A joint study conducted by Revenue Science and the Ponemon Institude finds that a majority of consumers prefer advertising based on their individual interests.
Specifically, 63 percent of those surveyed said that Internet marketers should “always” understand their interests prior to sending them advertising, while 55 percent stated that online ads of interest to them “improves” or “greatly improves” their overall online experience.
The Ponemon Institute, a research institute catering to privacy management practices in business and government, polled more than 1,700 people to learn about consumers’ motivations and preferences in receiving online advertising, as well as how knowledge about cookies impacted these issues.
“This study shows that not only do consumers prefer relevant advertising, but also that advertisers should consider behavioral targeting methods for providing consumers with more relevant ads as long as privacy and anonymity are assured,” said Dr. Larry Ponemon, founder and chairman of Ponemon Institute. “The tables are indeed turning and the advertising community would be well served to pay attention.”
The study also reveals that cookie deletion is trending downward. When asked how often they delete cookies from their hard drives, only 8 percent of the participants answered “very frequently” compared to 18 percent in a 2004 survey. Meanwhile, 24 percent indicated they “never” delete cookies, which more than doubles the 11 percent from the previous survey.
“What’s especially interesting is that knowledgeable respondents appeared to be much less concerned about the use of cookies,” said Omar Tawakol, chief marketing officer at Revenue Science. “In fact, 63 percent of respondents stated that they’re likely to click on an Internet ad that reflects their interests and preferences regardless of whether it utilizes cookies.”
Saturday, July 8, 2006
Tuesday, June 6, 2006
Privacy advocates are often fearful of HTTP Cookies left by web sites with personal and traceable information on them। These clear text deposits are often left without the visitors permission or knowledge but used in most instances for the convenience of future visits.But what most people don’t realise is that web sites and widgets made with Macromedia’s Flash also leave “Flash Cookies”.
If you’ve visited a site with Flash content recently, it’s most likely that you’ve got a cookie on it.
Macromedia has provided a web site where users can adjust their FlashPlayer settings and delete the cookies you wish were not तेरे.
I reckon this is something to bookmark as your regular web browser doesn’t have the ability to rid your system of these “Flash Cookies”।
By Benjamin Koe
Thursday, May 11, 2006
What's the Buzz Behind Behavioral Advertising?
By Jennifer Slegg, May 11, 2006
Behavioral advertising has been getting plenty of attention lately for being the next big thing since the advent of contextual advertising. Why are search marketers so excited?
Recent studies have shown that behavioral advertising converts better than contextual ad targeting. But there is some confusion about what behavioral advertising is, and particularly, what it isn't. There is also the concern about privacy issues that surround the idea of targeting ads based on individual user behavior. And with behavior targeted advertising being very new in comparison to the familiar methods traditional banner ads or contextual advertising, some people get nervous about being targeted with ads today because of a website they visited yesterday.
What exactly is behavioral targeting? This refers to advertising that is targeted to a specific individual based on that user's previous surfing behavior. This is quite different from the more common targeting method of displaying ads matched to the specific content of an individual page or to all users in general. With behavior targeting, this would mean that two people could see vastly different ads when viewing the identical webpage at the same time.
For example, the person who frequents sporting sites might see ads for hockey tickets or golf clubs on a page about the local business economy, while the woman who visits travel sites regularly might see ads for vacation packages or travel agents. These ads, while not related to the article about the business economy, are still very targeted to that particular user at that particular time. And this super tight targeting of the individual is what makes behavioral targeting so successful to those advertisers using it.
Studies have shown that conversions are higher when people are targeted through behavior rather than content because behavior can determine a person's actions. Whether it is looking at specific sections of an online newspaper or visiting a certain type of site more than once, those actions are used to determine each user's interests. And it is those actions that make conversions.
Advertising.com's study in October 2005 found that not only did behavioral advertising convert at a significantly higher rate than contextual advertising, but that CTR rates were also lower. Essentially, this means advertisers need fewer ad impressions to generate a conversion. And those users that click are prime for converting into a sale or completing a specific action.
However there are some significant obstacles that behavior targeting ad networks are facing, the largest being the implications that are associated with targeting individual users based upon what they do while surfing online.
There is a misconception that all behavioral targeting has the "big brother watching" aspect to it, which is not necessarily true. For example, today you might look at the online real estate listings in the online version of the newspaper servicing your city. And tomorrow, through behavioral targeting, you might see ads for mortgages or local realtors in your area. In this instance, the only personal information used to target you with these ads was strictly the fact that you viewed real estate ads in that specific newspaper the day before.
But exactly how are they collecting this data in order to be able to target the individual? The main ad networks offering behavioral targeting use a few different methods to determine this. And interestingly, often this data is gathered through the use of publisher programs, where webmasters allow their visitors to receive a cookie or image when they land on a site.
Tacoda's Audience Networks program drops cookies on participating websites. Advertising.com uses a single pixel image on publisher sites in the AudienceExtend program, and publishers earn revenue when their site's visitors later take action on a network site. Kanoodle's BrightAds Cookies program also financially rewards a publisher when the cookie they drop is later used to take action on a behaviorally targeted ad on another site. All of these companies have privacy policies in place that detail how their collected data is used, and publishers dropping cookies do not have access to any visitor's surfing history across the targeting network.
What will hurt behavioral targeting? The largest obstacles are privacy concerns and the protections people enable on their computers to ensure their privacy. This includes ad-blocking programs, not accepting third party cookies and programs or settings that automatically clear cookies daily or at the end of each browser session. Many spyware protection programs flag cookies, including ones used by behavioral targeting ad networks, as suspicious and urge users to delete them. This results in confusion by users about cookies and how safe or dangerous they really are and makes them less likely to accept third-party cookies.
Another problem of behavioral advertising is the inability to differentiate between multiple users' surfing habits on the same computer, something that is common in family households or with roommates. The woman who might have seen real estate ads might actually see sporting ticket ads because her husband checked the scores the night before. And this can decrease conversions, because while in actuality the targeting worked as it was supposed to, it resulted in targeting the wrong family member at the time the ads were shown.
Behavioral targeting is definitely an up and coming ad format, even though it accounts for a relatively small percentage of online advertising. Currently, only 8% of all online advertising is behaviorally targeted. But with current studies showing how well it works and converts for advertisers, it can only mean more advertising dollars will be steered towards this method of targeting.
And behavioral advertising is not just limited to image and text ads. Tacoda has just teamed up with rich media video advertising Tremor Network to provide behavior targeted ads inserted into online videos. So there are still new ad avenues to explore through this type of ad targeting in the future, as behavior targeting gains more ground.
None of the big three search engines currently offer behavioral targeting in their advertising platforms for self serve advertisers. Microsoft adCenter comes closest with their extensive demographic ad targeting capabilities. However, with all the buzz around user privacy, it will be interesting to watch and see which one of the three jumps into the behavioral targeting game first, and particularly how they handle the privacy aspect of it. But it is very likely that all three are currently working on the back end of targeting through behavior, even if they are not currently making it available on a large scale.
Behavioral targeted ads could also get huge exposure through the use of a large scale publisher program to display behavior targeted ads, similar in style to the Google AdSense or Yahoo Publisher Network contextual programs, or within either of those two current programs. Mass adoption by publishers offering the space for the advertisements, not to mention the behavioral targeting an extensive publisher program could provide by gathering individual user habits for end ad targeting, could be the tipping point that results in behavioral ad targeting getting the exposure it would need. And with a publisher program displaying behavioral ads, it would drop the need for some behavioral ad targeting programs to pay a bounty to publishers to drop their cookies for the targeting to be successful.
Over the next two years—and particularly if Google, Yahoo or Microsoft jumps in with a behavioral targeting feature within their current self-serve advertising platforms—we will see a large growth in the percentage of ad space and ad budgets being devoted to behavioral ad targeting methods.
Behavioral advertising has been getting plenty of attention lately for being the next big thing since the advent of contextual advertising. Why are search marketers so excited?
Recent studies have shown that behavioral advertising converts better than contextual ad targeting. But there is some confusion about what behavioral advertising is, and particularly, what it isn't. There is also the concern about privacy issues that surround the idea of targeting ads based on individual user behavior. And with behavior targeted advertising being very new in comparison to the familiar methods traditional banner ads or contextual advertising, some people get nervous about being targeted with ads today because of a website they visited yesterday.
What exactly is behavioral targeting? This refers to advertising that is targeted to a specific individual based on that user's previous surfing behavior. This is quite different from the more common targeting method of displaying ads matched to the specific content of an individual page or to all users in general. With behavior targeting, this would mean that two people could see vastly different ads when viewing the identical webpage at the same time.
For example, the person who frequents sporting sites might see ads for hockey tickets or golf clubs on a page about the local business economy, while the woman who visits travel sites regularly might see ads for vacation packages or travel agents. These ads, while not related to the article about the business economy, are still very targeted to that particular user at that particular time. And this super tight targeting of the individual is what makes behavioral targeting so successful to those advertisers using it.
Studies have shown that conversions are higher when people are targeted through behavior rather than content because behavior can determine a person's actions. Whether it is looking at specific sections of an online newspaper or visiting a certain type of site more than once, those actions are used to determine each user's interests. And it is those actions that make conversions.
Advertising.com's study in October 2005 found that not only did behavioral advertising convert at a significantly higher rate than contextual advertising, but that CTR rates were also lower. Essentially, this means advertisers need fewer ad impressions to generate a conversion. And those users that click are prime for converting into a sale or completing a specific action.
However there are some significant obstacles that behavior targeting ad networks are facing, the largest being the implications that are associated with targeting individual users based upon what they do while surfing online.
There is a misconception that all behavioral targeting has the "big brother watching" aspect to it, which is not necessarily true. For example, today you might look at the online real estate listings in the online version of the newspaper servicing your city. And tomorrow, through behavioral targeting, you might see ads for mortgages or local realtors in your area. In this instance, the only personal information used to target you with these ads was strictly the fact that you viewed real estate ads in that specific newspaper the day before.
But exactly how are they collecting this data in order to be able to target the individual? The main ad networks offering behavioral targeting use a few different methods to determine this. And interestingly, often this data is gathered through the use of publisher programs, where webmasters allow their visitors to receive a cookie or image when they land on a site.
Tacoda's Audience Networks program drops cookies on participating websites. Advertising.com uses a single pixel image on publisher sites in the AudienceExtend program, and publishers earn revenue when their site's visitors later take action on a network site. Kanoodle's BrightAds Cookies program also financially rewards a publisher when the cookie they drop is later used to take action on a behaviorally targeted ad on another site. All of these companies have privacy policies in place that detail how their collected data is used, and publishers dropping cookies do not have access to any visitor's surfing history across the targeting network.
What will hurt behavioral targeting? The largest obstacles are privacy concerns and the protections people enable on their computers to ensure their privacy. This includes ad-blocking programs, not accepting third party cookies and programs or settings that automatically clear cookies daily or at the end of each browser session. Many spyware protection programs flag cookies, including ones used by behavioral targeting ad networks, as suspicious and urge users to delete them. This results in confusion by users about cookies and how safe or dangerous they really are and makes them less likely to accept third-party cookies.
Another problem of behavioral advertising is the inability to differentiate between multiple users' surfing habits on the same computer, something that is common in family households or with roommates. The woman who might have seen real estate ads might actually see sporting ticket ads because her husband checked the scores the night before. And this can decrease conversions, because while in actuality the targeting worked as it was supposed to, it resulted in targeting the wrong family member at the time the ads were shown.
