much the student paid in tuition
to the IRS.
At one time we had SSNs on the class rosters, right next to the names, but
that is now verboten. We now use ID numbers for most purposes.
--
RB |\ © Randall Bart
aa |/ ad...@RandallBart.spam.com Bart...@att.spam.net
nr |\ Please reply without spam I LOVE YOU 1-917-715-0831
dt ||\ Shards O' Glass: http://www.shardsoglass.com
a |/ Protect Your Brain: http://afdb.brainthru.com
Anthony Brant
ChexSystems, etc.
But I'll admit it's probably a lot better to not even give one at all. Bank
computers aren't too secure...employees never lock their computers and you
can quite easily look up a customer, account numbers and balances, SSN's,
phone numbers, credit card numbers, address, birthday, drivers license
numbers, etc.
> I am Data Processing Manager at a college and we need SSNs for financial
> aid reasons. Eligibility is tied to your income (an parent's income).
Oh yeah, that's one of the reasons why I'm not going to college!
Brian Macke
> But I'll admit it's probably a lot better to not even give one at all.
> Bank computers aren't too secure...employees never lock their computers
> and you can quite easily look up a customer, account numbers and
> balances, SSN's, phone numbers, credit card numbers, address, birthday,
> drivers license numbers, etc.
If you think that banks are being unsafe with your personal information, I
suggest you contact the OCC and/or the FFIEC and have them look into it.
That's their job to look into this sort of thing.
Of course this could be bluster, but if you're serious, posting to usenet
isn't going to solve anything.
> Oh yeah, that's one of the reasons why I'm not going to college!
Hmmm... that worm sure looks tasty, but I think there's a hook stuck in
it.
>> RB |\ © Randall Bart
Sam Francisco
do business with them again. They have engaged in grossly unfair business
practices and fraudlently "robbed " me of nearly $700, nearly a month's
retirement income for us.
"Kristofer Andersson" <kaatpocodotse.ihatespa...@aol.com>
wrote in message news:8NAXb.45642$8a5....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> Because of invalid SSL certificates, I just discovered that Bank of
America
> submits tracking information from every single page in their system to
> doubleclick.net. This really makes me upset because of the bad privacy
> tracking record doubleclick have.
>
>
>
Jeremy
"Sam Francisco" <mr...@toast.net> wrote in message
news:40fa...@news03.toast.net...
> > Because of invalid SSL certificates, I just discovered that Bank of
> America
> > submits tracking information from every single page in their system to
> > doubleclick.net. This really makes me upset because of the bad privacy
> > tracking record doubleclick have.
> >
You should consider The Anonymizer. It strips out all that stuff, before it
gets into your computer via your internet connection.
see www.anonymizer.com for all the details. I've used them for 3 years, and
I can browse the most dangerous sites without fear of spyware, ActiveX
Controls, JavaScript or tracking cookies being deposited onto my hard drive.
They even have a cookie filtering system, where it looks to the web site
that you are accepting their cookies, when in fact you are not! Works great
with the NY Times, where you can't read the articles if your cookies are
turned off.
John Wood
Jeremy
"John Wood" <jw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6SSKc.35209$vO1.1...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> What proof do we have that these things work? If anyting they could be
> actually used to narrow down the field on people who like to protect
> their privacy "red flag" them as trouble makers. I personally would only
> accept something in which source code was available to ensure that this
> was not happening.
>
Anonymizer is a proxy that fetches the web page you want, strips out the
junk, and then forwards it to you over a secure connection (SSH is
optional). The software on your computer is only to connect you to their
proxy--it is not set up to filter anything out at your computer.
Your "how can we trust you" question is best answered by looking at their
web site www.anonymizer.com.
I have been with them 3 years, and it is a real pleasure to surf the net
anonymously. It reminds me of how it was in the early days, before web
sites began collecting personally identifiable information.
Because you can set it up to filter out all JavaScript and ActiveX, it makes
it virtually impossible for a web operator to deposit spyware onto your
computer. And your IP address is hidden from them, so they cannot even know
who you are.
