WSJ Warnings About Cookies Carry Cookies

itwbennett writes "The Wall Street Journal has 'a pretty useful section tracking privacy issues, privacy protection tools and the threats thereof from online marketers, from the point of view and on the technical level of a relatively savvy consumer,' says blogger Kevin Fogarty. The downside: He discovered that reading two stories from the WSJ's privacy section left behind deletion-resistant Flash cookies."

Comments

Trojan?

[DamonHD]

Does that count as a Trojan article?

Rgds

Damon

Let's all just acknowledge this for a moment

[erroneus]

"Threats of online marketers."

Online marketing is a threat. We all need to acknowledge this and accept it. It is a threat to our privacy and to ourselves if and when that information is sold (because there are few if any laws against it) for purposes other than marketing. The problem starts with aggressive marketing. It needs to stop. They will not willingly respect us. They have to be forced to do so. They will not change their ways out of guilt or shame -- they have none. Let it settle into your brain and then act accordingly.

Re:Let's all just acknowledge this for a moment

[postbigbang]

Users are stupid, and they aren't willing to understand tracking behavior-- and they SHOULDN'T HAVE TO.

There is such a thing as public safety, and the behavior of marketers is something that needs sorely to be roped in. You can educate people until you're blue in the face. But the whofuckingcaresaboutyourprivacy folks will be one to five steps ahead if it's legal.

Doing a holier-than-thou solves nothing. Instead, do what you can to strangle the proctological orrifi that think that your information is about *them*.

police thyself

[digitaldc]

"The central issue in writing federal privacy legislation is whether the Internet industry's efforts to police its own behavior has been effective enough."

Apparently they can't even recognize their own behavior, let alone police themselves.