Behavioral targeting is definitely an up and coming ad format, even though it accounts for a relatively small percentage of online advertising. Currently, only 8% of all online advertising is behaviorally targeted. But with current studies showing how well it works and converts for advertisers, it can only mean more advertising dollars will be steered towards this method of targeting.
And behavioral advertising is not just limited to image and text ads. Tacoda has just teamed up with rich media video advertising Tremor Network to provide behavior targeted ads inserted into online videos. So there are still new ad avenues to explore through this type of ad targeting in the future, as behavior targeting gains more ground.
None of the big three search engines currently offer behavioral targeting in their advertising platforms for self serve advertisers. Microsoft adCenter comes closest with their extensive demographic ad targeting capabilities. However, with all the buzz around user privacy, it will be interesting to watch and see which one of the three jumps into the behavioral targeting game first, and particularly how they handle the privacy aspect of it. But it is very likely that all three are currently working on the back end of targeting through behavior, even if they are not currently making it available on a large scale.
Behavioral targeted ads could also get huge exposure through the use of a large scale publisher program to display behavior targeted ads, similar in style to the Google AdSense or Yahoo Publisher Network contextual programs, or within either of those two current programs. Mass adoption by publishers offering the space for the advertisements, not to mention the behavioral targeting an extensive publisher program could provide by gathering individual user habits for end ad targeting, could be the tipping point that results in behavioral ad targeting getting the exposure it would need. And with a publisher program displaying behavioral ads, it would drop the need for some behavioral ad targeting programs to pay a bounty to publishers to drop their cookies for the targeting to be successful.
Over the next two years—and particularly if Google, Yahoo or Microsoft jumps in with a behavioral targeting feature within their current self-serve advertising platforms—we will see a large growth in the percentage of ad space and ad budgets being devoted to behavioral ad targeting methods.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Survey: Net Users Easing Up on the Cookie Hate
By Zachary Rodgers | April 27, 2006
Marketers expressed some dismay last year when a series of studies found a previously unmeasured hatred for cookies in the heart of many an Internet user -- and a common predilection to delete them.
People worried by that discovery can perhaps breathe a little easier in the wake of a new survey finding that only 8 percent of respondents delete cookies "very frequently," compared with 18 percent in a 2004 survey. Additionally, 24 percent said they never delete cookies, more than double what was measured in the previous study.
The poll of 1,700 Internet users was conducted by The Ponemon Institute and sponsored by behavioral targeting vendor Revenue Science.
The study also examined consumer perceptions of and desire for relevant advertising targeted to their interests. Sixty-three percent said online marketers should "always" grasp their interests before advertising to them. Fifty-five percent said Web advertising suited to their interests "improves" or "greatly improves" their overall online experience. And 86 percent would rather accept relevant advertising than pay for content, a lift of 7 percent from the 2004 research.
While the findings would seem to indicate a growing consumer acceptance of ads targeted on behavior, the survey did not explicitly ask how Web users feel about ads served based on previous surfing habits.
But the results do suggest a markedly improved perception of cookies from what JupiterResearch measured a year ago, when almost 40 percent of Internet users told the analyst firm they delete cookies on at least a monthly basis.
That finding sparked widespread concern that the unique user counts and reach metrics for many sites and interactive campaigns were inflated, while frequency metrics were lowballed. It also raised worries that behavioral targeting could fall short of its great expectations.
Many believed the fear and loathing of cookies was driven by consumer concern over the threat of spyware and the blanket use of that term to describe a variety of Web measurement techniques, including these ubiquitous little text files.
Additionally, a number of anti-spyware companies had at the time begun referring to cookies as spyware, clumping them in with the same company as the shady perpetrators of drive-by ActiveX adware downloads.
"There are always privacy concerns. For example, when you're tracking someone's behavior, there's that old feeling: What's really going on?" said Larry Ponemon, founder of the Ponemon Institute. "But people are starting to accept the fact that they have anonymity, and the anonymity gives them comfort."
Marketers expressed some dismay last year when a series of studies found a previously unmeasured hatred for cookies in the heart of many an Internet user -- and a common predilection to delete them.
People worried by that discovery can perhaps breathe a little easier in the wake of a new survey finding that only 8 percent of respondents delete cookies "very frequently," compared with 18 percent in a 2004 survey. Additionally, 24 percent said they never delete cookies, more than double what was measured in the previous study.
The poll of 1,700 Internet users was conducted by The Ponemon Institute and sponsored by behavioral targeting vendor Revenue Science.
The study also examined consumer perceptions of and desire for relevant advertising targeted to their interests. Sixty-three percent said online marketers should "always" grasp their interests before advertising to them. Fifty-five percent said Web advertising suited to their interests "improves" or "greatly improves" their overall online experience. And 86 percent would rather accept relevant advertising than pay for content, a lift of 7 percent from the 2004 research.
While the findings would seem to indicate a growing consumer acceptance of ads targeted on behavior, the survey did not explicitly ask how Web users feel about ads served based on previous surfing habits.
But the results do suggest a markedly improved perception of cookies from what JupiterResearch measured a year ago, when almost 40 percent of Internet users told the analyst firm they delete cookies on at least a monthly basis.
That finding sparked widespread concern that the unique user counts and reach metrics for many sites and interactive campaigns were inflated, while frequency metrics were lowballed. It also raised worries that behavioral targeting could fall short of its great expectations.
Many believed the fear and loathing of cookies was driven by consumer concern over the threat of spyware and the blanket use of that term to describe a variety of Web measurement techniques, including these ubiquitous little text files.
Additionally, a number of anti-spyware companies had at the time begun referring to cookies as spyware, clumping them in with the same company as the shady perpetrators of drive-by ActiveX adware downloads.
"There are always privacy concerns. For example, when you're tracking someone's behavior, there's that old feeling: What's really going on?" said Larry Ponemon, founder of the Ponemon Institute. "But people are starting to accept the fact that they have anonymity, and the anonymity gives them comfort."
Saturday, April 15, 2006
New IAB Research Shows 12% Of Web Users Reject Cookies
THE INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING BUREAU IS again considering launching a lobbying and/or advertising campaign on behalf of cookies, OnlineMediaDaily has learned.
New research commissioned by the IAB and presented at its board meeting this week shows that as many as 12 percent of consumers don't accept third-party cookies--that is, the cookies set by ad servers and analytics companies that track the Web sites that consumers visit and the ads they view, among other data.
The IAB board this week discussed the possibility of conducting some sort of public awareness campaign designed to educate Web users about how publishers and advertisers actually use cookies. Last year, the IAB planned to work with Safecount--an organization formed last April by Carat Fusion executive (and MediaPost "Online Spin" columnist) Cory Treffiletti and Dynamic Logic president Nick Nyhan--to promote cookies to consumers.
Instead, the IAB reportedly decided to wait for more information--including data showing whether cookie deletions and rejections are increasing over time, holding steady, or declining. Even now, the organization might still wait to determine whether rejections increase before launching a promotional effort.
Greg Stuart, CEO of the IAB, declined to comment.
The IAB's research was based on observations of consumer behavior, as opposed to asking consumers whether they accept cookies--methodology criticized in the past on the grounds that consumers are not necessarily aware of how their computers treat cookies. Although a 12 percent rejection rate appears high, it's consistent with at least some other research; last year, analytics company WebTrends also reported that around 12 percent of consumers delete cookies.
The extent of cookie deletions or rejections by consumers has been debated since March 2005, when Jupiter Research reported that 39 percent of consumers delete cookies at least monthly. At the time, the research roiled many industry executives, who had long assumed that consumers ignored cookies.
New research commissioned by the IAB and presented at its board meeting this week shows that as many as 12 percent of consumers don't accept third-party cookies--that is, the cookies set by ad servers and analytics companies that track the Web sites that consumers visit and the ads they view, among other data.
The IAB board this week discussed the possibility of conducting some sort of public awareness campaign designed to educate Web users about how publishers and advertisers actually use cookies. Last year, the IAB planned to work with Safecount--an organization formed last April by Carat Fusion executive (and MediaPost "Online Spin" columnist) Cory Treffiletti and Dynamic Logic president Nick Nyhan--to promote cookies to consumers.
Instead, the IAB reportedly decided to wait for more information--including data showing whether cookie deletions and rejections are increasing over time, holding steady, or declining. Even now, the organization might still wait to determine whether rejections increase before launching a promotional effort.
Greg Stuart, CEO of the IAB, declined to comment.
The IAB's research was based on observations of consumer behavior, as opposed to asking consumers whether they accept cookies--methodology criticized in the past on the grounds that consumers are not necessarily aware of how their computers treat cookies. Although a 12 percent rejection rate appears high, it's consistent with at least some other research; last year, analytics company WebTrends also reported that around 12 percent of consumers delete cookies.
The extent of cookie deletions or rejections by consumers has been debated since March 2005, when Jupiter Research reported that 39 percent of consumers delete cookies at least monthly. At the time, the research roiled many industry executives, who had long assumed that consumers ignored cookies.
Friday, March 3, 2006
Web Analytics Firms Defend Cookie
IN HOPES OF DISTANCING ITSELF from adware and spyware companies, the Web Analytics Association--a trade group of analytics firms--this week issued a statement against spyware that included the pledge that members will open their practices and policies to third-party review.
The association--which includes major analytics firms like Webtrends, ClickTracks, and Urchin--also said it was committed to educating consumers about the benefits of cookies, and combating the "myth" that analytics companies constitute spyware.
The Web Analytics Association maintains that cookies that track consumers online are benign, and don't have the potential to collect personally identifiable information.
The move comes as analytics companies and other online businesses that rely on third-party cookies to track consumer activity find themselves increasingly under attack. Voices in the tech space, like Wall Street Journal columnist Walt Mossberg and tech guru and Slate.com writer Adam Penenberg, have sharply condemned companies that place tracking cookies on consumers' computers.
One argument against tracking cookies is that marketers and analytics vendors install these cookies on consumers' computers without their consent, and then use the cookies to obtain valuable information about them. Even if the information is anonymous, they argue, the cookie-installers nonetheless arguably obtained it without consumers' permission.
Last month, speaking before an audience of about 300 people at a meeting of the Anti-Spyware Coalition in Washington, D.C., Mossberg blasted the "supposedly legitimate companies who are under the delusion that it's okay to force their way into our computers for advertising, marketing, and research purposes."
He also scoffed at efforts by analytics companies to exempt cookies from regulation by legislators. "It's as if all the pickpockets in New York got together and formed a union and they went to the police and city council and said: 'You know, we're not as bad as the guys who mug you in the alley and break into your house and hold you at gunpoint,'" Mossberg said.
Writing in Slate.com, tech guru Penenberg last November called for third-party cookies to be abolished altogether.
But Web analytics firms say cookies, which are used to track users' activity on individual sites, are being unfairly demonized. "We kind of see it as an unfair, getting tagged with this sort of suspicion of folks that are doing bad things," said Andrew Edwards, director of the Web Analytics Association and a managing partner at Technology Leaders, a Web analytics vendor and consulting firm.
Edwards added that anti-spyware firms have also grouped Web analytics cookies in with spyware and adware unfairly, ultimately leading consumers to believe cookies are harmful. "The anti-spyware companies out there, because of their marketing approach, have sort of snagged Web analytics cookies into the batch of things that they claim to delete on behalf of their customers," he said.
Software removal companies say they just provide the information to consumers, who make their own decisions about what to keep or remove from their hard drives. Sam Curry--vice president for security management at Computer Associates, which manufactures a spyware removal tool--said his firm's tool does flag Web analytics cookies for deletion, but provides consumers with information to make their decision whether to retain the cookies or not.
by Shankar Gupta
The association--which includes major analytics firms like Webtrends, ClickTracks, and Urchin--also said it was committed to educating consumers about the benefits of cookies, and combating the "myth" that analytics companies constitute spyware.
