<div style="font-size: 8pt; color: rgb(119, 119, 119); font-family: Arial;">He had a couple of other programs to do the tracking with;
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2003 Robinson-DeFehr Consulting, LLC.
</div>
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
_uacct = "UA-2288668-1";
urchinTracker();
</script>
</body></html>
Then he brought in FR 'awstats' Edition ^.
If you want to secure your own system get a copy of G-Zapper ^. It cleans/prevents Google et el tracking. It put the following in my 'hosts' file under the systems 'Window' folder:
# Begin GZapper
0.0.0.0 www.google-analytics.com
# End GZapper
That just consigns any reference for that site to the bit-bucket. I'm sure there's others out there like GZ. Bottom line is don't rely on others to secure your system from all the script-kiddies and their corporate devils.
This is the first I've heard of this. Can you tell me about it? (Am I supposed to track the comings and goings of visitors to MY website too? Papers, please?)
thanks to Sarbanes-Oxley overkill also to meet legal requirements and keep Jim out of trouble
I have the googlepest blocked via a Firefox add-in, but have been planning on adding it to my HOSTS file (which is currently obscenely immense, and not nearly big enough. Ah, the paradox of "life" in an invasion-centric age...)
If you want to secure your own system get a copy of G-Zapper ^. It cleans/prevents Google et el tracking. It put the following in my 'hosts' file under the systems 'Window' folder:# Begin GZapper
0.0.0.0 www.google-analytics.com
# End GZapperThat just consigns any reference for that site to the bit-bucket. I'm sure there's others out there like GZ. Bottom line is don't rely on others to secure your system from all the script-kiddies and their corporate devils.
BTW I would suggest null-routing to 127.0.0.1 rather than 0.0.0.0 -- the former is your own machine ("localhost"), whereas the latter is something that *could* be routable, should something unlikely, but possible happen upstream from your box.
As a postscript, I really don't like what Google has become. I will be polite, and say that they've become a bit too big for my britches. Their "don't be evil" crap has become a cynical joke, as they dive into their goal of owning everything about everyone, everywhere. It just plain sucks, and it's evil with bells on -- and a low-hanging fruit for any "civil authority" OR "civil litigant" looking to pluck "everything on anyone."
I do use their toolbar on IE -- but, I have it locked down in "spayed and neutered" mode, AND, I have furthermore gone to the Trouble (with a kapital T) to REALLY lock it down at Ver. 3.0.131.0 -- the last version before it went uber-invasive-on-crack (and the last version with a usable UI). Still, the @#$%^ tries (in vain) to "upgrade" itself to what THEY want to have shoved onto MY machine. It can't, of course -- and I expect that some day, they'll probably tell their servers to stop honoring queries from older toolbar versions, at which point I'll just delete it, and they can go piss in the wind.
It's MY machine, not *theirs*, and I will decide what software runs on it, not them, or anyone else. If I want to run an application, I'll be damned if I will allow someone to take it away from me when I'm not looking, and replace it with some invasive POS with a totally different (and unusable) interface, and snoopy crap I'll have to start all over again trying to castrate.
I guess that business about "power corrupts" is pretty much on the mark.
As as post-postscript, I'd really question the wisdom of handing the Googlekreepz "the keys to the kingdom", even if it is for a "free lunch." Handing those guys a complete detailed log of "everything on everyone" on a site like this -- with them being as politically "progressive" as they are... it can't be that different from giving George Soros the keys to the back door with a welcome mat laid out on the doorstep.
TANSTAAFL!
And, "Cui bono?" (WHY do they offer such a neato-keeno "service" -- part of which involves THEM obtaining full traffic/profiling data?)
Finally, if this logging is being done in response to some kind of statutory obligation, ISTM that it's fallen far short of the mark, since it can be defeated with such trivial ease (whereas "in-house" logging cannot be defeated, and in fact, does not even need to be visible to the clients).