It is not meant to be a means for people to avoid law enforcement--but it is
dandy as a privacy service that keeps commercial web sites out of your
personal business.
John Wood
Jeremy
> If you are just worried about the low level commercial threats, I think
> you can do many of these things by using Netscape in stead of Internet
> Explorer. Netscape allows you much better control of cookies (blocking
> option), you can turn off javascript and most sites will work. It can
> still use clues like your IP address to determine your general location,
> which is one advantage that a remote proxy server would not be subject
> to, but it is free.
>
I am not too concerned about paying $30 per year to retain my privacy.
Anonymizer goes well beyond anything you find in Netscape--in fact you can
use it along with Netscape.
The fact that your ISP cannot log your browsing habits is important to me.
You need a cloaking proxy like Anonymizer to be able to get that level of
privacy. And the fact that the web site that you browse cannot see your IP
address is also important. You can't cloak your IP address with Netscape or
any other browser.
If you really want privacy, you'll need to go beyond just plain old cookie
and Java blocking. The $30 annual charge (for unlimited use) is nothing,
compared to the privacy it affords users.
Jay T. Blocksom
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 13:42:11 -0300, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, John Wood
<jw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> --------------000103020700080400040301
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
[snip]
>
> --------------000103020700080400040301
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
> <html>
> <head>
> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
> <title></title>
> </head>
> <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
[snip]
Please do *NOT* post MIME-formatted or HTML-encoded messages to the
newsgroups! With the exception of certain clearly defined binary newsgroups,
Usenet is a _text_ medium, period. As such, the ONLY appropriate format for
messages is plain-vanilla ASCII or equivalent. Posting MIME/HTML to USEnet
accomplishes only four things:
1. - It needlessly and uselessly bloats the traffic which must be
transported by all newsfeeds, 'net-wide.
2. - It causes all kinds of grief for many folks trying to read Usenet
using all manner of equipment and software which does _not_ make
the same set of (erroneous) assumptions that _your_ newsreader
software does.
3. - It is self-defeating. Many ISPs and other NNTP operators will
automatically filter (i.e., kill) ANY post which contains HTML,
regardless of whether or not it is or isn't otherwise appropriate
for the newsgroup(s) posted to. So your words of "wisdom" will
never appear on these servers, or any "downstream" servers which
peer with them.
4. - It exposes you as a clueless newbie.
Thank you for your understanding and future cooperation.
--
Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this domain is expressly prohibited under
47 USC S227 and State Law. Violators are subject to prosecution.
Tarapia Tapioco
>Please do *NOT* post MIME-formatted or HTML-encoded messages to the
>newsgroups! With the exception of certain clearly defined binary newsgroups,
>Usenet is a _text_ medium, period. As such, the ONLY appropriate format for
Bullshit. If that were true there would be no such thing as multipart/mime
encoding.
>messages is plain-vanilla ASCII or equivalent. Posting MIME/HTML to USEnet
>accomplishes only four things:
>
>1. - It needlessly and uselessly bloats the traffic which must be
> transported by all newsfeeds, 'net-wide.
99% of all posts made to Usenet are unneeded, useless bloat. Including your
little wannabe net cop rant.
>
>2. - It causes all kinds of grief for many folks trying to read Usenet
> using all manner of equipment and software which does _not_ make
> the same set of (erroneous) assumptions that _your_ newsreader
> software does.
No, it doesn't. If your news reader can't handle multipart messages you
have other issues that cause you grief.
?
>3. - It is self-defeating. Many ISPs and other NNTP operators will
> automatically filter (i.e., kill) ANY post which contains HTML,
> regardless of whether or not it is or isn't otherwise appropriate
> for the newsgroup(s) posted to. So your words of "wisdom" will
> never appear on these servers, or any "downstream" servers which
> peer with them.
Name one news provider or ISP that filters HTML messages.
>
>4. - It exposes you as a clueless newbie.
Pretending you know what you're talking about and making up "facts" based
on your bullshit assumptions expose you as a clueless newbie.