The Web Analytics Association maintains that cookies that track consumers online are benign, and don't have the potential to collect personally identifiable information.
The move comes as analytics companies and other online businesses that rely on third-party cookies to track consumer activity find themselves increasingly under attack. Voices in the tech space, like Wall Street Journal columnist Walt Mossberg and tech guru and Slate.com writer Adam Penenberg, have sharply condemned companies that place tracking cookies on consumers' computers.
One argument against tracking cookies is that marketers and analytics vendors install these cookies on consumers' computers without their consent, and then use the cookies to obtain valuable information about them. Even if the information is anonymous, they argue, the cookie-installers nonetheless arguably obtained it without consumers' permission.
Last month, speaking before an audience of about 300 people at a meeting of the Anti-Spyware Coalition in Washington, D.C., Mossberg blasted the "supposedly legitimate companies who are under the delusion that it's okay to force their way into our computers for advertising, marketing, and research purposes."
He also scoffed at efforts by analytics companies to exempt cookies from regulation by legislators. "It's as if all the pickpockets in New York got together and formed a union and they went to the police and city council and said: 'You know, we're not as bad as the guys who mug you in the alley and break into your house and hold you at gunpoint,'" Mossberg said.
Writing in Slate.com, tech guru Penenberg last November called for third-party cookies to be abolished altogether.
But Web analytics firms say cookies, which are used to track users' activity on individual sites, are being unfairly demonized. "We kind of see it as an unfair, getting tagged with this sort of suspicion of folks that are doing bad things," said Andrew Edwards, director of the Web Analytics Association and a managing partner at Technology Leaders, a Web analytics vendor and consulting firm.
Edwards added that anti-spyware firms have also grouped Web analytics cookies in with spyware and adware unfairly, ultimately leading consumers to believe cookies are harmful. "The anti-spyware companies out there, because of their marketing approach, have sort of snagged Web analytics cookies into the batch of things that they claim to delete on behalf of their customers," he said.
Software removal companies say they just provide the information to consumers, who make their own decisions about what to keep or remove from their hard drives. Sam Curry--vice president for security management at Computer Associates, which manufactures a spyware removal tool--said his firm's tool does flag Web analytics cookies for deletion, but provides consumers with information to make their decision whether to retain the cookies or not.
by Shankar Gupta
Sunday, February 5, 2006
Postage Is Due for Companies Sending E-Mail
By SAUL HANSELL
Published: February 5, 2006
Companies will soon have to buy the electronic equivalent of a postage stamp if they want to be certain that their e-mail will be delivered to many of their customers.
America Online and Yahoo, two of the world's largest providers of e-mail accounts, are about to start using a system that gives preferential treatment to messages from companies that pay from 1/4 of a cent to a penny each to have them delivered. The senders must promise to contact only people who have agreed to receive their messages, or risk being blocked entirely.
The Internet companies say that this will help them identify legitimate mail and cut down on junk e-mail, identity-theft scams and other scourges that plague users of their services. Thy also stand to earn millions of dollars a year from the system if it is widely adopted.
AOL and Yahoo will still accept e-mail from senders who have not paid, but the paid messages will be given special treatment. On AOL, for example, they will go straight to users' main mailboxes, and will not have to pass the gantlet of spam filters that could divert them to a junk-mail folder or strip them of images and Web links. As is the case now, mail arriving from addresses that users have added to their AOL address books will not be treated as spam.
Yahoo and AOL say the new system is a way to restore some order to e-mail, which, because of spam and worries about online scams, has become an increasingly unreliable way for companies to reach their customers, even as online transactions are becoming a crucial part of their businesses.
"The last time I checked, the postal service has a very similar system to provide different options," said Nicholas Graham, an AOL spokesman. He pointed to services like certified mail, "where you really do get assurance that if what you send is important to you, it will be delivered, and delivered in a way that is different from other mail."
But critics of the plan say that the two companies risk alienating both their users and the companies that send e-mail. The system will apply not only to mass mailings but also to individual commercial messages like order confirmations from online stores and customized low-fare notices from airlines.
"AOL users will become dissatisfied when they don't receive the e-mail that they want, and when they complain to the senders, they'll be told, 'it's AOL's fault,' " said Richi Jennings, an analyst at Ferris Research, which specializes in e-mail.
As for companies that send e-mail, "some will pay, but others will object to being held to ransom," he said. "A big danger is that one of them will be big enough to encourage AOL users to use a different e-mail service."
In a broader sense, the move to create what is essentially a preferred class of e-mail is a major change in the economics of the Internet. Until now, senders and recipients of e-mail — and, for that matter, Web pages and other information — each covered their own costs of using the network, with no money changing hands. That model is different from, say, the telephone system, in which the company whose customer places a call pays a fee to the company whose customer receives it.
The prospect of a multitiered Internet has received a lot of attention recently after executives of several large telecommunications companies, including BellSouth and AT& T, suggested that they should be paid not only by the subscribers to their Internet services but also by companies that send large files to those subscribers, including music and video clips. Those files would then be given priority over other data, a change from the Internet's basic architecture which treats all data in the same way.
This Tuesday the Senate Commerce Committee will hold a hearing to consider legislation for what has been called Net neutrality — effectively banning Internet access companies from giving preferred status to certain providers of content. The concern is that companies that do not pay could find it hard to reach customers or attract new ones, threatening the openness of the Internet.
AOL and its parent, Time Warner, which also owns a large cable system offering high-speed Internet access, have not taken a public stand on the principle of Net neutrality. Neither has Yahoo, which has close relationships with AT& T and Verizon. The issue of e-mail postage has not yet come up in the debate over Net neutrality. In the next two months, AOL will start accepting e-mail processed by Goodmail Systems, a company in Mountain View, Calif., that will collect the electronic postage and verify the identity of the sender. Goodmail has tested the system with the participation of a few companies, including the American Red Cross and The New York Times.
Paying senders will be assured that their messages will be delivered to AOL users' main in-boxes and marked as "AOL Certified E-Mail." Unpaid messages will be subject to AOL's spam-filtering process, which diverts suspicious messages to a special spam folder. Most of these messages will also not be displayed with their original images and links.
Yahoo will start trying out Goodmail's system in coming months, but it has not decided how paid mail will be differentiated from unpaid, said Brad Garlinghouse, vice president of communications products at Yahoo. Goodmail will charge 1/4 cent to 1 cent per message, with high-volume mailers getting the biggest discounts. It will give more than half of that amount to the e-mail service provider. Goodmail does not envision that individuals will need to pay to have their e-mail delivered to Yahoo or AOL accounts.
When AOL started to explain the details of its plan last month to companies that send a lot of e-mail, many quickly raised objections.
"No one wants Goodmail or any other provider to set up a tollbooth that makes it cost-prohibitive for legitimate mailers to reach the in-box," said Matthew Moog, the chief executive of Q Interactive. The company runs a marketing service called CoolSavings that sends e-mail to 10 million people a month who have requested it.
Mr. Moog said that he was very much in favor of systems that helped distinguish the mail he sent from spam. But Mr. Moog added that he wanted AOL and other Internet providers "to offer several competing services to ensure that innovation continues and there is a competitive market to drive fair pricing for the service."
For example, he said that CoolSavings already works with Bonded Sender, a company used by Microsoft's Hotmail service and other providers to identify sources of legitimate mail. Bonded Sender charges a flat fee of no more than $20,000 a year to the highest-volume senders, a fraction of what they would pay through the Goodmail system. Mr. Moog said that the Goodmail system would at least double the cost of an e-mail campaign. "I don't think the economics work," he added.
Matt Blumberg, the chief executive of Return Path, the New York company that runs Bonded Sender, said there was no need for the Goodmail price to be so high.
"From AOL's perspective, this is an opportunity to earn a significant amount of money from the sale of stamps," he said. "But it's bad for the industry and bad for consumers. A lot of e-mailers won't be able to afford it."
But Mr. Garlinghouse of Yahoo said that by making senders pay for each message, they will be forced to be more discriminating in whom they send e-mail to, which will benefit users.
"Because the cost of sending e-mail is so low, some players are not as good at keeping their lists clean," he said. "I still gets e-mails from lists I signed up for three years ago, but I haven't responded to a single one."
As spam has started to clog millions of mailboxes, particularly over the last five years, some people have suggested that requiring all e-mail senders to pay some sort of postage would drive out spammers, who can profit even if they sell their wares to a very small percentage of mail recipients.
But in recent years the volume of spam has leveled off, in part because of a new federal law that imposes penalties for many deceptive e-mail practices. Moreover, most major e-mail providers have built sophisticated filters that divert much of the spam. AOL says that spam complaints from its members are down 75 percent since their peak in 2003. (These filters also capture about 20 percent of legitimate mail, according to Ferris Research.)
A more troublesome problem now is phishing, messages that appear to be from a bank or an online payment service and that seek to fool recipients into divulging their passwords or credit card numbers. Phishing has led Internet providers and other companies to look for ways to help people identify legitimate mail.
Goodmail was founded several years ago with the idea that it would charge postage for all mail, but it has narrowed its focus to mail sent by companies and major nonprofit organizations, which will pay a reduced rate. Messages from paying customers will bear a special symbol to indicate that they are not fraudulent.
"The e-mail in-box is a potentially dangerous place," said Richard Gingras, the chief executive of Goodmail. "There is a tremendous need for a class of certified e-mail that can convey to consumers that a message is authentic."
Mr. Gingras argued that companies will be glad to pay the postage fee because their customers will have more trust in their e-mail and thus will buy more from them.
And Mr. Graham of AOL added that the portion of the postage it will receive is justifiable compensation for the costs it has incurred in developing systems to combat spam.
"We have some prerogative to move to a system that asks for other people to participate and share the financial burden in making a clean e-mail environment on the Internet," he said.
Published: February 5, 2006
Companies will soon have to buy the electronic equivalent of a postage stamp if they want to be certain that their e-mail will be delivered to many of their customers.
America Online and Yahoo, two of the world's largest providers of e-mail accounts, are about to start using a system that gives preferential treatment to messages from companies that pay from 1/4 of a cent to a penny each to have them delivered. The senders must promise to contact only people who have agreed to receive their messages, or risk being blocked entirely.
The Internet companies say that this will help them identify legitimate mail and cut down on junk e-mail, identity-theft scams and other scourges that plague users of their services. Thy also stand to earn millions of dollars a year from the system if it is widely adopted.
AOL and Yahoo will still accept e-mail from senders who have not paid, but the paid messages will be given special treatment. On AOL, for example, they will go straight to users' main mailboxes, and will not have to pass the gantlet of spam filters that could divert them to a junk-mail folder or strip them of images and Web links. As is the case now, mail arriving from addresses that users have added to their AOL address books will not be treated as spam.
Yahoo and AOL say the new system is a way to restore some order to e-mail, which, because of spam and worries about online scams, has become an increasingly unreliable way for companies to reach their customers, even as online transactions are becoming a crucial part of their businesses.
"The last time I checked, the postal service has a very similar system to provide different options," said Nicholas Graham, an AOL spokesman. He pointed to services like certified mail, "where you really do get assurance that if what you send is important to you, it will be delivered, and delivered in a way that is different from other mail."
But critics of the plan say that the two companies risk alienating both their users and the companies that send e-mail. The system will apply not only to mass mailings but also to individual commercial messages like order confirmations from online stores and customized low-fare notices from airlines.
