Imarker usage statistics (SORM-like web analytics system)
Exactly one month has passed since the publication of the imarker system , commercial web analytics , which, according to the system itself at that time, was supposed to be held by Akado, TTK, Rostelecom, Er-Telecom, NetByNet and QWERTY, however, now the official website has been changed, and now they declare that they work only with MGTS, Akado, TTK, Rostelecom and QWERTY.
Last-Modified: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 12:57:16 GMT
In fact, everything is a little different.
')
As you may remember, I made a special page that determines the presence of an imarker for a visitor visiting it. Unfortunately, the first few days it worked not in the best way due to the rate limit on the part of imarker, therefore, in order to get around this limitation, a little later I did automatic generation of the lower level domain. Also, there was a small number of false positives due to the fact that people shared generated unique links, rather than the main one, which sometimes resulted in a user who does not have imarker giving a unique link to another user (friend / friend / etc ), in which the provider uses imarker, and, ultimately, the imarker approach counts first. There are about a couple of dozens of such cases; all of them were manually checked by the web server logs.
For all the time there were 29369 visits to this page from unique IP addresses.
For example, imarker goes only for subscribers of Rostelecom. Kaluga, Belgorod, Lipetsk, Voronezh, Tver, Tula, Smolensk and former clients of National Cable Networks in Moscow.
UPD: Zeno N.S.P. was removed from the table, because, probably, some hosting client put a proxy on the hosting and moved from the provider, which had imarker, because of this, only the transition from the IP hosting and imarker launch was visible in the log, but not the IP address of the provider's client. Other cases of a web proxy call were easily tracked manually by a URI, but a proxy was probably used here, which does not change the original URI, but passes it in some other way (in an additional header?)
One of the InterZet provider clients asked a question about imarker at the official forum and received, according to the provider's representatives at the forum, an “interim answer”:
"Full" official response promised to give later.
Also, komachi asked a question to Roskomnadzor:
And received the following answer:
According to our colleagues who have been struggling with Phorm for a long time ( @NoDPI ), in case of refusal to participate in the program, all Phorm products continue to monitor you, and they just stop showing ads.
If I were connected to a provider that has an imarker installed, and I had confidence that I did not give consent to such services, I would disconnect on the same day. I believe that this is a serious shit, for the use of which it is necessary to spread rot to providers.
UPD (02/10/2016) : It seems that imarker has sunk into oblivion (but Phorm itself is alive and well), as far as I know, the providers with whom it stood removed it. The web site for verification has broken, and now it does not make sense to restore it. However, large operators are introducing new systems that will be harder to detect. I will write about it if I find out the details.
Last-Modified: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 12:57:16 GMTIn fact, everything is a little different.
')
Dry statistics
As you may remember, I made a special page that determines the presence of an imarker for a visitor visiting it. Unfortunately, the first few days it worked not in the best way due to the rate limit on the part of imarker, therefore, in order to get around this limitation, a little later I did automatic generation of the lower level domain. Also, there was a small number of false positives due to the fact that people shared generated unique links, rather than the main one, which sometimes resulted in a user who does not have imarker giving a unique link to another user (friend / friend / etc ), in which the provider uses imarker, and, ultimately, the imarker approach counts first. There are about a couple of dozens of such cases; all of them were manually checked by the web server logs.
For all the time there were 29369 visits to this page from unique IP addresses.
| Provider | Visits with imarker | Visits total |
|---|---|---|
| InterZet (Perspective LLC) | 204 | 550 |
| Dom.ru (ER-Telecom) | 147 | 1355 |
| QWERTY (CENTER CJSC, Central Telegraph OJSC) | 60 | 235 |
| Rostelecom | 44 | 4342 |
| Mts | 18 | 1079 |
| Nevalink | 14 | 14 |
| MGTS | 7 | 273 |
For example, imarker goes only for subscribers of Rostelecom. Kaluga, Belgorod, Lipetsk, Voronezh, Tver, Tula, Smolensk and former clients of National Cable Networks in Moscow.
UPD: Zeno N.S.P. was removed from the table, because, probably, some hosting client put a proxy on the hosting and moved from the provider, which had imarker, because of this, only the transition from the IP hosting and imarker launch was visible in the log, but not the IP address of the provider's client. Other cases of a web proxy call were easily tracked manually by a URI, but a proxy was probably used here, which does not change the original URI, but passes it in some other way (in an additional header?)
