Blue Apples, privacy, and Web Bugs at FR

5/10/2004 | self

[Future Useless Eater]

Blue Apples, privacy, and Web Bugs at FR

Some freepers use a visible graphic or 'icon' on their every post such as one person that uses a "blue apple" from his own home webspace. Icons like that can serve as a 'web-bug' to harvest personal info from freepers.

Now I realize FR doesn't allow java, javascript, vbscript, or active-x content so the risk is lowered. But some of these same freepers are also amatuer programmers with access to detailed webmaster server-access statistics. Those stats can collect the IP addresses, and a number of other environment variables from every computer that accesses a planted 'image'. So its possible for one of them to, let's say 'match-up' your comments here and learn personal details about you that he can abuse in dispicable ways.

I wish the Robinson's would make some type of policy statement at the very least, about web-bugs. Some things I might recommend are:

• enforcing no images smaller than 10x10 unless the image originates from freerepublic.com.
• enforcing all non-FR images to have a 1-pixel 'link' drawn around them in case the image happens to be otherwise invisible, like this
• allowing and encouraging freepers to upload commonly used icons into FR webspace.
• banning of images that appear to be there for cyber-tracking purposes.

Whenever it becomes KNOWN that a freeper you disagree with strongly may be mining his posts with web-bugs, there is a way to block them. For example, all Windows computers have a plain-text 'hosts' file, and you can add entries to that to block graphics from any particular server, (including many advertisement servers by the way!).

On XP computers, that 'hosts' file probably resides at:
  "c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts"
It can be edited with a plain-text editor, and the following sample lines inserted...
(you should do this editing ONLY when your browser is totally shut down)

0.0.0.0     home.hiwaay.net
0.0.0.0     doubleclick.com
0.0.0.0     doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0     ads.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0     ad.trafficcmp.com
0.0.0.0     popup.msn.com
0.0.0.0     ads.specificpopup.com
0.0.0.0     ads.specificpop.com
0.0.0.0     ads.specificclick.com

The first line will block the blue apple 'icon'. The others will block some of the worst ad-servers or spyware tracking sites. I like to browse my 'cookies' file occasionally, and when I see a server that is setting cookies (or serving popups or annoying ads), add a line to the 'hosts' file to permanently block them.

John Robinson, have you ever discussed or considered web-bugs here at FR?

[Future Useless Eater]

>>think I was the BEST.

Sheesh, ok, the WORST example. Go away.

>>did you bother to download my .GIF and look in the binary for hidden code?

Don't play SO dumb. web bugs have nothing IN them.

>>Abuse on the drug threads?

I saw other people slammed unfairly

>>Posting patterns? So what?

I saw other people slammed unfairly and intimidated.
Plus someone would imply they could identify them and rat them out to their employer. Giddy jerks,
but they succeeded in monopolizing the discussions.

Now could you please leave me alone and stop harassing me.
Yea, I know I cc'ed you out of courtesy so you used that
to argue.

[Future Useless Eater]

I have commitments now and will be gone for quite a while.

[general_re]

I'm more concerned about the angry nut-job or quack lawyer that I angered last week, coming after me next week.

So am I - how do you think the angry nutjob will go about finding you next week?

[L.N. Smithee]

William Terrell to FL_engineer: If you have dark suspicions of the many faces of MrLeRoy, then don't you request that I run charts of those names you think are reincarnations of him? Will be happy to email them to you.

Well, that's rather inconsistent of you, wouldn't you agree?

According to all available evidence, you openly posted cinFLA's posting patterns in this post in which you -- in response to tdadams' assertion that "[S/he] is a certifiable nutcase. Medically, clinically insane" -- countered:

---

I don't think he (or she) is that bad. His (her) posting patterns are interesting, from my viewpoint, though.

---

(cinFLA was not pinged to the post, which runs afoul of commonly accepted FR etiquette.)

The next morning, P_A_I responded to your post of cinFLA's posting patterns thusly:

---

Seems to be a sort of '9 to 5' posting pattern, which seems to be typical of certain overly conformist types around here. Perhaps its indicative of the bureaucratic mind at work.