"AOL users will become dissatisfied when they don't receive the e-mail that they want, and when they complain to the senders, they'll be told, 'it's AOL's fault,' " said Richi Jennings, an analyst at Ferris Research, which specializes in e-mail.
As for companies that send e-mail, "some will pay, but others will object to being held to ransom," he said. "A big danger is that one of them will be big enough to encourage AOL users to use a different e-mail service."
In a broader sense, the move to create what is essentially a preferred class of e-mail is a major change in the economics of the Internet. Until now, senders and recipients of e-mail — and, for that matter, Web pages and other information — each covered their own costs of using the network, with no money changing hands. That model is different from, say, the telephone system, in which the company whose customer places a call pays a fee to the company whose customer receives it.
The prospect of a multitiered Internet has received a lot of attention recently after executives of several large telecommunications companies, including BellSouth and AT& T, suggested that they should be paid not only by the subscribers to their Internet services but also by companies that send large files to those subscribers, including music and video clips. Those files would then be given priority over other data, a change from the Internet's basic architecture which treats all data in the same way.
This Tuesday the Senate Commerce Committee will hold a hearing to consider legislation for what has been called Net neutrality — effectively banning Internet access companies from giving preferred status to certain providers of content. The concern is that companies that do not pay could find it hard to reach customers or attract new ones, threatening the openness of the Internet.
AOL and its parent, Time Warner, which also owns a large cable system offering high-speed Internet access, have not taken a public stand on the principle of Net neutrality. Neither has Yahoo, which has close relationships with AT& T and Verizon. The issue of e-mail postage has not yet come up in the debate over Net neutrality. In the next two months, AOL will start accepting e-mail processed by Goodmail Systems, a company in Mountain View, Calif., that will collect the electronic postage and verify the identity of the sender. Goodmail has tested the system with the participation of a few companies, including the American Red Cross and The New York Times.
Paying senders will be assured that their messages will be delivered to AOL users' main in-boxes and marked as "AOL Certified E-Mail." Unpaid messages will be subject to AOL's spam-filtering process, which diverts suspicious messages to a special spam folder. Most of these messages will also not be displayed with their original images and links.
Yahoo will start trying out Goodmail's system in coming months, but it has not decided how paid mail will be differentiated from unpaid, said Brad Garlinghouse, vice president of communications products at Yahoo. Goodmail will charge 1/4 cent to 1 cent per message, with high-volume mailers getting the biggest discounts. It will give more than half of that amount to the e-mail service provider. Goodmail does not envision that individuals will need to pay to have their e-mail delivered to Yahoo or AOL accounts.
When AOL started to explain the details of its plan last month to companies that send a lot of e-mail, many quickly raised objections.
"No one wants Goodmail or any other provider to set up a tollbooth that makes it cost-prohibitive for legitimate mailers to reach the in-box," said Matthew Moog, the chief executive of Q Interactive. The company runs a marketing service called CoolSavings that sends e-mail to 10 million people a month who have requested it.
Mr. Moog said that he was very much in favor of systems that helped distinguish the mail he sent from spam. But Mr. Moog added that he wanted AOL and other Internet providers "to offer several competing services to ensure that innovation continues and there is a competitive market to drive fair pricing for the service."
For example, he said that CoolSavings already works with Bonded Sender, a company used by Microsoft's Hotmail service and other providers to identify sources of legitimate mail. Bonded Sender charges a flat fee of no more than $20,000 a year to the highest-volume senders, a fraction of what they would pay through the Goodmail system. Mr. Moog said that the Goodmail system would at least double the cost of an e-mail campaign. "I don't think the economics work," he added.
Matt Blumberg, the chief executive of Return Path, the New York company that runs Bonded Sender, said there was no need for the Goodmail price to be so high.
"From AOL's perspective, this is an opportunity to earn a significant amount of money from the sale of stamps," he said. "But it's bad for the industry and bad for consumers. A lot of e-mailers won't be able to afford it."
But Mr. Garlinghouse of Yahoo said that by making senders pay for each message, they will be forced to be more discriminating in whom they send e-mail to, which will benefit users.
"Because the cost of sending e-mail is so low, some players are not as good at keeping their lists clean," he said. "I still gets e-mails from lists I signed up for three years ago, but I haven't responded to a single one."
As spam has started to clog millions of mailboxes, particularly over the last five years, some people have suggested that requiring all e-mail senders to pay some sort of postage would drive out spammers, who can profit even if they sell their wares to a very small percentage of mail recipients.
But in recent years the volume of spam has leveled off, in part because of a new federal law that imposes penalties for many deceptive e-mail practices. Moreover, most major e-mail providers have built sophisticated filters that divert much of the spam. AOL says that spam complaints from its members are down 75 percent since their peak in 2003. (These filters also capture about 20 percent of legitimate mail, according to Ferris Research.)
A more troublesome problem now is phishing, messages that appear to be from a bank or an online payment service and that seek to fool recipients into divulging their passwords or credit card numbers. Phishing has led Internet providers and other companies to look for ways to help people identify legitimate mail.
Goodmail was founded several years ago with the idea that it would charge postage for all mail, but it has narrowed its focus to mail sent by companies and major nonprofit organizations, which will pay a reduced rate. Messages from paying customers will bear a special symbol to indicate that they are not fraudulent.
"The e-mail in-box is a potentially dangerous place," said Richard Gingras, the chief executive of Goodmail. "There is a tremendous need for a class of certified e-mail that can convey to consumers that a message is authentic."
Mr. Gingras argued that companies will be glad to pay the postage fee because their customers will have more trust in their e-mail and thus will buy more from them.
And Mr. Graham of AOL added that the portion of the postage it will receive is justifiable compensation for the costs it has incurred in developing systems to combat spam.
"We have some prerogative to move to a system that asks for other people to participate and share the financial burden in making a clean e-mail environment on the Internet," he said.
Friday, February 3, 2006
Who's In Control?
Remember back in the boom years when Sun Microsystems' Scott McNealy famously said, "You have no privacy -- get over it."?
Today, the same can be said of control, particularly if you're a marketer or a content provider. No, marketers don't have "no" control, any more than consumers have "no" privacy. But the degree to which you control your brand, advertising, messaging, Web site, even your offline media, is rapidly eroding.
You're going to have to learn to deal with it.
Certainly, consumers are seizing a great deal of the control marketers once had. So are a motley crew of bad guys: click-fraudsters, spammers, identity thieves and that ilk. And no, consumers aren't "in" control, but they're calling a lot more of the shots. It seems every new piece of hardware or software takes just a little more control away from marketers and grants it to consumers. And that's to say nothing of online user reviews on everything from Amazon.com to local search sites. Meanwhile, viral and consumer-generated media runs the gamut from blogs to full-motion, high-production-value video.
The erosion of marketers' control on the Web begins with the fundamentals: the browser and e-mail client. Browser functionality has made great strides in recent years. Browsers can block (or delete) cookies, block pop-ups, scripts and even ads. Firefox has a nifty option called "clear private data" that offers users the option of wiping plenty of other things, too.
E-mail, meanwhile, whether read in a standalone client or on the Web, is screened, filtered, spam-foldered and image-blocked by default, even without third-party filters and plug-ins. Anti-spyware apps kill cookies, and by extension, meaningful metrics and behavioral targeting.
In preparing for a speech at a conference on new technologies and new media advertising law this week, I've been thinking a lot lately about control.
Mark Kingdon's recent column on viral's long tail prompted a look back, too. It was back in September, 2004 that someone discovered the Bic pen was mightier than the high-end Kryptonite lock. Remember?
Well, search 'kryptonite lock' on Google today. Only the top two search results are for the company's Web site. Below that, it's almost all lock-hack, all the time. Search 'kryptonite lock pen' and you'll turn up a staggering 72,800 results. (Similarly, a search for 'Volkswagen polo suicide bomber' returns 111,000 results (click the link if you don't recall that viral scandal).
That's a whole lot of control -- over a very long period of time.
Advertisers want to engage consumers. Engagement is precisely what can lead to disruptive behavior. Remember how Subservient Chicken was hacked almost as soon as it launched? Engagement, and passion, can create some great studies in brand, such as California schoolteacher George Master's brilliant iPod Mini ad. I'm sure Apple appreciates that one a whole lot more than the more recent (and topical) Broke Mac Mountain. But they'll probably let it go. It seems the company learned its lesson after the fallout it suffered when it tried to sue a blogger.
This is, of course, pure Web 2.0, a concept that's been around for a while and one too few marketers really understand. As Tim O'Reilly points out they're mired in the "'90s notion that the Web was about publishing, not participation; that advertisers, not consumers, ought to call the shots; that size mattered, and that the Internet was increasingly being dominated by the top Web sites as measured by...Web ad scoring companies."
The Internet is increasingly dominated by consumers and the technologies they embrace. If they use Greasemonkey to wipe out all the ads on a publisher's site -- or to change the text color from blue to orange -- there's little you can do about it. The same goes for site registration bypass, using RSS instead of a browser, or perusing classified ads or news with an aggregator.
If all the above weren't enough, marketers are rapidly losing control of the channel via which they spread their messages. Content can be shifted more or less effortlessly between DVRs, mobile phones, portable audio and video devices and the Web. Sophisticated marketers know this and they're leveraging the trend. Why else would MSN, Yahoo!, Comcast and Budweiser all make Super Bowl ads available on-demand the day of the big game? And why else would CBS.com sell "Survivor" episodes just after airtime?
Control is long gone and its only replacement is a combination of acceptance, flexibility and mutual respect between consumer and marketer.
Respect, of course, must be earned. In this new and changing media landscape, engaging in participation and dialogue is the way to earn it. To do so successfully, marketers must be knowledgeable. The more you know and understand about the media environment you're operating in, the more you can control the messages you send...and receive.
Today, the same can be said of control, particularly if you're a marketer or a content provider. No, marketers don't have "no" control, any more than consumers have "no" privacy. But the degree to which you control your brand, advertising, messaging, Web site, even your offline media, is rapidly eroding.
You're going to have to learn to deal with it.
Certainly, consumers are seizing a great deal of the control marketers once had. So are a motley crew of bad guys: click-fraudsters, spammers, identity thieves and that ilk. And no, consumers aren't "in" control, but they're calling a lot more of the shots. It seems every new piece of hardware or software takes just a little more control away from marketers and grants it to consumers. And that's to say nothing of online user reviews on everything from Amazon.com to local search sites. Meanwhile, viral and consumer-generated media runs the gamut from blogs to full-motion, high-production-value video.
The erosion of marketers' control on the Web begins with the fundamentals: the browser and e-mail client. Browser functionality has made great strides in recent years. Browsers can block (or delete) cookies, block pop-ups, scripts and even ads. Firefox has a nifty option called "clear private data" that offers users the option of wiping plenty of other things, too.
E-mail, meanwhile, whether read in a standalone client or on the Web, is screened, filtered, spam-foldered and image-blocked by default, even without third-party filters and plug-ins. Anti-spyware apps kill cookies, and by extension, meaningful metrics and behavioral targeting.
In preparing for a speech at a conference on new technologies and new media advertising law this week, I've been thinking a lot lately about control.
Mark Kingdon's recent column on viral's long tail prompted a look back, too. It was back in September, 2004 that someone discovered the Bic pen was mightier than the high-end Kryptonite lock. Remember?
Well, search 'kryptonite lock' on Google today. Only the top two search results are for the company's Web site. Below that, it's almost all lock-hack, all the time. Search 'kryptonite lock pen' and you'll turn up a staggering 72,800 results. (Similarly, a search for 'Volkswagen polo suicide bomber' returns 111,000 results (click the link if you don't recall that viral scandal).
