EXTRA BITS - Follow the Cookie Trail - Computerphile
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- Main video is at: • Follow the Cookie Trai...
This is extra footage from Tom Rodden on tracking cookies and some of the controversy surrounding digital data.
Video filmed and edited by Sean Riley.
Computerphile is a project by Brady Haran. See the full list of Brady's video projects at: periodicvideos....
Computer Science at the University of Nottingham: bit.ly/nottscom...
An adblocker will only stop ads from being displayed - you can still be tracked through cookies. If you're concerned about that kind of thing you can use an anti-tracking addon like Ghostery.
Thanks Computerphile. I've just been through my browser security setting and I was surprised when not everything was set to private. There's no point having a top notch anti-virus when the browser isn't secure. Drinks on me tonight!
Yeah, that one is actually watching all the time, since they have some controls bound to gestures, and those should work even when the console is sleeping.
I have seen my grandparents' computers. I am pretty sure they are generating enough ads revenue for the rest of the family to use adblock conscientiously.
Perfect timing, considering the Xbox One reveal.
I could listen to him talk for hours....
that blocks flash and javascript not only ads.
anyone else reminded of the always on kinect on the xbox one?
Is that staff paper... like for music?
So if the adverts have no effect on you why not just watch them so your favorite content creators can actually make money from what they do, I have an adblocker for general internet use but I turn it off for the websites I like and want to see thrive, I turn it off for youtube for example
What did he say?
Adblock doesn't allow Brady to get any money from your views, yes.
Even though its 3am in the morning where I live, and I'm stuck doing computer engineering homework and presentations, I muster the courage to watch a video which hurts me in reminding me that my homework is not yet finished. Great job Brady :)
wait wtf tvs are now being sold with cameras? what the fuck. no really, what? what could that possibly be used for except to read peoples reactions to advertisements?
I must say that is the cleanest list of cookies I've ever seen. Most of the computers I've had to examine were riddled with cookies from porn sites or illegal software sites
What about the use of sound recorder programs? Putting black tape over a webcam is one thing, masking the audio input is another. Anybody want to add to this?
"Extra Bits"
I see what you did there Brady...
orange chair
That's so creepy, I was thinking about 1984 just before he mentioned that book.
"Enhance the advertisement experience" - Advertising isn't an experience, it's a necessary evil... Personaly I use AdblockPlus and I think it's freaking awesome. Cookies may still be transferred, but at least I don't have to look at all the scams and stupid flash animations. Yeah, some sites depend on advertising, but others (I'm looking at you google) have gone way too far with the whole thing and are starting to destroy the whole idea that the internet shouldn't be a capitalist entity.
Brady, I have a suggestion and I think it might even be helpful for you
How does adblock work and does it hurt youtubers and web-page owners?
ads are shitty unless it's something you want to buy then you're thankful but don't worry the hypocrisy is waived lol, they are annoying yes but id rather personalized ads than some crap i don't want to buy, personalized ads are less annoying even if i dont want to buy the product at least i has some of my interests
1984 fuck I was thinking that when he said it.
Online ads strike me as so pointless. I can't recall the last time I was interested enough in an ad to click on it. I think seeing something in an online ad actually makes me feel more negatively about it at this point. Like, that's not what I come to this site for, leave me alone. It's not like I have the money to shop anyway; I haven't been able to afford to buy anything I don't need in years.
what does it mean when I click the tick box in my web browser "tell website i do not want to be tracked" does this acually do anything?
+Marius Ammann It essentially just sends an extra header "dnt: 1" (Do Not Track) which MAY be honored by the advertising company. Probably not, I don't think there is any law which says it must be honored and how is it controlled. It is really up to the ad company, they will still send down the tracking cookie and you don't know if they will use it the way you asked them to (to not use it for tracking). For more info, google "do not track header".
