KQED and RedSheriff

[Richard Steinfeld]

<artnpeg@claymania.com> wrote in message
news:rirqgv0nh7cgn8m26dqlk6aevlqo246a4p@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:54:17 GMT, "Richard Steinfeld"
> <rgsteinBUTREMOVETHIS@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> >KQED is the largest public broadcaster in northern
> >California. It operates TV Channel 9, an FM station,
various
> >repeaters for both in different areas, and now, having
> >purchased one of those ubiquitous Christian FM stations,
> >radio to Sacramento despite the fact that there was
already
> >a public station there.
> >
> >I discovered degraded system performance when I was on
their
> >web site, and with effort, traced the problem to
> >transmissions from my machine to imrworldwide.
>
> If you view the web page source you'll see why.
>

I'm not sure what you mean. Please explain. I went to
imrworldwide's site and read their material before I zeroed
in on the culprit a few weeks ago.


> >When i
> >emailed them, KQED acknowledged their use of this tool.
They
> >said that they had selected RedSheriff because it was the
> >least likely to cause consternation among their site
users.
> >I logged a separate transmission to imrworldwide with
every
> >mouse click while I was on the KQED web site.
>
> IE with scripting enabled?
>
No. I'd disabled scripting. This did not disable RedSheriff.

> >I noticed that on their site, imrworldwide proclaims the
> >superiority of their product at evading firewalls; sure
> >enough, that's where I found it logged as it merrily
> >subverted my protection.
>
> If you use IE with active content enabled you have no
protection
>
I'm pretty well battened-down in this regard.

> >I believe that the way that this
> >operation works is to comandeer some of our computer
memory
> >to efferctively establish a server in our machines:
> >effectively creating a "computer within the computer."
Quite
> >a theft of processing power.
>
> Nah. Looks to me like you were simply being referred to a
imrworldwide
> server which tried to obtain what info it could on you.
>
I'm talking about the behavior of my system, timing of
connections, etc. The claim by KQED is that no
personally-identifiable information is collected. But how do
I know that this is true. I mean, the software's action is
clandestine to most users.

> >Our 900-pound Public Broadcaster is blindly devoted to
> >obtaining stats regardless of how odious the practice or
> >method is (and how questionable it is to devote scarce
> >resources to this techno-fluff). I registered an
objection.
> >Instead of stopping this odious (and costly!) practice,
> >KQED's response to my objection was to post a statement
> >about their use of RedSheriff on their policy page.
> >
> >Perhaps if we all refuse to contribute to any public
> >broadcaster invading our systems and privacy this way,
and
> >let them know how we feel and the impact on their bottom
> >lines, they'll get the message loud and clear.
>
> I think it's far better to simply use the latest Moz based
browser
> with Proxomitron and not be concerned about what web sites
try to do.
>

Moz = Mozilla?
As in "Dubbya" = Geo. Dubbya Bush?

> I had no problems whatseover at the site.
>
> Art

But, Art, are you using IE?
By the way, Spybot's "Innoculate" function blocks this
nasty.

Richard

> http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg

[null@zilch.com]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 07:17:59 GMT, "Richard Steinfeld"
<rgsteinBUTREMOVETHIS@sonic.net> wrote:

>
><artnpeg@claymania.com> wrote in message
>news:rirqgv0nh7cgn8m26dqlk6aevlqo246a4p@4ax.com.. .
>> On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:54:17 GMT, "Richard Steinfeld"
>> <rgsteinBUTREMOVETHIS@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>> >KQED is the largest public broadcaster in northern
>> >California. It operates TV Channel 9, an FM station,
>various
>> >repeaters for both in different areas, and now, having
>> >purchased one of those ubiquitous Christian FM stations,
>> >radio to Sacramento despite the fact that there was
>already
>> >a public station there.
>> >
>> >I discovered degraded system performance when I was on
>their
>> >web site, and with effort, traced the problem to
>> >transmissions from my machine to imrworldwide.
>>
>> If you view the web page source you'll see why.
>>
>
>I'm not sure what you mean. Please explain. I went to
>imrworldwide's site and read their material before I zeroed
>in on the culprit a few weeks ago.