That's a whole lot of control -- over a very long period of time.
Advertisers want to engage consumers. Engagement is precisely what can lead to disruptive behavior. Remember how Subservient Chicken was hacked almost as soon as it launched? Engagement, and passion, can create some great studies in brand, such as California schoolteacher George Master's brilliant iPod Mini ad. I'm sure Apple appreciates that one a whole lot more than the more recent (and topical) Broke Mac Mountain. But they'll probably let it go. It seems the company learned its lesson after the fallout it suffered when it tried to sue a blogger.
This is, of course, pure Web 2.0, a concept that's been around for a while and one too few marketers really understand. As Tim O'Reilly points out they're mired in the "'90s notion that the Web was about publishing, not participation; that advertisers, not consumers, ought to call the shots; that size mattered, and that the Internet was increasingly being dominated by the top Web sites as measured by...Web ad scoring companies."
The Internet is increasingly dominated by consumers and the technologies they embrace. If they use Greasemonkey to wipe out all the ads on a publisher's site -- or to change the text color from blue to orange -- there's little you can do about it. The same goes for site registration bypass, using RSS instead of a browser, or perusing classified ads or news with an aggregator.
If all the above weren't enough, marketers are rapidly losing control of the channel via which they spread their messages. Content can be shifted more or less effortlessly between DVRs, mobile phones, portable audio and video devices and the Web. Sophisticated marketers know this and they're leveraging the trend. Why else would MSN, Yahoo!, Comcast and Budweiser all make Super Bowl ads available on-demand the day of the big game? And why else would CBS.com sell "Survivor" episodes just after airtime?
Control is long gone and its only replacement is a combination of acceptance, flexibility and mutual respect between consumer and marketer.
Respect, of course, must be earned. In this new and changing media landscape, engaging in participation and dialogue is the way to earn it. To do so successfully, marketers must be knowledgeable. The more you know and understand about the media environment you're operating in, the more you can control the messages you send...and receive.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Cookies are still something good, even in your computer
By Dave Peyton, Tribune Media Services
Cookies. Until recently, the word conjured only pleasant images. Grandma's kitchen. Mom's loving homemade gifts to her children. Christmas goodies.
Today, the word can bring a chill to computer users, especially those who believe that cookies are all evil and the bane of those who want to protect their privacy while online.
The dark side of computer cookies came to light again recently when it was reported that the National Security Agency had been placing cookies on the computers of users who visited the government Web site in spite of rules banning the practice.
When it was discovered that the NSA site was placing cookies on visitors' computers, the practice was stopped, according to government officials.
Most computer users have heard of cookies but many have the wrong impression about them. First and foremost, cookies are not programs. They are simple text files that can be placed on your computer when you visit a Web site.
Cookies can be helpful
Despite what you hear, most cookies are for the convenience of the user. For example, if you go to a Web site where a name and password are required, the host computer may put a cookie on your computer that remembers that information. Thus, when you return to that site, you won't have to re-enter the information.
Cookies can't take control of your computer and send personal and private information to someone else. There are computer viruses that will do that, but cookies can't perform that task.
What can cookies do that you might not want them to do? They can store information about where you have been and what you have done on the Internet and make that information available to a Web site the next time you visit. This is apparently what the cookie installed by the NSA Web site allowed. Sinister? Perhaps, but remember such cookies do not have the capability of providing your most personal information such as financial status, bank account numbers and the like.
Cookie basics
It behooves anyone who surfs the Internet to learn about cookies, what they can and can't do and even how to control and delete them.
The best place to go to learn about cookies is Cookie Central at http://www.cookiecentral.com. This site focuses on cookies, the good and the bad. It provides basic information about what cookies are and what they aren't. It provides the latest news about cookies, a list of frequently asked questions about the text files and a guide to finding what cookies may be on your computer and how to eliminate them if you want to.
Microsoft address the issue of cookies at http://www.microsoft.com/info/cookies.mspx . There's information on this site about the purpose of cookies, how a cookie helps you, how to control which cookies you accept and how to see the cookies you have accepted.
If you find either of these site a little too technical, you might want to check out the files about cookies on How Stuff Works. This file explains cookies in simple terms and can be found at http://www.howstuffworks.com/cookie.
***
Are you tired of calling phone numbers only to have a computer answer? Have you begun to wonder whether there are any human beings in charge of answering phones? Paul English might be able to help with his IVR (interactive voice response) cheat sheet at http://www.paulenglish.com/ivr/. English provides more than 250 phone numbers and what buttons to push to get around the seemingly unending menus to get you to a real person on the other end of the line quickly.
***
Donors Choose at http://donorschoose.org is a place to find school projects that need financial support. Teachers list project that need support and, if you want to help, you can make a donation. The site allows you to find out how much has already been given to the project and how needy the school is. Teachers who want to list project can request assistance and if that request is approved, it will be posted on the site.
***
Slip-ups. We all have them at times, but when they appear in movies, on TV or in books, they may become the topic of commentary at http://www.slipups.com. This site chronicles amusing accidental bloopers or mistakes that weren't caught in the editing process and appear to the viewing public. They can range from inconsistencies in movies and TV programs to errors in books. The site has collected more than 14,000 slip-ups to date and new ones are added periodically.
Cookies. Until recently, the word conjured only pleasant images. Grandma's kitchen. Mom's loving homemade gifts to her children. Christmas goodies.
Today, the word can bring a chill to computer users, especially those who believe that cookies are all evil and the bane of those who want to protect their privacy while online.
The dark side of computer cookies came to light again recently when it was reported that the National Security Agency had been placing cookies on the computers of users who visited the government Web site in spite of rules banning the practice.
When it was discovered that the NSA site was placing cookies on visitors' computers, the practice was stopped, according to government officials.
Most computer users have heard of cookies but many have the wrong impression about them. First and foremost, cookies are not programs. They are simple text files that can be placed on your computer when you visit a Web site.
Cookies can be helpful
Despite what you hear, most cookies are for the convenience of the user. For example, if you go to a Web site where a name and password are required, the host computer may put a cookie on your computer that remembers that information. Thus, when you return to that site, you won't have to re-enter the information.
Cookies can't take control of your computer and send personal and private information to someone else. There are computer viruses that will do that, but cookies can't perform that task.
What can cookies do that you might not want them to do? They can store information about where you have been and what you have done on the Internet and make that information available to a Web site the next time you visit. This is apparently what the cookie installed by the NSA Web site allowed. Sinister? Perhaps, but remember such cookies do not have the capability of providing your most personal information such as financial status, bank account numbers and the like.
Cookie basics
It behooves anyone who surfs the Internet to learn about cookies, what they can and can't do and even how to control and delete them.
The best place to go to learn about cookies is Cookie Central at http://www.cookiecentral.com. This site focuses on cookies, the good and the bad. It provides basic information about what cookies are and what they aren't. It provides the latest news about cookies, a list of frequently asked questions about the text files and a guide to finding what cookies may be on your computer and how to eliminate them if you want to.
Microsoft address the issue of cookies at http://www.microsoft.com/info/cookies.mspx . There's information on this site about the purpose of cookies, how a cookie helps you, how to control which cookies you accept and how to see the cookies you have accepted.
If you find either of these site a little too technical, you might want to check out the files about cookies on How Stuff Works. This file explains cookies in simple terms and can be found at http://www.howstuffworks.com/cookie.
***
Are you tired of calling phone numbers only to have a computer answer? Have you begun to wonder whether there are any human beings in charge of answering phones? Paul English might be able to help with his IVR (interactive voice response) cheat sheet at http://www.paulenglish.com/ivr/. English provides more than 250 phone numbers and what buttons to push to get around the seemingly unending menus to get you to a real person on the other end of the line quickly.
***
Donors Choose at http://donorschoose.org is a place to find school projects that need financial support. Teachers list project that need support and, if you want to help, you can make a donation. The site allows you to find out how much has already been given to the project and how needy the school is. Teachers who want to list project can request assistance and if that request is approved, it will be posted on the site.
***
Slip-ups. We all have them at times, but when they appear in movies, on TV or in books, they may become the topic of commentary at http://www.slipups.com. This site chronicles amusing accidental bloopers or mistakes that weren't caught in the editing process and appear to the viewing public. They can range from inconsistencies in movies and TV programs to errors in books. The site has collected more than 14,000 slip-ups to date and new ones are added periodically.
IE Beta Code Leaks onto Net
Images and code from the latest build of Microsoft’s Internet Explorer 7 browser show up on web sites.
Images and programming code from the latest beta test version of Microsoft’s upcoming Internet Explorer 7 browser have already emerged on the Internet, apparently in leaks from developers.
Images show the tabbed interface that IE will borrow from competing browsers such as Opera, Mozilla Firefox, and Netscape. Several of the images are of Chinese web sites and include Chinese characters, perhaps giving an indication of the source of the leaks.
Sites such as ActiveWin.com, JCXP.net, and Addict3D.org have been featuring images of the Beta 2 version of the browser and discussions of its merits.
Some sites even had links to places on the Net where the code could be downloaded. Microsoft asked at least one site, JCXP, to remove the links, but not before perhaps thousands of users had already downloaded the beta code.
Some users who downloaded the file had trouble getting the software to properly validate on their systems, however. The build also required them to delete their previous version of IE.
‘Part of the issue they have is they need to get the code out to as many people as possible.’ -Michael Cherry,
Directions on Microsoft
The Redmond software giant has said it plans to open the Beta 2 preview to the general public sometime this quarter, but has given many developers an early taste so they can modify their existing applications to run more smoothly with IE7 and take advantage of its new features.
Shares of Microsoft closed down $0.06 to $26.35 in recent trading Monday.
RSS Made Really Simpler
The new browser includes an easy way to subscribe to RSS (really simple syndication) feeds just by clicking on a prompt that appears in a window within IE. The browser then adds the feed to the user’s “favorites” menu.
The software also includes a Quick Tabs feature that displays the contents of several web pages within a single IE window. By clicking on one of the thumbnail images, users can expand the web page to the full window.
The leaking of the screen shots at least serves to publicize the upcoming release and may not be that much of a setback for Microsoft after all.
“Part of the issue they have is they need to get the code out to as many people as possible,” said Michael Cherry, lead analyst for Windows and mobile at the research firm Directions on Microsoft.
He isn’t sure how accurate some of the screen shots are. “You don’t know if it’s an internal build to test as a prototype or the next beta they were going to release to the public anyway,” he said.
The company said it intends to share more information about IE as it gets closer to the date of release this quarter of the next official beta version, but cautions users not to run the leaked code.
“Microsoft encourages customers interested in testing a pre-release version of IE for Windows XP to wait until the code is available from Microsoft,” said a statement from the company. “Microsoft continues to build on the Internet Explorer 7 features delivered at beta 1. However, at this time, we have nothing to announce in regards to features or timing of this build. “
However, Microsoft has been keeping a blog that informs the public at large, as well as developers, about new features in IE.
Erasing History
For example, the company said earlier this month that it is enabling users to easily flush the history of previous web sites they’ve visited from the browser. This used to be a somewhat laborious task with earlier versions of IE.
The “Tools” menu will now have a “Delete Browsing History” feature that will be able to erase temporary Internet files, cookies, history, form data, and passwords, according to a posting on Microsoft’s IEBlog by Uche Enuha, a program manager working on the user experience team.
“Back in IE6, you would have to spend a lot of time looking through various places on your computer to get rid of all the relevant information and possibly still miss some critical information,” he wrote.