---

The following morning, in response to the above-noted P_A_I post, you posted another Freeper's chart (once again, without his being pinged), with this note:

---

You were interested in Roscoe.

---

This silently suggests that P_A_I had somehow requested Roscoe's chart. Why? Could it be that P_A_I sought support for his postulate about the posting patterns of "the overly conformist types around here," as Roscoe is occasionally viewed as being? It could indeed be, but there is no record of P_A_I's "interest" in Roscoe's chart in the thread. Apparently, P_A_I's request was through either email or FReepmail; nevertheless, Roscoe's posting patterns were provided by you in the thread. You didn't seem to think twice about whether you should email P_A_I.

To all but the most vindictive OR fretfully dense readers, it is clear that you either believe -- or wish others to believe -- that the posting patterns are some sort of indication of one's mental health or lack of same. At the very least, such murmurings are as irritating as when astrology buffs tell you they know more about you then you know about yourself based on your date of birth.

Your smarmy, disingenuous response to FL_engineer -- "If the information is useless, why do you worry about it? Paranoia ill becomes you, my friend, especially ill thought out paranoia" -- begs more questions in response: If you are truly agreeing that the information is 'useless,' why did you write the program that performs the task and refer to the posted results as "interesting, from my viewpoint"? If you discovered that an ideological opponent was making inferences about your character to potentially hundreds of thousands of people using information that you didn't have access to, wouldn't that be a reason to distrustful -- NOT "paranoid" (Definition #2)?

[tpaine]

-- As I commented at #29, there are valid uses to such posting info.

You didn't provide support for any valid use in post #29. Try again. And this time, try to be intellectually honest.

My comments 'support' themselves, smithee. -- You're being dishonest by not citing the specifics of my supposed dishonesty.
Here's my post #29. -- Try again yourself.

FL_engineer wrote:
General questions to all of you, Do you agree some people could find their posting-patterns put on public display to be intimidating, or have a chilling effect on them?

Of course it could, if said posting patterns revealed that they were only posting during business hours, for instance.. Leads one to wonder, at least, - who is paying for their chit-chat habits..
-- I suspect that in many such cases, the public is paying.
Just a hunch of course, based on the fact that most of these 9 to 5 types support bureaucratic institutions .

Do you agree this sometimes seems to be done to silence their competition?
Do you agree this could be seen as abusive?

I see it as a form of whistle blowing on cheating public servants, -- But I could be wrong, of course.

or wasteful of F.R.'s CPU time or bandwidth?

Thats what FR is all about, imo, exposing government cheating, fraud & corruption.. You object?
#29

[L.N. Smithee]

My comments 'support' themselves, smithee. -- You're being dishonest by not citing the specifics of my supposed dishonesty.

Nonsense. Anyone who wishes to know would have clicked on the trusty "|To 29|" underneath my post, and read your shockingly lame argument that somehow, publishing a user's pattern is "whistle blowing on cheating public servants" who FReep during working hours. I don't think you're stupid enough to believe that, but I do believe you think there are people here who are stupid enough to buy it.

[William Terrell]

Do you have any ethical considerations? Or did you just make a mistake? Your post was to no poster, even though it was to me. As a result, I didn't see it on my current posts page. If I had not opened up the thread to look at a comment, I would never have seen it.

I'll assume you make a mistake. I don't think you are unethical, just emotional, even though you posted this entire thread, which was exclusively about me, and didn't notify me.

Don't play SO dumb. web bugs have nothing IN them.

I have no idea what web bugs are. But it seemed that if you had enough knowledge to be afraid, you would have enough knowledge to verify your fears. Excuse me for assuming too much.

I saw other people slammed unfairly

Define "unfair". When a poster declares his position, he agrees to debate it, or he should not declare it. In my experience, those with no evidence of their belief, yet continue to have that belief are the ones who resort to "slamming". That may probably include you, for I have seen much slamming from you with a faint hearted avoidance for being slammed.

Discussions are "monopolized" with truth, evidence and logical analysis thereof. But, in your defense, the drug threads do get hot. Before, however, you can criticize the heat, you must be willing to get in the kitchen and show us your cooking.

