What does the NYT use to prevent "some" freeware browsers from reading too many of their articles for free?

What, technically, does the NYT use to prevent "some" freeware browsers
from reading too many of their articles for free?

In a recent Usenet discussion, it came up that people were having problems
reading NYT articles, where others suggested they simply "change browsers":

Alan Browne:
"https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/22/technology/jeff-bezos-hack-iphone.html"
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Ozr7WyxrLCM/6HtX2TpTAQAJ

badgolferman:
"*Requires subscription.*"
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Ozr7WyxrLCM/vSLmZthWAQAJ

nospam:
"no it doesn't. *try a different browser*."
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Ozr7WyxrLCM/6NUQkW9XAQAJ

sms:
"*Try a different browser*.
You get a fixed number of articles per month without a subscription"
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Ozr7WyxrLCM/KagpuNZYAQAJ

My technical question:
Q: What, technically, does the NYT use to prevent "some" freeware browsers
from reading too many of their articles for free?

--
Usenet is a great way to learn about things you never knew you didn't know!

Arlen,

Q: What, technically, does the NYT use to prevent "some" freeware
browsers from reading too many of their articles for free?

Why are you posting that question here instead of emailing it to the IT
department of the NYT ? Or do you expect some IT folk of the NYT to
frequent these newsgroups /and/ be allowed* to answer your question ?

*By company rules or work ethics, because the "I want to be able to
circumvent it" smell is rather obvious.

In short, there is no a "rather low" (understatement) chance that anyone
here can (or is allowed to) give you a definitive answer to it.

As for /possible/ methods ? You've been long enough "at it" to come up
with those yourself. But if not, a hint: The "targetted ad" industry most
likely uses the same.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 27 Jan 2020, R.Wieser wrote
(in article ):

Arlen,

Q: What, technically, does the NYT use to prevent "some" freeware
browsers from reading too many of their articles for free?

Why are you posting that question here instead of emailing it to the IT
department of the NYT ? Or do you expect some IT folk of the NYT to
frequent these newsgroups /and/ be allowed* to answer your question ?

*By company rules or work ethics, because the "I want to be able to
circumvent it" smell is rather obvious.

In short, there is no a "rather low" (understatement) chance that anyone
here can (or is allowed to) give you a definitive answer to it.

As for /possible/ methods ? You've been long enough "at it" to come up
with those yourself. But if not, a hint: The "targetted ad" industry most
likely uses the same.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

if switching browsers gets past the block, most likely it’s cookies or
something similar. Switching browsers will work until the NYT notices a lot
of browsers coming from the same residential IP and/or pops up a bit of
JavaScript which looks for a MAC address. Then they’ll block the IP and/or
the MAC.

Of course, honest people (lets out Arlen, of course) could do what I do:
access the NYT until free views for the month run out, then move on to
another site, repeat. Next month, come back. If they block access after a
while (usually because they _REALLY WANT_ the ad revenue and I use an
adblocker) then just don’t go to their site for a month or two. They’ll
reset the whatever after 60 days. Usually. If not... I lived before I had
access to the NYT over the internet, I can live without it. And without the
LA Times. And the Washington Post. Etc. The BBC gives better coverage anyway,
I usually go there after the newspapers say no more free views this month.
Sometimes I forget to bother with newspaper sites at all. If enough people
just stop going to their sites, well...

Arlen Holder wrote:

What, technically, does the NYT use to prevent "some" freeware browsers
from reading too many of their articles for free?

[...]

My technical question:
Q: What, technically, does the NYT use to prevent "some" freeware
browsers from reading too many of their articles for free?

Cookies... The notorious "Flash Cookie", when using a PC browser.

"Warning! Clearing Flash cookies may delete saved game data from Flash
games; e.g. some Facebook games."

Using CCleaner should do the trick. It does it for me... Make sure "Adobe
Flash Player" is checked in 'Multimedia' (on the 'Applications' tab of the
'Custom Clean' panel.)

Otherwise use Control Panel's 'Flash Player' interface or navigate he

%appdata%\Macromedia\Flash Player\#SharedObjects\

Use Windows key + R to access 'Run', then copy and paste.

You can safely delete everything in there, including folders. Your gaming
usage may need to recreate them if you're keeping track of settings and/or
scores.

NirSoft offers 'FlashCookiesView'... It's free. Could help you keep track
of who and when Evil-Personified places these tracking devices into your
world... And selectively delete isolated specific entries.

If you're using Linux, the best way is to use lighter fluid or other
combustible solvents to burn the machine, ostensibly while "cleaning it",
collect the insurance, and buy a new or refurbrished Windows 10 Pro, 64-bit
computer to join the rest of the world in the 21st-Century.

