Oracle's BlueKai Tracks You Across the Web. That Data Spilled Online

From a report: Have you ever wondered why online ads appear for things that you were just thinking about? There's no big conspiracy. Ad tech can be creepily accurate. Tech giant Oracle is one of a few companies in Silicon Valley that has near-perfected the art of tracking people across the internet. The company has spent a decade and billions of dollars buying startups to build its very own panopticon of users' web browsing data. One of those startups, BlueKai, which Oracle bought for a little over $400 million in 2014, is barely known outside marketing circles, but it amassed one of the largest banks of web tracking data outside of the federal government. BlueKai uses website cookies and other tracking tech to follow you around the web. By knowing which websites you visit and which emails you open, marketers can use this vast amount of tracking data to infer as much about you as possible -- your income, education, political views, and interests to name a few -- in order to target you with ads that should match your apparent tastes. If you click, the advertisers make money.

But for a time, that web tracking data was spilling out onto the open internet because a server was left unsecured and without a password, exposing billions of records for anyone to find. Security researcher Anurag Sen found the database and reported his finding to Oracle through an intermediary -- Roi Carthy, chief executive at cybersecurity firm Hudson Rock and former TechCrunch reporter.

Have you ever wondered why online ads appear...

[Arthur, KBE]

Not really, since I run uBlock Origin, and I can't remember the last time I've seen an ad on the internet, quite frankly.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's really weird that some people still aren't doing that. Even if you're not privacy-conscious, and even if you're not safety-conscious (i.e. averse to drive-by malware attacks which might use 0-day vulnerabilities), the ads are annoying and use up your display space. If you see an ad, you lose something. I would think someone would have to be actively and explicitly pro-ad to not install ublock origin, as in "I hate ads but I want the website to get paid," just to talk themselves into tolerating

Re:

[DontBeAMoran]

The last time I tried to use ad-blocking software, it took over half my CPU power when browsing, and more than 2GB of system RAM.

I use the built-in macOS "hosts file" and redirect the most annoying ones to local. The rest of the ads tax my system less than the ad-blocking software.

Re:

[_merlin]

When did you last try an ad blocker? uBlock Origin uses a lot less RAM than AdBlock Plus ever did, and Firefox has made various changes over the last few years the reduce AdBlock Plusâ(TM) memory consumption.

Re:

[DontBeAMoran]

I don't use Firefox, I use Safari and Chrome.

Re:

[XY0]

In addition to uBlock, I run a PFSense plugin called PFBlockerNG. I highly recommend it, you can get the ads at the DNS level. It also prevents leaking telemetry, IoT chatter, known malware domains/IPs, and those damn DNS attacks that just about every IP address gets every couple seconds.

Re: Have you ever wondered why online ads appear..

[angularbanjo]

I put uBlock on any new install without thinking. But to what extent might we be wrongly comfortable, thinking that just because we don't see the ads, doesn't mean that those with many dollars to throw at this aren't using every technique they can come up with to use a finer lens on our browser trail that assumes the enemy, i.e. us, are blocking known ad domains. From their perspective, unless you disable JS and therefore a lot of the trafficked web, as long as they are across a multitude of popular sites

Creepily inaccurate, you mean.

[dgatwood]

I've never seen ads for things that I was "just thinking about" — only for things that I glanced at once out of curiosity and concluded were not even slightly interesting, or for things that I looked for very carefully and already bought. In fact, in all my life, I can't think of a single time that an advertisement resulted in me purchasing something, whether immediately or years later. They have almost all been ads for things that I just bought, and the ones that weren't have always been for things that I'm never going to buy.

The fundamental problem with targeted advertising is that they're targeting the wrong things — things you're looking at, rather than related follow-on purchases. If I'm looking at TVs, it is because I need a TV for some reason (either because I plan to add one somewhere or because an old one as failed). There's about a three-hour window during which learning about other TV models is likely to be useful. After that, I almost certainly have a TV (either physically or on order). However, as a TV owner, you can infer that I might be interested in trying a Hulu subscription (if I don't already have one). Show me something I don't already know about Hulu, and there's a chance I might bite.

Similarly, if I'm looking at a DSLR, chances are I'm being curious about whether new models are worth upgrading to, and I'm unlikely to buy right now, but when I do decide to buy, it will be because the new product meets an unmet need, not because you advertised the product I'm already looking at. Showing me ads for a product that I'm already considering (short of a 20% off coupon) will never result in a single sale. However, as a DSLR owner, you can infer that I will be buying flash cards, so there's a chance that you might entice me to switch brands through advertising. (To be honest, there's not much chance, because flash cards are so critical that there are only three companies whose products I trust, but that just makes this particular consumable atypical.) Similarly, you can infer that I might be interested in new lenses that I haven't heard about before, or new flashes, or new tripods... but only if I have not recently purchased similar products.

Similarly, as an iPhone owner, you can infer that I might be interested in new apps (but realistically, no); as a home owner, I might be interested in curtains or towels or something; and so on. Bt with the exception of borderline-commodity consumer goods like laundry detergent, the main benefit of advertising comes from exposing people to things that they aren't already aware of, or hadn't considered buying. As soon as they are aware of it and are thinking about it, you're almost certainly wasting money showing them ads for it again and again.

Re:Creepily inaccurate, you mean.

[transporter_ii]

> I've never seen ads for things that I was "just thinking about"

Man, one time I went to Lowes and got out of the store before a co-worker I went in with did. I stood out front and looked at BBQ grills until he came out.

When I got back to the office, the first commercial youtube showed me was one for a really nice BBQ grill. I had never seen a BBQ grill add on youtube before.

My android phone would have shown me standing in front of Lowes for a long period of time. You know what is in front of Lowes? BBQ grills.

Yes, it could have just been a freak coincidence. But it could also have been that I was "thinking" about BBQ grills and youtube was there to help.

Re:

[rho]

The scary thing isn't even the ads. To be honest, I'd turn all my adblockers off if it meant that the people who are creating the content I like are paid, and if the ads were at all relevant to me. If there's some new dingus that's in my bailiwick, I'm happy to know that it exists. I'd even be happy to submit an anonymous profile of my interests and age if it meant I don't get ads for Tampax or John Deere tractors.

What concerns me is the other things that might happen with this data that's collected. And th

BS

[BringsApples]

Bullshit, they're listening to your mic, it's been proven. They're listening to your smart TV, it's been proven. They're listening to your fucking Nest, it's been proven.

The question ISN'T 'are they listening", rather "Who is listening?" Because no, Google isn't listening, but they're selling the ability to listen to 3rd parties, then buying data from them, and selling that-data-mixed-with-other-relivant-data to other 3rd parties.

So ...

[PPH]

... where are my ads for porn?

Comment

[WallyL]

Nope. If I happen to see an ad (I use uBlock Origin like the above comment), then it's some random thing I would never, ever want to purchase. Or it's almost identical to something I've already bought, and I don't need any more of for the half-life of the product...

We are talking about Oracle, right?

[syn3rg]

But for a time, that web tracking data was spilling out onto the open internet because a server was left unsecured and without a password, exposing billions of records for anyone to find.

How long before they send out invoices to everyone that accessed that data?

Re:

[UnknowingFool]

This is Oracle. They already billed you for thinking about looking at it, For each eye.

Re:

[thegreatbob]

Wearing glasses? Surely there's a line item for that too.

Re:

[UnknowingFool]

That’s an enhancement request if I ever saw one.

Who Tracks Me ?

[slash.jit]

here is the master list of everyone who tracks

https://whotracks.me/trackers.... [whotracks.me]