Leading net neutrality proponents are warning that the Federal Communications Commission's proposed net neutrality rules could create significant loopholes for Internet service providers.
The new regulations codify the four principles set out in a 2005 Internet policy statement, which provide that Web users are entitled to access all lawful content, applications and services, and that they can attach devices to the network. The FCC also proposed codifying two additional principles -- nondiscrimination and transparency.
But there are two major ambiguities in the proposed rules, according to advocates. One is that the FCC hasn't clarified what type of activity it will consider discriminatory. The other is that the FCC carves out an exception to all rules for reasonable network management practices, yet doesn't precisely define such practices.
Five law professors sent the FCC a letter on Monday stating that those ambiguities "appear likely to provide particularly generous opportunities to try to work around the Commission's efforts." The letter was signed by Yale's Jack Balkin, South Texas College's John Blevins, University of Louisville's Jim Chen, Harvard's Larry Lessig, Stanford's Barbara van Schewick and Columbia's Tim Wu.
"We think it is surprising that the FCC would not want to provide some guidance on the applicable standard for reasonable network management, lest, as a law professor would say, the exception swallow the rule," the academics wrote.
Broadband advocacy group Free Press raised similar concerns in policy brief filed Tuesday. "Since all six principles contained in the proposed open Internet rule are subject to 'reasonable network management,' a broadly permissive exemption standard would threaten to swallow the rules," the group wrote.
The advocates also asked the FCC to clarify the type of conduct it considers "discriminatory." The notice of proposed rulemaking says that nondiscriminatory means "that a broadband Internet access service provider may not charge a content, application, or service provider for enhanced or prioritized access."
But Free Press and the law professors argue that charging for enhanced access is only one illustration of discriminatory behavior and are asking the FCC to state that other forms of discrimination would be illegal.
Marvin Ammori, a University of Nebraska law school professor who advises Free Press, tells Online Media Daily that it's important for the FCC to define its terms so the public can weigh in on the proposals.
"Ambiguities around key terms like reasonable network management make it difficult to know how strong the rules will actually be," he says.
Showing posts with label free speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label free speech. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
IAB Lobbies Against Proposal To Expand FTC's Power
The online ad industry is sounding the alarm about a new bill currently pending in Congress that would expand the Federal Trade Commission's power by making it easier for the agency to create rules and to bring civil lawsuits.
"There are reasons why there have been limits on the FTC, and we want to see those limits preserved," says Mike Zaneis, vice president for public policy at the Interactive Ad Bureau. "This is legislative priority No. 1 for our industry."
The Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act (H.R. 3126) cleared the House Energy and Commerce committee last week and now moves to the full House, where it's expected to pass. But the proposal's fate in the Senate is uncertain.
The current House version creates a new consumer protection commission while also beefing up the FTC's power in a few key ways. The bill removes administrative hurdles to the FTC's rulemaking ability, makes it easier for the agency to pursue civil litigation, and allows the FTC to target ad companies that aid and abet unfair practices.
These new powers are so significant that industry observers are already saying the bill would effectively make FTC Chair Jon Leibowitz an "Internet czar."
For his part, Leibowitz said in a statement to the energy and commerce committee that the "modest new authority" given to the commission "will help ensure that we have the tools necessary to fight fraud and go after those who perpetrate it."
Industry executives say that the existing curbs on rulemaking ability have contributed to the FTC's decision to support industry self-regulation of matters like online behavioral targeting and privacy.
"We'd hate to see them move directly to government regulation in all of these areas, but that's the prospect that we're facing if this is enacted," Zaneis says.
Currently, the FTC can only make rules aimed at curbing a prevalent practice. But the bill would remove that restriction, allowing the agency to enact regulations as long as there's a rational reason to believe the rule would stem from unfair and deceptive conduct. The bill also would provide for a faster rulemaking procedure.
A host of consumer groups and privacy advocates, including the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Consumers Union, Center for Digital Democracy and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, are advocating in favor of the bill. They argue that the current restrictions on the FTC hinder its effectiveness.
"We believe that the FTC must play a more proactive role addressing critical consumer concerns, including privacy, online marketing, and food advertising to young people," the groups wrote last week to the leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
The bill also would enable the FTC to pursue civil actions without prior review by the Department of Justice. In addition, the measure would let the FTC impose civil penalties without prior rules or orders.
A provision that would allow the FTC to prosecute companies that aid or abet an unfair act could be especially damaging to marketers and intermediaries, says the Association of National Advertisers. "This would have serious implications for advertising agencies, media companies and other companies that play any role in the communication/sale/delivery process," ANA Executive Vice President Dan Jaffe said last week in a letter to lawmakers.