“Now with the ‘Delete Browsing History’ feature, we are giving every person the ability to clear all their browsing information from one location with a click of a button and the peace of mind that the job was done right,” he added.
Microsoft would probably like to have some peace of mind that its programming code won’t be leaked all over the Internet.
Meanwhile the company has been developing the next version of its Windows operating system, Vista, along with IE7. Both are expected to ship later this year. Microsoft has been enhancing Vista’s security features as well. In the latest build, developers have discovered that Microsoft provided a two-way firewall.
Images and programming code from the latest beta test version of Microsoft’s upcoming Internet Explorer 7 browser have already emerged on the Internet, apparently in leaks from developers.
Images show the tabbed interface that IE will borrow from competing browsers such as Opera, Mozilla Firefox, and Netscape. Several of the images are of Chinese web sites and include Chinese characters, perhaps giving an indication of the source of the leaks.
Sites such as ActiveWin.com, JCXP.net, and Addict3D.org have been featuring images of the Beta 2 version of the browser and discussions of its merits.
Some sites even had links to places on the Net where the code could be downloaded. Microsoft asked at least one site, JCXP, to remove the links, but not before perhaps thousands of users had already downloaded the beta code.
Some users who downloaded the file had trouble getting the software to properly validate on their systems, however. The build also required them to delete their previous version of IE.
‘Part of the issue they have is they need to get the code out to as many people as possible.’ -Michael Cherry,
Directions on Microsoft
The Redmond software giant has said it plans to open the Beta 2 preview to the general public sometime this quarter, but has given many developers an early taste so they can modify their existing applications to run more smoothly with IE7 and take advantage of its new features.
Shares of Microsoft closed down $0.06 to $26.35 in recent trading Monday.
RSS Made Really Simpler
The new browser includes an easy way to subscribe to RSS (really simple syndication) feeds just by clicking on a prompt that appears in a window within IE. The browser then adds the feed to the user’s “favorites” menu.
The software also includes a Quick Tabs feature that displays the contents of several web pages within a single IE window. By clicking on one of the thumbnail images, users can expand the web page to the full window.
The leaking of the screen shots at least serves to publicize the upcoming release and may not be that much of a setback for Microsoft after all.
“Part of the issue they have is they need to get the code out to as many people as possible,” said Michael Cherry, lead analyst for Windows and mobile at the research firm Directions on Microsoft.
He isn’t sure how accurate some of the screen shots are. “You don’t know if it’s an internal build to test as a prototype or the next beta they were going to release to the public anyway,” he said.
The company said it intends to share more information about IE as it gets closer to the date of release this quarter of the next official beta version, but cautions users not to run the leaked code.
“Microsoft encourages customers interested in testing a pre-release version of IE for Windows XP to wait until the code is available from Microsoft,” said a statement from the company. “Microsoft continues to build on the Internet Explorer 7 features delivered at beta 1. However, at this time, we have nothing to announce in regards to features or timing of this build. “
However, Microsoft has been keeping a blog that informs the public at large, as well as developers, about new features in IE.
Erasing History
For example, the company said earlier this month that it is enabling users to easily flush the history of previous web sites they’ve visited from the browser. This used to be a somewhat laborious task with earlier versions of IE.
The “Tools” menu will now have a “Delete Browsing History” feature that will be able to erase temporary Internet files, cookies, history, form data, and passwords, according to a posting on Microsoft’s IEBlog by Uche Enuha, a program manager working on the user experience team.
“Back in IE6, you would have to spend a lot of time looking through various places on your computer to get rid of all the relevant information and possibly still miss some critical information,” he wrote.
“Now with the ‘Delete Browsing History’ feature, we are giving every person the ability to clear all their browsing information from one location with a click of a button and the peace of mind that the job was done right,” he added.
Microsoft would probably like to have some peace of mind that its programming code won’t be leaked all over the Internet.
Meanwhile the company has been developing the next version of its Windows operating system, Vista, along with IE7. Both are expected to ship later this year. Microsoft has been enhancing Vista’s security features as well. In the latest build, developers have discovered that Microsoft provided a two-way firewall.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Crushing Cookies
That Snoop
Q. How can I disable and delete Web browser cookies that track my surfing habits?
A. Cookies are small bits of text that a Web server gives your computer's Web browser when you visit certain sites. With this text in your browser's cookie file, the Web site can identify you the next time you visit and present you with customized greetings or personalized settings.
Some types of cookies, usually referred to as "tracking cookies," are used by third-party advertisers when you visit a site. The cookies retain information about your Web surfing habits that can be taken into account in presenting advertising geared to your perceived interests.
You can usually set your Web browser to reject cookies from Web sites other than the one you chose to visit. In Internet Explorer 6, for example, you can find these settings under the Tools menu, in the Internet Options box. Click the General tab, then on Delete Cookies to get rid of existing cookies.
Next, click on the Privacy tab in the Internet Options box and then on the Advanced button. Check the box next to "Override automatic cookie handling" and click on the Block option under "Third-party Cookies" before clicking on the O.K. button. Many antispyware programs will also delete tracking cookies from your computer.
Q. How can I disable and delete Web browser cookies that track my surfing habits?
A. Cookies are small bits of text that a Web server gives your computer's Web browser when you visit certain sites. With this text in your browser's cookie file, the Web site can identify you the next time you visit and present you with customized greetings or personalized settings.
Some types of cookies, usually referred to as "tracking cookies," are used by third-party advertisers when you visit a site. The cookies retain information about your Web surfing habits that can be taken into account in presenting advertising geared to your perceived interests.
You can usually set your Web browser to reject cookies from Web sites other than the one you chose to visit. In Internet Explorer 6, for example, you can find these settings under the Tools menu, in the Internet Options box. Click the General tab, then on Delete Cookies to get rid of existing cookies.
Next, click on the Privacy tab in the Internet Options box and then on the Advanced button. Check the box next to "Override automatic cookie handling" and click on the Block option under "Third-party Cookies" before clicking on the O.K. button. Many antispyware programs will also delete tracking cookies from your computer.
Deleting cookies won't control spyware, adware
Q: Why clutter a computer with adware and spyware? Each evening before shutting down, I delete all the cookies stored in my browser. I use a firewall and anti-virus software. This procedure takes less time than using those two products. Granted, it takes away acceptable cookies, but they are replaced.
A: Hi, Tom. Deleting the cookies doesn't do a thing when it comes to spyware and adware. So you're not protecting your computer.
Besides, cookies got a bad rap years ago when they first came on the scene. I wish controlling spyware and adware were as simple as deleting cookies. But you need to use a special program, as is true with fighting hackers and viruses, to tackle the problem.
I consistently recommend one of two free programs: SpyBot Search & Destroy or Ad-Aware. You can download either at download.com.
Now, more about cookies: Some hacker and porno sites can be dangerous when it comes to cookies. If you stay away from places like that, cookies from most mainstream sites should not be a concern.
A cookie is a tiny text file that lets a Web site identify you on your next visit. So the cookie makes it possible to — for instance — customize the opening page at weather.com to give you the temperature in your old hometown each time you log on. Once you've customized the site, the cookie lets the Weather Channel site pull up the correct page just for you.
Q: Having heard and read the admonitions to be careful about what to do to avoid e-mail spam, I wonder whether there is there a list or source that does enumerate those specific spots on the screen on which not to click in order not to expose the e-mail address to a spammer?
A: Fred, it isn't a case of finding the right spots on the screen. Clicking or not clicking on some spot won't make any difference. However, there are ways to at least minimize the amount of spam you get. I once did a series of stories about spam and created this list of tips:
• Avoid listing your e-mail address on Web pages. Spammers use software that harvests addresses.
• If you must use your e-mail address on the Web, avoid using the @ symbol — it's what spamming software looks for. Type an address this way — bill(at)spamstory.com — on a Web page.
• Get a free e-mail account at Yahoo (yahoo.com) or Hotmail (hotmail.com). Use it to order merchandise or leave public comments. You'll still get spam, but most of it will arrive at the free e-mail account.
• Never answer a spam e-mail. Don't order, don't write to complain, don't use the link that offers to remove your name from mailings. Answering proves the e-mail account is active and may generate more spam.
• If you participate in online contests or fill in registration forms on the Web, use your free e-mail account.
• If your Internet provider offers free anti-spam software or services, use them.
• Don't check that box: When you sign up at a Web page, look for text toward the end of the form that says something like: "Yes, I want to be contacted by select third parties concerning products I might be interested in." If the box has already been checked, remove the check mark.
• If you receive a spam offer that sounds too good to be true, it almost certainly is
A: Hi, Tom. Deleting the cookies doesn't do a thing when it comes to spyware and adware. So you're not protecting your computer.
Besides, cookies got a bad rap years ago when they first came on the scene. I wish controlling spyware and adware were as simple as deleting cookies. But you need to use a special program, as is true with fighting hackers and viruses, to tackle the problem.
I consistently recommend one of two free programs: SpyBot Search & Destroy or Ad-Aware. You can download either at download.com.
Now, more about cookies: Some hacker and porno sites can be dangerous when it comes to cookies. If you stay away from places like that, cookies from most mainstream sites should not be a concern.
A cookie is a tiny text file that lets a Web site identify you on your next visit. So the cookie makes it possible to — for instance — customize the opening page at weather.com to give you the temperature in your old hometown each time you log on. Once you've customized the site, the cookie lets the Weather Channel site pull up the correct page just for you.
Q: Having heard and read the admonitions to be careful about what to do to avoid e-mail spam, I wonder whether there is there a list or source that does enumerate those specific spots on the screen on which not to click in order not to expose the e-mail address to a spammer?
A: Fred, it isn't a case of finding the right spots on the screen. Clicking or not clicking on some spot won't make any difference. However, there are ways to at least minimize the amount of spam you get. I once did a series of stories about spam and created this list of tips:
• Avoid listing your e-mail address on Web pages. Spammers use software that harvests addresses.
• If you must use your e-mail address on the Web, avoid using the @ symbol — it's what spamming software looks for. Type an address this way — bill(at)spamstory.com — on a Web page.
• Get a free e-mail account at Yahoo (yahoo.com) or Hotmail (hotmail.com). Use it to order merchandise or leave public comments. You'll still get spam, but most of it will arrive at the free e-mail account.
• Never answer a spam e-mail. Don't order, don't write to complain, don't use the link that offers to remove your name from mailings. Answering proves the e-mail account is active and may generate more spam.
• If you participate in online contests or fill in registration forms on the Web, use your free e-mail account.
• If your Internet provider offers free anti-spam software or services, use them.
• Don't check that box: When you sign up at a Web page, look for text toward the end of the form that says something like: "Yes, I want to be contacted by select third parties concerning products I might be interested in." If the box has already been checked, remove the check mark.
• If you receive a spam offer that sounds too good to be true, it almost certainly is
Monday, January 16, 2006
The browser and the ballot box
If we want to preserve our civil liberties in the networked world, then we have to assert them, argues technology commentator Bill Thompson.
US concerns over adult material are behind the Google request
On the surface it might seem that it has been a good month for those of us who care about civil liberties and our freedom to go about our daily business unobserved.
Google has gained some credit for refusing a request from the Justice Department of the US government to hand over a vast list of website addresses and search terms, especially since it seems that other search engines complied.
And in the House of Lords peers forced through amendments to the Identity Cards Bill that could make it much more difficult for the government to go ahead with its plans to create a national identity database that will track our every interaction with the state.
As ever things are a lot more complicated and much less reassuring when you dig a little deeper.
Data requests
The Justice Department wanted to create a vast database of search terms and websites so that it could do its own research on whether children are likely to come across the euphemistically-described adult material while they are searching the web.
