The conspiracy of "tracking cookie" paranoia

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
It depends who, and how the cookie is used. For example, our Google Analytics cookie would indeed be available for every page-load you have on ATS. But what's the issue? The data is not identified as your personal browsing history.

I dont trust companies like google, I want nothing to do with them as they want to have too much control over the internet. They can track your searches, now they got this pay system where they can track everything you buy too.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
There are several reasons to "need" cookies. For example, your ATS username is stored in a cookie... and third parties use them to deliver a better mix of ads.

Frankly, that is of no use to me, for you yes but not for me. I only use them for sites I have to log into like forumsm banking or shops.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Safe from what? So far, no one has identified what the potential threat is.

I dont know what certain virii, spyware or adware do but I always scan and remove them and run my AV, spybot and adaware once a week.

The only bad part from cookies is if you browse mature websites and your wife knows where the cookies are placed : Anyway, a cookie is more to keep site preferences, login name, last visit, shopping cart. And who cares if some advertising companies knows that this cookie has an interest for some content. I would not sleep less from that knowledge.

HTTP is a stateless protocol. The browser asks for a page and receives it, end of story. The cookie was created to allow info to be saved between requests. The "remember my username", "what I have added to a shopping cart", etc. Server asks browser to store or return data to create a session type atmosphere. Some web apps, like ASP, use hidden fields.

As mentioned earlier, since only the domain that created to cookie can read it, different sites can't look at what other sites are placing on your computer.

It's the price for having an interactive experience using the world wide web.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Sauron
I don't really know much about them, but I dump them all almost daily with Ccleaner

A-ha! A product that has convinced you to regularly delete cookies. Would there be a motive to keep you convinced that you need the product?

Well like I have said I don't know much about cookies, I know more now than I did from the links you posted and information from you.
The program CCleaner I use is free. I use it because it does more than deleting cookies that is only one of the applications the program has. Mostly because of the registry cleaner I am for ever installing and un-installing programs.



Though I do see what I think you are saying, that people do not truly understanding the function of cookies, and how many internet users, me included are lead to believe that they are something we don't want on our systems. So we should buy a product to eliminate them to keep our personal information safe.



[edit on 16/5/2007 by Sauron]

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
In my mind, there's a great deal of misinformation about cookies throughout the Internet, and most of is inaccurate hype being generated by anti-spyware/virus firms, or those with an interest in anti-spyware/virus firms. So... a potential corporate conspiracy of sorts.

So... before I get into my side of the story, I'd like to hear from some ATS members about their thoughts on "tracking cookies."

From my earlier thread about Google's pending patent, you already know that I am ignorant to tracking behaviors. I honestly had never researched "cookies" before now. I thought they were some sort of scripting allowing browsers to remember passwords and had something to do with websites/pictures/ads.

In their currently form, I take it that cookies provide no threat to your personal information stored on your computer or in your brower? Also, are they a general form of tacking, rather than specific to individual?

With modification would "super-cookies" (for lack of better term) be able to retreive such sensitive information or could they be altered to track specific persons browsing the internet? Rather than a page logging that a certain cookie has been there, could stored "super-cookies" actually send out information about every site that you visit?

It just makes me wonder what method of tracking the government and Google will be using. Would they be able to create such a "super-cookie", or would this mainly be done by programs specifically designed to do so?

[edit on 16-5-2007 by tyranny22]

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Safe from what? So far, no one has identified what the potential threat is.

Ok, first off, I'm not young. Back in the day I was a hacker but I'm long retired, in fact retired before the internet became popular. But I still have the perspective of a hacker, but unforutunately not the skills.

When cookies first came into use, the people who were using them didn't alert us users to that fact and I remember the uproar when we found out. The idea that an outside source was placing files on our computers without telling us?!? That was a federal computer crime. Then they let us "turn off" cookies, or opt out? They convinced us that cookies are benevolent and now they are an escential part of how the internet funtions. As someone else pointed out if you use explorer you are more less in the "on" or "off" modes and apparently firefox is the way to go. But anyway, I can't explain the potential for abuse as effectively as these sites:

www.cookiecentral.com...

www.informit.com...

I think those sites show the potential for abuse. Cookies in and of themselves are kind of a good idea. Unfortunately not all people are to be trusted and cookies are also a powerful information gathering tool.

Vas

It might be a misperception but I view cookies like pilot fish that swim with a host shark (me).

I don't mind the free swimming fish but then fish come along that want to attach to you and eat your scraps. Now I'm carrying these fish along with me, slowing me down. But some will act like a car wash and actually clean you by eating embeded sea-weed.

So I like having the option of keeping some cookies and denying others.

I'm the one swimming and paying for the ride. If I don't want the hitchhiker kind of fish, well if I can do something I'll delete.

Again that may seem illogical, and I usually don't bother, it bothers me, especially if I don't know the site or went there by accident and suddenly it's sending you all these cookie.

Also, just because it's hard to use cookies beyond tracking, unscrupulous cookie issuers will find a way around the limitations and the next thing there goes the neighborhood.

