While I agree, cookies are not the root of all evil, they DO report information back to double click and the like on what doubleclick affiliated sites are reported back to doubleclick. Saying they do that anonymously is not true either. PPCT has logins as do many other sites that run ads. That means THERE'S a cookie thats written to your machine so that you don't have to relogin on every visit. That cookie has your login id. While most people don't use their real name for there login, some do. Most people cannot be tracked back to the real name via login cookies. Some people don't even want information that is anonymous collected about where they go on the web. In any case, it would be wrong to say that cookies are nto spyware of sorts. It IS reporting information back to the advertiser, but it's usuallly anonymous info.
The cookie is put there by DoubleClick - and only DoubleClick can see the cookie. All the info sent to DoubleClick is in the URL - so it can tell the site, and even what page(s) (if a separate identifier is set for each page), but not the login ID (unless it was placed there by the site itself - and I'm not sure DoubleClick even allows that). The info is only available via DoubleClick, on the terms they specify - it is not automatically available to the sites you visit. You would have to take a look at DoubleClick's privacy policy, which is available at http://www.doubleclick.com/us/about_...lick-sites.asp.
Also note: since Jason is resident in Canada, PIPEDA (Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act) takes precedence for PPCThoughts - there are clear rules on what must be done to conform to the act (such as a privacy notice on what is collected and for what purpose), and there are civil and criminal penalties for violations of the act. This is much more stringent than anything the US has, and is similar to privacy laws in Europe.
I can't believe how ridiculous this thread has become. 8O Since logic and facts won't dissuade some of you, here's how to simply block the cookies and end this discussion:
1) In Internet Explorer, click TOOLS then INTERNET OPTIONS then PRIVACY then the ADVANCED button
2) Click the box for OVERRIDE AUTOMATIC COOKIE HANDLING
3) If you want to block ALL cookies, including the one that logs you into this forum, set both to BLOCK. Be aware that this will likely force you to log in every single time you try and post a new message. A more reasonable level of blocking is to set FIRST-PARTY COOKIES to ACCEPT and THIRD-PARTY COOKIES to BLOCK. That means that if you're on pocketpcthoughts.com and we give you a login cookie, you'll accept it, but if an advertiser gives you a cookie from another domain, it won't be accepted.
And that's it! I'd rather not have to lock this thread, but I can see how it's becoming more political than logical, so let's dial back the rhetoric. Thanks!
__________________ Want to contact me personally? Use this. Want to read my personal blog? Check it out. Want to follow me on Twitter? Here you go.
I think the solution is just to amend the user agreement to include that the user MUST accept the fact that the site requires the use of cookies and leave it at that. The cookie-conscious will go away or learn how to deal with them properly.
I have visited sites that not only require you to agree to the usage of cookies, but use a tool that monitors whether you have pop-up blockers enabled and refuses to show content until the pop-up is allowed to stay.
In the modern "free content" business paradigm, there are simply some things you will encounter. It is up to the user, not the site, to decide how they want to handle what they encounter and whether they can live with it. Let's not forget that not so very long ago, the best sources of content were only available for a fee.
P.S. Locking a thread that has become political? Not too user-friendly, IMHO.
With illiterate people like gorkon, and contridictory people like surer, who needs scare tactics. ^^
Gorkon, doubleclick is not allowed to see your cookies, your logon id, nothing. And as mentioned in this thread just after, no they dont even see the URL of the page. Doubleclick is summoned to your web browser via image link that links to an ID number (the vendor ID of the site you are on) so doubleclick can send an image. It checks for its own cookie file for information I have allready described.
Quote:
These people know where you live, they know how much you earn, and now they know you visit pocketpc websites (example only). Their websites and databases have been hacked in the past. They are subject to the very unsafe terrorism laws in America, which basically means they can request any type of information just on suspicion.
No.. they dont. If you actuall bothered to read what you quoted,
Quote:
By linking those two sets of data, the Internet's largest advertising company would have been able to identify consumers as they moved around the Web by their name, address and telephone number, rather than by an anonymous serial number.