Observers say the full House will probably pass the bill by the end of the calendar year. The proposal is expected to move more slowly in the Senate, where lawmakers are still hammering out a draft of the bill.
"There are reasons why there have been limits on the FTC, and we want to see those limits preserved," says Mike Zaneis, vice president for public policy at the Interactive Ad Bureau. "This is legislative priority No. 1 for our industry."
The Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act (H.R. 3126) cleared the House Energy and Commerce committee last week and now moves to the full House, where it's expected to pass. But the proposal's fate in the Senate is uncertain.
The current House version creates a new consumer protection commission while also beefing up the FTC's power in a few key ways. The bill removes administrative hurdles to the FTC's rulemaking ability, makes it easier for the agency to pursue civil litigation, and allows the FTC to target ad companies that aid and abet unfair practices.
These new powers are so significant that industry observers are already saying the bill would effectively make FTC Chair Jon Leibowitz an "Internet czar."
For his part, Leibowitz said in a statement to the energy and commerce committee that the "modest new authority" given to the commission "will help ensure that we have the tools necessary to fight fraud and go after those who perpetrate it."
Industry executives say that the existing curbs on rulemaking ability have contributed to the FTC's decision to support industry self-regulation of matters like online behavioral targeting and privacy.
"We'd hate to see them move directly to government regulation in all of these areas, but that's the prospect that we're facing if this is enacted," Zaneis says.
Currently, the FTC can only make rules aimed at curbing a prevalent practice. But the bill would remove that restriction, allowing the agency to enact regulations as long as there's a rational reason to believe the rule would stem from unfair and deceptive conduct. The bill also would provide for a faster rulemaking procedure.
A host of consumer groups and privacy advocates, including the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Consumers Union, Center for Digital Democracy and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, are advocating in favor of the bill. They argue that the current restrictions on the FTC hinder its effectiveness.
"We believe that the FTC must play a more proactive role addressing critical consumer concerns, including privacy, online marketing, and food advertising to young people," the groups wrote last week to the leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
The bill also would enable the FTC to pursue civil actions without prior review by the Department of Justice. In addition, the measure would let the FTC impose civil penalties without prior rules or orders.
A provision that would allow the FTC to prosecute companies that aid or abet an unfair act could be especially damaging to marketers and intermediaries, says the Association of National Advertisers. "This would have serious implications for advertising agencies, media companies and other companies that play any role in the communication/sale/delivery process," ANA Executive Vice President Dan Jaffe said last week in a letter to lawmakers.
Observers say the full House will probably pass the bill by the end of the calendar year. The proposal is expected to move more slowly in the Senate, where lawmakers are still hammering out a draft of the bill.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
FTC Publishes Final Guides Governing Endorsements, Testimonials
Changes Affect Testimonial Advertisements, Bloggers, Celebrity Endorsements
The Federal Trade Commission today announced that it has approved final revisions to the guidance it gives to advertisers on how to keep their endorsement and testimonial ads in line with the FTC Act.
The notice incorporates several changes to the FTC’s Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising, which address endorsements by consumers, experts, organizations, and celebrities, as well as the disclosure of important connections between advertisers and endorsers. The Guides were last updated in 1980.
Under the revised Guides, advertisements that feature a consumer and convey his or her experience with a product or service as typical when that is not the case will be required to clearly disclose the results that consumers can generally expect. In contrast to the 1980 version of the Guides – which allowed advertisers to describe unusual results in a testimonial as long as they included a disclaimer such as “results not typical” – the revised Guides no longer contain this safe harbor.
The revised Guides also add new examples to illustrate the long standing principle that “material connections” (sometimes payments or free products) between advertisers and endorsers – connections that consumers would not expect – must be disclosed. These examples address what constitutes an endorsement when the message is conveyed by bloggers or other “word-of-mouth” marketers. The revised Guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service. Likewise, if a company refers in an advertisement to the findings of a research organization that conducted research sponsored by the company, the advertisement must disclose the connection between the advertiser and the research organization. And a paid endorsement – like any other advertisement – is deceptive if it makes false or misleading claims.
Celebrity endorsers also are addressed in the revised Guides. While the 1980 Guides did not explicitly state that endorsers as well as advertisers could be liable under the FTC Act for statements they make in an endorsement, the revised Guides reflect Commission case law and clearly state that both advertisers and endorsers may be liable for false or unsubstantiated claims made in an endorsement – or for failure to disclose material connections between the advertiser and endorsers. The revised Guides also make it clear that celebrities have a duty to disclose their relationships with advertisers when making endorsements outside the context of traditional ads, such as on talk shows or in social media.