On the other hand, if you support the failing New York Times, you MAY
deserve to be punked by Flash cookies...

Then again, nobody is beneath redemption.

Best regards.

--

I AM Bucky Breeder, (*(^;

Resolve conflicts the American way :

Rock - Paper - Scissors - Impeachment Hoax

.... and I approve this message!

Wolffan,

if switching browsers gets past the block, most likely it's cookies
or something similar.

Yup. A bit of fingerprinting is also quite likely.

or pops up a bit of JavaScript which looks for a MAC address. .

Good luck with that (JS) on my machine.

The problem is that all of that is (educated) guesswork, which is not nearly
good enough for our esteemed OP.

Funny though that he doesn't seem to realize that such a blocking method
isn't static, but, as you mentioned, is activily maintained by the NYTs IT
department. And that ofcourse means that the bypass of today can be gone
tomorrow. /Especially/ when a certain bypass becomes common knowledge.
And guess what will happen when someone tells our esteemed OP, in a
newsgroup, about a currently working one ... :-)

Of course, honest people (lets out Arlen, of course) could do what I
do: access the NYT until free views for the month run out, then move
on to another site, repeat.

The NYT is not in my list of regulary visited sites. I mostly only encounter
such paywalled sites when one of the sites I do frequent posts a link to it
(together with a "may be paywalled, here is an alternative source". Guess
what I most always do).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"R.Wieser" wrote

| Q: What, technically, does the NYT use to prevent "some" freeware
| browsers from reading too many of their articles for free?
|
| In short, there is no a "rather low" (understatement) chance that anyone
| here can (or is allowed to) give you a definitive answer to it.
|

Not allowed? Why not? It's just a marketing gimmick.
My understanding is that they use
cookies. I allow 1st-party session cookies, deleted after
closing. I block script, Flash, pretty much everything else.
I haven't had trouble accessing NYT pages for a long time.

Why shouldn't I tell people that? The Internet is open. I
have no sympathy for companies that want to do get Internet
viewers but then try to restrict, spy, etc. If you want to show
ads, put up your webpages and put ads on them. Don't spy, limit,
target, or otherwise be sleazy. If NYTimes.com were an honest
business they wouldn't need to limit views. More views would
be better because they'd show more ads. But that's not what
they're doing. They're spying, datamining and targetting. They've
got no business charging for that slimy behavior. (The NYT is also
one of the known sites that's been a venue for malware attacks
through their ads.... which of course they don't manage
themselves. They just hand their visitors over to Google/doublclick
or similar, who hands them over to Russian or Chinese hackers,
who've bought ad space so they can set up some cross-site
scripting. The NYT and Google wash their hands of it. But they
don't mind cashing the checks.)

How sleazy is the NYT? I have a subscription to the paper.
(Or rather, the woman I live with does. It's expensive and not
worth it to my mind to get the voice of big business delivered
to my door.) On p. 2/3 of the paper they print snippets and
gossip from their online content, in an attempt to get people
to go online. We pay almost $50/month to read the paper, but
we don't get the whole thing. Because NYT wants us to go
to their website, so we can be tracked, analyzed, and shown
more ads. I can get free access online because I have a
subscription, but I'd never do that. If, at any point, I can't
access nytimes.com without tracking I'll go elsewhere. I don't
want to cooperate with the spying or the idea that the Internet
can/should be commercially limited.

And at the risk of sounding like Andy Rooney... another thing...
Who made the decision that no one needs to be serious or
adult online? Why is the paper version a newspaper relatively
coherent and civilized while the online versions are mostly gossip
crap written by kids just out of school? Because they get more
clicks for gossip and tweets and "miracle diet" advice and the
latest, most inflammatory MeToo arguments.

To be fair, I think the NYT does, occasionally, produce very
good, original content. They sometimes do great in-depth pieces.
But most of their day-to-day content is little more than political
gossip and some business news. What did Warren say about Sanders?
What did Sanders say about Warren? What did Biden say about
both? What's Trump's latest tweet? Want analysis of the candidates'
platforms? Good luck. Want investigative reporting rather than
sound bites from two opposing sides? Good luck. The news has
degenerated from presenting two opposing propaganda mouthpieces
(the droning prattle of the PBS Newshour) to presenting Twitter fights.

John Stewart nailed the dueling propaganda model a few
years ago, during an election cycle. Ted Koppel asked him
why so many people were going to the Daily Show for news.
His answer (slight paraphrase): "Look at what passes for news.
They get a spokesperson from the Heritage Foundation to say
their piece. Then they have someone from the Brookings Institute
say their piece. Then the moderator says, 'Thank you both. That
was very interesting'.... AND IT WASN'T".