The information would be used to support a legal appeal over the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act, a law passed in 1998 which required all commercial distributors of "material harmful to minors" to protect their sites from access by minors.
Both Google and the UK government are powerful interests who can't see why they should not be trusted, refuse to imagine the consequences if that trust was breached, and see commercial or political advantage in doing what they want
Google defies US over data
It was struck down by the courts, but the government is appealing, and wants to use search records from Yahoo, Google, Microsoft and America Online to show that the law would be effective and not restrict other forms of speech.
Google's reticence is heartening, especially since the company stores so much information about everyone who searches its site. If the US government gets into the habit of just asking for vast tranches of data when it feels like it, then we should all be worried.
However I would not put out the flags yet. For one thing, this very public fight hides the fact that search engines and ISPs are generally willing to hand over data to law enforcement agencies in pursuit of investigations.
Sometimes they don't have a choice. Under the Patriot Act the FBI can issue so-called national security letters to force ISPs to hand over personal data, and they are forbidden to tell anyone that they are doing so.
For all I know, the records of my searches on MSN are even now being pored over by a CIA analyst looking for evidence of untoward behaviour.
Life in the open
While I'm worried about search engines and what they know, I'm far more concerned about the records that the UK government proposes to keep.
Google keeps track of every search term
Although most of the discussion around the Identity Cards Bill focuses on the cards which we'll be carrying around with us, the bill is really about creating the National Identity Register, a massive, comprehensive database that tracks every one of us throughout our lives.
It will store a vast amount of detailed information, including "particulars of every occasion on which information contained in the individual's entry has been provided to a person" and "particulars of every person to whom such information has been provided on such an occasion".
That means that the government will know, if it cares to look, about every time my identity is verified, not just when I'm claiming benefit or seeking NHS treatment but also when I sign up with a health club or enter a particularly paranoid company office or even, perhaps, turn up at my child's school for a meeting.
And of course it won't generally have to ask for access to that data, since it will be running the Register and has rejected proposals for an independent commissioner to prevent improper use of the information.
While the Lords may have voted for restrictions, it is likely that the government will use their Commons majority to overturn the amendments and go forward with the bill as planned.
Implicit bargain
In his recent book, Search, John Battelle, one of the founders of Wired magazine and a respected figure in the world of new media, pointed out just how much trust we are placing in online companies.
"As we move our data to the servers at Amazon.com, Hotmail.com, Yahoo.com, and Gmail.com, we are making an implicit bargain, one that the public at large is either entirely content with, or, more likely, one that most have not taken much to heart," he wrote.
"That bargain is this: we trust you to not do evil things with our information. We trust that you will keep it secure, free from unlawful government or private search and seizure, and under our control at all times."
It is worth asking why these databases are there in the first place, why Google feels the need to record every search term or why, as it seems, it will also be logging your account details every time you watch a video bought from its online video store.
Both Google and the UK government are powerful interests who can't see why they should not be trusted, refuse to imagine the consequences if that trust was breached, and see commercial or political advantage in doing what they want.
When it comes to search engines, we can do something about asserting our right to privacy. It would be nice to avoid them, but search is as much part of our daily existence now as reading, a core part of what it means to be literate in the connected world.
It means we have to learn how to search wisely, remember to delete cookies and anonymise requests and look after ourselves online.
And when it comes to the government, it is not too late to let MPs know that the proposals are flawed, dangerous and almost certainly vastly more expensive than claimed.
It may be time, whether through the browser or the ballot box, to remind the private and public creators of these vast databases of the continuing importance of individual freedom.
US concerns over adult material are behind the Google request
On the surface it might seem that it has been a good month for those of us who care about civil liberties and our freedom to go about our daily business unobserved.
Google has gained some credit for refusing a request from the Justice Department of the US government to hand over a vast list of website addresses and search terms, especially since it seems that other search engines complied.
And in the House of Lords peers forced through amendments to the Identity Cards Bill that could make it much more difficult for the government to go ahead with its plans to create a national identity database that will track our every interaction with the state.
As ever things are a lot more complicated and much less reassuring when you dig a little deeper.
Data requests
The Justice Department wanted to create a vast database of search terms and websites so that it could do its own research on whether children are likely to come across the euphemistically-described adult material while they are searching the web.
The information would be used to support a legal appeal over the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act, a law passed in 1998 which required all commercial distributors of "material harmful to minors" to protect their sites from access by minors.
Both Google and the UK government are powerful interests who can't see why they should not be trusted, refuse to imagine the consequences if that trust was breached, and see commercial or political advantage in doing what they want
Google defies US over data
It was struck down by the courts, but the government is appealing, and wants to use search records from Yahoo, Google, Microsoft and America Online to show that the law would be effective and not restrict other forms of speech.
Google's reticence is heartening, especially since the company stores so much information about everyone who searches its site. If the US government gets into the habit of just asking for vast tranches of data when it feels like it, then we should all be worried.
However I would not put out the flags yet. For one thing, this very public fight hides the fact that search engines and ISPs are generally willing to hand over data to law enforcement agencies in pursuit of investigations.
Sometimes they don't have a choice. Under the Patriot Act the FBI can issue so-called national security letters to force ISPs to hand over personal data, and they are forbidden to tell anyone that they are doing so.
For all I know, the records of my searches on MSN are even now being pored over by a CIA analyst looking for evidence of untoward behaviour.
Life in the open
While I'm worried about search engines and what they know, I'm far more concerned about the records that the UK government proposes to keep.
Google keeps track of every search term
Although most of the discussion around the Identity Cards Bill focuses on the cards which we'll be carrying around with us, the bill is really about creating the National Identity Register, a massive, comprehensive database that tracks every one of us throughout our lives.
It will store a vast amount of detailed information, including "particulars of every occasion on which information contained in the individual's entry has been provided to a person" and "particulars of every person to whom such information has been provided on such an occasion".
That means that the government will know, if it cares to look, about every time my identity is verified, not just when I'm claiming benefit or seeking NHS treatment but also when I sign up with a health club or enter a particularly paranoid company office or even, perhaps, turn up at my child's school for a meeting.
And of course it won't generally have to ask for access to that data, since it will be running the Register and has rejected proposals for an independent commissioner to prevent improper use of the information.
While the Lords may have voted for restrictions, it is likely that the government will use their Commons majority to overturn the amendments and go forward with the bill as planned.
Implicit bargain
In his recent book, Search, John Battelle, one of the founders of Wired magazine and a respected figure in the world of new media, pointed out just how much trust we are placing in online companies.
"As we move our data to the servers at Amazon.com, Hotmail.com, Yahoo.com, and Gmail.com, we are making an implicit bargain, one that the public at large is either entirely content with, or, more likely, one that most have not taken much to heart," he wrote.
"That bargain is this: we trust you to not do evil things with our information. We trust that you will keep it secure, free from unlawful government or private search and seizure, and under our control at all times."
It is worth asking why these databases are there in the first place, why Google feels the need to record every search term or why, as it seems, it will also be logging your account details every time you watch a video bought from its online video store.
Both Google and the UK government are powerful interests who can't see why they should not be trusted, refuse to imagine the consequences if that trust was breached, and see commercial or political advantage in doing what they want.
When it comes to search engines, we can do something about asserting our right to privacy. It would be nice to avoid them, but search is as much part of our daily existence now as reading, a core part of what it means to be literate in the connected world.
It means we have to learn how to search wisely, remember to delete cookies and anonymise requests and look after ourselves online.
And when it comes to the government, it is not too late to let MPs know that the proposals are flawed, dangerous and almost certainly vastly more expensive than claimed.
It may be time, whether through the browser or the ballot box, to remind the private and public creators of these vast databases of the continuing importance of individual freedom.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
How to Foil Search Engine Snoops
On Thursday, The Mercury News reported that the Justice Department has subpoenaed search-engine records in its defense of the Child Online Protection Act, or COPA. Google, whose corporate credo famously includes the admonishment "Don't Be Evil," is fighting the request for a week's worth of search engine queries. Other search engines have already complied.
The government isn't asking for search engine users' identifying data -- at least not yet. But for those worried about what companies or federal investigators might do with such records in the future, here's a primer on how search logs work, and how to avoid being writ large within them.
Why do search engines save logs of search terms?
Search companies use logs and data-mining techniques to tune their engines and deliver focused advertising, as well to create cool features such as Google Zeitgeist. They also use them to help with local searches and return more relevant, personalized search results.
How does a search engine tie a search to a user?
If you have never logged in to search engine's site, or a partner service like Google's Gmail offering, the company probably doesn't know your name. But it connects your searches through a cookie, which has a unique identifying number. Using its cookies, Google will remember all searches from your browser. It might also link searches by a user's IP address.
How long do cookies last?
It varies. Yahoo sets a cookie that expires in June 2006. A new cookie from Google expires in 2036.
What if you sign in to a service?
If you sign in on Google's personalized homepage or Yahoo's homepage, the companies can then correlate your search history with any other information, such as your name, that you give them.
Why should anyone worry about the government requesting search logs or bother to disguise their search history?
Some people simply don't like the idea of their search history being tied to their personal lives. Others don't know what the information could be used for, but worry that the search companies could find surprising uses for that data that may invade privacy in the future.
For example, if you use Google's Gmail and web optimizing software, the company could correlate everyone you've e-mailed, all the websites you've visited after a search and even all the words you misspell in queries.
What's the first thing people should do who worry about their search history?
Cookie management helps. Those who want to avoid a permanent record should delete their cookies at least once a week. Other options might be to obliterate certain cookies when a browser is closed and avoid logging in to other services, such as web mail, offered by a search engine.
How do you do that with your browser?
In Firefox, you can go into the privacy preference dialog and open Cookies. From there you can remove your search engine cookies and click the box that says: "Don't allow sites that set removed cookies to set future cookies."
In Safari, try the free and versatile PithHelmet plug-in. You can let some cookies in temporarily, decide that some can last longer or prohibit some sites, including third-party advertisers, from setting cookies at all.
While Internet Explorer's tools are not quite as flexible, you can manage your cookies through the Tools menu by following these instructions.
Have search histories ever been used to prosecute someone?
Robert Petrick was convicted in November 2005 of murdering his wife, in part based on evidence that he had googled the words "neck," "snap" and "break." But police obtained his search history from an examination of his computer, not from Google.
Can I see mine?
Usually, no. But if you want to trace your own Google search histories and see trends, and you don't mind if the company uses the information to personalize search results, you can sign up for Google's beta search history service.
Could search histories be used in civil cases?
Certainly. Google may well be fighting the government simply on principle -- or, as court papers suggest, to keep outsiders from using Google's proprietary database for free. But a business case can also be made that if users knew the company regularly turned over their records wholesale to the government, they might curtail their use of the site.
A related question is whether Google or any other search engine would fight a subpoena from a divorce attorney, or protest a more focused subpoena from local police who want information on someone they say is making methamphetamines.
What if I want more anonymity than simply deleting my cookie when I'm searching?
If you are doing any search you wouldn't print on a T-shirt, consider using Tor, The Onion Router. An EFF-sponsored service, Tor helps anonymize your web traffic by bouncing it between volunteer servers. It masks the origins and makes it easier to evade filters, such as those installed by schools or repressive regimes.
The service has its drawbacks. While it can be very useful for a journalist in China, data services can be slower or have greater latency due to the extra stops the data makes, and a general dearth of servers.
Is Tor perfectly anonymous?
