Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

WSJ Warnings About Cookies Carry Cookies

Posted by samzenpus on from the pot-meet-kettle dept.

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."

32 of 45 comments (clear)

  1. Trojan? by DamonHD · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does that count as a Trojan article?

    Rgds

    Damon

    --
    http://m.earth.org.uk/
    1. Re:Trojan? by tttonyyy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Does that count as a Trojan article?

      Ironic, for our pleasure.

      Those cookie crumbs sure do itch though.

      --
      biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
    2. Re:Trojan? by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Come on, anyone knows an article like this is half-baked; it's all about the dough, and only chips away at the real issues. I want to see the subject served up on a platter, freshly prepared and ready for immediate consumption, before I'll endorse a crumby thing like this.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  2. Cookies carrying cookies?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yo dawg, we heard you like cookies...

    1. Re:Cookies carrying cookies?! by ZeRu · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This site stores your viewing preferences in cookies. It is possible to opt out of this in your settings. However, that information will be stored in a cookie.
      Do you still wish to opt out?

      --
      If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
    2. Re:Cookies carrying cookies?! by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      yo dawg, i herd you like sarcasm so i appended a yo dawg comment to a yo dawg thread so you can be sarcastic while you're sarcastic.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    3. Re:Cookies carrying cookies?! by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      It is possible to opt out of this in your settings. However, that information will be stored in a cookie.

      How else would the site remember that you’d asked to opt-out of its tracking cookies upon your next visit?

      The important question is... is the flash cookie user-unique?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  3. Cookies in the Cookie article? by smitty777 · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's a good thing it wasn't an article on syphylis

    --
    "Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish"
    Albert Einstein
  4. Maybe your are not as .sol as you think! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Bullocks I can see it is really easy to get rid of flash cookies.
    If you cannot access the .sol files with a Windows SWF install then try in Linux. The cookies are set in a .macromedia folder created in the specific user /home directory and do not require root to remove. I guess if you run Windows then you might be .sol but my guess is that if you set up users in windows correctly then there should be no trouble "chucking your cookies"...Something I frequently do when using Windows. It is not that hard if you just understand what .hidden files do and how they work.

    1. Re:Maybe your are not as .sol as you think! by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Bullocks I can see it is really easy to get rid of flash cookies. If you cannot access the .sol files with a Windows SWF install then try in Linux.....

      Yes that's going to be really easy for the majority of Windows users!

    2. Re:Maybe your are not as .sol as you think! by javakcl · · Score: 1

      ccleaner finds and removes these pretty well in Windows.

  5. Let's all just acknowledge this for a moment by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

    1. Re:Let's all just acknowledge this for a moment by delinear · · Score: 1

      Indeed - the threat is users who don't make the effort to educate themselves to the dangers. Online marketing is a threat in the same way that a swimming pool is a threat, if you dive in without knowing what you're doing you might well get in trouble, but most people can feel their way as they go and not have any real issues, while people who really know what they're doing can enjoy all the benefits with virtually zero risk - just look at all the free content we get because of online marketing, do you really want to pay for every single site you view?

    2. Re:Let's all just acknowledge this for a moment by postbigbang · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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*.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    3. Re:Let's all just acknowledge this for a moment by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      It's a threat to your privacy to use the unencrypted un-anonymous web.
      Even use of TOR doesn't guarantee your "privacy".

      Let's all sit around in a group and read news paper articles.
      If you want to read a section, just ask someone sitting next to you to pass it along.

      Now, let's try to provide the news paper, room and chairs for free... Guess what happens: Advertising.
      Guess what makes more money? Targeted Advertising. Guess who knows that you want the sports section? That fella sitting next to you who passes you the article... he may even work for the news paper, eh?

      If you want to sit in our group wearing a ski-mask and gloves, and only use sign language to communicate we may not know who you are, but we will still recognize you as the ski-masked mute.

      Vote for Browser-Cookies... because the alternative is a pay-wall beyond which the advertisers will have your real name and billing information.

  6. police thyself by digitaldc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "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.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:police thyself by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1
      Well, the article-writing investigatory department and the advertising department and the IT department are all separate entities. I doubt that Emily Steel, Nick Wingfield and Julia Angwin (looking at some bylines here) have any real power to "police" the rest of the WSJ organization.

      FWIW they did include their own site in the study's infographic, at least.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  7. dammit by martas · · Score: 1

    now i want a cookie....

    --
    weinersmith
  8. Flash cookies by Thelasko · · Score: 1

    Flash cookies are easily deleted using Adobe's Settings Manager.

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    1. Re:Flash cookies by 0123456 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Flash cookies are easily deleted using Adobe's Settings Manager.

      Yes, having to go to an Adobe web page to delete files from your local machine makes perfect sense.

      Personally I just configured Apparmor so Flash can't write to anything but /tmp and its local config files, and no longer have to worry about whatever stupid crap Adobe do.

    2. Re:Flash cookies by drop+table+user · · Score: 1

      It doesn't get much easier than rm -rf ~/.macromedia

  9. Firefox's BetterPrivacy extension by FudRucker · · Score: 2, Funny

    http://i.imgur.com/Emo6o.jpg

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:Firefox's BetterPrivacy extension by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      In addition to Better Privacy, you can also change your flash plug-in settings to disallow LSO's using the flash applet at Macromedia.

  10. Re:Mmmmm.... by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

    I know. That picture makes me want to go to the grocery store and buy some of the pre-made pilsbury or tollhouse cookies...

    Damn you slashdot! I'm trying to NOT look like the steriotypical obese geek, thank you very much! mm.... coookies...

    --
    Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
  11. Looks like another memo from... by Trip6 · · Score: 1

    the Department of Redundancy Department.

    --
    I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
  12. Flash a-ah by ThirdPrize · · Score: 1

    Savior of the Universe
    Flash
    He save everyone of us
    Flash
    He's a miracle
    Flash
    King of the impossible

    --
    I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.
  13. Words have power by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

    If they had been named turds, rather than cookies, people might use and accept them a little less casually. From now on that's how I'm referring to them.

  14. Except that isn't enough by littlewink · · Score: 1

    There are no less than 3 sets of information (alright, "cookies") stored by flash on linux, two bfolders in .macromedia and another folder in .adobe. You must delete all 3 (as well as the folders themselves if you want to clear directory entries). .

  15. Why's this in "Idle"? by JSBiff · · Score: 1

    I'm just trying to figure out why this would fall into the Idle category? I thought Idle was supposed to be for *completely* useless, completely *offtopic* stuff which wouldn't fit anywhere else on slashdot?

    Information about WSJ articles on privacy and cookies seems pretty on-topic compared to most of the stuff in Idle.

    1. Re:Why's this in "Idle"? by dangitman · · Score: 1

      I'm just trying to figure out why this would fall into the Idle category?

      I would guess because it's completely useless. It's the equivalent of someone high on weed (or Alanis Morrisette) making an "insightful" comment about irony. Next Week: online journal publishes article about the potential dangers of the internet on the internet!!!!!!!

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  16. Cookies!!!!! by fbartho · · Score: 1

    Cookies!!!!!!

    --
    Gravity Sucks
  17. No flash storage = no streaming porn by wye43 · · Score: 1

    ... you should know that , just in case you are in a hurry to disable local storage in flash.

    Are you going to disable it now?

    ... I thought so.