Ted Koppel looked furious but didn't say anything, as I
recall. Now we don't even get the big money propagandists
from the so-called think tanks. Many of the articles that
pass for news on top sites like NYT or WashPo are little more
than strings of Twitter quotes from kiddie journalists. They
don't even bother to incorporate the quotes. Instead, they
use a special layout format to show it's a Twitter quote. Then
there are links to "share" the 3rd-hand content on Facebook
or Twitter. Newspapers are following after social media, on
their knees with their tongues hanging out, using online gossip
as content to build a webpage skeleton that can hold spyware
ads...
And you're worried that it's not fair to bypass their article limit?

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 09:49:38 -0500, Mayayana wrote:

Not allowed? Why not? It's just a marketing gimmick.

The question affected "badgolferman", where I agree that it's just a
marketing gimmick, particularly since their pages show up in a
"news.google.com" search.

My understanding is that they use
cookies. I allow 1st-party session cookies, deleted after
closing. I block script, Flash, pretty much everything else.
I haven't had trouble accessing NYT pages for a long time.

It "might" be cookies; but I think it "may" be more than that since, as I
recall, one has to _switch_ browsers (where _all_ of my browsers are set to
ditch the cookies upon closing, and upon startup, just in case:
o For a chromium example, startPage = chrome://settings/clearBrowserData

Why shouldn't I tell people that? The Internet is open.

You're responding to a known troll who has nothing to say that a fifth
grade doesn't already know. Up to you but you'll be wasting your time.

They're spying, datamining and targetting.

Yup. The rule of thumb is try to never create a login. Period.

NYT wants us to go
to their website, so we can be tracked, analyzed

Yup. The key is never use a login, just to read news.

But that doesn't answer how the NYT counts the limit of 3.
o I think it's more than cookies - but that's why I asked.

To be fair, I think the NYT does, occasionally, produce very
good, original content.

I don't disagree; here are some test cases for example...

o Anatomy of a Lie: How Iran Covered Up the Downing of an Airliner
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/world/middleeast/iran-plane-crash-coverup.html

o Analysis Ties Hacking of Bezos' Phone to Saudi Leader's Account
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/21/technology/bezos-phone-hacking.html

o As Coronavirus Fears Intensify, Effectiveness of Quarantines Is Questioned
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/world/asia/coronavirus-wuhan-china-hubei.html

o Trump¢s Best Defense (he wants to be LBJ, not Mussolini)
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/25/opinion/sunday/trump-impeachment-defense.html

o Mac, Windows And Now, Linux
https://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/08/technology/mac-windows-and-now-linux.html

On 27/01/2020 08.20, Arlen Holder wrote:
What, technically, does the NYT use to prevent "some" freeware browsers
from reading too many of their articles for free?

A popular method is cookies/session cookies, also client side storage
can be used too.

J.O. Aho wrote:
Arlen Holder wrote:
What, technically, does the NYT use to prevent "some" freeware browsers
from reading too many of their articles for free?

A popular method is cookies/session cookies, also client side storage
can be used too.

The NYT doesn't allow access if the browser is in incognito or private mode.

Some say the developmental Chrome 'canary' gets by.


--
Mike Easter

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 18:39:16 +0100, J.O. Aho wrote:

What, technically, does the NYT use to prevent "some" freeware browsers
from reading too many of their articles for free?

A popular method is cookies/session cookies, also client side storage
can be used too.

Most of us think that more than cookies are involved (but perhaps not).

What do you mean though, by "client side storage"?

Is that DOM storage?

Mike Easter wrote:
J.O. Aho wrote:
Arlen Holder wrote:
What, technically, does the NYT use to prevent "some" freeware browsers
from reading too many of their articles for free?

A popular method is cookies/session cookies, also client side storage
can be used too.

The NYT doesn't allow access if the browser is in incognito or private
mode.

Some say the developmental Chrome 'canary' gets by.

Which amounts to a separate profile.

When I did a Chromium build here, one of the "features"
was a separate profile so you could test your build without
affecting the "release" one installed on the same machine.

But there's a limit as to how much that can achieve,
because the profile may contain "identifying numbers".

user_pref("toolkit.telemetry.cachedClientID", "xxxxxxxx-wwww-tttt-uuuu-yyyyyyyyyyyy");

I think the places.sqlite download used to have a clientID too,
but they keep changing the design to hide the details.

Presumably if you can convince a tool to "generate a fresh profile",
which happens during installation, that might come closer to rotating
the tires on the thing. Only if the computer MAC address was
hashed into the number, might you have reason for a freakout.

