Paranoid about Cookies...

[Jeff McCright]

"Watch out for those Black unmarked Helicopters, the Concentration Camps in Alaska and the 
Political Prisoner (Government Non-conforming Citzen) Processing Facility in Oklahoma City!!!"

BTW: How many of us use our Social Security number as our Driver's License Number and then display 
it when we write a check? Why is it that every US citizen born is assigned a Social Security 
number? Has anyone been able to get a job (Legally) without a SSN? Does it bother anyone that you 
must give a SSN to receive medical care, or at least to get Insurance to pay for it? Does anyone 
really know just how much information is available about a given individual just by having access 
to that individual's SSN?

I guess I am not really concerned about cookies or who can see what URLs I've visited. Since "Big 
Brother" can already determine my bank account information, how much money I have paid on my 
mortgage, whether I have been current on my taxes, how many children I have, where I work, how many 
days of vacation I have accrued, how many and what kinds of firearms I own, the make and model of 
my car including VIN and license information, ......  I guess I really can't feel to insecure about 
the someone finding out what software I have on my PC, or what WEB Sites I've visited. I still get 
tons of spam, and lots of phone solicitors. Maybe I should just move to Ruby Ridge, or become a 
Branch Davidian. Become disconnected from the government and then become a target.

But no, I will continue to pay my bills and taxes, raise my children, purchase and license and 
operate my automobiles, buy hunting licenses and go hunting, write checks and display my driver's 
license to the cashier, obtain and maintain jobs while accruing vacation time, vote, delete spam, 
answer the phone and hangup on phone solicitors, and I will continue to write my congressman when I 
do or do not like a bill or law in congress, and I will still abide by the laws of God and country. 
Perhaps these e-mails should be directed to our elected representatives.

Just a thought.  No response is necessary.

Thanks,

Jeff McCright
jeff.mccright at southernunionco.com

 ----------
From: kclug at kclug.org
To: kclug at kclug.org
Cc: jeff.mccright at southernunionco.com
Subject: Re: kclug - Re: Paranoid about Cookies...

Jeffrey Watts <watts at jayhawks.net> writes:
> The DoubleClick scheme was to simply track _where_ you viewed its ads.
> It never had the ability to see "where you have been",

It has the ability to log every URL you visit that contains one of its ads.  I
don't see your distinction.

> There are certain privacy concerns -- I personally don't really care for
> some ad agency tracking my tastes, but it's not exactly high treason.

No, and as you point out, it's not even illegal.  Nonetheless, we are sliding
down a slippery and insidious slope.  Consider those obnoxious customer
"loyalty" cards that are becoming popular in many grocery chains.  The stated
purpose for these (I'm guessing) is that the grocer can somehow offer a more
apropos variety of more economical products if they are able to track their
customers buying habits precisely.

To me, that sounds like crap and I imagine that this came straight from the
mind of some idiot PHB.  But even if it does work as stated, a database is
being collected and is available for many alternate purposes.  Records are
being subpoenaed by law enforcement, for example.  Buy too many Baggies and
you may end up having the DEA break down your door at midnight.

> Heck, one could look at my web logs as an example of "web tracking".  I
> could, based upon an IP address, build a database of where each IP went,
> and how many times.  Perhaps I could use this information to determine
> which people were Chris Bell groupies by looking at how many times a
> particular IP address read one of his posts in the archives.  Is that
> illegal?  No.  Not at all.  You came to _my_ site.  Is it ethical?
> Dunno.  I don't think people have really figured that out yet.

I think the "_my_" part is mostly a red herring.  If you come to _my_ house
and use _my_ bathroom and I tape you and broadcast it, this is most definitely
unethical.  Depending on local regs and your age, it might even be illegal.

Similarly, if you talk to your bank on your employer's phone, most people
wouldn't think it proper for your employer to eavesdrop on the conversation
and disseminate the contents as they please.

No, most of this is not illegal.  I believe that most of it should be.  Most
people seem to understand that following someone around and rummaging through
their stuff is creepy and unethical behavior in the meat world, but for some
reason they think it's okay in cyberspace.

> So what would we want advertisers to do?

Actually, I'd want them to divert a lot of the money they're currently
spending ramming their products toward useful mechanisms for me to find
*exactly* what I want when I want it.  If I'm looking for a pepper grinder (as
I was yesterday), show me exactly what stores have which products in stock
right now, and give me objective ratings on their quality, quirks, return
rates, etc.

> > Apparently, Go-Zilla has a TSR that monitors every website that you visit
> > and bounces that information to another URL.

> What does _any_ of this have to do with cookies, a web browser, or Linux?
> You seem to be using this example as evidence for your beliefs, but this
> example is not germane in any way to this discussion.

It seems germane to me.  It's another example of surreptitious monitoring in
the context of web browsing.

 --Mike

 --
Any sufficiently adverse technology is indistinguishable from Microsoft.