Slashdot Mirror
Marketers Back "Cookies Are Good For You" Campaign
Makarand writes "The increasing numbers of computer users
who regularly delete cookies downloaded by
their browsers is
worrying online marketers and Web
site publishers who feel that the changing
consumer attitude towards cookies is harming
cookie usefulness and unfairly lumping them
with spyware and viruses. This industry group
wants to persuade companies making antispyware programs
to spare legitimate cookies while sweeping hard drives clean
of unnecessary or harmful files.
Some marketers think that providing consumers more information about cookies and how they're used
might change their attitudes towards cookies.
Others are already busy experimenting with newer approaches to serve up targeted ads even if a user has deleted his cookies."
I wonder if I'm one of the people worrying them. I have cookies off by default, and only turn them on for sites that really need them by whitelisting.
Those that I don't want to use a cookie for but have to, I allow to set one but only for the session.
Firefox has been helpful in this, but I would like an easier method of whitelisting cookies than having to go through two layers of preference panels. And no, having it ask me every time a site wants to set a cookie is not the solution.
Error 404 - Sig Not Found
The fact that people get assaulted with a barrage of cookie requests everytime they visit a website makes for a bit of an annoying visit. Ever try telling Firefox to ask before accepting a cookie? What the hell do I need so many cookies for when I visit "your" website? Also, with all the recent headlines about consumer information being mishandled makes people all the more wary. Capitalism cares nothing about privacy, only money.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
I remember back in the dark ages of 1994 when my family and I picked up our first internet-ready computer and hopped on AOL with a 14.4 modem. It wasn't long after that there were published reports of a secret form of subterfuge in our midst (the one in particular I remember was on the Today show). Something called a "cookie" was being sent to our computer as we browsed web sites, and it could track where we went and what we did. Some people in the media were outraged. Mom was somewhat apprehensive at this new way for advertisements to reach us - more, I think, about me buying something than some type of ID theft or the like.
Eventually, however, we got over it. Let's face it, folks, advertising is a part of the world and we're not going to get rid of it. Do I like targeted advertising? No. Certainly not. In fact, I take steps to prevent it from happening such as deleting cookies from known tracking sites and using wonderful Firefox extensions *cough*Adblock*cough* but they still get through.
Fine. I'll deal with targeted ads. However, there's a very real difference between someone wanting, wishing, willing me to do something (an advertisement) and someone forcing me to do it (malware/spyware/trojans/hijackers). While we often lump the two together, they are indeed different.
I hate to say it, but this time those annoying popup ads are in the right.
ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
Cookies are used for storing your session information and preferences for sites. That's what the mechanism was designed for, and so far nothing better has come up to replace it.
In terms of tracking your preferences, I have mixed feelings. On one hand, I don't like someone keeping track of my browsing preferences for unrelated sites. On another, I'd rather see ads that may interest me than yet another "punch the monkey" or "refinance your home". Most people hate ads because they are annoying and uninteresting to them, not because they are selling something. This is why Google is successful: they are good at improving the chances that the ad you see is related to what you are looking for.
See charts for twitter trends on Trendistic
- When google tries to set third party cookie tied to a keyword in you search. You then may have cookie for a site you never visited and one you may never visit
- When a site tries to set a cookie before any content is loaded. This used to be standard for those firms trying to get traffic through mistyped URL. Now, unfortunately, even legitimate websites do this more than not.
- When a site sets 10 cookies on the home page
Business is about trying to set up a relationship between people offering a product or service and people willing to acquire the product or service. Reputable businesses do not ask to see the customer cash at the door. Even reputable car dealers do not ask it you are going to buy today.These cookies problems are largely caused by firms forcing users to make decisions about cookies on the home page, and secondarily, forcing users to make decisions about cookies when the user is browsering product. For content sites, it is appropriate to set a limited number of cookies when the user selects an option from the home page. For those selling a product, I do not see an issue with letting a user browse. Set a cookies when the user adds something to the cart.
One of the silliest things that I see is the brick and motor stores denying a user because cookies are not being accepted. This means that I cannot browse their products online, which means I will just travel to another store, a store where I am more sure product exists, rather than wasting time and gas going to a store that obviously does not want my money. Sale lost.