There was a huge explosion of growth of interest for UA-cam before the expansion of professional content makers and\or advert mechanics. It had to do with freedom of expression and "hobbyists" and 14 year olds and ALL other being able to provide content free of consideration for advert revenue. This approach to media production is and will remain pure and genuine and authentic and is the how many so called professionals started their thing. This, all of us, still breathe with joy. I believe ;)
Ads seem so pointless to me, i know its not something that would ever go away and there are some benifits to it but i almost always know when i want to buy something. I dont think there has ever been a time ive bought something as a result of seeing an advert, the part i really dont like is advertising companies are now trying so many ways to target adverts, doing everything they can to make you buy something. tracking what pages you visit to get a picture of what you like and things like that all to increase the chances of you clicking the advert. Seems so stupid that so much effort is put into creating an advert that is aimed at you and with everything placed perfectly to hold your attention and draw you in, why cant we just have advert that tell us what the product is, what it does and how well it does it. instead of the way things are right now where advertising companies try all these slightly underhanded techniques to get your attention and everyone knows they do, i mean seriously, when was the last time you saw an advert online and thought, oh that ad looks trustworthy...
ShadowScotsman While they might seem pointless, while you and I are people who will not buy stuff wee see in adverts, I don't think I ever clicked one, I'm not sure if avoiding ads is my sixth sense, the system in the number one money maker on the internet. Google has been the fastest growing company in the computer business. And it has done so exclusively with ads. They wanted to have a nice clean search page. So they invented AdSense and AdWords, one for the advertiser and the other for the publisher. And they got so much money out of it in such a short amount of time that Microsoft has not even gotten a fighting chance against them. They went from not even on the radar and now Google is in the position to replace Windows with Android as the most used operating system in the world.It is no woo woo conspiracy theory the fact that corporations have become citizens and in part at least, citizens have become merchandise. If Facebook gives you their services for free, that means that you are not a customer. Advertisers are the customers, you are what they sell and there are no laws protecting merchandise, from my knowledge.
Better still, your comment has 8 thumbs up at the moment!
About targeted adverts. I remember when computer magasines started to advetise clocks, cars and boats. Up until some time in 90's all adverts in computer magasines were for hardware and software. But then about in mid 90's there started to be these luxury item adverts.
Combining the good with the necessary:
A cookie for a cookie:
Each third party cookie = 1 cookie or financial equivalent to starving children.
You can bet your ass people will troll the living daylight out of something like that. XD
The Internet gives you the power to be both client and server but you have no idea what that means.
You talk about the web just like if it was a big television. You think UA-cam is the only website you can upload your video to but in fact they used to be more options before the acquisition of UA-cam by Google 7 years ago.
I think diversity is the force of the Internet, you say centralisations is better. You like big supermarket, I like small producers.
Add-block works kinda like an anti virus program. It scans a pages source code and deletes all lines of advertisement. technically that wouldn't damage youtubers and website hosts because the ads are not VISIBLE to you but are still there in the background so the advertising company THINKS you're looking at their ad. of course these companies have figured that out and through html programming, a lot of sites now have an "ad-block detector", that kindly asks you to allow ads on their site.
Not sure about connection between cookies and cams in TVs. Cameras are more like an argument in favour of free software which gives the user full control over her device.
Ultimately, if someone does not like third party cookies, dose can be blocked by the browser making tracking harder (there are still other fingerprinting methods though).
And by the way, the current legistlations are too broad and make matter worse since the warning now shows on all websites which will make user ignore it.
You believe wrong.
If a content is so good and unique, then the company behind it should simply be able to sell it.
I read a lots of blogs about engineering and computer technology. This is were I find the best technical information because they are written by real passionate people. Just like this video. On the other hand, large websites full of adverts are often inaccurate because written by people that are trying to generate a lot of traffic so they can make money.
Far from it in my example. If you have the internet, most likely you have a service provider. Many offer "free" webspace and hosting as part of the service. There are other methods of funding. Or, we make media as a hobby and don't charge (see ViHeart for example). Or we charge but through a more successful means (see Kickstarter or Indigogo). "Adverts" are not the only option. They are not even the best option.
I prefer sessions, they store a very small randomly generated cookie that tells the server where to look for temporary data that is stored on the server, not on the client (you, the second party). They only last for the life of the session, but they're far more secure than cookies.
