Most websites claim to do this in order to provide the best possible service to their customers. Not everyone likes the idea of being tracked online, though. For example, privacy concerns have been raised about cookies in the past. And in 2006, Microsoft, Yahoo and America Online admitted to giving records of their members’ internet searches to the U.S. Department of Justice when they were subpoenaed during a web filter investigation, despite the fact that more than half of internet users polled said that they are against search engines turning over data to the government (Google fought the subpoena and won a minor victory against the DOJ). Many people didn’t even know that sites collect unique identifiers such as IP addresses.

To combat online snooping, web anonymizers, or anonymous proxies, were developed. These allow the user to surf the web without leaving a personalized trail behind. The anonymizer accesses the internet on behalf of the user and relays the information in a safe, untraceable manner while hiding the user’s personal information from outside sources (acting as a sort of buffer). The need for this sort of tool becomes readily apparent when we think about anonymous whistleblowing or the discussion of taboo topics, or when people in oppressive nations wish to access websites blocked by the party in power. But anonymizers are also popular with many ordinary users who simply don’t want to be tracked. After the 2006 subpoena incident, for example, sites such as Anonymizer.com and FreeHaven.net saw a sharp spike in membership.

Do anonymizers work? Yes, but with limitations. For example, some anonymizers can’t process secure protocols like “https://” because your browser needs to access the site directly for the encryption to work (NEW INFO: anonymizer.com now handles https; thanks to Lance Cottrell for leaving the comment updating our information). Plugins might have problems, as well, and Java and JavaScript might compromise your security and allow identifying information to be accessed if you use the anonymizer as a regular proxy. Also, anonymizers mean that web sites will no longer be personalized to you when you visit them; a shopping site won’t already know what you like to buy when you go there, so you’ll have to start from scratch in filling your shopping cart.

In short, anonymizers aren’t perfect. They’re simply pieces of software that can be circumvented in some cases, and no matter how smart the software “mouse” becomes, someone will probably build a better mousetrap. Still, as long as you don’t expect anonymizers to be ironclad, they can provide a measure of protection from online tracking. Don’t let things like a firewall and anti-spyware protection slide, though; the more security you have in place, the safer you’ll be.

Sources for this article: www.eweek.com, www.searchenginejournal.com, www.anonymizer.com, www.livinginternet.com, www.securiteam.com, www.opennet.net, searchsecurity.techtarget.com

The June 4, 2008 issue of Nature featured an article about humans and where their daily movements take them. Tracking the movements of human populations over time can be vital to understanding and preparing for concepts like controlling disease outbreaks and designing urban areas. The study’s authors followed Europeans for 6 months to collect data about where they went, what patterns emerged from their travels, etc. How did the authors track the people? By tracking their cell phones.

The cell phones of 100,000 users sent data to the an unnamed European cell carrier, which then shared the anonymized data with the study authors. Every time a call or text was made (and the cell users made millions of them), the carrier recorded the location (to within 3 km) that the user was in at the time. After six months of data, the study authors found that, by and large, humans are creatures of habit. Most people found themselves in the same places, day after day, making calls or texts from those places. It’s a fairly obvious conclusion, but the authors determined that “people devote most of their time to a few locations.” And our cell phones, as well as the ease at which we are tracked, provide the proof.

The use of cell phone data to keep tabs on the public doesn’t stop with determining call locations for the benefit of science. That technology has existed for years, albeit in a less-than-precise form. But now, a UK-based company called Path Intelligence is taking cell phone signal monitoring to a new level. A shopping center can place a Path Intelligence FootPath(tm) device on its wall and track users who are wandering the shops, even if they’re not making a call at the time (a cell phone that’s turned on will emit silent pings back to the network when it’s not in use, and those pings can be tracked). The system can monitor when people enter the shopping center, how long they stay, what stores they visit, and even what route they take through the building, all to within a few meters of distance. It can also keep track of the country in which a given phone is registered. As of May 16, 2008, two shopping centers in the UK had installed the Path Intelligence system, with three more planning to install it in the next month.

Is this a bad thing? Privacy watchdogs say it might be. Path Intelligence claims that its system can’t record information from a user’s cell phone, such as personal identity, phone numbers, account information or other sensitive material. But even supporters of the system do caution that it would be inappropriate if the system were to be linked to other systems that contain personal information. While getting a good idea about the shopping interests and habits of customers might be extremely helpful to shopping centers, intruding on personal privacy is not a responsible means to gain that information.

In addition, many people dislike the idea of being monitored in their movements. When an article about this system was posted at the Times Online, comments on the article from readers included concerns that the monitoring could extend into private homes if the homes were located close enough to the shopping centers. Questions were also raised about whether customers in the shopping centers were informed of the monitoring when they entered, or whether this monitoring was a form of forced “market research” (the article did not address this question). In short, many cell phone users might be uncomfortable with the thought that someone else is watching their movements, especially without their consent.

Path Intelligence, however, counters these concerns by saying that their FootPath(tm) technology is less invasive than closed-circuit televisions or other monitoring devices currently in place in many shops. “All we do is log the movement of a phone around an area,” they say in their website FAQ, which is less intrusive than methods that collect more personal information, such as your image. They insist that their system does not collect or keep personal information, and they say that their monitoring is similar to watching a dot move around a screen (or many dots, in the case of a shopping center). They currently encode the information that they receive in order to further protect the privacy of customers, as well.

Do you feel better, or are you feeling “watched”? One way to address this concern is simple: turn off your cell phone if you don’t want to be tracked. It makes it more difficult for people to reach you, of course, but if you don’t want the cell phone companies (or anyone else) to know your physical whereabouts, it’s the only way to be invisible. Other than total technological disconnect, there’s not much that average cell phone users can do about being tracked if the cell providers deem it worthwhile. For now, our technology, by its very nature, makes it possible for us to be a dot on a screen.  

Sources for this article: ars technica, Nature, The Times Online, Path Intelligence; Photo source: FCC