February 8, 2015 at 19:02Usage statistics for imarker (SORM-like web analytics system)
Exactly a month has passed since the publication of the imarker system , commercial web analytics , which, according to the assurance of the system at that time, should have been owned by Akado, TTK, Rostelecom, Er-Telecom, NetByNet and QWERTY, however, now the official site has been changed. and now they are claiming that they only work with MGTS, Akado, TTK, Rostelecom and QWERTY.
Last-Modified: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 12:57:16 GMT
Actually, everything is a little different.
As you may remember, I made a special page that determines the presence of an imarker for a visitor coming to it. Unfortunately, the first days it worked not in the best way because of the rate limit on the part of imarker, therefore, to get around this restriction, a little later I did the automatic generation of a lower level domain. Also, there was a small number of false positives due to the fact that people shared the generated unique links, and not the main one, because of which it sometimes turned out that a user who does not have imarker gives a unique link to another user (friend / acquaintance / etc ), which the provider uses imarker, and, ultimately, the imarker call counts first. There are about a couple of dozen such cases; all of them were manually checked by the web server logs.
There have been 29369 visits to this page from unique IP addresses.
So, for example, imarker only goes for Rostelecom subscribers. Kaluga, Belgorod, Lipetsk, Voronezh, Tver, Tula, Smolensk and former customers of National Cable Networks in Moscow.
UPD: Zenon N.S.P. was removed from the table, because, probably, some hosting client put a proxy on the hosting and switched from the provider that had imarker, because of this, only the transition from the IP hosting and the imarker call was visible in the log, but not the IP address of the provider's client. Other cases of access via web proxies were easily tracked manually by the URI, but it was probably used by a proxy that does not change the initial URI, but passes it somehow differently (in an additional header?)
One of the clients of the InterZet provider asked a question about imarker in the official forum and received, according to the representatives of the provider in the forum, an “interim answer”:
They promised to give a “full-fledged” official answer later.
Also, komachi asked a question in Roskomnadzor:
And received the following answer:
As colleagues who have been struggling with Phorm ( @NoDPI ) for a long time tell us , in case of refusal to participate in the program, all Phorm products continue to follow you, and only stop showing ads.
If I were connected to a provider with imarker installed, and I was sure that I did not give consent to such services, I would disconnect on the same day. I think that this is serious shit, for the use of which it is worth spreading providers.
UPD (02/10/2016): It seems that imarker has sunk into oblivion (but Phorm itself lives and thrives), as far as I know, the providers with whom it stood removed it. The website for verification has broken, and now it does not make sense to restore it. However, large operators are introducing new systems that will be more difficult to detect. I will write about it if I find out the details.
Last-Modified: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 12:57:16 GMT
Actually, 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 coming to it. Unfortunately, the first days it worked not in the best way because of the rate limit on the part of imarker, therefore, to get around this restriction, a little later I did the automatic generation of a lower level domain. Also, there was a small number of false positives due to the fact that people shared the generated unique links, and not the main one, because of which it sometimes turned out that a user who does not have imarker gives a unique link to another user (friend / acquaintance / etc ), which the provider uses imarker, and, ultimately, the imarker call counts first. There are about a couple of dozen such cases; all of them were manually checked by the web server logs.
There have been 29369 visits to this page from unique IP addresses.
| Provider | Visits from imarker | Total visits |
|---|---|---|
| InterZet (LLC "Perspective") | 204 | 550 |
| Dom.ru (ER-Telecom) | 147 | 1355 |
| QWERTY (CJSC Centel, OJSC Central Telegraph) | 60 | 235 |
| Rostelecom | 44 | 4342 |
| MTS | 18 | 1079 |
| Nevalink | 14 | 14 |
| MGTS | 7 | 273 |
So, for example, imarker only goes for Rostelecom subscribers. Kaluga, Belgorod, Lipetsk, Voronezh, Tver, Tula, Smolensk and former customers of National Cable Networks in Moscow.
UPD: Zenon N.S.P. was removed from the table, because, probably, some hosting client put a proxy on the hosting and switched from the provider that had imarker, because of this, only the transition from the IP hosting and the imarker call was visible in the log, but not the IP address of the provider's client. Other cases of access via web proxies were easily tracked manually by the URI, but it was probably used by a proxy that does not change the initial URI, but passes it somehow differently (in an additional header?)
Development of events
One of the clients of the InterZet provider asked a question about imarker in the official forum and received, according to the representatives of the provider in the forum, an “interim answer”:
Observing anonymity, the system analyzes your activity on the Internet (for example, visiting sites - automobile, tourist, entertainment, news, etc.) to make the Internet personalized and more interesting for you, show you advertising offers and content that suits your preferences.
The system assigns a randomly selected 24-digit number to the cookie in your browser. This number is not a user identifier that identifies the identity or any other information about the user. It is intended to distinguish the user from other people. The system does not save any user IDs, browsing history, or other personal information.
Since 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.
In no way do we violate Article 63 of the Law on Communications. The confidentiality of correspondence, telephone conversations, mail, telegraphic and other messages is officially guaranteed by the provider in accordance with the Law "On Communications".
They promised to give a “full-fledged” official answer later.
Also, komachi asked a question in Roskomnadzor:
Please 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) for the explicit purpose of advertising targeting messages on the Internet for activities carried out by iMarker and telecom operators that 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 analysis of 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 telecom operators collaborating with iMarker includes, but is not limited to: Akado, ER Telecom, TTK, Rostelecom, NetByNet, Qwerty.
And received the following answer:
The Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technologies and Mass Communications (hereinafter - Roskomnadzor) on the merits of your appeal reports the following.
According to paragraph 3 of Art. 3 of the Federal Law of July 27, 2006 No. 152-ФЗ “On Personal Data” (Law on Personal Data), personal data refers to any information relating directly or indirectly to a specific or determinable natural person (subject of personal data).
So, pseudonymized information about user preferences and socio-demographic characteristics will be personal data, provided that there is additional information that will allow you to identify a specific individual.
In addition, we inform you that to evaluate the arguments indicated in your appeal regarding the installation by the company of 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 socio-demographic characteristics to third parties , on the actions of telecom operators to install equipment in order to mirror user traffic to it, on violation of communication secrets it becomes possible, in connection with which, for a complete, comprehensive and objective consideration of the application, you need to provide additional information confirming the above facts.
At the same time, we inform that the issues of combating illegal actions in information and telecommunication networks, including the Internet, identifying and combating crimes related to the illegal use of communication networks, as well as combating fraudulent acts committed using information and telecommunication networks, are referred to competencies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia.
Head of the Office for the Protection of the Rights of
Personal Data Subjects Yu.E. Kontemirov
Conclusion
As colleagues who have been struggling with Phorm ( @NoDPI ) for a long time tell us , in case of refusal to participate in the program, all Phorm products continue to follow you, and only stop showing ads.
If I were connected to a provider with imarker installed, and I was sure that I did not give consent to such services, I would disconnect on the same day. I think that this is serious shit, for the use of which it is worth spreading providers.
UPD (02/10/2016): It seems that imarker has sunk into oblivion (but Phorm itself lives and thrives), as far as I know, the providers with whom it stood removed it. The website for verification has broken, and now it does not make sense to restore it. However, large operators are introducing new systems that will be more difficult to detect. I will write about it if I find out the details.