The Guides are administrative interpretations of the law intended to help advertisers comply with the Federal Trade Commission Act; they are not binding law themselves. In any law enforcement action challenging the allegedly deceptive use of testimonials or endorsements, the Commission would have the burden of proving that the challenged conduct violates the FTC Act.
The Commission vote approving issuance of the Federal Register notice detailing the changes was 4-0. The notice will be published in the Federal Register shortly, and is available now on the FTC’s Web site as a link to this press release. Copies also are available from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580.
The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,700 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.
MEDIA CONTACT:
Betsy Lordan
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-3707
STAFF CONTACT:
Richard Cleland
Bureau of Consumer Protection
202-326-3088
The Federal Trade Commission today announced that it has approved final revisions to the guidance it gives to advertisers on how to keep their endorsement and testimonial ads in line with the FTC Act.
The notice incorporates several changes to the FTC’s Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising, which address endorsements by consumers, experts, organizations, and celebrities, as well as the disclosure of important connections between advertisers and endorsers. The Guides were last updated in 1980.
Under the revised Guides, advertisements that feature a consumer and convey his or her experience with a product or service as typical when that is not the case will be required to clearly disclose the results that consumers can generally expect. In contrast to the 1980 version of the Guides – which allowed advertisers to describe unusual results in a testimonial as long as they included a disclaimer such as “results not typical” – the revised Guides no longer contain this safe harbor.
The revised Guides also add new examples to illustrate the long standing principle that “material connections” (sometimes payments or free products) between advertisers and endorsers – connections that consumers would not expect – must be disclosed. These examples address what constitutes an endorsement when the message is conveyed by bloggers or other “word-of-mouth” marketers. The revised Guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service. Likewise, if a company refers in an advertisement to the findings of a research organization that conducted research sponsored by the company, the advertisement must disclose the connection between the advertiser and the research organization. And a paid endorsement – like any other advertisement – is deceptive if it makes false or misleading claims.
Celebrity endorsers also are addressed in the revised Guides. While the 1980 Guides did not explicitly state that endorsers as well as advertisers could be liable under the FTC Act for statements they make in an endorsement, the revised Guides reflect Commission case law and clearly state that both advertisers and endorsers may be liable for false or unsubstantiated claims made in an endorsement – or for failure to disclose material connections between the advertiser and endorsers. The revised Guides also make it clear that celebrities have a duty to disclose their relationships with advertisers when making endorsements outside the context of traditional ads, such as on talk shows or in social media.
The Guides are administrative interpretations of the law intended to help advertisers comply with the Federal Trade Commission Act; they are not binding law themselves. In any law enforcement action challenging the allegedly deceptive use of testimonials or endorsements, the Commission would have the burden of proving that the challenged conduct violates the FTC Act.
The Commission vote approving issuance of the Federal Register notice detailing the changes was 4-0. The notice will be published in the Federal Register shortly, and is available now on the FTC’s Web site as a link to this press release. Copies also are available from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580.
The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,700 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.
MEDIA CONTACT:
Betsy Lordan
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-3707
STAFF CONTACT:
Richard Cleland
Bureau of Consumer Protection
202-326-3088
Friday, March 7, 2008
Cookies: Who Is Watching You?
Have you ever been surfing the web and come upon Internet advertising that provides a direct solution for something that you’ve been researching lately? Did you think that it might be related to your computer cookies, or did you chalk it up to serendipity?
The fact is, it almost certainly wasn’t a coincidence. Behavior-based Internet advertising is a relatively new and very powerful way for advertisers to get their message in front of potential buyers that they know to be qualified. The question is, how do they know that the surfer is qualified?
The advertisers know this because the Internet advertising network is tracking the surfers’ online activity. With tracking, advertisers know what sites you like. They know what searches you make. They have profiled you, and, unlike in real life, profiling on the web is AOK — so far.
Check Your Computer for Cookies
Before we get into the legal issues involved, perhaps a further definition of the technology is in order. Most (but not all) behavioral Internet advertising is based on computer "cookies." These computer cookies are tiny files that are placed on your machine when you visit certain websites. In the simplest form, you go to a web page. An advertiser has a blank spot, or placeholder, for a banner ad. But instead of serving up just any banner ad, the advertiser parses through your computer for cookies to discover your likes and dislikes, and then you are fed Internet advertising based on your online behavior.
For some people, this is no big deal. They like Internet advertising to be targeted toward them, and they don’t mind computer cookies. For others, it’s a little Orwellian and creepy. This leads us to the great debate.
Opt-in or Opt-out?
One big question to be resolved is whether ultimately this type of Internet advertising will be "opt-in" (meaning that a user has to sign up in order to receive targeted ads) or "opt-out" (meaning that a user will receive targeted ads unless they specifically ask not to).
