#1 (permalink)

I made 1 change and that was to attempt blocking out the Alexa toolbar users.
My file stopped working...
I removed the change and I must of messed something else up too.
Because it still won't work.

Forgive me I'm a photographer not a technical genious....
Can someone tell me what I'm doing wrong because I can't see my fault.
(Does all of this have to be on 1 line or something like that ?)

#2 (permalink)

Do you have the old version? I could tell you if you were asking about IIS, but not Apache. Still, I see a lot of stuff referencing Alexa in there. What does "order allow, deny" mean?

__________________
4 ways to improve the lives of the "bottom billion"

"HEY YOU KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN!" -John McCain

#3 (permalink)

I got it working again.

This was the final product
Order deny, allow bans or permits certain IP addresses.

As far as the stuff on Alexa...
Well they are ilegally cataloging my traffic on my sites and making it publically accessiable. (Long story not to be discussed for now)

But I have:
1) Blanned their IP addresses. (order deny, allow)

2) Blocked the refer agent for anyone comming from their sites. (RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} )

3) Blocked all users of the Alexa toolbar. (RewriteCond %{HTTP_USER_AGENT} ^Alexa\ Toolbar )

and finally...
Killed their robot in my robots.txt file. (But it still comes back despite being told to get lost forever)

#4 (permalink)

Just to clarify, They are legally cataloging how many of thier toolbar users visit your site. Theres nothing illegal about it.

__________________

#5 (permalink)

Peace to you and I am not looking for a fight or a flame war.

I'm not a technical person but I am a commercial photographer/videographer and entrepeneur. So I have had my share of legal disputes and I have talked to legal counsil on this. The only question I am asking myself is if it is financially to my advantage to push the issue.

Therefore with all due respect it's not legal.
At best I can say that it might be grey zone.

They are...

1) Gathering information of private indivduals, privately owned business without prior consent or permission and making it available to the general public for the purpose of obtaining a profit.

2) via their Internet archive they are collecting copyrighted material and effectively re-publishing it for the purpose of obtaining a profit.

3) under civil law I have the right to be compensated if someone is
in any way profiting from somthing that is the result of my efforts
and labour. I am the person that created the site, drives traffic to
it, pays for the banner ads, etc.

If you are re-publishing my content or collecting data relating to it and using it in your publically database as a feature that attracts the online public and generates a profit....

Well it is my data, my content and my right to compensation.

-----------
In the United States

The traffic issue falls within the boundries of several laws.

A. No one is allowed to count the number of people entering or leaving
a business or residence. (Save police or other govermental body
during the course of an investigation or for tax fraud purpose.)

If your intention are to gather an estimation of traffic flow in general area and
cross reference it with similar areas to obtain an estimation.
Thefore you are only allowed to count the number of pedestrians or traffic in the
general area. Not the actual people comming or going or in this case accessing a site.

B. Like the Telephone caller display this infringes upon a person's
right to certain amount they he/she may consider private. Therefore,
like call display, you can not create the tool without providing a
free way to block it's use.

C. Be sitting and watching laws. Claiming that they are only collecting information from their Toolbar users is not an excuse. Their argument is they are not trying to spy on any one person or entity in particular. However they do not provide a method to be excluded from thier efforts. Thefore this can be a mild form of on line stalking or harrasement.

The other analogy that has been made is of mall security cameras. But potential consumers are warned before entering that the mall is under security survalience and the patron has the right to avoid entering. Again this is not an option being offered by Alexa.

Granted these are based on American law but since Alexa is located in the United States...
They are the only laws that matter.

#6 (permalink)

I don't know if this is actually illegal, But given the vast number of companies that do it, I would hazard a guess and say it's legal. Otherwise we would have had numerous court cases.

That isn't what alexa are doing. They are counting how many of thier toolbar users ae visiting a site.

Two words. fair use. I believe google were taken to court over this very issue with thier cache, A judge ruled it to be fair use.

