TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by R Jones

I'm not aware of any group of websites taking action over content/copyright issues but perhaps you have more details of that. Which website owners are those?

Originally Posted by bluecar1

nope, it is about a webmasters rights over their own content and how it is accessed

Originally Posted by Hatari

The sites are copyright and have database rights. Why should I allow anyone to use the sites contents to enable them to market a commercial product from which neither the sites nor I get a return.

Originally Posted by R Jones

I've sent TalkTalk terms, conditions and rates, for any future access.

Done using Hatari's terms and conditions slightly modified, which raise concerns over content.

If there is nothing to do with content or copyright issues behind it all fair enough, just how it comes across.

[bluecar1]

i fail to understand how where i am an admin has anything to do with this topic

if you actually look i have made few posts there, on the talk talk topic

as far as i am concerned this is about a webmaster ability to control access and if they require then the ability to charge for commercial access to a website

this service provides nothing to the website (does not provide traffic like search engines etc)

this service is easilly defeated by websites by using soure ip to serve a different page to mask any malware it is supposed to identify

and it provides no protection for the first visitor as the site is checked after the visit

in short it is about as usefull as a chocolate teapot

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by bluecar1

i fail to understand how where i am an admin has anything to do with this topic

if you actually look i have made few posts there, on the talk talk topic

as far as i am concerned this is about a webmaster ability to control access and if they require then the ability to charge for commercial access to a website

this service provides nothing to the website (does not provide traffic like search engines etc)

this service is easilly defeated by websites by using soure ip to serve a different page to mask any malware it is supposed to identify

and it provides no protection for the first visitor as the site is checked after the visit

in short it is about as usefull as a chocolate teapot

I thought that the service spidered sites as well as its' replay function, so it would presumably just run through the links on the site. Are you saying it only replays earlier requests?

How serving malware via a different IP address would make any difference would also be good to know. The Huawei technology is, hrm, rather good at analysing content by all accounts.

Thanks in advance. Interesting to know how this works in more detail.

[bluecar1]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I thought that the service spidered sites as well as its' replay function, so it would presumably just run through the links on the site. Are you saying it only replays earlier requests?

How serving malware via a different IP address would make any difference would also be good to know. The Huawei technology is, hrm, rather good at analysing content by all accounts.

Thanks in advance. Interesting to know how this works in more detail.

you have mis-interpted my comment about serving different pages

using various scripts a website can serve a different page depending on what the source IP of the request is, i know of several sites that do this (no to avoid malware detection but to provide a polite notice to users from certian ISP networks)

the current information is it only follows talk talk users after the event, it does no proactive spidering as far as i am aware, unless you can provide information to the contrary

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by bluecar1

using various scripts a website can serve a different page depending on what the source IP of the request is, i know of several sites that do this (no to avoid malware detection but to provide a polite notice to users from certian ISP networks)

the current information is it only follows talk talk users after the event, it does no proactive spidering as far as i am aware, unless you can provide information to the contrary

Understood.

I have asked and understand firstly that this is an extremely unlikely course of events, given previous experience from anti-malware that does spider and stroll the internet and secondly that the system has countermeasures to complicate this. No specifics were given sadly, but to describe this as being completely pointless as a service would strike me as harsh.

On the one hand an argument has been made that this service is different from other anti-malware because they come from well known IP ranges and are easy therefore to identify but on the other it's described as useless because malware can be tailored to hide from it. This is a rather contradictory series of statements.

I was not aware of spidering but it was mentioned as a possibility in this thread. If there is no spidering done this service doesn't have a requirement to read robots.txt as far as I'm aware. This is to be read by bots when they follow a link to another site - robots.txt is the first file they should read to ensure they behave themselves.

Given that ignorance of robots.txt is a charge levelled at the system that it would appear to not have functionality necessitating reading robots.txt is relevant.

[bluecar1]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Understood.

I have asked and understand firstly that this is an extremely unlikely course of events, given previous experience from anti-malware that does spider and stroll the internet and secondly that the system has countermeasures to complicate this. No specifics were given sadly, but to describe this as being completely pointless as a service would strike me as harsh.

On the one hand an argument has been made that this service is different from other anti-malware because they come from well known IP ranges and are easy therefore to identify but on the other it's described as useless because malware can be tailored to hide from it. This is a rather contradictory series of statements.

I was not aware of spidering but it was mentioned as a possibility in this thread. If there is no spidering done this service doesn't have a requirement to read robots.txt as far as I'm aware. This is to be read by bots when they follow a link to another site - robots.txt is the first file they should read to ensure they behave themselves.