It shouldn’t surprise anyone to know which side the advertisers are on. If governmental regulators eventually require that all Internet advertising be "opt-in", the industry will be severely restricted. My guess is that it would relegate behavior-based Internet advertising to a fringe player in the online marketing world.
The privacy advocates, naturally, are on the other side of the fence. The vast majority of people assume that their online activity is not being tracked, they say. Why should they have to take a specific action in order to remove computer cookies and to not be tracked and profiled?
A Do Not Track List?
Recently, a group of nine consumer advocate groups proposed the idea of a "Do Not Track" list for Internet advertising, which would work in a similar fashion as the "Do Not Call" list works today. Naturally, this is an "Opt-out" scenario, but because of the attention that the formation of such a list would bring, it may be a suitable compromise between advertiser and advocate.
How to Prevent Being Tracked
It is fairly easy to prevent being tracked by advertisers. You simply prevent your machine from accepting computer cookies. Go to START, SETTINGS, CONTROL PANEL and click on INTERNET OPTIONS then the PRIVACY tab. (Note that these instructions assume you are working with a Windows XP system. The procedure will be similar, however, for other operating systems.) Slide the bar all the way to the top to where it says "Block All Cookies."
However, you should be aware that this change may limit your Internet experience. Some websites will not display properly (or at all) if you do not accept computer cookies. In my experience, at least one of the top five search engines will not work at all. Other engines have limited functionality when you block Internet advertising.
Even if you do manage to turn off your computer cookies, don’t rest easy just yet.
The Newest Technology
Recently, it was announced that a Silicon Valley startup named NebuAd has created a new technology that does not require computer cookies. Under the NebuAd model, the company teams up directly with service providers and installs equipment directly at their facilities that allows them to track the behavior of individuals on the web, even if their machine does not accept computer cookies. This, of course, requires Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to embrace the new technology; naturally, they are given a piece of the Internet advertising revenue that is generated. Whether or not any of the major players embrace this technology will probably depend largely on public outcry, or lack thereof. Of course, if this does become the newest behavioral targeting standard, we will return again to the question of "Opt-in" or "Opt-out."
Conclusion
The future of this approach to Internet advertising is unclear, and will depend largely on public education and reaction. Will people see value in receiving targeted ads, even if it means that somewhere there is an "anonymous" profile of them sitting on a server? Will they feel outraged and push for a total ban? It’s hard to say.
Will this new approach be the death of the Internet as we know it? Probably not. But it should at least be interesting
The fact is, it almost certainly wasn’t a coincidence. Behavior-based Internet advertising is a relatively new and very powerful way for advertisers to get their message in front of potential buyers that they know to be qualified. The question is, how do they know that the surfer is qualified?
The advertisers know this because the Internet advertising network is tracking the surfers’ online activity. With tracking, advertisers know what sites you like. They know what searches you make. They have profiled you, and, unlike in real life, profiling on the web is AOK — so far.
Check Your Computer for Cookies
Before we get into the legal issues involved, perhaps a further definition of the technology is in order. Most (but not all) behavioral Internet advertising is based on computer "cookies." These computer cookies are tiny files that are placed on your machine when you visit certain websites. In the simplest form, you go to a web page. An advertiser has a blank spot, or placeholder, for a banner ad. But instead of serving up just any banner ad, the advertiser parses through your computer for cookies to discover your likes and dislikes, and then you are fed Internet advertising based on your online behavior.
For some people, this is no big deal. They like Internet advertising to be targeted toward them, and they don’t mind computer cookies. For others, it’s a little Orwellian and creepy. This leads us to the great debate.
Opt-in or Opt-out?
One big question to be resolved is whether ultimately this type of Internet advertising will be "opt-in" (meaning that a user has to sign up in order to receive targeted ads) or "opt-out" (meaning that a user will receive targeted ads unless they specifically ask not to).
It shouldn’t surprise anyone to know which side the advertisers are on. If governmental regulators eventually require that all Internet advertising be "opt-in", the industry will be severely restricted. My guess is that it would relegate behavior-based Internet advertising to a fringe player in the online marketing world.
The privacy advocates, naturally, are on the other side of the fence. The vast majority of people assume that their online activity is not being tracked, they say. Why should they have to take a specific action in order to remove computer cookies and to not be tracked and profiled?
A Do Not Track List?
Recently, a group of nine consumer advocate groups proposed the idea of a "Do Not Track" list for Internet advertising, which would work in a similar fashion as the "Do Not Call" list works today. Naturally, this is an "Opt-out" scenario, but because of the attention that the formation of such a list would bring, it may be a suitable compromise between advertiser and advocate.