On more thing. If a firm chooses a third party tracking company, choose only one. The best argument against cookies is that many sites contract with two or more tracking companies. The tracking companies have known vulnerabilities. By contracting with multiple companies, the user basically has little choice but to deny cookies.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I design a lot of intranet based applications. And I *used* to use cookies a lot to keep user information. It was easy, convenient, and accurate. I never had problems.
Then some whack job at my company started to tell everyone that cookies were 'dangerous' and they should block them. Of course then I started to get complaints that my systems no longer functioned. (I had it set up to notify the users what the problem was...not just throwing stupid errors.)
It was a total pain to reconfigure the systems to deal with url/form variables everywhere, instead of just using cookies. And now a lot of the user-friendly functionality is gone. "Why doesn't it remember who I am?" "Because you turned off cookies..."
Hundreds of hours of wasted time because one dork thought that cookies were spyware...and this is on an INTRANET site.
I really wish they could understand what cookies really are...
No reason to lie.
JavaScript can be completely accessable, if implemented correctly. For example, say a tree: You render the actual data in (X)HTML, allowing for any type of browser to access it. On top of that, you style it with CSS with all elements visible, incase someone who supports CSS has JavaScript disabled. Finally, you code the JS, which hides the elements by looping through the DOM and changing the "display" property of the elements.
If it's a screenreader, it gets a perfectly valid list of links; if it's a browser that supports CSS, a non-interactive tree; JavaScript, the completely dynamic tree.
Using cookies to store states such as that with JS is a completely valid use, preventing the person from having to click through the tree each time he refreshes.
Server side scripting is a nice alternative; but it is too slow for something like navigation. (Click on link, wait for reload, scroll back down, click on link, etc)
Its commonly done in travel sites to maintain statefulness between page renders.
Statefulness matters because unlike store inventory, there's not really the concept of a shopping cart. You want to travel between point A->B, but your choices from page to page will depend entirely on what happens with inventory completely separate from the web site itself (I realize in re-reading this paragraph that this is almost incomprehensible, but still...).
Are there workarounds? Yes, but they're ugly, complicated, and unreliable, and require huge application servers, particularly when you have people coming from a mega-proxy like AOL.
And these cookies are typically gone when you leave the site. They're simply used to track where you are in the purchasing process. Its nothing personal.
Plus, I do find it handy that certain sites remember me, but that's more of a convenience factor.
I'm sure there are many other reasons.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
You would think that a list of sites you "block" and another list that you "allow" is a good thing. I beg to differ. Whenever I close my browser, I delete ALL lists of any kind, also cookies, temporary internet cache, web history, etc. When I start my browser, it is as if it had never been run before. I also delete any information the OS "stores" about me, like my recent opened documents, programs I use most often, etc.
I don't believe that any software should store any information in a form that would be easily digestable by spyware, viruses, etc. You should store your own lists in a protected (possibly encrypted) document of a name you created yourself. I find it quite amazing that people use and "trust", Media Player, iTunes, WinAmp, etc, to store their song lists. All it takes is one dormant, one-shot, then-it-deletes-itself, information sniffer to glean pages about your likes, dislikes, habits, etc.
Just like a C++ or JAVA object, there are things that I will share publicly, and things that I deem to be private about myself. Being here on slashdot is something that I can reveal publicly. My tastes in consumer products, and hobbies is not. Some people could care less if they give out everything about themselves. Good for them. I hope they get as much snail mail and email SPAM as they can take.
I absolutely cannot stand being marketed to. Web pop-ups, flashy advertisements, videos, moving windows. It is all ridiculous. News papers made money in the past without ever having all that flash, and there was no way to "probe" for your tastes. Companies simply followed their sales figures. Now we've got an entire industry devoted to "knowing about you" now.
How will this trip end? In a bad train wreck I suppose. I just hope I survive it before having to give up my kids DNA at birth for an entertainment industry tracking system. We saw only the tip of the iceberg in "Minority Report". Gee, lets see if we can build a statistically guassian determinable system to find out what you like to 5 9's accuracy! That way we can save 2 pennies of profit for each person!
Please support boycotting, ad blocking, the deletion of browser history, cache files, and cookies!
(As soon as this message is sent, the slashdot cookie will be deleted.)
Note: This message brought to you buy a person who has withdrawn from society and just wishes to be left alone. I have become comfortably numb.
Have a nice day! Off soapbox.