That means:
1) Installing an alpha software.
2) Buggering the identifying numbers a bit. Or just removing the item in question.
2) Using the alpha software.
3) Uninstalling the alpha software.
4) Thoroughly removing associated profile folders left behind.

And this is what hobbies are made of.

Paul

"Mike Easter" wrote

| The NYT doesn't allow access if the browser is in incognito or private
mode.
|

I have no trouble in New Moon masquerading as
FF70. Script disabled. Frames disabled. Extensive
HOSTS file. No 3rd-party cookies. Secret Agent
also blocks or spoofs numerous things. Cookies
deleted at browser close. I doubt the problem you
have is private mode. That only means it doesn't keep
history, cache, cookies. It doesn't imply any actual
restrictions of tracking.

I suppose it's possible that NYT is using IP address
to track. That seems like an awfully lot of work, but
I'm only seeing session cookies from their site. It's
also possible that I could be blocked if I reached their
monthly/daily limit. I don't visit NYT enough to find
out.

So that folks have an easy test sequence, I believe clicking on these ten
(10) New York Times (reasonably random) articles, _should_ (I think) serve
as a reasonable ten-point testcase.

o *Microsoft Ends Free Windows 7 Security Updates on Tuesday*
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/01/13/business/ap-us-microsoft-windows-7-ends.html

o *Microsoft Issues Critical Windows Security Fix After Tipoff From U.S. NSA*
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/01/14/technology/14reuters-usa-microsoft-cyber.html

o *NSA Finds Major Security Flaw in Windows 10, Free Fix Issued*
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/01/14/business/bc-us-microsoft-nsa-security-flaw.html

o *Mac, Windows And Now, Linux*
https://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/08/technology/mac-windows-and-now-linux.html

o Tech Tip: Taking a Look at Linux
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/04/technology/personaltech/taking-a-look-at-linux.html

o *How Boeing's Responsibility in a Deadly Crash Got Buried*
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/20/business/boeing-737-accidents.html

o *As Coronavirus Fears Intensify, Effectiveness of Quarantines Is Questioned
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/world/asia/coronavirus-wuhan-china-hubei.html

o *Anatomy of a Lie: How Iran Covered Up the Downing of an Airliner*
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/world/middleeast/iran-plane-crash-coverup.html

o *Analysis Ties Hacking of Bezos' Phone to Saudi Leader's Account*
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/21/technology/bezos-phone-hacking.html

o *Killing Qassim Suleimani Was Illegal. And Predictable.*
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/06/opinion/qassim-suleimani.html

--
Usenet is where purposefully helpful adults publicy show their value.

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 13:56:47 -0500, Mayayana wrote:

It's
also possible that I could be blocked if I reached their
monthly/daily limit. I don't visit NYT enough to find
out.

Clicking on these ten articles, should (I think) overflow bounds.

o *Microsoft Ends Free Windows 7 Security Updates on Tuesday*
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/01/13/business/ap-us-microsoft-windows-7-ends.html

o *Microsoft Issues Critical Windows Security Fix After Tipoff From U.S. NSA*
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/01/14/technology/14reuters-usa-microsoft-cyber.html

o *NSA Finds Major Security Flaw in Windows 10, Free Fix Issued*
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/01/14/business/bc-us-microsoft-nsa-security-flaw.html

o *Mac, Windows And Now, Linux*
https://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/08/technology/mac-windows-and-now-linux.html

o Tech Tip: Taking a Look at Linux
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/04/technology/personaltech/taking-a-look-at-linux.html

o *How Boeing's Responsibility in a Deadly Crash Got Buried*
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/20/business/boeing-737-accidents.html

o *As Coronavirus Fears Intensify, Effectiveness of Quarantines Is Questioned
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/world/asia/coronavirus-wuhan-china-hubei.html

o *Anatomy of a Lie: How Iran Covered Up the Downing of an Airliner*
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/world/middleeast/iran-plane-crash-coverup.html

o *Analysis Ties Hacking of Bezos' Phone to Saudi Leader's Account*
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/21/technology/bezos-phone-hacking.html

o *Killing Qassim Suleimani Was Illegal. And Predictable.*
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/06/opinion/qassim-suleimani.html

Mayayana wrote:
I suppose it's possible that NYT is using IP address
to track. That seems like an awfully lot of work, but
I'm only seeing session cookies from their site. It's
also possible that I could be blocked if I reached their
monthly/daily limit. I don't visit NYT enough to find
out.

Their limit is down to 5/mo now.

I recently learned that possession of a/some library card/s
(school/public) provides access to their digital edition. That includes
my public library.

--
Mike Easter