How to Prevent Being Tracked
It is fairly easy to prevent being tracked by advertisers. You simply prevent your machine from accepting computer cookies. Go to START, SETTINGS, CONTROL PANEL and click on INTERNET OPTIONS then the PRIVACY tab. (Note that these instructions assume you are working with a Windows XP system. The procedure will be similar, however, for other operating systems.) Slide the bar all the way to the top to where it says "Block All Cookies."
However, you should be aware that this change may limit your Internet experience. Some websites will not display properly (or at all) if you do not accept computer cookies. In my experience, at least one of the top five search engines will not work at all. Other engines have limited functionality when you block Internet advertising.
Even if you do manage to turn off your computer cookies, don’t rest easy just yet.
The Newest Technology
Recently, it was announced that a Silicon Valley startup named NebuAd has created a new technology that does not require computer cookies. Under the NebuAd model, the company teams up directly with service providers and installs equipment directly at their facilities that allows them to track the behavior of individuals on the web, even if their machine does not accept computer cookies. This, of course, requires Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to embrace the new technology; naturally, they are given a piece of the Internet advertising revenue that is generated. Whether or not any of the major players embrace this technology will probably depend largely on public outcry, or lack thereof. Of course, if this does become the newest behavioral targeting standard, we will return again to the question of "Opt-in" or "Opt-out."
Conclusion
The future of this approach to Internet advertising is unclear, and will depend largely on public education and reaction. Will people see value in receiving targeted ads, even if it means that somewhere there is an "anonymous" profile of them sitting on a server? Will they feel outraged and push for a total ban? It’s hard to say.
Will this new approach be the death of the Internet as we know it? Probably not. But it should at least be interesting
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Are Cookies Evil?
Are cookies are bad and do they invade your privacy? We're not talking about the kind of cookie you eat, we're talking about computer cookies! It's not really true that cookies are evil.
So, what is a cookie, what's it made of and what does it do? A cookie is a tiny text file that a web site can put on your computer as you browse the pages on that web site. One thing people don't understand is that a web site can only read and write its own cookies, it cannot access another web site's cookies. Cookies are used for storing various items of information, such as a name, or a selection choice you made. This information will be read back from the when you load other pages on the site, or, on return visits to the site.
What reason does a web site need to use cookies? Web browsers are stateless, stateless means that as you through various pages on a web site, each of those pages is a separate and distinct action. For example, the web server does not know it's the same person that was on the home page that made the request for the order page. This is very different from desktop applications like Microsoft Excel that you run on your computer. The web server sees all page requests as individual requests for pages, not as a continuous visit from you. As you move through a web site and select things and make choices, what keeps you from having to reenter or reselect that information as you load each page? Usually the answer is a cookie. A cookie can be used by the web server to keep track of you as a user so that as you navigate from page A to page B, the web server knows it's you and the developer of the web site can reference those items stored in your cookie to maintain a stateful experience for your session or visit to the web site.
Occasionally, you may want or need to delete your cookies.
You can delete your cookies a few ways. Most web browsers (Microsoft Internet Explorer, Netscape, FireFox, Opera, etc.) have different ways to do this, so consult the help for your browser on how to delete the cache files and cookies. There are also several software packages to clean your PC and these packages also delete cookies.
Using cookies improves your user experience when browsing the Internet. Is there a security risk or danger to cookies? A web site can use cookies for saving information that you enter into forms on web pages and that's where security concerns arise. Usually this never causes any problem, however, before letting someone use your computer, or taking your computer somewhere to be repaired or serviced, always delete your browser's cache AND cookies!
Each browser is different, so consult your help files for the browser you use (Microsoft Internet Explorer, Netscape, FireFox, Opera, etc.) for how to delete the cache files and cookies.
So, what is a cookie, what's it made of and what does it do? A cookie is a tiny text file that a web site can put on your computer as you browse the pages on that web site. One thing people don't understand is that a web site can only read and write its own cookies, it cannot access another web site's cookies. Cookies are used for storing various items of information, such as a name, or a selection choice you made. This information will be read back from the when you load other pages on the site, or, on return visits to the site.
What reason does a web site need to use cookies? Web browsers are stateless, stateless means that as you through various pages on a web site, each of those pages is a separate and distinct action. For example, the web server does not know it's the same person that was on the home page that made the request for the order page. This is very different from desktop applications like Microsoft Excel that you run on your computer. The web server sees all page requests as individual requests for pages, not as a continuous visit from you. As you move through a web site and select things and make choices, what keeps you from having to reenter or reselect that information as you load each page? Usually the answer is a cookie. A cookie can be used by the web server to keep track of you as a user so that as you navigate from page A to page B, the web server knows it's you and the developer of the web site can reference those items stored in your cookie to maintain a stateful experience for your session or visit to the web site.