I repeat, so what? I did indeed post posting patterns, but I also posted my own. Did you fail to notice that?

I'll leave you alone when you stop making comments on my life, soul, ethic, honor and private life, all of which you know nothing about. And not alert me to it, either. Do you include that in your notion of "unfair" "slamming"?

I'll say something you will probably reject, but I'm going to say it anyway. It's my opinion. Emotion is an energy source to impel you along the path you have chosen to be the proper one. Reason is the faculty you use to determine that path. Emotion can't do reason's job and reason can't do emotion's job.

In other words, the heart has no gray matter and the head has no heart. They are both tools to use properly. Use them.

May the blessing of Christ be on you and yours. I'll see you in the next cartoon.

[William Terrell]

Do you have any ethical considerations? Or did you just make a mistake? Your post was to no poster, even though it was to me. As a result, I didn't see it on my current posts page. If I had not opened up the thread to look at a comment, I would never have seen it.

I'll assume you make a mistake. I don't think you are unethical, just emotional, even though you posted this entire thread, which was exclusively about me, and didn't notify me.

Don't play SO dumb. web bugs have nothing IN them.

I have no idea what web bugs are. But it seemed that if you had enough knowledge to be afraid, you would have enough knowledge to verify your fears. Excuse me for assuming too much.

I saw other people slammed unfairly

Define "unfair". When a poster declares his position, he agrees to debate it, or he should not declare it. In my experience, those with no evidence of their belief, yet continue to have that belief are the ones who resort to "slamming". That may probably include you, for I have seen much slamming from you with a faint hearted avoidence for being slammed.

Discussions are "monopolized" with truth, evidence and logical analysis thereof. But, in your defense, the drug threads do get hot. Before, however, you can critize the heat, you must be willing to get in the kitchen and show us your cooking.

I repeat, so what? I did indeed post posting patterns, but I also posted my own. Did you fail to notice that?

I'll leave you alone when you stop making comments on my life, soul, ethic, honor and private life, all of which you know nothing about. And not alert me to it, either. Do you include that in your notion of "unfair" "slamming"?

I'll say something you will probably reject, but I'm going to say it anyway. It's my opinion. Emotion is an energy source to impel you along the path you have chosen to be the proper one. Reason is the faculty you use to determine that path. Emotion can't do reason's job and reason can't do emotion's job.

In other words, the heart has no gray matter and the head has no heart. They are both tools to use properly. Use them.

May the blessing of Christ be on you and yours. I'll see you in the next cartoon.

[philman_36]

So why have you pinged me to this?

[William Terrell]

Well, that's rather inconsistent of you, wouldn't you agree?

No. I had already decided not to post them any more. In fact, you'll notice that I haven't posted any more.

This silently suggests that P_A_I had somehow requested Roscoe's chart.

He did, via FRmail. As I said I'm not posting any more.

. . .that the posting patterns are some sort of indication of one's mental health or lack of same.

Nothing to do with mental health. Just patterns. Like my own, which I also posted. Did you see that? It was on the same thread.

If you are truly agreeing that the information is 'useless,' why did you write the program that performs the task and refer to the posted results as "interesting, from my viewpoint"?

I refered to that poster's claim that the info was useless. It was not my claim. I still think the info arranged visually on those chart is interesting. Sorry you don't like it. I wrote the program because I had the idea and I like to program.

Anyone has access to the information I used. If someone else had written a program like that and posted mine (as I did on myself) I would think it was amusing and interesting to see my posting patterns in that way.

Thanks for your concerns, though, and letting me address them.

[L.N. Smithee]

Sorry -- I have just discovered that the link on my response to you was not to your post in #29, it was to #34.

Nonetheless, anyone who is on FR is probably intelligent enough to find your post him/herself. I commented on your response; I did not mischaracterize it.

[William Terrell]

Sorry about the double post. Windows clitched when I was posting and I didn't think the post made to the board. Had to reboot.

[L.N. Smithee]

Before editing my thread for the sake of clarity, I referred to and linked to your response to cinFLA's posting patterns. Sorry.

[tpaine]

tpaine
Sorry -- I have just discovered that the link on my response to you was not to your post in #29, it was to #34.