So some cookie placers ruin it for every one else. How can you blame -me- for that phenomena?

Originally posted by tyranny22
With modification would "super-cookies" (for lack of better term) be able to retreive such sensitive information or could they be altered to track specific persons browsing the internet?

No. Cookies are simple text files written by the web server (or in-page JavaScript), and can only be read by the domain from which they're written. With those parameters, the only way a cookie can possibly represent anything about you personally is if you volunteer personal information to the site writing the cookie, and their practices are sloppy enough to write that information into their cookies.

Originally posted by Vasilis Azoth
But anyway, I can't explain the potential for abuse as effectively as these sites:

www.cookiecentral.com...

www.informit.com...

Most of the information at those links are repeat misinformation popularized by the firms who create "security software" that delete your cookies for you.

One of the arguments at the first link is that "the cookie is stored in the user's computer without her consent or knowledge." This is not true, and part of the environment of paranoia the software firms would like to generate. Cookies have been a clearly communicated component of web browsers since Netscape 0.9b (which I helped beta test).

One point at the second link deserves merit, the issue of potential XSS attacks to discover cookie data. While this is indeed a possibility, it's actually very rare and exceptionally difficult to do without some level of "inside" information about the site a hacker is trying to exploit. This is why such hacks end up being more mischievous exploits on users of blogs and forums based on open source systems. The system ATS is based on (XMB) was vulnerable to this, but one minor alteration to the default code, and it no longer is.

Another "concern" at the second link is that a cookie from DoubleClick could be used to store your browsing history. Yes, this is possible (though DoubleClick doesn't do it that way any more), however, your ISP now tracks your browsing history in complete detail... and they're not telling you they're doing it. And while we're on personal history, do you have any grocery store discount cards?

Originally posted by Badge01
Also, just because it's hard to use cookies beyond tracking, unscrupulous cookie issuers will find a way around the limitations and the next thing there goes the neighborhood.

I've been programming server-side code that writes and reads cookies since it was possible to write and read cookies. Given the massive numbers of talented and unscrupulous people programming web pages, don't you think we'd have a clear example of cookie abuse by now? But all we really have are artificial concerns created by software firms.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
However, your ISP now tracks your browsing history in complete detail... and they're not telling you they're doing it. And while we're on personal history, do you have any grocery store discount cards?

Exactly, people seem to be more worried about a cookie, then what their ISP/Phone operator needs to log by law (atleast in Europe) grocery/bank/credit cards, they all know when, where, what, how much you bought. And this stuff you can't wipe with CCleaner.

Originally posted by Cygnific
Exactly, people seem to be more worried about a cookie, then what their ISP/Phone operator needs to log by law (atleast in Europe) grocery/bank/credit cards, they all know when, where, what, how much you bought. And this stuff you can't wipe with CCleaner.

The difference is that they have to do that by law, there is nothing I can do about it. I can prevent google tracking everything I do.

Would you be happy if they monitored your email, chat programs, phone calls etc so they could target you with ads?

It wouldnt have an effect you on but youd probably want your privacy, just like people dont want to be tracked by ad sites, these guys are only 1 step away from malware and spyware.

Of course they wouldnt affect you but I bet you would remove that stuff from your computer if you found it there.

I am fully against tracking cookies. To that end, May I offer some "FREE" programs that will remove them for you.

ccleaner:
www.ccleaner.com...

Ad aware se:
www.download.com...

Spybot search and distroy:
www.safer-networking.org...

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
I am fully against tracking cookies.

Could you help us understand why?

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Could you help us understand why?

Because they offer no use to the end user and people value their privacy.

It didnt help that these companies were tracking you without your knowledge, hardly a way to build up trust. The law was even changed to stop their sneaky tactics.

Originally posted by Flyer
Because they offer no use to the end user and people value their privacy.

Let's start by having a look at the current policies of the firm most-often associated with "cookie evilness," the firm currently with the resources available to perform cookie-based user-tracking, and the firm Google is buying: DoubleClick:
www.doubleclick.com...

What is the DoubleClick cookie doing on my computer?
The information that the DART cookie helps to give marketers includes the number of unique users their advertisements were displayed to, how many users clicked on their Internet ads or paid listings, and which ads or paid listings they clicked on.

What information is collected by a client using DoubleClick’s ad serving technology?
the date, the time, the website to which the ad or image was delivered, the cookie ID to which the ad was shown, the operating system which the browser was using – will be recorded.

Does DoubleClick itself do anything with this ad-serving information?
No. The information that is recorded on the DoubleClick servers by our clients’ use of our technology belongs to our clients.

Does DoubleClick sell the ad serving information to other companies?
No. The data that DoubleClick’s servers record during ad serving belong to DoubleClick’s clients, and DoubleClick cannot and does not sell that information to other companies.