Occasionally, you may want or need to delete your cookies.
You can delete your cookies a few ways. Most web browsers (Microsoft Internet Explorer, Netscape, FireFox, Opera, etc.) have different ways to do this, so consult the help for your browser on how to delete the cache files and cookies. There are also several software packages to clean your PC and these packages also delete cookies.
Using cookies improves your user experience when browsing the Internet. Is there a security risk or danger to cookies? A web site can use cookies for saving information that you enter into forms on web pages and that's where security concerns arise. Usually this never causes any problem, however, before letting someone use your computer, or taking your computer somewhere to be repaired or serviced, always delete your browser's cache AND cookies!
Each browser is different, so consult your help files for the browser you use (Microsoft Internet Explorer, Netscape, FireFox, Opera, etc.) for how to delete the cache files and cookies.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Consumer Advocates Seek a ‘Do-Not-Track’ List
By LOUISE STORY
A coalition of privacy groups asked the government today to set up a mandatory do-not-track list for the Internet.
The groups — which include the Consumer Federation of America, World Privacy Forum and several others — are worried that online advertising companies are collecting too much data about consumers’ Web habits.
For a few years, advertisers have been using information about what Web sites people visit to deliver ads to them later on. The practice is called behavioral targeting, and the Federal Trade Commission is hosting a forum tomorrow and Friday about the privacy issues it raises.
While advertisers often say that consumers like receiving ads that are relevant to them rather than generic, privacy advocates say that most people do not realize the amount of personal information they are sharing with marketers.
“I think this is about consumer knowledge and choice,” said Leslie Harris, president and chief executive of the Center for Democracy and Technology, in an interview.
“A consumer can choose to say, ‘I don’t care that they have all this information about me. These ads are valuable to me,’ but a consumer should also be able to say, ‘I don’t want them to have all that information,’” said Ms. Harris, whose organization is among the nine groups asking for the do-not-track list.
A do-not-track list would not reduce the number of ads people see on Web sites. Instead, people who signed up for the service would simply see ads that are not specialized for them, since advertisers would not be using the consumers’ recent history on the Web to surmise their interests.
The consumer groups also want the government to redefine what information is considered to be personally identifiable to include behavior online, in instances when Web searches can be traced to an individual person.
Executives from several of the groups involved in the do-not-track initiative will speak at the F.T.C.’s forum alongside executives from Yahoo, Microsoft, Google and the AOL unit of Time Warner. This morning, AOL announced a boost in its own opt-out system, and executives there said other online advertising companies should follow its lead.
AOL will be running a public education campaign in the coming months to inform Web users about the upside of behavioral targeting, which includes getting offers for products and services that could potentially be helpful or appealing.
It has been eight years since the F.T.C. drilled down into the privacy implications of online advertising. Last year, the agency held a technology forum and pinpointed behavioral targeting as a major problem area. Since then, there have been a number of high-profile acquisitions of advertising technology companies that have put more of the data into fewer hands. Among those are Microsoft’s acquisition of aQuantive, a company that owns the ad-delivery company Atlas, and Google’s proposed deal to purchase DoubleClick, another ad-delivery company. The F.T.C. is still evaluating the Google deal, but it is studying it for antitrust implications rather than privacy concerns.
The assumption in online advertising has been that consumers will opt-out of tracking if they do not like it, but most advertising networks’ opt-out policies are difficult to follow and find. And consumers who delete cookies — small bits of text sent from users computers to servers — after signing up for an opt-out policy sometimes delete their opt-out choice along with the cookies.
“We have really moved to a world where we say consumers need to police the market, and, increasingly, it is a harder world to police,” said Martin Abrams, executive director of the Center for Information Policy Leadership, a think tank within the law firm Hunton & Williams that is financed by companies like Microsoft, Best Buy and Google.
The coalition of privacy groups also called for a system of disclosure notices on Internet ads, which would be required to notify consumers if behavioral tracking was involved. The groups also want companies to show consumers the profiles they are building about them, upon request.
The do-not-track list would be a comprehensive list of the servers of advertising companies. Consumers could download the list and use it to change the settings on their Web browsers.
Ms. Harris of the Center for Democracy and Technology said her group was mainly concerned with data that online advertising companies store to create user profiles. Some companies, like Google, choose what ads to show people based on the context of what they are searching for or typing about (in Gmail) at that very moment. But Google says it does not store that data.
The F.T.C. has been asked many times to create some kind of a do-not-track list, said Eileen Harrington, deputy director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the agency. Ms. Harris said this was the first time that so many privacy and consumer advocacy groups had coalesced around the issue.
