
how-to block ads
|
 pieter arntz
join:2002-02-26 Netherlands
| Re: How 'bad' are spyware cookies?? Since agreeing with you will hardly make it a discussion, here is a completely different opinion: »www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1674169,00.asp
Quote for those that don't like the cookies from PC Magazine. 
quote: But let's go further and ban cookies too. Cookies are those small files that Web sites store on your computer for their convenience. I never even liked the idea of cookies. Why should some Web site be storing its data on my machine? While a cookie is kind of handy when you want to store a password, this can be done other ways without the alien Web site looking at my files. Whose idea was this anyway? Cookies are like those marks that hoboes used to make on picket fences during the depression in the 1930s. They were marks to tell other hoboes who the rubes were. A cookie is a marker telling Web sites that I'm a sucker.
{snipped a bit}
Back to my main complaint. One thing that comes to mind in all this debate and hand-wringing over spyware, cookies, ActiveX, Java and the like is the idea of making any use of cookie technology itself illegal.
I've thought about this before. This is all about your computer doing stuff to my computer without my permission, isn't it? Make all such action illegal. That means cookies too. So what if the browser lets you create cookies? Does that mean we cannot outlaw them? There are plenty of capabilities within browser code that shouldn't be allowed to be present. But let's start with cookies and generalize a law with cookies in mind.
Something like this would work for me: "Any person who knowingly writes or reads files from another person's computer by personal or robotic means for whatever reason whatsoever and without the permission of the party involved, with full knowledge of the activity each and every time the action is performed, is guilty of a felony and subject to fine and imprisonment not to exceed $10,000 and one year in prison for each offense."
That would cover it for me.
John C. Dvorak
Personally, I tend to agree more with SpywareGuides view as published here: »www.spywareguide.com/articles/in···_57.html It's the thought that counts more then the doing.
Regards,
Pieter -- Metallica rulez | |
|   dp Go Steelers Premium,MVM join:2000-12-08 Greensburg, PA
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: How 'bad' are spyware cookies?? There is also a lenghty discussion on that article going on in their forums (PC Mag). »discuss.pcmag.com/n/main.asp?web···=43277.1 -- Write your questions down on the back of a $20 dollar bill and send them to me | |
|   IGGY No Guru Just Here To Help Premium,MVM join:2001-03-30 Chatham, IL
| I like Dvorak. But my question in regards to the statements quoted above would be this. If he truly feels this way. Why does he use the advertising that many of us do to make a living on his blog. Many of the advertisements you see on his blog will in fact drop a cookie on your machine. Some of these companies are even frowned upon by some in this forum. Even though the companies are legitimate and as far as I've seen. Never have obtained unnecessary data or shared any data from cookies with others.
My opinion is simple. If someone has a better way of doing things. Please present it. If someone has a better way to make sure websites get paid for sales from ads shown. Then definitely present it and help get it into place. Many would say just do away with the commercialization of the web. I honestly don't see this happening. So lets offer options you feel would better handle the issue. Many in this forum also run websites with various content. Many of those same users depend on those cookies to put food on the table and pay the bills. For anyone who has ever read an affiliate contract / terms of service. You know that one slight error and you don't get paid. No cookie - no recorded sale. Even if the buyer came from your site. Many here would say oh well tough luck. Your not going to invade my privacy. Even though the cookie placed isn't spying on you.
I personally feel the whole cookie thing has become way blown out of proportion. With that said. I do block cookies - except for session cookies - for sites I don't know all that well. Just in case the evil cookie monster does reveal itself. But when I make purchases online. I make sure I'm accepting the needed cookies for that site not to get hosed out of a payment. -- Test Your Security Benefit for Children's Cancer Cable Diagnostics My Blog | |
|  |  VirtualLarry Premium join:2003-08-01
| Re: How 'bad' are spyware cookies?? said by IGGY :If someone has a better way of doing things. Please present it. Ted Nelson's concept of "transcopyright", and micropayments, come to mind. said by IGGY :If someone has a better way to make sure websites get paid for sales from ads shown. What if they got paid for the content itself, directly? In such a way that the annoying advertisements weren't even necessary? Not a pre-paid subscription, but a tiny "pay-as-you-go" thing, almost just like pre-paid phone cards, which were/are all the rage. said by IGGY :Then definitely present it and help get it into place. Many would say just do away with the commercialization of the web. I honestly don't see this happening. Well, if you remember the state of the internet/web around '94-95, and the state of it now... what do you think? I think that the commercial interests have almost totally destroyed what it used to be, on the order of carpet-bombing Iraq, in order to "save it".
I also blame the speculators and "the bubble" for doing a lot of damage too, over and above those that sought to commercialize the medium. If they had never shown up, things like hosting/bandwidth costs would never have shot up either. Kind of like the Gold Rush, those selling sevices to those that hoped to "strike it rich", often overcharged, simply because those customers would be willing to pay the price, in a manner that the "locals" were not able to afford any more.
Some of the biggest obstacles preventing something like I outlined from happening, are simultanously the biggest, existing transaction merchant companies, although Paypal is making significant inroads, and ISPs, whom want to "stay out of the loop" as much as possible, and yet, are really the "key" to the whole thing. Local leaf-node caching of content, using a protocol that can differentiate between "wholesale" and "retail" information, and have a capability for direct local billing, with a certain cut going "upstream", and eventually reaching the actual root content-provider/content-creator, would going a long way towards the creation of this sort of infrastructure.
I know that a lot of people believe that everyone on the internet should be free, and that feeling is probably never going to go away, but realistically, would paying pennies per day, for you favorite websites, be too high of a cost?
It also greatly reduces the risk that prevents many people from pre-paying for a subscription for content, because they could visit the site once, at a tiny nominal cost (under a quarter or dime, perhaps, for the average site), and if they don't like the content, simply never go back. | |
|  | |  |
|