So at the moment, your just an anonymous serial number. I do wonder how they expect to link named to their data in the first place. Maybe they would buddy buddy with a vendor's customer info page (when ordering stuff) and get your info that way, simply polling your doubleclick cookie then? Ok.. now im scaring my self. Its a good thing Doubleclick was denied that. ^^ On the other hand if you habitualy clean your cookies, double click wont beable to keep much of a record for you anyhow.
I can't believe how ridiculous this thread has become.
Wow, I can't believe you can't acknowledge there is some legitimacy to people's concerns expressed here. People would rather not have tracking cookies placed by your third party advertisers. What is so ridiculous about that? It's not going to stop me from reading the site. YOU brought up the subject and people are just simply responding with thier thoughts on it. There's no need to belittle your own readership.
I can't believe how ridiculous this thread has become.
Wow, I can't believe you can't acknowledge there is some legitimacy to people's concerns expressed here. People would rather not have tracking cookies placed by your third party advertisers. What is so ridiculous about that? It's not going to stop me from reading the site. YOU brought up the subject and people are just simply responding with thier thoughts on it. There's no need to belittle your own readership.
Jason gave you the solution to stop exactly what you are requesting. Since you are so concerned about this issue, that solution should be ideal as it will be effective for every site you visit, not just Jasons.
As a web developer I love cookies. I can't get enough of them. While it is possible to write interactive websites that do not use cookies it is much easier, and safer, to use cookies for session management.
Cookies themselves can never be called spyware. They are not software themselves, only text files that hold data that can be used by software.
Banner adverts that come from external websites can place cookies on your system, however most modern browsers will block cookies that come from third party websites. It is also possible to configure most browsers to delete all cookies after you have finished your browsing session.
When people ask me if cookies are good or bad I usually end up pointing them at http://www.aboutcookies.org/ which should answer most peoples questions. It also has handy information on how to configure your web browser to block cookies. The laws mentioned on the site are UK centric. The UK has one of the most comprehensive personal data privacy laws in the world. We even have an appointed person to look after personal data:
So at the moment, your just an anonymous serial number. I do wonder how they expect to link named to their data in the first place. Maybe they would buddy buddy with a vendor's customer info page (when ordering stuff) and get your info that way, simply polling your doubleclick cookie then? Ok.. now im scaring my self. Its a good thing Doubleclick was denied that. ^^ On the other hand if you habitualy clean your cookies, double click wont beable to keep much of a record for you anyhow.
Sorry to be contradictory, but as you said yourself, it is far from impossible to connect that one anonymous number to realworld details.
Doubleclick did not pay 1.7 billion dollars for that company just because they wanted a catalogue company. It was to try and get synergy, and increase the value of both sets of data. There is no reason to think that, having been stopped on this occasion, they (or another company) would not try again on another occasion.
If fact Jeff, you should concern yourself more about exposing private data on the internet. If you can connect enough tit-bits from the various web sites we frequent, you can get all kinds of information. Such as that you are a student and work at Kings Plaza in New York, that you used a Nokia 3650 with T-mobile, that you are interested very much in Divx, have 140GB hard drive space at home, and that you traded Anime from your personal machine in the past....
P.S. Locking a thread that has become political? Not too user-friendly, IMHO.
I only meant if people continued to discuss the FBI, the Patriot Act and other things that would turn this thread into an ugly mess. Discussing cookies is fine, but we try very hard to keep political and religious discussions out of the forums.
__________________ Want to contact me personally? Use this. Want to read my personal blog? Check it out. Want to follow me on Twitter? Here you go.
Wow, I can't believe you can't acknowledge there is some legitimacy to people's concerns expressed here.
When the conversation turned from an Avenue A banner cookie to cookies causing the ATF to break into an innocent man's house and kill his family, this discussion took a sharp turn into crazyville. 8O
__________________ Want to contact me personally? Use this. Want to read my personal blog? Check it out. Want to follow me on Twitter? Here you go.
Re: kind of agree...and kind of don't.....
Linear Mode
