Something you should read.
NoSpam
but did you know that her site loads cookies onto your browser (without
permission and even if your not a subscriber). Don't believe it? Load up a
filter and watch. I guess when it comes to privacy and intusion she really
doesn't care too much about that. If I can decrypt what her cookie is
attempting to do I'll post it here. My guess is that they'll claim it's a
counter.....yeah right.
Groovy1138
>From: "NoSpam" nos...@youraddress.com
>Date: 10/25/00 4:47 AM US Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <FLzJ5.641$5b4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Dude, wake up...ALL internet sites load cookies into your browser. If you
don't want them in their, DELETE them. It's not that hard. Not that they'd do
any harm in there, anyway. What are you so paranoid about?
Or are you working for Cindy Margolis and trying to "scare" Danni's fans with
propaganda?
Shove off.
NOSPAM
cookies. Of course a lot of sites on the web load cookies onto our servers. Maybe
you haven't heard about the 23 million $ lawsuit going on against DoubleClick right
now because they load cookies onto our servers. I don't care if it's a 4k or 4meg
piece of data. Its wrong bonehead! That is unless a vegetable like you doesn't know
any better. And besides, who says that cookies aren't harmful? They assign IDs,
track movement and purchasing habits without the users knowledge or permission. It
doesn't matter how benign they are. They shouldn't even reside on a user's disk
without some form of notification (at the least). Your telling me that when it
comes to responsibility, cookies are an exception? Are there any branches in your
family tree or is there just too much yardage between your goal posts.? I don't
care how Danni makes her money, handles her affairs, or for that matter, what her
business is. The point is whether someone sends a cookie, enters an open port,
sends spy-ware, or bulk emails spam, unauthorized encroachment is intrusion. And I
didn't read anything in her testimony reflecting that fact (other then the spam).
So get a life and then an education you weak minded door knob!!
Cheshire Cat
least warn you that one is being placed. Netscape has a cookie file
that you can lock (on a Mac) or make into a read only file on other
OSs.
It's called taking responsibility for your own privacy. My Global
History gets *wiped* on a regular basis. I don't want *anyone* to know
where I go or where I've been.
As for Doubleclick, I hope that they and their ilk go bankrupt. Web
advertisers are beginning to get a clue that banner ads are just plain
annoying to most people.
In article <39F88759...@atyouraddress.com>, NOSPAM
NoSpam
from something that I never wanted anyway, then the people who are loading this stuff
onto my servers have all the rights in the world to collect their choice of my personal
information? Is that correct?
It is true that I can change the attributes of my cookie files, disable the cookies,
get warnings, install cookie managers and all of that stuff. Its already been done. I
also install fire walls, test client servers for port security and software weaknesses,
and program for a living. I think you were missing my point. As much as you say we need
to be responsible for our own privacy (which I agree with), I'm saying that web sites
who send static cookies are just as, if not more irresponsible. Lets go one step
further. Lets say that the web site decides to change it's privacy policy or not even
honor it, merge with another site, or be purchased. We're talking about an immense
amount of personal data that is invaluable to whoever owns it, and a threat to those
who didn't understand what was being taken from them. Don't think it could happen? It
already has. Take Toysmart.com for instance. When they were in reorganization (May of
this year) they tried to auction off their databases (cookies included) of all visitor
and customer information to the highest bidder. That site's privacy policy assured the
information would never be shared with a 3rd party.
The worst part is that cookies don't even have to reside on one's disk but yet
webmasters see to it that they can remain on a user's computer for years (as your
probably well aware of). So lets be realistic. What percentage of web user's really
know how to do anything about a cookie, much less what one is? How many newbies know
how to track down a spammer? How many privacy statements have you read that instruct
and encourage disabling static cookies if the visitor doesn't want them? The answers
are 'small', small', and 'none'. Webmasters know this, take advantage of it, and its
wrong. Thats why I'm not surprised that this information was never brought up in
testimony.
Cheshire Cat
as much as you claim to then you know every packet has several ID's in
it and every router that packet goes through takes a fingerprint (for
lack of a better analogy) of that packet as it passes through. Then it
writes To:/From: data in a log and people like WebTrends make a good
living writing software to reduce those raw logs to something
comprehensible by a human.
