FCC Meets To Investigate Cookie Abuse

PreacherTom writes to tell us BusinessWeek is reporting that the FCC and the Center for Digital Democracy plan to meet in order to discuss abuses with regard to cookies. From the article: "Online advertisers have a sweet tooth for cookies. Not the kind you bake, but the digital kind — those tiny files that embed themselves on a PC and keep tabs on what Web sites are visited on which machines. But cookies could have a bad aftertaste for consumers. Privacy advocates say the files are being force fed in large quantities to computer users, and they're demanding that the government put some advertisers on a diet."

Comments

Alright, I'll Cut Back!

[Anonymous Coward]

FCC Meets to Investigate Cookie Abuse

Jeez, lay off me, ok? My doctor's been bustin' my balls about it, the last thing I need is the government on my back.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry! But when you leave a box of those girl scout confections next to me, what do you think I'm going to do? They're gone after a few lines of coding and I don't even remember eating them!

*breaks down sobbing

I'm a sick man! I need help! Someone just check me into the Betty Crocker clinic already!

Suggested tag: thinkofthecookies

Are you kidding?

[spencerogden]

Is this really an area we need more laws about? The dangers of cookies have been overblown for a long time. Not to mention that fact that all browsers give the user more than adequate control over their cookies.

If this is the best thing the FCC can find to waste their time on, then they have become worthless.

The summary is an understatement.

[jZnat]

Try browsing with cookies on an "ask me every time" sort of basis. Even the most unlikely websites will demand a cookie. What ever happened to sane usage of cookies where they'd only be set if you did something on the site that initiated a cookie transfer (e.g. logging in, starting a shopping cart, storing your preferences)?

Re:The summary is an understatement.

[TodMinuit]

What ever happened to sane usage of cookies where they'd only be set if you did something on the site that initiated a cookie transfer (e.g. logging in, starting a shopping cart, storing your preferences)?

Oh man, remember those good old days? Before every site was covered in AdSense. When MySpace was the glimmer in some nerds eye. Before every moron lip-synced horrible songs on YouTube. When email was used for communication. When people actually used correct English. When Pluto was still a planet.

I remember!!! Flobble-de-flee!

Oh criminy

[A nonymous Coward]

Just disable cookies in the browser by default. Or make them session cookies, that's a good enough second best.

What's the government supposed to do next, make it illegal for anyone to download a virus?

Honestly, some people won't be satisfied until the government publishes a 500 page manual on how to wipe your ass and makes it illegal to do it in any other way.

Re:When contacted for comment on this...

[scottschiller]

Another cookie article, and yet more cooking/baking analogies. Someone should write a cookie monster Greasemonkey script which brings up that particular character ("And now, me eat cookie! Owmwowmowmwowmowmwmowm...."), before setting document.cookie to null.

Many sites stuff advertising and tracking-related data in there alongside your login/auth information in cookies, so it seems you can't win if you need to browse with credentials etc. Blocking 3rd-party cookies is probably the safest bet against ads and so on at this point though, without disrupting cookies required just to browse/authenticate.

Re:More laws != good laws

[KokorHekkus]

Sweden has had a law mandating full disclosure of how cookies are used since 2003. In practice this means there's a small notification to a static page on how they use cookies. So it's not exactly an undue burden for a website. Having a lot of exceptions would make this complicated? Then don't have any... we don't in Sweden. Nothing has crumbled and died here yet.