Now, DoubleClick was indeed involved in trying to build a contextually-aligned database of user activity back in the late 1990's, and that has been the catalyst of much of the contemporary cookie hype (back then, I stopped using them because of it). However, after pressure from many sources, including industry groups like the DMA and IAB, firms like DoubleClick no longer attempt to profile users based on their site history. They use their cookies to keep track of which ads you see, and use the audience psychographics/demographics of the site you're visiting to target the right ad.

It didnt help that these companies were tracking you without your knowledge,

Not quite true. At the time DoubleClick attempted their effort of profiling users based on browsing patterns (on sites that served DART ads), they were very public about what they were trying to do, how they were trying to do it, and what the intended outcome was. Most people didn't like it... but to be fair, there was a substantial amount of information made public about it.


But still... in the end... after all that... assuming the deep tracking is happening... what is so terrible about a random ID code, not identifiable to you, correlating to a partial list of sites you've visited? Maybe it's just me, but in the vast spectrum of contemporary privacy intrusions, this is spectacularly minor... if that.

I don't like strangers tracking me. It's a basic human emotion.


I'm not worried about ATS itself. But advertizers want to track me, and datamine from my activity, whether I have any loose change, or am gullible.

They don't have my best interests at heart. They are looking to help themselves---at my expense.

Maybe someone who administers an active website could speculate with us on how cookies could be misused?



How about this?

IF I was the govt, I'd find out pretty quick how to identify which advertizers/websites put which cookies on to a consumer's computer. If I understood correctly, SO says that only the site that writes a cookie can read it. But I bet a cookie from myspace looks different from an ATS cookie, or say, an Al Jazeera cookie, doesn't it? Howabout a cookie from a website that gives Shedreh readings (weekly torah readings in Syanagogue)? Howabout the Sinn Fein website?

.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

But still... in the end... after all that... assuming the deep tracking is happening... what is so terrible about a random ID code, not identifiable to you, correlating to a partial list of sites you've visited? Maybe it's just me, but in the vast spectrum of contemporary privacy intrusions, this is spectacularly minor... if that.

emphasis added by strangecraft

The problem for me is the part of your post I emphasized. Whether or not an ID code is "identifiable to me" is someone else's choice, not mine.

One of the fundamental dicta of the information age is that any information gathered will eventually be used for purposes beyond those originally intended.

As a consumer, I have no control of how "deep" the tracking goes. It's someone else's choice; not mine. And that loss of power over my own life bothers me.

.

Originally posted by Flyer

Would you be happy if they monitored your email, chat programs, phone calls etc so they could target you with ads?

It wouldnt have an effect you on but youd probably want your privacy, just like people dont want to be tracked by ad sites, these guys are only 1 step away from malware and spyware.

Of course they wouldnt affect you but I bet you would remove that stuff from your computer if you found it there.

I would not be happy if they monitored email, chat, phone calls, and that is why that is not allowed for them to do this.. You yourself decide to visit a website and probably for a reason, so the owner of the website can collect data about what you did and make specific advertising or profiles to that cookie. The problem is that advertising will not go, so why not get the advertising you like?

I would worry more about Index.dat then Cookies if you use IE. This file keeps a record of every single website you have visited and most people are not able to delete it. If you want to delete it you need to end Explorer from Task Manager and map to the file through Command Promt. You can then delete it and then restart explorer from Task Man.

"Internet privacy groups contend that the use of index.dat files in the Windows operating system is an invasion of privacy. One of their main complaints is that the index.dat files cannot be deleted or erased easily, because they are always open when Windows (usually the explorer.exe process) is running. Open or "locked" files cannot be deleted in any way when the process using them is running. Also, when this file grows larger than 80MB in size degraded web performance will occur.

Another contention is that the operating system gives a false sense of security. Even after the user has cleared the internet cache folder, temporary internet files folder, and history folder, the index.dat files on Windows continue to store all visited web addresses and cookies and some temporary files. Some people state that this will eventually cause the index.dat files to grow very large, while the average user remains unaware of what is going on.

However, Microsoft representatives have pointed out that the index.dat files can optionally be deleted by advanced users, when Windows is rebooted in Safe Mode. Because Windows does not lock the file in safe mode, it can be deleted via any of the normal methods of deleting files in Windows."

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Cygnific
I would not be happy if they monitored email, chat, phone calls, and that is why that is not allowed for them to do this.. You yourself decide to visit a website and probably for a reason, so the owner of the website can collect data about what you did and make specific advertising or profiles to that cookie. The problem is that advertising will not go, so why not get the advertising you like?

I dont see any difference between someone monitoring phone calls etc than monitoring sites.

Advertising will go if you want it to, you dont have to ever see another ad again if you want.

Originally posted by Flyer
Advertising will go if you want it to, you dont have to ever see another ad again if you want.

This is quite true, but we'd be shooting ourselves in our collective foot. Somebody's gotta foot the bill from somewhere. Advertising is (to me) a very unobtrusive and cost-beneficial way to keep sites like this one free.

It isn't the advertising, or the cookies that are worrisome, it's the technology. And that genie's already out of the lamp.