I didn't miss your point at all. I'm only saying that if you surf the
Web or post to newsgroups then you leave a trail. The only way I know
of to avoid this is to use an anonymous mail, news and browsing
servers.
The fact that we are having this conversation *might* clue someone to
be a bit more vigilant about their personal and electronic identity.
Unfortunately, we're not likely to find newbies doing anything in the
newsgroups other than stripping binaries.
Take a chill pill, bro and let's try to educate the great unwashed
masses. They'll never get a clue otherwise.
In article <39FD8B0B...@youraddress.com>, NoSpam
NoSpam
people don't take responsibility for their own privacy (for whatever reason), then do you
think companies have the right to collect their choice of the user's personal information? Yes
or No.
I know all about routing packets, ID's, encryption, and educating the masses. I'm just
interested in your answer.
Cheshire Cat wrote:
--
The Tahoe Skier
^^^ \\^
http://thetahoeskier.home.att.net
^ ^ \\ ^^
Worried About Your Web Privacy?
You Should Be.
http://thetahoeskier.home.att.net/privacy.htm
^^^ \\^ ^ ^
Voice Mail/Fax
(Toll Free) 1-888-392-4832
Extension 291-322-8405
^ ^^^//^ ^
^ /^\ ^^
Cheshire Cat
Now if you choose to participate in e-commerce, how do you minimize the
information collected and still get your stuff?
Choose your vendors very carefully.
In article <3A005491...@youraddress.com>, NoSpam
SuperPilot2
reason), then do you think companies have the right to collect their choice of
the user's personal information? Yes or No.
===================================
LoL - Every time you give somebody your name, address or phone number, you're
inviting them to bombard you with junk mail (snail mail and/or e-mail) and/or
sales calls.
Ever been to Radio Shack? They always ask for phone number and address - I
always give them bogus info because I don't want thier junk in my mailbox.
To quote P.T. Barnum, "there's one (sucker) born every minute".
NoSpam
As you and SuperPilot2 exemplify, whether it's comes to e-com or the store down the
street, the unleery consumer is at the mercy of the vendor. So what do we do? Well
before we talk about the responsibility of e-com, let's consider the web site that
starts collecting user information even before a transaction takes place.
Since we already know that Privacy Statements and Terms of Use really don't mean
that much, the only way I know of turning the tables is by publicly discrediting
web sites who practice various forms of cloaked marketing. Put enough public
pressure on them to abandon stealth collection, and either they stop doing it or
their business ultimately suffers.
What do you think?
SuperPilot2
mean
that much, the only way I know of turning the tables is by publicly
discrediting
web sites who practice various forms of cloaked marketing. Put enough public
pressure on them to abandon stealth collection, and either they stop doing it
or
their business ultimately suffers.
What do you think?
======================================
Well, I don't usually think about it - I just give out bogus information. If
it's at all possible, I give addresses and phone numbers of other "stealth
collection" scams.
For example. when Radio Shack asks me for a phone number or an address, I give
them a phone number or address for a different Radio Shack.
I do similar things with web sites. Give bogus info, and then if I like the
results, I "reapply" with correct info.
Rather than get annoyed about it, I try to have some fun with it. :-)
NoSpam
masses that lack the knowledge of understanding what is going on. You should tell
many more about how your handling Radio Shack. If the word gets out and people
start practicing your solution, Radio Shack will begin to see the error of their
ways.
I'm not annoyed with the problem. Just concerned.
You may be familiar with a political term called 'rent slumming'. It's goes by
several other terms but what it means is 'a business owner who tries to influence
a government body to legislate action in the business's favor.' That's what has
happened recently and in the case of privacy, could have some fairly serious and
global implications.
Like you, I have the balls to go after the problem. I just go after it with a
different style.
MadMaxBolt
>but did you know that her site loads cookies onto your browser (without
>permission and even if your not a subscriber). Don't believe it? Load up a
>filter and watch. I guess when it comes to privacy and intusion she really
>doesn't care too much about that. If I can decrypt what her cookie is
>attempting to do I'll post it here. My guess is that they'll claim it's a
>counter.....yeah right.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I believe you....she (and all her porno buddies) aren't very concerned with
"free-speech", just there ability to make a buck...