With Mozilla based browsers (I use Netscape 7.10) it's under the View
menu as Page Source. Here's a cut and paste of the RedSheriff portion:

************************************************** ****************
<!-- BEGIN RedSheriff code from router JSP -->

<!-- START RedSheriff Customer Intelligence V4 - Java v1.1
Revision: 1.8 -->
<!-- COPYRIGHT 2002 Red Sheriff Limited -->

<script language="JavaScript"><!--
var pCid="us_us-kqed_0";
var w0=1;
var refR=escape("Not Your Business!");
if (refR.length>=252) refR=refR.substring(0,252)+"...";
//--></script>
<script language="JavaScript1.1"><!--
var w0=0;
//--></script>
<script language="JavaScript1.1" src="index.jsp_files/a1.js">
</script>
<script language="JavaScript"><!--
if(w0){
var imgN='';
if(navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac')!=-1){document.write(imgN);
}else{
document.write('<applet code="Measure.class" '+
'codebase="http://server-us.imrworldwide.com/"'+'width=1
height=2>'+
'<param name="ref" value="'+refR+'">'+'<param name="cid"
value="'+pCid+
'"><textflow>'+imgN+'</textflow></applet>');
}
}
document.write("<COMMENT>");
//-->
</script><comment>
<noscript>

</noscript>
</comment>

<!-- END RedSheriff Customer Intelligence V4 -->


<!-- END RedSheriff code from router JSP -->
************************************************** ***************
You can see that it requires Java Script, as does much of the KQED web
site.

>> >When i
>> >emailed them, KQED acknowledged their use of this tool.
>They
>> >said that they had selected RedSheriff because it was the
>> >least likely to cause consternation among their site
>users.
>> >I logged a separate transmission to imrworldwide with
>every
>> >mouse click while I was on the KQED web site.
>>
>> IE with scripting enabled?
>>
>No. I'd disabled scripting. This did not disable RedSheriff.

Java Script? If that was disabled, the RedSheriff insert would have no
effect.

>> >I noticed that on their site, imrworldwide proclaims the
>> >superiority of their product at evading firewalls; sure
>> >enough, that's where I found it logged as it merrily
>> >subverted my protection.
>>
>> If you use IE with active content enabled you have no
>protection
>>
>I'm pretty well battened-down in this regard.

You would have to disable _all_ active content in IE to be "battened
down". That renders IE useless, so I don't use it. I've used
IEradicator which works well.

>> >I believe that the way that this
>> >operation works is to comandeer some of our computer
>memory
>> >to efferctively establish a server in our machines:
>> >effectively creating a "computer within the computer."
>Quite
>> >a theft of processing power.
>>
>> Nah. Looks to me like you were simply being referred to a
>imrworldwide
>> server which tried to obtain what info it could on you.
>>
>I'm talking about the behavior of my system, timing of
>connections, etc. The claim by KQED is that no
>personally-identifiable information is collected. But how do
>I know that this is true. I mean, the software's action is
>clandestine to most users.

They can't obtain much on a reasonably secured PC. Maybe they can
identify which version of Windows I use, and the browser I use. I
don't bother to hide that info since it doesn't do them any good
Any site can get your IP address. So what?

>> >Our 900-pound Public Broadcaster is blindly devoted to
>> >obtaining stats regardless of how odious the practice or
>> >method is (and how questionable it is to devote scarce
>> >resources to this techno-fluff). I registered an
>objection.
>> >Instead of stopping this odious (and costly!) practice,
>> >KQED's response to my objection was to post a statement
>> >about their use of RedSheriff on their policy page.
>> >
>> >Perhaps if we all refuse to contribute to any public
>> >broadcaster invading our systems and privacy this way,
>and
>> >let them know how we feel and the impact on their bottom
>> >lines, they'll get the message loud and clear.
>>
>> I think it's far better to simply use the latest Moz based
>browser
>> with Proxomitron and not be concerned about what web sites
>try to do.
>>
>
>Moz = Mozilla?
>As in "Dubbya" = Geo. Dubbya Bush?

Yes. There are Mozilla, K-Meleon, Firebird, and Netscape (at least).
If these are kept up to date, you have very little concern with
leaving both Script and Java Script on all the time, as I do. I keep
Opera on hand for those rare sites that Moz browsers can't render well
because of crummy "break all the rules" HTML.

>> I had no problems whatseover at the site.
>>
>> Art
>
>But, Art, are you using IE?

Haven't used IE for many years. Wouldn't touch OE with a ten foot pole
either





Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg