Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lawsuit Hits Companies Using 'Zombie' Flash Cookies

Posted by kdawson on from the brains-for-a-filling dept.

A privacy activist has filed a lawsuit targeting eight corporate users of Quantcast's "zombie" Flash cookies, in addition to Quantcast itself. The suit alleges that MTV, ESPN, MySpace, Hulu, ABC, Scribd, and others used Quancast's Flash-based cookies to recreate browser tracking cookies that users had taken the trouble to delete. "At issue is technology from Quantcast, also targeted in the lawsuit. Quantcast created Flash cookies that track users across the web, and used them to re-create traditional browser cookies that users deleted from their computers. These 'zombie' cookies came to light last year, after researchers at UC Berkeley documented deleted browser cookies returning to life. Quantcast quickly fixed the issue, calling it an unintended consequence of trying to measure web traffic accurately. ... The lawsuit (PDF)... asks the court to find that the practice violated eavesdropping and hacking laws, and that the practice of secretly tracking users also violated state and federal fair trade laws. The lawsuit alleges a 'pattern of covert online surveillance' and seeks status as a class action lawsuit."

140 comments

  1. primo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I hate how Slashdot uses zombie flash cookies to try to keep from getting what the Italians call il primo post.

    1. Re:primo by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      Well, at least zombie flash cookies are better than zombie flesh cookies...I guess

    2. Re:primo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate how Slashdot uses zombie flash cookies to try to keep from getting what the Italians call il primo post.

      What is that? Like First Class Mail?

  2. And here I thought I must have been drunk. by JDmetro · · Score: 2, Funny

    And forgot to delete those cookies from that porn site I didn't go to.

    1. Re:And here I thought I must have been drunk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I have more bad news. It is a website now.

    2. Re:And here I thought I must have been drunk. by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 5, Funny

      What kind of fetish involves raping a man's barbecue?

    3. Re:And here I thought I must have been drunk. by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Damn, that's the funniest thing I've read in a month.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    4. Re:And here I thought I must have been drunk. by Thing+1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      These haikus are not
      Accurate though, because they
      don't mention seasons!

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    5. Re:And here I thought I must have been drunk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These haikus are not
      Accurate though, because they
      don't mention seasons!

      I've had a few beers,
      But I do not have mod points.
      Fuck you, it's summer! :)

    6. Re:And here I thought I must have been drunk. by gmhowell · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      A post like that certainly deserves a karma boost.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    7. Re:And here I thought I must have been drunk. by interkin3tic · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      What kind of fetish involves raping a man's barbecue?

      To me, that sounds pretty

      (puts on sunglasses)

      hot.

      Yeaaah!

    8. Re:And here I thought I must have been drunk. by prionic6 · · Score: 1

      Doesn't it count
      that the GP was reminiscent
      of spring time?

    9. Re:And here I thought I must have been drunk. by KrimZon · · Score: 1

      Yes:

      A proper haiku
      Has to mention a season.
      Nothing springs to mind :(

    10. Re:And here I thought I must have been drunk. by Dekker3D · · Score: 1

      i have read your post
      and i see what you did there
      fall down some stairs please

    11. Re:And here I thought I must have been drunk. by Smekarn · · Score: 1

      At risk of having my e-peen shrunk to negative volume: I don't get it, but I wish I did.

    12. Re:And here I thought I must have been drunk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dunno. But the details don't matter. Rule 34 applies.

    13. Re:And here I thought I must have been drunk. by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Did you read the AC's post?

    14. Re:And here I thought I must have been drunk. by karnal · · Score: 1

      Don't worry about it now
      Summer harder than others
      just have to think hard

      --
      Karnal
    15. Re:And here I thought I must have been drunk. by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Well, if you still don't get it:
      He used "grill" to mean "teeth". I chose to not interpret it that way.

    16. Re:And here I thought I must have been drunk. by Smekarn · · Score: 1

      No, sir. I did not.

      Thank you.

      Now that I have a choice, I don't interpret it that way either.

      *shudder*

  3. Save games by Dwedit · · Score: 1, Informative

    Flash Sharedobjects aren't the same as cookies. They are often used as save files for Flash games. Then we have badly behaving programs like CCleaner which aggressively try to delete them all until you notice that it's about to delete all your save files, and stop it before it wipes them away.

    1. Re:Save games by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      CCleaner behaves badly? I beg to differ. CCleaner cleans trash. It ASKS you if you want to clean trash, then it TELLS you about the trash it finds, then ASKS again if you want to delete the trash.

      Those who are to stupid to follow directions and/or to examine the results before taking out the trash deserve what they get.

      As for those flash game files - big deal if all of them are deleted. The wife plays online flash games. Her files have been deleted by one or another privacy software. She logs back in to the site, and all her "important" saved stuff is loaded back onto her computer. Geez - that's a real burden isnt' it?

      After the first time, she learned how to delete those super cookies without deleting the files she wanted saved.

      Terrible learning curve, that. It took her all of 30 seconds of cussing and bitching, plus another 90 seconds of reading, and then ten more seconds to change the settings.

      Meanwhile, Better Privacy routinely deletes all the asshattery of flash cookies that she didn't specifically authorize on her machine, and everyone is happy. Except the asshats, of course.

      As for the lawsuit - yes, Super Cookies are a hack, and should be subject to hacking laws that are meant to protect the average user. Burn Quantcast for developing and using it, and burn everyone who has bought the damned thing. I don't care WHAT business you are in - you have no right to track people unless they specifically opt-in to a tracking program, with full knowledge and understanding of what they are doing.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    2. Re:Save games by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      SuperDuperCrapCleaner has found potential malware on your computer: NTOSKRNL Delete? y/n $

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    3. Re:Save games by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, Better Privacy routinely deletes all the asshattery of flash cookies that she didn't specifically authorize on her machine, and everyone is happy. Except the asshats, of course.

      This, folks, is the important bit. Better Privacy is as essential as adblock and flashblock.

    4. Re:Save games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      SuperDuperCrapCleaner has found potential malware on your computer: NTOSKRNL Delete? y/n $

      $ y
      $ System liberation successful

    5. Re:Save games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you implying your wife is stupid, and yet could still figure it out in relatively short time? Cuz that's what it sounds like you're implying. Why else would you cite that as an example.

  4. Re:Flash users by radicalpi · · Score: 0

    People who use proprietary plugins like Flash surely are asking for this kind of thing.

    It's not like it's a common aspect of the web. Tracking and monitoring of users is ok if they're asking for it by using such things. While we're at it, let's just say that anyone using a browser to access the internet is asking for it. If they use the internet, they deserve to have their privacy infringed upon.

  5. And the other big Flash problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can't change the !@#$%^& Flash settings on your own computer. You have to go to a Flash website. And you can't manage your flash cookies without going to some obscure website.

    It would be the easiest programming thing in the world to let people manage all the Flash settings and cookies right on the computer (no internet).

    But noooo... that isn't the way the snoopy Flash people want things to be.

    1. Re:And the other big Flash problem... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > It would be the easiest programming thing in the world to let people manage
      > all the Flash settings and cookies right on the computer (no internet).

      It's your computer. You are free to program it to do whatever you want it to do.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  6. How ironic... by SOULFLAYER · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Does anybody else see the irony in the -government- slapping the hands of businesses who -spy- on us?

    1. Re:How ironic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you rather have the government do nothing for consistency's sake?

    2. Re:How ironic... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Does anybody else see the irony in the -government- slapping the hands of businesses who -spy- on us?

      No but that's probably because if I spied on somebody the Gov't is who I imagine would bust me. Now if Google slapped the hands of businesses collecting data...

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    3. Re:How ironic... by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      Not really. Monopolies always try to smack down their competitors.

  7. On LInux: by hkz · · Score: 1

    sudo chown root::root ~yourusername/.adobe/Flash_Player
    sudo chmod 0000 ~yourusername/.adobe/Flash_Player

    1. Re:On LInux: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ~/.adobe/Flash_Player ?

    2. Re:On LInux: by hkz · · Score: 1

      You're right, I mistakenly assumed that ~ would be aliased to /root when sudo'ing, but the shell expands the tilde, not sudo. So:

      sudo chown root::root ~/.adobe/Flash_Player
      sudo chmod 0000 ~/.adobe/Flash_Player

      I did this and it sort of broke Flash for me on a lot of sites, so YMMV.

    3. Re:On LInux: by radicalpi · · Score: 1

      ~/.adobe/Flash_Player ?