Basically, if someone intercepted a login, and captured and copied your "AUTH" cookie, they could log in as you. If someone copied your "session id" cookie, the server would notice the duplicate session and kill it.
To the last question in the video - The company/person who created the software/hardware controls the camera. This is the whole point of the Free Software Foundation and GNU project - To give the control to the user. As for adverts paying content provider's way, well, if this is what adverts are doing (And without having control over the advertising software we don't know for sure) Then we need to find a better way to fund the content we want...
Copying in general is still bad. If you copy on anything except for the notes the teacher give you (Which is like free software that are online), you get in trouble. Either way, this debate is dumb. Piracy is still illegal. Doesn't matter is copying or not, when you pirate something, you are not giving support for the hard work for the developers. Which is bad.
Please stop the misleading cookie info. I'll agree that the sharing of information is a concern, but that's always been a concern. Cookies are not the issue in any way or length. Cookies do NOT give new information about you to a site. In most cases the only information they do store is a single ID..
In terms of tracking and user information the ONLY thing a cookie is useful for is for the server to know which ID it had already given to you. None of the personal stuff has anything to do with it.
Think of it this way. It is not a God given right for you to drive. But you have a license and you bought a car, however; there is truly nothing protecting you from what may happen to you in that car. Insurance helps, but if you are dead.. game over. You may pay tolls,you may violate laws, you may get tickets... You are exercising a privilege by driving that car. The internet is somewhat similar. Just having access doesn't make everything free.
UA-cam was free before ads. The dawn of paid flash games and youtube channels has a lot more to do with this attitude of 'supporting'.
What you're doing is setting a monetary insentive for youtubers to make videos for your demand, and not for their own personal gratification.
By blocking the ads, I send the message that yes, I watched this video, and no, you shouldn't care. 'Supporting' is a glorified need to own and control. There's nothing philanthropic about it.
Ahhhh, cookies... ad-blockers work, but now, websites are starting to make sure that all of their scripts are loaded before they display anything (UA-cam seems to act this way now) Although I've gotten avoiding advertising into a subconscious art. The only ads I'll still notice where the ads I noticed before I've gotten good at ignoring it. Evony being an example (though that was a decent game, to be fair)
Ah yeah in that case you have a point.
I'm a PC gamer and don't buy consoles, so that idea isn't for me. So it makes sense why you wouldn't appreciate a Smart TV.
As for PC, I do so too, though sometimes, watching a movie or anime on the large TV with family makes more sense to me.
And truth be told, the reason I got a Smart TV is because how common they are in the market nowadays. The quality of TV I was getting was by itself the main reason, the features were second. No regrets, though.
If you feel that way then yeah Smart TVs are not for you.
I on the other hand love them. Having the ability to stream content to my TV via Netflix, XBMC and CrunchyRoll makes having one worth the money that they currently cost. Hey even my sister loves it as she can Skype our family more comfortably than using a phone or desktop.
To say that they have the functionality of a smart phone is missing the point. Though yeah, you really need to know what you want from it to enjoy it.
Relevant to the idea being mentioned at the end of the video is the new Xbox One that's coming out. It has built in kinect with a camera and mic and requires a 24/7 internet connection. Sure they say you don't have to be online all the time when using it, but they do say it still needs to be on hooked up to the internet 24/7 so it can sync to the cloud and all that stuff, at any given time. You wanna go sensationalist, facial recognition during advertisements on things like Hulu and youtube.
Don't forget that these aren't companies making content. UA-cam makes it easy and convenient for people to create their own content. There aren't many websites or services out there that offer the same amount of viewership and professionalism out there. If the UA-camrs had to use other medias, then many of them would just quit. On UA-cam one can create content on their own terms. That would not be possible any other place.
This is quite true, but still: I'd very much rather pay for content directly and transparently than by having my data indefinitely transferred by ad companies. Unfortunately most companies don't have that deal: "Either pay or get spied on". I am fully aware of the fact that I might be part of a minority here, but I think premium accounts are a good way to go. We make a deal with youtube: I pay you the money you would be getting by using my data and I get no ads and you don't spy.