“The goal of providing a consumer with advertising that matches their interests is something that provides a lot of value to consumers,” Ms. Harrington said. “But there are questions about whether it may also come with costs that consumers don’t want to pay.”
A coalition of privacy groups asked the government today to set up a mandatory do-not-track list for the Internet.
The groups — which include the Consumer Federation of America, World Privacy Forum and several others — are worried that online advertising companies are collecting too much data about consumers’ Web habits.
For a few years, advertisers have been using information about what Web sites people visit to deliver ads to them later on. The practice is called behavioral targeting, and the Federal Trade Commission is hosting a forum tomorrow and Friday about the privacy issues it raises.
While advertisers often say that consumers like receiving ads that are relevant to them rather than generic, privacy advocates say that most people do not realize the amount of personal information they are sharing with marketers.
“I think this is about consumer knowledge and choice,” said Leslie Harris, president and chief executive of the Center for Democracy and Technology, in an interview.
“A consumer can choose to say, ‘I don’t care that they have all this information about me. These ads are valuable to me,’ but a consumer should also be able to say, ‘I don’t want them to have all that information,’” said Ms. Harris, whose organization is among the nine groups asking for the do-not-track list.
A do-not-track list would not reduce the number of ads people see on Web sites. Instead, people who signed up for the service would simply see ads that are not specialized for them, since advertisers would not be using the consumers’ recent history on the Web to surmise their interests.
The consumer groups also want the government to redefine what information is considered to be personally identifiable to include behavior online, in instances when Web searches can be traced to an individual person.
Executives from several of the groups involved in the do-not-track initiative will speak at the F.T.C.’s forum alongside executives from Yahoo, Microsoft, Google and the AOL unit of Time Warner. This morning, AOL announced a boost in its own opt-out system, and executives there said other online advertising companies should follow its lead.
AOL will be running a public education campaign in the coming months to inform Web users about the upside of behavioral targeting, which includes getting offers for products and services that could potentially be helpful or appealing.
It has been eight years since the F.T.C. drilled down into the privacy implications of online advertising. Last year, the agency held a technology forum and pinpointed behavioral targeting as a major problem area. Since then, there have been a number of high-profile acquisitions of advertising technology companies that have put more of the data into fewer hands. Among those are Microsoft’s acquisition of aQuantive, a company that owns the ad-delivery company Atlas, and Google’s proposed deal to purchase DoubleClick, another ad-delivery company. The F.T.C. is still evaluating the Google deal, but it is studying it for antitrust implications rather than privacy concerns.
The assumption in online advertising has been that consumers will opt-out of tracking if they do not like it, but most advertising networks’ opt-out policies are difficult to follow and find. And consumers who delete cookies — small bits of text sent from users computers to servers — after signing up for an opt-out policy sometimes delete their opt-out choice along with the cookies.
“We have really moved to a world where we say consumers need to police the market, and, increasingly, it is a harder world to police,” said Martin Abrams, executive director of the Center for Information Policy Leadership, a think tank within the law firm Hunton & Williams that is financed by companies like Microsoft, Best Buy and Google.
The coalition of privacy groups also called for a system of disclosure notices on Internet ads, which would be required to notify consumers if behavioral tracking was involved. The groups also want companies to show consumers the profiles they are building about them, upon request.
The do-not-track list would be a comprehensive list of the servers of advertising companies. Consumers could download the list and use it to change the settings on their Web browsers.
Ms. Harris of the Center for Democracy and Technology said her group was mainly concerned with data that online advertising companies store to create user profiles. Some companies, like Google, choose what ads to show people based on the context of what they are searching for or typing about (in Gmail) at that very moment. But Google says it does not store that data.
The F.T.C. has been asked many times to create some kind of a do-not-track list, said Eileen Harrington, deputy director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the agency. Ms. Harris said this was the first time that so many privacy and consumer advocacy groups had coalesced around the issue.
“The goal of providing a consumer with advertising that matches their interests is something that provides a lot of value to consumers,” Ms. Harrington said. “But there are questions about whether it may also come with costs that consumers don’t want to pay.”
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Canadian ISVs Digest Google’s Cookie Policy
Google’s decision to issue cookies with an automatic two-year expiry for users who don’t return to the search site may not be an earth-shattering move, but it’s the company’s recognition of a privacy issue that really counts, an expert said.
The cookies act as tracking files for user search preferences, such as keywords, primary language, number of results per page, and options to filter out sexually explicit websites. The cookies, which are installed on users’ computers, are currently subject to a blanket expiry date of 2038.
Although it’s "about time" that Google made such a change, the two-year time frame for storing user preference data is probably still too long, said David Fewer, staff counsel at Ottawa, Ontario-based Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC).