Development of events
One of the InterZet provider clients asked a question about imarker at the official forum and received, according to the provider's representatives at the forum, an “interim answer”:
Observing anonymity, the system analyzes your activity on the Internet (for example, visiting websites - automobile, tourist, entertainment, news, etc.) to make the Internet personalized and more interesting for you, show you promotional offers and content that matches your preferences.
The system assigns a randomly selected 24-digit number to the cookie in your browser. This number is not a user ID, identifying the person or any other information about the user. It is designed to distinguish the user from other people. The system does not store any user IDs, site browsing history or other personal information.
Since the browsing history is not saved, imarker cannot correlate user data with a 24-digit number, IP address or personal information. Therefore, imarker cannot provide any user data to a third party.
We do not in any way violate Article 63 of the Law on Communication. The secret of correspondence, telephone conversations, mailings, telegraph and other messages is officially guaranteed by the provider in accordance with the Law on Communication.
"Full" official response promised to give later.
Also, komachi asked a question to Roskomnadzor:
I ask you to comment on the compliance with the law of iMarker (http://imarker.ru), which consists in installing equipment that analyzes user traffic received from telecom operators, in order to place targeted advertising on the Internet and provide information about user preferences and social demographic characteristics of third parties, and the actions of telecom operators to install iMarker equipment and mirror user traffic to it.
I also ask you to comment on whether pseudonymized information about user preferences and socio-demographic characteristics is personal data, and whether the telecom operator's client requires separate consent to the processing of his personal data (contained in web traffic) with a clearly stated goal of targeting advertising messages on the Internet for activities carried out by iMarker and telecom operators who installed iMarker equipment.
I also ask you to comment on whether the activities of iMarker and telecom operators, providing user traffic for analysis on iMarker equipment, or similar activities, including analyzing user Internet traffic, profiling and providing analysis results to third parties, violate the right to privacy of correspondence, telephone conversations , mail, telegraph or other messages.
The list of iMarker telecom operators includes, but is not limited to: Akado, ER Telecom, TTK, Rostelecom, NetByNet, Qwerty.
And received the following answer:
The Federal Service for Supervision in the Field of Communications, Information Technologies and Mass Communications (hereinafter - Roskomnadzor) informs the following on the merits of your appeal.
According to paragraph 3 of Art. 3 of the Federal Law of July 27, 2006 No. 152- “On Personal Data” (Personal Data Law), personal data means any information relating to a directly or indirectly determined or determined individual (subject of personal data).
So, pseudonymized information about user preferences and socio-demographic characteristics will be personal data subject to the availability of additional information that will allow to identify a specific individual.
In addition, we inform that to evaluate the arguments specified in your appeal regarding the company’s installation of equipment analyzing user traffic received from telecom operators in order to place targeted advertising on the Internet and provide information about user preferences and socio-demographic characteristics to third parties , about the actions of telecom operators to install equipment with the purpose of mirroring user traffic to it, It is possible, therefore, for a full, comprehensive and objective consideration of the appeal, you need to submit additional information confirming the above facts.
At the same time, we inform that the issues of suppression of unlawful actions in information and telecommunication networks, including the Internet, detection and suppression of crimes related to the unlawful use of communication networks, as well as counteraction to fraudulent actions committed using information and telecommunication networks are related to competence of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia.
Head of the Office for the Protection of Rights
subjects of personal data Yu.E. Kontemirov
Conclusion
According to our colleagues who have been struggling with Phorm for a long time ( @NoDPI ), in case of refusal to participate in the program, all Phorm products continue to monitor you, and they just stop showing ads.
If I were connected to a provider that has an imarker installed, and I had confidence that I did not give consent to such services, I would disconnect on the same day. I believe that this is a serious shit, for the use of which it is necessary to spread rot to providers.
UPD (02/10/2016) : It seems that imarker has sunk into oblivion (but Phorm itself is alive and well), as far as I know, the providers with whom it stood removed it. The web site for verification has broken, and now it does not make sense to restore it. However, large operators are introducing new systems that will be harder to detect. I will write about it if I find out the details.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/250045/
All Articles