And that's precisely the point I'm trying to make. If there is no ad revenue option, then another source of income must be found. Often the best answer is to get a full time job, which in turn means less time spent in creating the content. I'm not saying that people create this good content for the money. For the most part, they do it because they love it, but in order to dedicate their time into creating it, they have to be able to make some kind of money off it, and ads are the best choice.
But if I were to provide 1080p video content on my 30$ hosting and have a decent number of views all my bandwidth would be done in a couple of days and the number of videos would also be limited because of the small storage space. But that isn't even the real problem , I mentioned the hosting only as a problem for kids that don't have 30$ or would rather spend it on something else. For adults the real problem is food, rent etc.. so they wouldn't be able to provide professional content.
If you read my comment, the one you replied to, you would see I didn't say it's the only solution or the best. As for the free webspace from your internet provider not every company offers that, my 10$/month internet doesn't and I personally can't afford 50-100$/month for internet. About the cheap hosting, that's true , hosting is getting cheaper and cheaper , I have a 30$/year hosting + domain divided by 365days that's definately way less than launch money.
Another common misconception. Most of the really great content providers on the internet would not be able to produce quality content without ad revenue. Fact of the matter is, these people who produce quality content usually have to dedicate an enormous portion of their daily life to it, and the ad revenue allows for them to support themselves while doing it. Without this revenue, they'd have to spend that time at a job to care for themselves financially, resulting in lower quality content.
This is a good point, but there's no reason why funding has to be provided through advertising only. In fact the internet would be a much better place if we could pay for it another way.
Take the nottinghamscience and *phile channels for example. These videos are Bradys (and now Sean's!) job, so they aren't obligated to be obnoxious and mug for the camera in order to get more views. Websites funded through sales or donations have nicer site design too.
If you have everything you need , like a kid being raised by his parents and getting them to pay for domain and hosting (no free hosting cause it's mostly supported by ads), or someone with enough money that doesn't need to work in order to survive , yes you can provide quality content for free just to do a good deed. But most people need to earn money from it or get a job and provide less content , less quality, or quit and let rich children provide all the "content" .
Beautiful. "HyperText Transport Protocol" cookies are all well and good, but I enjoyed this more than the main video to be honest. The privacy implications that technology produces are fascinating. Studies show that people are willing to trade privacy for convenience. Everyone I know seems to confirm this: they will not raise a finger to protect their privacy. Perhaps we do not deserve it. Cue the telescreen cameras!
That is a problem , but what's the alternative? A pay per watch or a monthly subscription or something like that. There are plenty of sites like that, providing content for paying customers , but it's nice to also have free content supported by advertisements because not everyone can afford to pay for content, especially kids who might benefit from educational content supported by ads.
I believe some of the best content on the internet comes from people who are able to do it professionally. These people can spend all day creating content because their basic needs are met: food, shelter etc.. Right now, the biggest systems in place to support these people are based on ad revenue. If these people cannot support their careers, we are just left with the hobbyists and the 14 year olds who are not "in it for the money" because they can live off of their parents.
Such a use is, at least on desktops, easy enough to prevent by not having your camera or mic connected unless you're intentionally using it. For a good solution to the convenience issue, which inevitably gets mentioned with such suggestions, there are USB hubs that will let you flip a switch and turn off individual USB ports on them, and they are only about 115% the cost of hubs without that feature.
One problem with any ad blocking solution is that advertising pays for content, just like on TV or radio. If you aren't exposed to the ad, the site or site partner, in the case of Blip or UA-cam for example, don't get paid. Another is the fact that any kind of static defense can be breached, and an ad blocking system is a form of such, and can, in fact, be bypassed in some relatively trivial ways.
The idea of using webcam uploads would only be fair (if of debatable morality), if the corresponding uploading costs, that is the money for using your internet connection and the (probably almost negligible but still) increase in power-usage, is paid for by precisely those networks that are trying to infer information that way.