>
>Thank you for your understanding and future cooperation.
Thank you for your shining example of cranial rectumitis.
>
>--
>
>Jay T. Blocksom
>--------------------------------
>Appropriate Technology, Inc.
>usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net
So you're a full time wannabe net cop then?
<ROTFL>
jp10558
Hash: SHA1
The only thing is that you are telling the Anonymizer everything you
do. Whether they sell this info or not is unknown.
You could use something like multiproxy or the stealther for a
program based connection to random remote anonymous proxies. No one
proxy gets all or even a substantial amount of your surfing data. The
downside is that again, the one that provides the auto proxy
discovery and SSL is closed source so you are still choosing who to
trust.
What I do is chain the proxomitron through to the stealther, this
brings much more of the control to me on my PC. Still not foolproof
as the programs are not open source...
One downside is the cookie issue, which is just blocked in my setup.
However the only reason for a website to use a cookie is to track
you, so I don't feel very bad.
The upside is that the stealther is a one time cost, and multiproxy
is free.
One other question, does the Anonymizer service / program work with
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32) - WinPT 0.7.96rc1
iD8DBQFBBDU0MA6GdHjsAuARAhVTAJ4jtAhjtsDkCWl4T6+EZ5HV8DlGMQCgmFk8
q5+q9Mkn/CtLjLRBcmhX5p0=
=TXCX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jay T. Blocksom
Tapioco <comes...@ntani.firenze.linux.it> wrote:
>
[snip]
Obviously, a psudo-anonymous coward troll. But just in case anyone is foolish
enough to take it seriously...
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2004, "Jay T. Blocksom" wrote:
>
> >Please do *NOT* post MIME-formatted or HTML-encoded messages to the
> >newsgroups! With the exception of certain clearly defined binary
> >newsgroups, Usenet is a _text_ medium, period. As such, the ONLY
> >appropriate format for
>
> Bullshit. If that were true there would be no such thing as multipart/mime
> encoding.
>
[snip]
Do you have ANY clue what the acronym "MIME" stands for?
Hmmm..?
I thought not. Here's a hint: "Usenet" != "Mail".
Now crawl back under your bridge.
--
Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
George Orwell
>Obviously, a psudo-anonymous coward troll. But just in case anyone is foolish
>enough to take it seriously...
Obviously you couldn't get a clue in a room full of horny clues doing the
clue mating dance with clue musk rubbed all over your body, but just in
case anyone is foolish enough to give even the slightest bit of credibility
to a sexually frustrated net-cop wannabe...
> > >Please do *NOT* post MIME-formatted or HTML-encoded messages to the
> > >newsgroups! With the exception of certain clearly defined binary
> > >newsgroups, Usenet is a _text_ medium, period. As such, the ONLY
> > >appropriate format for
> >
> > Bullshit. If that were true there would be no such thing as multipart/mime
> > encoding.
> >
> [snip]
>
>Do you have ANY clue what the acronym "MIME" stands for?
>
>Hmmm..?
>
>I thought not. Here's a hint: "Usenet" != "Mail".
Do you have ANY clue about how many RFC's mention, outline, describe,
and/or detail MIME implementations is Usenet posts?
Hmmmmmmm......???
I thought not. Here's a hint: About two dozen.
>Now crawl back under your bridge.
Now go back to trying to impress your boyfriends by puffing your little
net-cop chest out on a Friday night after you've had a couple too many
Fuzzy Navels.
Sam Morton
>Do you have ANY clue what the acronym "MIME" stands for?
>
>Hmmm..?
>
>I thought not. Here's a hint: "Usenet" != "Mail".
Then maybe you can explain this, from your own headers.....
From: "Jay T. Blocksom" <not.deliver...@appropriate-tech.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Yeah right, MIME is just an email thing.
Fucking moron netkop. Get a life.
--
Questo messaggio e' stato inoltrato automaticamente
da un paio di anonymous remailer. Il mittente originale
e' sconosciuto e non identificabile. Datevi pace.