I tried to opt-out on Double-Click's site, but they wanted to set another cookie on my machine. I guess that I won't be able to opt-out - I neither accept cookies nor Java-script.
What you're really opting out of is the cookie on your machine sending it's data back to DoubleClick - so if you didn't accept one of their cookies previously there's no benefit to 'opting out' through that link. All the page really does is set an existing DoubleClick cookie on your machine to a null value.
Advertising pays the content providers their due, for sure. And not too many people have a problem with having ad banners shoved down their throats (unless they're misleading).
But, as far as tracking users across multiple sites, compiling lists of browsing habits, matching real-world data with browsing habits, etc - that's not on. Especially without first informing users that that's what they're doing.
I have no problem with the ads themselves - some are even worth clicking on, and they keep the good folks providing the content clothed and fed.
If you're to believe DoubleClick, all that page does is set your cookie to a generic 'I'm-not-interested' value, so they can't track you any more than the other millions of people who've also opted out.
Yeah it's a compromise, I know, but if you remove any links to their site the content providers don't get paid for the impressions and everyone loses in the end.
That is not true, and that was what I was pointing out.
There have been reports of Outlook attempting to display the.vbs attachments in question inline, as with images. The ramifications of this don't need explaining I'm sure.
Being able to send bad code isn't the issue. The problem is the receiver having no choice as to whether or not the code is run on their system, hence providing (potentially malicious) third parties the opportunity to do as they wish.
Even should the code not be run automatically, once it is run it is a huge mistake to allow untrusted code to be executed with the same permissions as the end user. MS made a very big mistake with that 'feature'.
The 'feature or bug' allows third parties the opportunity to wreak havoc with the users' system - in a corporate environment that's unacceptable. Unlike with the oxygen in the atmosphere, MS knew that malicious individuals would try to exploit any vulnerabilities in their software, and should have put a little more forethought into their design.
Slashdot Mirror
I tried to opt-out on Double-Click's site, but they wanted to set another cookie on my machine. I guess that I won't be able to opt-out - I neither accept cookies nor Java-script.
What you're really opting out of is the cookie on your machine sending it's data back to DoubleClick - so if you didn't accept one of their cookies previously there's no benefit to 'opting out' through that link. All the page really does is set an existing DoubleClick cookie on your machine to a null value.
Advertising pays the content providers their due, for sure. And not too many people have a problem with having ad banners shoved down their throats (unless they're misleading).
But, as far as tracking users across multiple sites, compiling lists of browsing habits, matching real-world data with browsing habits, etc - that's not on. Especially without first informing users that that's what they're doing.
I have no problem with the ads themselves - some are even worth clicking on, and they keep the good folks providing the content clothed and fed.
If you're to believe DoubleClick, all that page does is set your cookie to a generic 'I'm-not-interested' value, so they can't track you any more than the other millions of people who've also opted out.
Yeah it's a compromise, I know, but if you remove any links to their site the content providers don't get paid for the impressions and everyone loses in the end.
That's the one, thanks :)
Slashdot doesn't appear to like my single speech mark things much...
I guess you won't be able to find it then. Shame.
I hope everyone's used the Opt-out link for Double-Click at http://www.doubleclick.net/optout/.
Is there a similar system for removing yourself from 24/7's system?
That is not true, and that was what I was pointing out.
.vbs attachments in question inline, as with images. The ramifications of this don't need explaining I'm sure.
There have been reports of Outlook attempting to display the
Please re-read my previous post.
Being able to send bad code isn't the issue. The problem is the receiver having no choice as to whether or not the code is run on their system, hence providing (potentially malicious) third parties the opportunity to do as they wish.
Even should the code not be run automatically, once it is run it is a huge mistake to allow untrusted code to be executed with the same permissions as the end user. MS made a very big mistake with that 'feature'.
The 'feature or bug' allows third parties the opportunity to wreak havoc with the users' system - in a corporate environment that's unacceptable. Unlike with the oxygen in the atmosphere, MS knew that malicious individuals would try to exploit any vulnerabilities in their software, and should have put a little more forethought into their design.