Though beyond that, it sounds rather terrible. There could be all sorts of private situations that play out in front of an ever watching web-cam. That would mean stalking
No offense, but I don't.
Found it harder to understand not being native.
It was a great video tho, and don't hold off on interviewing people who have accents... Personally, I usually find those even easier to understand.
If we did not have the option of Ad revenue, we would find another way. The desire follows the result most of the time, not the money. We find the money to pay for the content, as suppose to finding the content to make money. :)
I wouldn't hold up schooling, the way it's done, as some paragon. It's squandered. But anyway, that is another discussion and I'm not getting into it here. 'Copying = cheating' - so if one took the plans of the plane, one would be 'cheating'? Cheating on what? A test? What test? What relevance does your school analogy have?
Of course you would love to get ads as most of you inet traffic and ads covering 90% of every inet page you watch. And all blinking, jumping over the content. Because it their marketing model and this is how they make FREE content. And every company can know what sites you watch and send you ad mails. This is the world you are perfectly ok with.
adblock never hurt anybody...
If youtube or some other site wants to exclude non-ad-viewers, they have the oppertunity to do so, by becoming a members only site...
Those free sites make it "seem" like they are doing you a service, when infact, its the other way around...
They should be compensating YOU!
Wikipedia is capable of running. It is in the top 5 most visited web site I believe.
And they have absolutely no ads what so ever. By delivering a content of quality they get donations. The ad system on youtube is, to my sense, a bad idea because people abuse of it by delivering a content of bad quality just to have money from it.
If you use a strict adblock, it will harm the streamers and youtubers. I heard statistics from twitch were about 80% of all users block out ads, giving them only revenue for the remaining 20%. I suppose the same goes for youtube.
If you configure your plugins so they allow the ads you want to support, nothing wrong with it.
A "real" professional is in this case someone whose profession is to make videos. It doesn't matter much how they get paid, as long as it is what you do for a living. Working for a company is certainly not necessary: Hank Green doesn't work for a company unless you count DFTBA Records, which he and Alan Lastufka founded specifically to CUT OUT middle-men companies.
That's not the point. The software could be world class, it still won't be able to tell what someone is actually feeling. People put on a smile when they feel sad sometimes, so if that happens during a video the software will say they are happy when they actually aren't. I have a face like it's been slapped with a fish, but that doesn't mean I'm not happy sometimes.
That webcam thing is a load of bull. You can't tell if someone is happy or sad by how they look. Some happy people look sad, and some people with depression can put on a happy face. Just because they look sad/happy it doesn't mean they are or that the video or other content they're looking at is the cause of the happiness/sadness.
Common misconception. This is a problem for the advertisers, not for the content providers, and not in the least in the interest of a common person.
Are you suggesting that people would stop to make videos just because there are no advertisements? No, it would only weed out the "I'm in it for the money" type of people which would be a damn relief tbh.
So when i buy a new TV should I also buy a smiley sticker to put on top of the camera. TO remind me that I am smarter than the people sellling me stuff.
This would of course require me to first get a TV then a permit and a connection for that TV. None of which I can be arsed to pay for shitty content which already is mostly ads.
Wikipedia is capable of running BECAUSE it's in the top 5 most visited web sites. UA-camrs need this ad money. It shouldn't be mandatory, tho, which is why I configure my adblock accordingly
I think the word pirating is wrong as pirating takes acount for us to TAKE something, although we "take" the money by downloading stuff they will have ther material left as we only copy, i think it's wrong to pirate and there fore i don't do it! so illegal coping is a better phrase i think :)
As far as being able to talk about computer security without bitcoin, you're correct. You could do a whole series without mentioning it... But that wasn't what you said. You were trying to claim that bitcoin wasn't about these things, which is honestly pretty idiotic.
The us government has not issued a cease and desist regarding bitcoin, and nobody has issued a cease and desist to bitcoin users. California issued a cease and desist to the bitcoin foundation. I really don't think a UK university youtube channel has anything to worry about.
I won't let my computer film me with the built-in webcam while surfing the web. If necessary, I'll throw out the kernel module that controls the camera so it can't be accessed by my OS. Or I put a sticker on it (if I had a proprietary OS that didn't allow me the control over this stuff).