Given that ignorance of robots.txt is a charge levelled at the system that it would appear to not have functionality necessitating reading robots.txt is relevant.

several people have been told (as far as i am aware) that it does honour robots.txt

but evidence did not support this

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Understood.

I have asked and understand firstly that this is an extremely unlikely course of events, given previous experience from anti-malware that does spider and stroll the internet and secondly that the system has countermeasures to complicate this. No specifics were given sadly, but to describe this as being completely pointless as a service would strike me as harsh.

On the one hand an argument has been made that this service is different from other anti-malware because they come from well known IP ranges and are easy therefore to identify but on the other it's described as useless because malware can be tailored to hide from it. This is a rather contradictory series of statements.

I was not aware of spidering but it was mentioned as a possibility in this thread. If there is no spidering done this service doesn't have a requirement to read robots.txt as far as I'm aware. This is to be read by bots when they follow a link to another site - robots.txt is the first file they should read to ensure they behave themselves.

Given that ignorance of robots.txt is a charge levelled at the system that it would appear to not have functionality necessitating reading robots.txt is relevant.

Do you run a website yourself? In which case, have a look at the logs for May, June, and July. Or maybe you aren't a webmaster?

Why ask the same question twice, just in a different way, RJ?

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by R Jones

Do you run a website yourself? In which case, have a look at the logs for May, June, and July. Or maybe you aren't a webmaster?

I notice on your website T&C's that you make specific reference to "agreed" conditions of access which you have notified to a particular third party.

Are we to take from this that your battle is won and that they have agreed to your specific terms in relation to access to your site?

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I notice on your website T&C's that you make specific reference to "agreed" conditions of access which you have notified to a particular third party.

Are we to take from this that your battle is won and that they have agreed to your specific terms in relation to access to your site?

I suggest you read the various website Terms of Use/Access published by the companies of TalkTalk Group plc.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by R Jones

I suggest you read the various website Terms of Use/Access published by the companies of TalkTalk Group plc.

Why Bob?

My query was specific to your website T&Cs which state categorically that there are "agreed" terms in effect between it and a third party.

Is this or is this not the case?

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Why Bob?

My query was specific to your website T&Cs which state categorically that there are "agreed" terms in effect.

Is this or is this not the case?

I've nothing more to add.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by R Jones

Do you run a website yourself? In which case, have a look at the logs for May, June, and July. Or maybe you aren't a webmaster?

Very well....

Rather boringly I don't appear to have much of anything from Opal Telecom / Talk Talk.

I've ygnition.net, teleguam.net and various other exotic domains / netblocks but nothing from Opal oddly. I guess my content isn't interesting enough.

If you have something to add however, rather than asking questions in response to posts pointing out apparently contradictory statements and inconsistencies it would be greatly appreciated and would I'm sure add greatly to the discussion.

---------- Post added at 10:27 ---------- Previous post was at 10:24 ----------

Originally Posted by bluecar1

several people have been told (as far as i am aware) that it does honour robots.txt

but evidence did not support this

Would be good to see something in writing to this effect, just 'for the record' as I don't see why this system would need to do so unless it spiders. Per my above note expected behaviour of a spider is that the first thing they do is consultant robots.txt, if this abomination doesn't spider there's no real need.

---------- Post added at 10:44 ---------- Previous post was at 10:27 ----------

Originally Posted by R Jones

I've nothing more to add.

Something also noteworthy from the T+Cs you've put there is this, emphasis by me:

TalkTalk are banned from spidering this site along with Huawei servers except according to agreed conditions of access notified by us to TalkTalk at their registered office.

The definition of spidering is subject to debate, you've phrased it in a way that includes Huawei servers in that specific activity, and as mentioned by Mr A unless Talk Talk have agreed to your conditions of access I'm unsure if they have any requirement to obey them anyway.

There is nothing on this site that I can see that mentions anything about any implicit agreement to any terms of access by using the site, if we're comparing however TalkTalk's site on the other hand...

These terms and conditions apply to your use of the Website and by accessing the Website, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions set out below.

For people who, collectively, claim they are getting high quality legal advice you guys are certainly leaving plenty for their lawyers to have fun and make some money picking apart. I'm not saying you're wrong but certainly said high quality lawyer is arranging some work for himself.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by R Jones

I've nothing more to add.

Why? It would help if you did explain the relevance of Talk Talk's terms and conditions to your own websites..