__________________

#7 (permalink)

Michel I agree that there is probably a very gray area where the law is concerned with all of this, but Matt is right in that Alexa is only tracking people who use the Alexa toolbar. Google, Yahoo, MSN all do the same thing as do a variety of other sites.

I think trying to block Alexa users by IP isn't going to be very efficient. If someone with an Alexa toolbar is on dial up they would have a new IP every time they logged in.

I'm not trying or wanting to argue with you, but if you put something online you have to accept that other people may repurpose it. It sucks. There are plenty of sites that scrape my content and republish it as their own. But by making sure I link to other pages on my site in all my content I end up getting links into my site that help my pages rank a little better in search engines.

I know it's a hard pill to swallow and you're certainly within your right not to want Alexa users to visit, but I think in the end you'll get more letting them visit the site than you will by trying to ban them all.

__________________
l Search Engine Friendly Web Design | Van SEO Design
l Tips On Marketing, SEO, Design, and Development | TheVanBlog
l Custom WordPress Themes

#8 (permalink)

It's all legal until someone makes a big stink about it.

1975 a company created and distributed pre-paid credit/gift cards. As part of their market research they counted which stores the cards were used in. They then made this information publically accessiable.

Quin vs. BNA Holdings. Court upheld that their right to catalog this information did not include making it publically accessiable.

1972 an enterprising young man opened a store and gave out bright red t-shirts so he could easily count the number of people going in and out of his competitor's store;

Tyler vs. Bromberg. Court upheld that this was in effect a form of passive stalking.

1996 an electronics engineer purchased a cell phone for his wife. He then modifided another cell phone so he could monitor when she used it. (Not listen in but know how long and how often)

Lester vs Lester. The defense argued that the cell phones were not covered by privacy laws because they were used public frequencies and by their nature do not afford the same privacy as a fixed line. Whereas the court agreed in principle this was still considred an infraction of Mrs. Lester's privacy.

In short....
Unlike the above, their business is the catologing of information on other businesses, people, etc for profit. And there is a huge list of comparable case laws.

1. Google had to provide a means that content could be removed and de-indexed at the request of the owner.

2. Google's does not actively archive entire sites and then generates a profit from allowing people to apercu the site how it once looked. (Copyright infringement.) Unlike the archive.org

3. Google's cache is very passive and provides information in a very vague general sense. It is not specifically compiling data and content of sites and allowing people to input the name of a domain and receive a host statistical data.

My complaint really comes down to that I just want Alexa do let me opt out of their program. I never asked to be part of it.

#9 (permalink)

Hm. This sounds pretty sticky.

Michael, are you watermarking your images that are available on the WWW? I'm sure you are, but in case you're not...it's definitely a wise practice.

I hope you're able to resolve this issue.

__________________
Custom Web site Design | Open Source Consultants | My Tech blog

#10 (permalink)

That would have been done to protect the information of the card user, Not the shop owners. Same with every other example you gave. None of them was done to protect the privacy of the shop owner or company. Otherwise this would make surveys illegal. This would make it illegal for me to ask 10 random people if they prefer burger king or mc donalds.

Alexa users have agreed in the EULA that thier browsing activity is to be monitored, logged and used in public statistical data. You don't have a say in how Alexa use statistical data they have obtained through toolbars installed on thier users computers which thier users have agreed to.

If you still think it's illegal, take them to court.. But make sure to tell me when the trial is, Id love to have a bet on the outcome.

__________________

#11 (permalink)

Of course.
I realize it is probably a personalit flaw on my part but as fars as i stand...

If I do the work...
I get paid.

If you profit from my work...
I get paid.

And I am protected by copyright laws that ensure this.

People and companies get sued over stuff like this all the time.
There are literally thousands of similar cases.
And I am certain that Alexa has had its fair share of legal matters.
You have to understand the nature of business....
Litigation is part of the game.