Reasons why I use linux and open source in order:
1.Technological superiority.
2.I can control it.
3.I know what it does.
4.If you know what you are doing, your security cannot be compromised.
5.Free(even though I'd pay for it if I had to. Simply impossible to ask for money given the above 4).
The reason why most of the internet is free is because of ads.
People who use ad-block aren't helping anyone but yourself and migh eventually even hurt you (If internet can't stay free).
Please disable adblock for sites you regularly visit to support channels like this.
I am a little disapointed .... i hoped you will make videos about computers (RAM,Hard disk,how they work how are they gonna be in 2-10-100 years)...maybe some programing(what do they use to make all types of games...browser,console games)....
i dont care about cookies....
Not to mention, even when I don't have some sort of ad blocker, my mind just automatically filters out ads completely at this point because I was flooded by them for so long that it just ignores it much like the "sombody's else's problem drive" from Hitchhiker's Guide.
What?! Bitcoin goes REALLY deep into computer science, cryptography, hash tables, etc. If you want a better understanding, just go to the khanacademy site and look it up.
Sure, there's a lot of economics to discuss as well, but Bitcoin is VERY much about CS.
Adblock works, as far as I know, by having a list of web-addresses which belong to advertisers and simply telling your browser not to connect to them at all. You don't see the ads, the advertisers never know that you should have and no one gets paid.
While i agree to a certain extent, the "professionals" you are talking about are in fact hobbyists and/or 14 year olds who managed to get some money out of it. Real professionals work for companies and make money from their product, not from advertising.
PS, hosting costs as little a single days lunch money. For high bandwidth, not as cheap, but then hopefully you have the market size at that point to look at funding. :)
if you want more fun with this, install the cullusion app for chrome / firefox, that shows you all the links between sites and tracking parts. (it also blocks stuff)
Well that real depends on your definition of hack and via cookies, i mean the existence of attacks like CSRF means people can exploit the existence of cookies, and most XSS attacks are focus on stealing the cookie's
I am. I don't go to shady websites that are 90% covered with ads, though. It's a prime example of a first world problem: "Oh, this free internet page is so hard to read because there are ads, the world sucks!".
No it's not. You can talk about cryptography, hash tables and stuff like these without BitCoin. BitCoin uses these technologies but it's not about Computer Science. It's pure economics. Let's not stretch it.
Most UA-camrs start out as hobbyists/amateurs (which literally means they do something because they love it), but given the right circumstances, some (hopefully the best) may get the chance to become professionals.
I think the problem then is the ad-based model. I would rather these sites start using a Netflix/Spotify model with a really small subscription fee to be ad free because I see ads as dangerous to my mental well being.
Would it not be better to support those people ourselves instead then, rather than being dependent on advertising companies who don't care about the quality of the content produced only the amount of money they can make?
using firefox? download cookie controller (addon), you can set it to block all by default and then just allow those addresses you trust or that wont work without them (like those which save the user login in the cookies)
adblock does hurt youtubers and website owners. Most adblockers block the loading of javascript and images from 3th party servers or known advert network servers.
No they can run because they offer a content that people are willing to donate for. They dont get money because they are in the top 5 visited website...
They were running ad free before they became popular
You might like /watch?v=Ji5kdUd3D74 then. Billy Connolly has the same sort of accent as this guy. Advantages to living in britain number 62: I know the various accents from our subsidiary countries.
I'm not sure if it keep just us from looking at adds though or add from looking at us.
Stole their plans? That would be stealing. But if you made a copy of the plans and left their original plans where you found them, that wouldn't be stealing. It would be copying!
This response doesn't really change my mind about the quality of your initial statement.
Read the paper that proposed the idea. It's almost entirely computer science and cryptography.
and still you get totally irrelevant adds, that arnt even related to the thing your on
I think it's still a small camera in the bezel of the screen, not the screen itself. Otherwise, duct tape wouldn't cut it. But anyways, I don't own a TV and am happy not to.