No. Computers leak data. Tor, combined with the Privoxy proxy server (which comes bundled with Tor), reduces some of that leakage, but still isn't foolproof. But when used with Firefox, Tor and Privoxy can provide a mostly-anonymous web browsing experience.
Are there other options?
Anonymizer offers a limited free browsing service and sells software, both of which are supposed to protect your anonymity, but have had serious performance issues. There are other proxy servers on the internet, but you have to judge for yourself whether you trust them, and some websites actively block anonymous browsing.
The government isn't asking for search engine users' identifying data -- at least not yet. But for those worried about what companies or federal investigators might do with such records in the future, here's a primer on how search logs work, and how to avoid being writ large within them.
Why do search engines save logs of search terms?
Search companies use logs and data-mining techniques to tune their engines and deliver focused advertising, as well to create cool features such as Google Zeitgeist. They also use them to help with local searches and return more relevant, personalized search results.
How does a search engine tie a search to a user?
If you have never logged in to search engine's site, or a partner service like Google's Gmail offering, the company probably doesn't know your name. But it connects your searches through a cookie, which has a unique identifying number. Using its cookies, Google will remember all searches from your browser. It might also link searches by a user's IP address.
How long do cookies last?
It varies. Yahoo sets a cookie that expires in June 2006. A new cookie from Google expires in 2036.
What if you sign in to a service?
If you sign in on Google's personalized homepage or Yahoo's homepage, the companies can then correlate your search history with any other information, such as your name, that you give them.
Why should anyone worry about the government requesting search logs or bother to disguise their search history?
Some people simply don't like the idea of their search history being tied to their personal lives. Others don't know what the information could be used for, but worry that the search companies could find surprising uses for that data that may invade privacy in the future.
For example, if you use Google's Gmail and web optimizing software, the company could correlate everyone you've e-mailed, all the websites you've visited after a search and even all the words you misspell in queries.
What's the first thing people should do who worry about their search history?
Cookie management helps. Those who want to avoid a permanent record should delete their cookies at least once a week. Other options might be to obliterate certain cookies when a browser is closed and avoid logging in to other services, such as web mail, offered by a search engine.
How do you do that with your browser?
In Firefox, you can go into the privacy preference dialog and open Cookies. From there you can remove your search engine cookies and click the box that says: "Don't allow sites that set removed cookies to set future cookies."
In Safari, try the free and versatile PithHelmet plug-in. You can let some cookies in temporarily, decide that some can last longer or prohibit some sites, including third-party advertisers, from setting cookies at all.
While Internet Explorer's tools are not quite as flexible, you can manage your cookies through the Tools menu by following these instructions.
Have search histories ever been used to prosecute someone?
Robert Petrick was convicted in November 2005 of murdering his wife, in part based on evidence that he had googled the words "neck," "snap" and "break." But police obtained his search history from an examination of his computer, not from Google.
Can I see mine?
Usually, no. But if you want to trace your own Google search histories and see trends, and you don't mind if the company uses the information to personalize search results, you can sign up for Google's beta search history service.
Could search histories be used in civil cases?
Certainly. Google may well be fighting the government simply on principle -- or, as court papers suggest, to keep outsiders from using Google's proprietary database for free. But a business case can also be made that if users knew the company regularly turned over their records wholesale to the government, they might curtail their use of the site.
A related question is whether Google or any other search engine would fight a subpoena from a divorce attorney, or protest a more focused subpoena from local police who want information on someone they say is making methamphetamines.
What if I want more anonymity than simply deleting my cookie when I'm searching?
If you are doing any search you wouldn't print on a T-shirt, consider using Tor, The Onion Router. An EFF-sponsored service, Tor helps anonymize your web traffic by bouncing it between volunteer servers. It masks the origins and makes it easier to evade filters, such as those installed by schools or repressive regimes.
The service has its drawbacks. While it can be very useful for a journalist in China, data services can be slower or have greater latency due to the extra stops the data makes, and a general dearth of servers.
Is Tor perfectly anonymous?
No. Computers leak data. Tor, combined with the Privoxy proxy server (which comes bundled with Tor), reduces some of that leakage, but still isn't foolproof. But when used with Firefox, Tor and Privoxy can provide a mostly-anonymous web browsing experience.
Are there other options?
Anonymizer offers a limited free browsing service and sells software, both of which are supposed to protect your anonymity, but have had serious performance issues. There are other proxy servers on the internet, but you have to judge for yourself whether you trust them, and some websites actively block anonymous browsing.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Cookie Deletion: More Good News BY Pete Lerma
You could call me a Pollyanna for saying it, but I remain convinced the results of the cookie deletion trend are not all bad. Several months ago, I wrote a column based on a conversation I had with Young-Bean Song, director of the Atlas Institute. The conversation was prompted by a JupiterResearch report that indicated Internet users were deleting cookies at an alarming rate. At the time, Atlas published a report suggesting things weren't as dire as JupiterResearch had suggested. It occurred to me if people were deleting cookies, our standard ways of measuring were actually underreporting actual campaign performance.
Recently, JupiterResearch issued another report indicating more people are deleting their cookies than ever before. JupiterResearch now reports "over 48 million Internet users are running anti-spyware applications that delete third-party tracking cookies. And nearly 38 million are using aggressive anti-spyware applications that remove nearly 75 percent of tracking cookies."
Cookies are important to our businesses. But the people we work so hard to place and track have become increasingly fed up with spyware, its impact on their computer systems' performance, and its negative effect on their overall Internet experience. So they're taking action, which is compromising the integrity of cookie-based tracking.
As I had talked with Young the last time, I thought it only fair to talk with Eric Peterson, the JupiterResearch analyst covering the issue this time. Peterson has unfairly been painted as the bad guy for bringing the matter to the public's attention. Clearly, publishers, tracking technology companies, and agencies don't want to hear about the inaccuracies in our long-held measurement practices. But he isn't trying to bring down our industry as much as he's alerting us to a serious issue that can be overcome with a little work. Peterson proved to be an incredible resource in helping me to further understand the trend. Below, an excerpt from our conversation.
Lerma: What is the big picture trend? Will cookies go away?
Peterson: At this point we have no other feasible way to track Web site user behavior. People have suggested Flash local shared objects (essentially a "persistent cookie"), but those run the risk of additional consumer fallout. So cookie tracking will not likely go away.
Lerma: Do you think consumers could be educated to a point where they wouldn't delete cookies?
Peterson: I moderate a discussion at Yahoo! [Groups] about Web site analytics with 1,500 participants and there has been a debate raging about risks, benefits, and the value associated with cookies. These are well-informed, savvy Internet users. How can we expect consumers to understand?
Lerma: What do you recommend marketers do about this trend? How can we continue tracking the effectiveness of our online campaigns?
Peterson: My guidance is don't panic. But also, don't stick your head in the sand either. Marketers should work with site publishers and technology vendors and push them to assess the impact of cookie deletion on campaigns. At that point, it becomes a statistical issue, and the variable will differ from site to site. But once you know what that variable is, you can apply that to your performance metrics. The key is not to ignore it.... You know what happens to the ostrich with its head in the sand, right? The lion always comes along and eats it. Don't be that ostrich.
Thanks, Eric. The truth is that cookie deletion is an important issue, and it will take a significant amount of work to more accurately track the effectiveness of our online efforts. I would encourage you to become as informed as you can about this topic so you can form your own opinion and get involved. As always, we hold the future of the industry in our own hands.
Recently, JupiterResearch issued another report indicating more people are deleting their cookies than ever before. JupiterResearch now reports "over 48 million Internet users are running anti-spyware applications that delete third-party tracking cookies. And nearly 38 million are using aggressive anti-spyware applications that remove nearly 75 percent of tracking cookies."
Cookies are important to our businesses. But the people we work so hard to place and track have become increasingly fed up with spyware, its impact on their computer systems' performance, and its negative effect on their overall Internet experience. So they're taking action, which is compromising the integrity of cookie-based tracking.
As I had talked with Young the last time, I thought it only fair to talk with Eric Peterson, the JupiterResearch analyst covering the issue this time. Peterson has unfairly been painted as the bad guy for bringing the matter to the public's attention. Clearly, publishers, tracking technology companies, and agencies don't want to hear about the inaccuracies in our long-held measurement practices. But he isn't trying to bring down our industry as much as he's alerting us to a serious issue that can be overcome with a little work. Peterson proved to be an incredible resource in helping me to further understand the trend. Below, an excerpt from our conversation.
Lerma: What is the big picture trend? Will cookies go away?
Peterson: At this point we have no other feasible way to track Web site user behavior. People have suggested Flash local shared objects (essentially a "persistent cookie"), but those run the risk of additional consumer fallout. So cookie tracking will not likely go away.
Lerma: Do you think consumers could be educated to a point where they wouldn't delete cookies?
Peterson: I moderate a discussion at Yahoo! [Groups] about Web site analytics with 1,500 participants and there has been a debate raging about risks, benefits, and the value associated with cookies. These are well-informed, savvy Internet users. How can we expect consumers to understand?
Lerma: What do you recommend marketers do about this trend? How can we continue tracking the effectiveness of our online campaigns?
Peterson: My guidance is don't panic. But also, don't stick your head in the sand either. Marketers should work with site publishers and technology vendors and push them to assess the impact of cookie deletion on campaigns. At that point, it becomes a statistical issue, and the variable will differ from site to site. But once you know what that variable is, you can apply that to your performance metrics. The key is not to ignore it.... You know what happens to the ostrich with its head in the sand, right? The lion always comes along and eats it. Don't be that ostrich.
Thanks, Eric. The truth is that cookie deletion is an important issue, and it will take a significant amount of work to more accurately track the effectiveness of our online efforts. I would encourage you to become as informed as you can about this topic so you can form your own opinion and get involved. As always, we hold the future of the industry in our own hands.
Friday, January 6, 2006
That Snoop
Q. How can I disable and delete Web browser cookies that track my surfing habits?
A. Cookies are small bits of text that a Web server gives your computer's Web browser when you visit certain sites. With this text in your browser's cookie file, the Web site can identify you the next time you visit and present you with customized greetings or personalized settings.
Some types of cookies, usually referred to as "tracking cookies," are used by third-party advertisers when you visit a site. The cookies retain information about your Web surfing habits that can be taken into account in presenting advertising geared to your perceived interests.
You can usually set your Web browser to reject cookies from Web sites other than the one you chose to visit. In Internet Explorer 6, for example, you can find these settings under the Tools menu, in the Internet Options box. Click the General tab, then on Delete Cookies to get rid of existing cookies.
Next, click on the Privacy tab in the Internet Options box and then on the Advanced button. Check the box next to "Override automatic cookie handling" and click on the Block option under "Third-party Cookies" before clicking on the O.K. button. Many antispyware programs will also delete tracking cookies from your computer.
A. Cookies are small bits of text that a Web server gives your computer's Web browser when you visit certain sites. With this text in your browser's cookie file, the Web site can identify you the next time you visit and present you with customized greetings or personalized settings.
Some types of cookies, usually referred to as "tracking cookies," are used by third-party advertisers when you visit a site. The cookies retain information about your Web surfing habits that can be taken into account in presenting advertising geared to your perceived interests.
You can usually set your Web browser to reject cookies from Web sites other than the one you chose to visit. In Internet Explorer 6, for example, you can find these settings under the Tools menu, in the Internet Options box. Click the General tab, then on Delete Cookies to get rid of existing cookies.
Next, click on the Privacy tab in the Internet Options box and then on the Advanced button. Check the box next to "Override automatic cookie handling" and click on the Block option under "Third-party Cookies" before clicking on the O.K. button. Many antispyware programs will also delete tracking cookies from your computer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)