If you can make 10 million prior to a lawsuit and the estimate is that a settlement will only cost you 3 million. You're ahead of the game.

And to be blunt I am at that stage now where I am considering what I might do against Alexa. It's a question of my financial resources vs. theirs vs. my time and labour vs. potential benefit.

--------
As far as Quin vs BNA holdings..
It was specifically done for the store owners.
The credit card owners were never personally identified.

Asking random people on the street a question about if they prefer Burger King or McDonalds is different from distributing a recording device to monitor which resturants they visit.

By doing so you are interfering as a 3rd non-invited party to a transaction.
If your monitoring is between two legal corporate entities it is basically corporate espionage and a big kettle of worms.
If it involves individuals it is an infringement of personal privacy.

There multiple sides to "ownership" laws.
1) A company owns all things connected to their lawful endevours. That includes records, ledgers, etc. Both the tangable and intangable elements.

2) A person who patrons, visits, etc holds similar rights to their endevours. IE. When did they visit the business, how often, etc.

3) An entity or person, with or without consent of the above parties, that enganges in the collection of data of the above has right and ownership to that data as well. The bottom line depends on what an entity can do with that information depends on how it was collected.

Therefore, if an entity has permission or has compensated the parties involved, they can pretty much do what they want with it. However, if permission is not expressed or implied (legitimate expecation) they are really limited in what they can do. And in some cases can be considered ilegal activites.

#12 (permalink)

Michel I'm curious what damages you think Alexa is causing you. Again I'm not trying to argue, I just want to understand. How can it hurt you if someone knows what the trends are with Alexa users visiting your site.

I could understand if Alexa was republishing your images, but I'm really not following how the traffic data causes any damage. Again they're not cataloging your traffic. They're cataloging how many of their users visit your site.

__________________
l Search Engine Friendly Web Design | Van SEO Design
l Tips On Marketing, SEO, Design, and Development | TheVanBlog
l Custom WordPress Themes

#13 (permalink)

Where did you get the text from Exhibit A? It sounds like the type of thing the government would be prohibited from doing, but not private enterprise. Much like the president can't infringe your right to free speech, but your parents can.

__________________
4 ways to improve the lives of the "bottom billion"

"HEY YOU KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN!" -John McCain

#14 (permalink)

This is the beauty (or ugliness) of the law.
It all comes down to the strength of

1) Argument
2) Pushing the issue further than your opponent
3) Having the money or resources to push the issue far enough
And in business you can add...
4) Is there more money if I admit I'm wrong or win the case ?

Ok having said that...
Alexa IS re-publishing via their Internet Archive. (Archive.org)
It doesn't matter if it is a glimpse of my site 3 months ago or 10 years ago.
I still hold the copyright on those images.

Google does it in a very general sense. I can type in a genre, theme or even a website name and get a ton of images from all over the place. That is "fair use." But Alexa has set up the "wayback machine" and you specifically type in a domain name and get to surf it on how it looked 5 years ago.

And Alexa has set up an explanation on the "wayback machine" to explain how to stop them from doing it. However they don't ask permission prior and if you're a newbie or just don't know about Alexa.... Well someone is infringing on your copyright without your knowledge.

--------------------------
As for the catalog of the traffic.
Suing for damages do factor in to any equation.

However under the law if someone is doing something that directly or indirectly involves me. I have the legal right to demand they cease and leave me in peace. After having made such demand. (And I have made this demand to Alexa) They are now breaking the law on a criminal and not civil level.
This is the basis of restraining orders, peace bonds, etc.
IE. Court order that says "leave the person alone!"

-----------------
As for me...
I'm a photographer and film maker.
And the polemiques to my industry are shall we say... unique ?

It is a very competitive field and one of my image brokers (non-internet) stopped doing business with me and referenced Alexa ratings as reasons why. Simply put another photographer, one of my competitors, had a higher rating and used that against me to his advantage.

I am well established so it hasn't killed me. But that was one of my better resources.