      If you're running the command as root, you'll want to select your non-root account home directory.

    4. Re:On LInux: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No good.
      rmdir ~yourusername/.adobe/Flash_Player
      still works as an unprivileged user, even without write permission to that directory, because you have write permission to the parent directory.

      Try setting the immutable bit:
      sudo chattr +i ~/.adobe/Flash_Player
      That will prevent even root from removing the directory, even if root has write permissions. root would first have to use chattr -i .

    5. Re:On LInux: by hkz · · Score: 1

      Actually, my original command would have worked, but the above is cleaner.

    6. Re:On LInux: by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Better yet, use Apparmor or SELinux to stop it accessing anything it shouldn't access. When I created an Apparmor profile for Flash player I was amazed by all the places it tries to read from and write to.

    7. Re:On LInux: by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      In my case there's nothing in .adobe/Flash_Player anyway, it's all in .macromedia/Flash_Player.

    8. Re:On LInux: by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Interesting

      rm -rf ~/.adobe/Flash_Player/* ~/.macromedia/Flash_Player/*
      ln -s /dev/null ~/.adobe/Flash_Player/AssetCache
      ln -s /dev/null ~/.macromedia/Flash_Player/#SharedObjects
      ln -s /dev/null ~/.macromedia/Flash_Player/macromedia.com

      Or just get rid of Adobe Flash entirely.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    9. Re:On LInux: by izomiac · · Score: 2, Informative

      On Windows, in an elevated command prompt:
      icacls "%APPDATA%\Macromedia\Flash Player" /setowner SYSTEM
      icacls "%APPDATA%\Macromedia\Flash Player" /inheritance:r /deny everyone:F

      Though I'd recommend a simple:
      icacls "%APPDATA%\Macromedia\Flash Player" /inheritance:d /deny everyone:(WD,AD)

    10. Re:On LInux: by stuckinphp · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure AC was just a troll at the fact you have a directory called .adobe on a linux box.

      --
      if only
  8. Not Quantcast's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Don't blame Quantcast. They're using the technology as Macromedia intended - to violate your privacy. That's what a Flash LSO does. Blame Macromedia, and now Adobe, for being so secretive about it. But, also blame yourself for not reading up on Flash before installing it, since this is well-documented behavior (just not on any Adobe website). Also, blame Microsoft for not telling you, since Flash comes with every version of Windows since at least XP.

    1. Re:Not Quantcast's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't blame Quantcast. They're using the technology as Macromedia intended

      You logic is flawed. If I kill a human with a Samurai sword, would you blame the maker of the sword?

      Flash comes with every version of Windows since at least XP

      Do you mean Dell computers with Windows? Maybe, but no version of Windows ever came with Flash.

    2. Re:Not Quantcast's fault by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't blame Quantcast

      You're kidding, right?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:Not Quantcast's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Windows XP did. It's what they used to display the "Welcome to Windows XP" intro (the big one) when you installed it. But that was a while back.

    4. Re:Not Quantcast's fault by dissy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't blame Quantcast. They're using the technology as Macromedia intended - to violate your privacy.

      So, as you say they are purposely using software designed to violate your privacy. Why exactly shouldn't we blame them for that again?

    5. Re:Not Quantcast's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've had flash with windows 98 as a bundle and when i began to buy OEMs ala XP era, it came with Flash, Vista comes with flash, and windows 7 comes with flash. However they don't come with firefox or chome plugins of flash, at least the american version doesn't.

      Flash is amazing when used right, but silverlight is capable of using the GPU a lot better than Flash does. HTML-5 will probably be ignored as a silverlight/flash alternative for now, but even that by itself is powerful.

      For those saying that people are stupid for installing flash, you guys are the stupid ones. Seriously, it may have flaws but it does what it needs to do. Zombie Cookies be damned

    6. Re:Not Quantcast's fault by Tacvek · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually this is not a troll. Take a look in the C:\windows\help\tours\mmtour folder of a new windows XP 32-bit installation and you will find that the tour is SWF based.

      Among other dlls pre-installed on the system is a flash 3 or flash 4, or some similar early version dll (I forget the version or exact file name, but a search for 'flash' or 'swf' in file names on a brand new XP install (you might need to run the tour first to have it appear) should probably find it. I don't believe the browser plug-in ever came pre-installed, but the core DLL most definitely did.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    7. Re:Not Quantcast's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      look, its a troll if it contradicts the apple world view.

      doesn't matter if its true or not (in this case it blatantly is true)

  9. Use better privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Use Better privacy.

    I whitelist all the flash LSOs I want to keep, and have better privacy delete the others when I quit firefox.

    Flashblock can also help.

    I find noscript annoying.

    I also accept all normal cookies for session only, and whitelist sites I want to stay logged in on using Cookie monster.

    1. Re:Use better privacy by muckracer · · Score: 1

      > and have better privacy delete the others when I quit firefox.

      I still can't believe, the Mozilla Devs removed the fabulous Clear History Popup window on exit. That was one of the best features of the browser, IMHO (friends and family agree)!!

      (Yes, I know about askforsanitize...it works but looks very ugly.)

  10. Zombie Flash Cookies by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 3, Funny

    Zombie Flash Cookies. I'm sure they're bad for you, but you have to admit they sound like they'd be tasty.

    1. Re:Zombie Flash Cookies by radicalpi · · Score: 1

      In my mind, they're undead cookies that flash me. That doesn't sound appetizing at all. Plus, if I did eat them, they're not dead, they're in my stomach plotting on how to get to my brain and eat it.

    2. Re:Zombie Flash Cookies by Minwee · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that these are different from naked female zombies. We need to pass different laws for them.

    3. Re:Zombie Flash Cookies by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      And there's some aspect of this experience that doesn't sound both tasty and exhilarating?

    4. Re:Zombie Flash Cookies by Nikker · · Score: 1

      Kinda hit close to home huh?

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    5. Re:Zombie Flash Cookies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have a cookie; you'll feel better.

    6. Re:Zombie Flash Cookies by lorg · · Score: 1

      Do they taste like chicken?

    7. Re:Zombie Flash Cookies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they're undead cookies

      So ... if undead people are people who died and had their corpse reanimated, is an undead cookie a partially digested, regurgitated, stomach-acid-soaked cookie?

      Does that mean bird's feed zombie food to their young? Or that cows like to chew zombie grass?

    8. Re:Zombie Flash Cookies by ctchristmas · · Score: 1

      Well I thought flashbang grenades sounded awesome, but its not what you think...

    9. Re:Zombie Flash Cookies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nearly a billion Catholics can't be wrong!

  11. DMCA by giorgist · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Doesn't this fall under the unticircumvention law.
    I protect my privacy
    You circumvent it

    Can we not use their own laws against them ?

    1. Re:DMCA by radicalpi · · Score: 1

      Tattoo this to your forehead and go from there "© 2010 Me"

    2. Re:DMCA by nacturation · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If your theory holds, the French could sue the Germans under the DMCA for circumventing the Maginot line. Here's a pro tip: there are some circumventions which have jack all to do with copyright law.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    3. Re:DMCA by MikeFM · · Score: 0, Troll

      Except it isn't circumventing anything. If you are dumb enough to install Flash on your computer then you've given your permission. Uninstall Flash if you're so paranoid. Gawd knows Flash is a lot more of a danger to your computer experience than cookies are.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    4. Re:DMCA by muckracer · · Score: 1

      > If your theory holds, the French could sue the Germans under the DMCA for circumventing the Maginot line.

      Ohh...zis is a most wundervoll idea!! We will implement zis immediately!

    5. Re:DMCA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ladies & gentlemen its mikeFM, the man with an apple shaped hole in his heart! here every day to support the noble apple cause!

      watch and wonder as this pitiful creep demonstrates his devotion to steve jobs by taking his wrinkled pecker into his mouth once again, and going at it like there is no tomorrow!

      on second thoughts you'd probably rather not =(

      we don't need or want another apple shill here mike!
      why don't ya fark orf ya miserable little creep!

    6. Re:DMCA by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

      ...circumventing the Maginot line.

      In France's defense: who could have predicted that Germany knew about Belgium?

    7. Re:DMCA by V+for+Vendetta · · Score: 1

      In France's defense: who could have predicted that Germany knew about Belgium?

      Well, the French could, as this is what Germany already did to them in WW I.

    8. Re:DMCA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troubles with that are two-fold:

      1) You can't prosecute for a crime that was not a crime at the time of commission (DMCA was passed after WWII).
      2) France != USA and doesn't have the DMCA

    9. Re:DMCA by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Troubles with that are two-fold:

      1) You can't prosecute for a crime that was not a crime at the time of commission (DMCA was passed after WWII).
      2) France != USA and doesn't have the DMCA

      I know it's called an analogy, but please don't take those four characters so literally.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  12. Re: by SOULFLAYER · · Score: 1

    Sounds like someone didn't get any zombie flash cookies for dessert tonight

  13. BetterPrivacy plug-in by sphealey · · Score: 4, Informative

    At least for the Flash cookies on Wintel, the BetterPrivacy plug-in seems to be doing a good job of deleting them for me.

    sPh

    1. Re:BetterPrivacy plug-in by mlts · · Score: 4, Informative

      +1 on BetterPrivacy. Install that as an add-on, and it works on Windows and OS X. No more worries about Flash shared objects because it can be set to zap them at very short time intervals, as well as when you open or close the browser.

      Firefox + BetterPrivacy + AdBlock + NoScript probably do as much for keeping a Windows machine clear of malicious software as most AV programs.

    2. Re:BetterPrivacy plug-in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know it's useful tidbits like that that are the REASON that I keep reading /.

      Thanx

      Now if you'll excuse me I have to restart firefox to get my newly installed extension working.

    3. Re:BetterPrivacy plug-in by purpledinoz · · Score: 1

      I also use Cookie Monster for managing cookies. The only problem with NoScript is that it causes a lot of problems for people who aren't techies, like the date-picker not working, some submits not working, etc, since they don't know when to add a site to the white list. So I tend to install only AdBlock and BetterPrivacy for the non-techies.

    4. Re:BetterPrivacy plug-in by Matt+Perry · · Score: 1

      BetterPrivacy also works great for me on Ubuntu.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
  14. aaaaaand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    adding *quantcast*(or something like that) to adblock plus. If it isn't there already.

  15. Here is the shitty site by psyclone · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.macromedia.com/support/documentation/en/flashplayer/help/settings_manager07.html

    Noscript users must temporarily allow adobe.com as well. (But at least you don't need to allow real cookies for either domain.)

    You can set the flash plugin to not store any data, but it sure gets annoying on some sites when the volume controls don't work. You can also set it to ask, but it's even more annoying to try and hit the "cancel" button 15 times with choppy video behind it.

    1. Re:Here is the shitty site by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes. If you tighten up the privacy controls enough on Flash, many video sites won't play, and some play badly. YouTube's player, for example, will display the "Press ESC to exit full screen mode" for the duration of play. There's absolutely no reason why that feature should depend on storing persistent information. It would be interesting to subpoena the developer and the documentation during development to determine if that was willfully put in to discourage users from using strict privacy settings.

    2. Re:Here is the shitty site by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Adobe sucks. If I have one more company send me a form in PDF format I'm going to scream.

    3. Re:Here is the shitty site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would prefer forms in Word instead? Or would you rather have them as TIFFs?

    4. Re:Here is the shitty site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you would prefer they send Word documents?

    5. Re:Here is the shitty site by 6031769 · · Score: 1

      Standard-conformant XHTML 1.1 would be fine, thanks (and use less bandwidth, and be easier to fill in, and work on a character-cell terminal).

      --
      Burns: We're building a casino!
      McAllister: Arrr. Give me 5 minutes.
    6. Re:Here is the shitty site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be happy. It is better than having to deal with different versions of word or powerpoint. At least you get a reader on any system and it also looks the same everywhere.

    7. Re:Here is the shitty site by imakemusic · · Score: 1

      Good luck making a program that can export that format reliably from pretty much any given program in the way that pdfs can be. And when you're done, can you explain to the people I work with why it's better having an xhtml file and all the separate image files rather than one combined, portable file? Don't get wrong, I hate them too but there's a reason that they're so popular.

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    8. Re:Here is the shitty site by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I wish there were a way to deal with all the crappy aspects of Flash. I mean, besides just deleting the POS. Hmmm, that's not such a bad idea...

    9. Re:Here is the shitty site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are not obligated to use YouTube. I see no grounds for subpoena here.

    10. Re:Here is the shitty site by cynyr · · Score: 1

      most of my youtube viewing now shows "html5 ${spinner}" in the middle now. Granted I don't use FF anymore really.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
  16. browser and browser plugins failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its failure to allow plugins to circumvent cookie settings. It sucks that you have to use an addon like BetterPrivacy to delete flash cookies separately from regular cookies.

  17. Re:Flash users by B4light · · Score: 1

    Ok, Agreed. No copyright laws either though. It's a free-for-all.

  18. Lawsuit for *this*? by epp_b · · Score: 1

    This isn't worthy of a lawsuit, this is worthy of a browser extension or plug-in, in-built browser function to manage flash cookies or simply an addition to the flash settings panel.

    Oh, wait, this is the US... never mind.

    1. Re:Lawsuit for *this*? by wealthychef · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, lawyers are interested in getting money. It's not about justice, or consumer rights, or privacy. It's about greedy lawyers always and forever.

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
    2. Re:Lawsuit for *this*? by mlts · · Score: 1

      I agree with you though. This is a problem solved by a technological solution (BetterPrivacy, a shell script that runs and zaps the Flash directory, or something along those lines), than having it be litigated.

      Litigation may even backfire, and a judge might rule that removing Flash cookies is considered circumventing DRM on Flash objects, and may make it even more difficult for utilities like BetterPrivacy or CCleaner to even exist.

    3. Re:Lawsuit for *this*? by jesset77 · · Score: 1

      Oh, fuck that. This is worthy of some serious competition to Adobe in the form of Flash Player Replacement options. SVG and Canvas are nice and all, but there must be alternate ways to view the same content similar to competing web browsers for viewing the same HTML.

      --
      People willing to trade their freedom of expression for temporary entertainment deserve neither and will lose both.
    4. Re:Lawsuit for *this*? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Completely 100% agreed!

      If this was illegal, tracking cookies would be illegal too, as well as those sites that use the CSS hack to find out which websites you visited.

      This lawsuit is just more computer retards being computer retards that shouldn't even be allowed on computers in the first place.
      But apparently a Computer Licence is too much. And every company would fight against it anyway...

    5. Re:Lawsuit for *this*? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > Litigation may even backfire, and a judge might rule that removing Flash
      > cookies is considered circumventing DRM on Flash objects,

      That's an "amazing" interpretation of the DMCA even for Slashdot.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    6. Re:Lawsuit for *this*? by mlts · · Score: 1

      This isn't far fetched. Anyone remember a few years back, a verdict against a P2P site where they were ordered to log every single change that happened even in RAM on a machine?

      I can see a defendant arguing that the "DRM" for a flash game is the Flash shared objects, and if the judge isn't aware about issues, he or she might render a very punishing verdict which would take millions of dollars to appeal.

  19. OS X can use this program to delete flash cookies by qwertyatwork · · Score: 2, Informative

    OS X can use this program to delete flash cookies http://machacks.tv/2009/01/27/flushapp-flash-cookie-removal-tool-for-os-x/

  20. deleted browser cookies returning to life? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Could be interesting for a passive law enforcement tracking id?
    You flush them out, they seem like ads?

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  21. Re:OS X can use this program to delete flash cooki by BearRanger · · Score: 3, Informative

    No program necessary to do this. Just remove ~/Library/Preferences/Macromedia/Flash Player/#SharedObjects. Set up a cron job or an Automator script to do it hourly.

  22. Re:OS X can use this program to delete flash cooki by qwertyatwork · · Score: 4, Funny

    Holy sudos, quick robin to the bat terminal!

  23. Winter Snowfall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Your father unzips
    Hot semen blankets your face
    Like winter snowfall

    (now that's how you write a Haiku, you other anonymous coward retards)

  24. habbo by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

    flash cookies are old news, at least as old as the habbo hotel raids

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  25. Why not sue Adobe??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Adobe create the platform that allows the violation in the 1st place. So why not sue them too??

  26. Hello World, er Apple by AnAdventurer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Are we on Apple's side again for being anti-Flash? (I lose track so easily)

    --
    6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
    1. Re:Hello World, er Apple by BearRanger · · Score: 1

      Well, this sort of thing is the reason why so many content providers are reluctant to move to HTML5 and away from Flash. When they talk about the additional capabilities that Flash has, this is what they mean. The ability to track your usage and gather information about you. (and the back room deals Adobe cuts along the way to deliver this data) Yet people clamor for Flash on their mobile phones.

      Say what you will about Apple, in this case they're absolutely right. Perhaps not for the right reasons, but still. The enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that.

    2. Re:Hello World, er Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally I prefer installing FlashBlock or whatever add-on you prefer over not having Flash. Flash games, video players that work everywhere or apps that do things easily (e.g. upload files) are too convenient.

      HTML5 is still far from usable in my opinion. All that codec and external program malarky is just bullshit. Plus HTML5 cannot do a lot of beneficial things that Flash can do.

      Sure Flash has it's shortcomings and I'd prefer something more robust but it's the best (for the mass market of tiny in-browser-apps) current technology available for a lot of things; from a site visitor point of view.

    3. Re:Hello World, er Apple by tehcyder · · Score: 3, Funny

      Are we on Apple's side again for being anti-Flash? (I lose track so easily)

      It's now Wednesday, so yes.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    4. Re:Hello World, er Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey good to have a neutral opinion on this - cheers for your contribution dude

      oh wait, what? nice effort but you've been caught with jobs' wrinkled cock in your mouth too many times before. now fuck off you tiresome little shill.

      say what you will about apple but if the ipad can keep boring creeps like you in a walled garden and away from the internet then its got to be a good thing right.

      now get back to your tampod.

    5. Re:Hello World, er Apple by Pteraspidomorphi · · Score: 1

      The ability to track your usage and gather information about you.

      Web browsers also support cookies natively, and it is possible to use these with html5 without explicitly requiring Flash to 'track your usage and gather information about you', and many, many advertising and other such companies do so. Flash sharedobjects are just a piece of technology. They aren't any more evil or suspicious than normal cookies. All this company does is store a copy of your cookies in a flash cookie so if you delete the one, they can restore it from the other.

    6. Re:Hello World, er Apple by selven · · Score: 1

      Again? We've always been at war with Adobe.

    7. Re:Hello World, er Apple by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Say what you will about Apple, in this case they're absolutely right. Perhaps not for the right reasons, but still. The enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that.

      The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more, no less.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    8. Re:Hello World, er Apple by 24-bit+Voxel · · Score: 1

      For many of us non-programmers (but techies anyways) Flash is a glorified codec. I use flash for:

      A) Watching video online
      and
      B) Nothing else.

      Hell, if a site has a flash splash page I close it instantly, no matter what's behind it. Flash based slideshow? Close window. Flash based games? You kidding me? What am I... nine? Close window.

      I very much look forward to the day that I don't have to use Flash anymore to watch videos, I'll uninstall it at that point and never look back.

      Adobe is in a backwards slide currently. Flash is the icon/mascot for what Adobe is becoming. HTML 5 may have problems from a web programmer standpoint, but for the rest of us as long as it plays video it's far superior to what I have to use now, at least for my purposes.

  27. Why aren't they suing adobe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are the ones that only allow you to delete the cookies by going to their site (adobe), so they know what all of the cookies are, and
    that in of itself is a violation of privacy.

  28. The best way to be safe from Flash cookies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The best way to be safe from Flash cookies is to map their locations to RAM disk location. Here is a tutorial that shows how. Look for 'Using RAM disk with other software' section near the end of the page.

    http://www.myplanetsoft.com/products/wt/intro/ramdisk/index.php

  29. Re: one-liner to remove flash cookies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Windows XP/Vista/7:

    FOR %i IN (Adobe Macromedia) DO @RMDIR /S /Q "%APPDATA%\%i\Flash Player\" 2>NUL

    Linux:

    rm -rf ${HOME}/.{adobe,macromedia}/Flash_Player/

  30. Manage Flash Cookies the easy way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Place this code into your crontab to run every day.

          rm -rf ${HOME}/.macromedia/*

    Flash cookies are handled perfectly. You may need to use ${LOGNAME} instead. I've added these lines to the beginning of my daily backup job. Simple. Effective.

    Adobe AIR probably does something similar, so check for that crap in a similar manner, if you still have AIR installed. I removed it after 7 days of use. Take about crap. It is slower than Java and bloated even more than iTunes + Outlook + Java, IMHO.

  31. What I don't understand... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    From TFA:
    The lawsuit (.pdf), filed in U.S. district court in San Francisco, asks the court to find that the practice violated eavesdropping and hacking laws, and that the practice of secretly tracking users also violated state and federal fair trade laws.

    Why hasn't anyone been led away in handcuffs? Are all the broken laws misdemeanors with a small fine, or what? Is it that no rich and powerful man goes to prison unless a richer and more powerful man wants him there? It sure seems so; Sony's XCP, the mine disaster several months ago where there had been repeated fines for the safety violations that ultimately led to two dozen deaths? Someone should have been charged with negligent manslaughter, and from what I've read, so should someone from BP.

    Are we back to feudalism?

    --
    Free Martian Whores!
    1. Re:What I don't understand... by FakeStreet123 · · Score: 1

      "Are we back to feudalism?" I think you misunderstood the term feudalism. That's the period where knights fought for their kingdoms and princess got stuck in towers. Not the period where offshore oil platform exploded killing eleven people. The more you know...

    2. Re:What I don't understand... by aunt+edna · · Score: 1

      From TFA:
      The lawsuit (.pdf), filed in U.S. district court in San Francisco, asks the court to find that the practice violated eavesdropping and hacking laws, and that the practice of secretly tracking users also violated state and federal fair trade laws.

      Why hasn't anyone been led away in handcuffs? Are all the broken laws misdemeanors with a small fine, or what? Is it that no rich and powerful man goes to prison unless a richer and more powerful man wants him there? It sure seems so; Sony's XCP, the mine disaster several months ago where there had been repeated fines for the safety violations that ultimately led to two dozen deaths? Someone should have been charged with negligent manslaughter, and from what I've read, so should someone from BP.

      Are we back to feudalism?

      Please expand on & explain "back to" in this context.

    3. Re:What I don't understand... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      You may be right; feudalism may have never died.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
  32. Re:OS X can use this program to delete flash cooki by selven · · Score: 1

    Or, as an above poster suggested, substitute the folder with a link to /dev/null.

  33. USE A RAMDISK! by Joe+U · · Score: 1

    This needs repeating.

    USE A RAMDISK and learn about MKLink. Use it for any temp data you can get away with.

    I run Windows 7 x64, I have 4GB of memory and I dedicate 512MB to a RAMDisk. I point Flash, IE and Chrome temp directories to the disk.

    I've found that unless I'm running multiple VM's I can give up the memory with no negative side effects. In fact, browsing is slightly quicker.

  34. Deleteing the sharedObjects directory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There also is a little trick you can use!

    1. Delete the SharedObjects directory.
    2. Create a file called SharedObjects ( the same name of the now deleted directory).
    3. Make that file read only, ( plus any other permissions you feel are safe ) to prevent it from being deleted.

    VOILA! Flash can no longer make the shared objects directory because a file is occupying that name-space. Of course it might break some flash apps that need the shared objects to run but that's the price.

  35. Serious note (with experiment!) by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    On a serious note, I wonder if browsers with private browsing modes sandbox flash cookies? When you go back to normal browsing mode, will the flash cookies from tentaclerapecentral.com still be mixed in with your other flash cookies? Let's find out!

    I'm going to clear my flash cookies, disable BetterPrivacy, then mess around in the Adobe Flash settings page in private browsing mode. This will cause my browser to pick up flash cookies.

    Then I'll go back into normal browsing mode and look in my flash cookie folder and see what's there.

    Results: Flash cookies that were created in Private Browsing mode still exist! DUN DUN DUN!!!!

    (Done in Iceweasel 3.5 with Flash 9.x)

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  36. iPhone/iPad are unaffected by intheshelter · · Score: 1

    Maybe there are some good reasons to not allow Flash on your platform?

  37. Re:OS X can use this program to delete flash cooki by mdielmann · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think it would have been funnier if you had said "bash terminal".

    --
    Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  38. Re:OS X can use this program to delete flash cooki by qwertyatwork · · Score: 1

    I dun goofed :(

  39. Internet Users by seanonymous · · Score: 1

    People who use the Internet surely are asking for this kind of thing.

  40. Aw just recreate cookies you never had. by niftymitch · · Score: 1
    This is sort of a backup and restore activity but there is no way to control what is restored.

    A cookie could be inserted that you never had.

    I can see the defense in court -- the Keebler Elves made me do it. They kept giving me those cookies and now I am 5000# and in jail.

    --
    Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.