Nonetheless, anyone who is on FR is probably intelligent enough to find your post him/herself.

I commented on your response; I did not mischaracterize it.
91 -smithee-

_____________________________________

I commented on FL_engineer's post, as anyone can see at #29..

It is also apparent you mischaracterized that post as being somehow "dishonest", an unsupported assumption.

[TigersEye]

Post #74 makes you sound like a paranoid. Really, get a grip.

[TigersEye]

If you prefer to think that I didn't respond because I'm aware of the inherent wrongness of my position, think again. I told why I didn't answer your post; I didn't answer any post beyond a certain point.

Sheesh! I guess this is what I get for butting in. Here ... maybe this will help.

Do, feel free to point me to the post you think I can't reasonably answer, or don't refer to the fact that I didn't. That's all.

I will refer to whatever I like. Thanks!

[William Terrell]

You're welcome.

[Golden Eagle]

I'm thinking about opening a "header" and "footer" HTML area that will automatically bracket all posts with these personal decorations. (Some people like them, and they do add character to a post.) I would then provide a configuration option to allow others to disable this added fluff.

Thanks for all your work. The basic B/W of FR is what makes the words have to stand on their own. Allow those that which to post signatures to continue to do so, but please don't make that a standard feature. Thanks again.

[HairOfTheDog]

I won't bother correcting you, or pointing out the dastardly things that 'could' be done because that will only give @ssholes more ideas.

Couldn't a guy just follow you home from the store and get a better payoff for their time? Honestly. You give much more personal, and ~useful~ information to the convenience store clerk where you buy gas than anyone can gather from tracking whether you looked at a FR thread.

[Robert Teesdale]

I think that it should be acknowledged that it's quite a simple matter for a patient and determined investigator to amass reams of information about another person, especially in our interlinked information age. It's just the nature of the times we live in.

I recall, for example, when I had to hire a private investigator to help locate my son (my ex-wife had absconded with him). He asked for information not just on her, but on the woman I thought she might be staying with.

A couple of days later I had for him not just the woman's name, address and phone number, but also e-mail address, photograph, SSN, work history, social activity history, religious affiliations, the value of her home, and much more. All from looking online, patiently and with the determination of a very frightened father.

Now imagine what information can be pulled by a professional investigator (which I am assuredly not; I'm just fairly decent with a search engine) on someone who frequently posts online at Free Republic, or for that matter DU or any online community.

It's essentially, I've come to believe, the cost of doing political business. Sometimes your life is an open book, and sometimes it's not. Yes, there are indeed people who will attempt to dig into your life and use what they find to intimidate, harass or threaten. It isn't, of course, fun by any stretch of the imagination.

I suppose I have a slightly thicker skin by necessity. I came to FR following my involvement with the Tyranny Response Team. The TRT was confrontational, very public and rather radical. So steeling myself to be resolute in the face of this sort of investigative invasion has, perhaps, been somewhat of a necessary default. It's one of the reasons I always use my name on forums, instead of a handle. It's my own way of forcing myself to be brave, and to stand up for what I believe in despite the occasional hate mail or online nonsense.

You simply cannot hide. So I might as well put my game face forward and remember that ultimately, my safety and that of my family doesn't depend upon the goodwill or courtesy of others - but the knowledge that I am alert, armed, and have large dogs on the property. Which, in the final analysis, seems a better support than presumed anonymity anyway.

There are good and bad folks out there. Generally, good folks won't - as has been noted here - do this sort of thing, and will nearly always be repulsed by it. And that's good, and a worthwhile thing to remember.

About seven months ago a former poster on FR posted a rather vicious written assault against me on a discussion thread. I still read it from time to time, as a good reminder that an extremely thick skin is necessary for those who wish to be publicly politically active. And, of course, when you're receiving flak - you're over the target. Judging by this, the poster still festers a bit about our exchange.

And that's really okay.

It is instructive to research yourself from time to time, just to see what's out there. A good habit; a bit like surveying your property line once every few months, looking for snipped fence links or unwanted dumping. We live in an age where virtuality is as real as the physical.