However, the bigger issue, he added, is the acknowledgment by the company of a larger underlying matter. "Google’s move here is a recognition that they’ve got to do more."
Google’s announcement isn’t terribly significant, according to Michael McDerment, CEO of Toronto-based Freshbooks, an online invoicing and time-tracking service.
"If no one’s using the cookies for two years, there’s no data being collected anyway, and chances are the computer that created those cookies is obsolete," he said. "It says nothing, to be honest, as far as I can tell."
McDerment thinks Google’s announcement is not all that meaningful, and is garnering interest due to the company’s renown. "These sound like very standard things, nothing to write home about."
But given the advent of Web 2.0 and vendor-hosted services, there should be an industry standard that’s compliant with the law to guide data-retention time frames, said Fewer. "Surprisingly, in this day and age we’re still talking about that being something that industries aren’t doing a good job [at]."
But it’s not that simple, he said: "Does that mean two years, two months, two days if you’re talking about a particular term? It will depend on what’s fair in the circumstances."
McDerment agreed that it’s difficult to establish a blanket standard for user data retention across industries, as it "really depends on what you use the cookie for. It varies from use case to use case."
Freshbooks does not use cookies to store user data, he said. Instead, it uses them to manage Web session log-ins, a common use for such files. "If you don’t refresh your server in two hours, we log you out."
On the enterprise front, companies concerned about privacy probably already address the issue of data-tracking cookies, said Craig Fitzpatrick, CEO of Devshop, an Ottawa-based provider of a Web-based software project management tool.
They do so by way of policies, with tools that automatically delete cookies, or they choose to turn off the cookies by default upon browser installation, he said.
Anyhow, Fitzpatrick doesn’t see data-tracking cookies as that big a deal. "People realize cookies aren’t really that bad to begin with, and if you think they are, you have the right to delete them anytime you want."
Fewer thinks it really boils down to whether vendors are ensuring the technologies they develop operate fair information-gathering practices.
He recommends vendors be guided by two principles when designing tools that have an impact on consumer privacy: Identify the required data, and collect only that data. "What’s the point of collecting ubiquitous information, and what’s the point of keeping it?"
And be transparent with the data-collection process: "If you’re not breaking the law, then why not be transparent in what you’re doing?"
The cookies act as tracking files for user search preferences, such as keywords, primary language, number of results per page, and options to filter out sexually explicit websites. The cookies, which are installed on users’ computers, are currently subject to a blanket expiry date of 2038.
Although it’s "about time" that Google made such a change, the two-year time frame for storing user preference data is probably still too long, said David Fewer, staff counsel at Ottawa, Ontario-based Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC).
However, the bigger issue, he added, is the acknowledgment by the company of a larger underlying matter. "Google’s move here is a recognition that they’ve got to do more."
Google’s announcement isn’t terribly significant, according to Michael McDerment, CEO of Toronto-based Freshbooks, an online invoicing and time-tracking service.
"If no one’s using the cookies for two years, there’s no data being collected anyway, and chances are the computer that created those cookies is obsolete," he said. "It says nothing, to be honest, as far as I can tell."
McDerment thinks Google’s announcement is not all that meaningful, and is garnering interest due to the company’s renown. "These sound like very standard things, nothing to write home about."
But given the advent of Web 2.0 and vendor-hosted services, there should be an industry standard that’s compliant with the law to guide data-retention time frames, said Fewer. "Surprisingly, in this day and age we’re still talking about that being something that industries aren’t doing a good job [at]."
But it’s not that simple, he said: "Does that mean two years, two months, two days if you’re talking about a particular term? It will depend on what’s fair in the circumstances."
McDerment agreed that it’s difficult to establish a blanket standard for user data retention across industries, as it "really depends on what you use the cookie for. It varies from use case to use case."
Freshbooks does not use cookies to store user data, he said. Instead, it uses them to manage Web session log-ins, a common use for such files. "If you don’t refresh your server in two hours, we log you out."
On the enterprise front, companies concerned about privacy probably already address the issue of data-tracking cookies, said Craig Fitzpatrick, CEO of Devshop, an Ottawa-based provider of a Web-based software project management tool.
They do so by way of policies, with tools that automatically delete cookies, or they choose to turn off the cookies by default upon browser installation, he said.
Anyhow, Fitzpatrick doesn’t see data-tracking cookies as that big a deal. "People realize cookies aren’t really that bad to begin with, and if you think they are, you have the right to delete them anytime you want."
Fewer thinks it really boils down to whether vendors are ensuring the technologies they develop operate fair information-gathering practices.
He recommends vendors be guided by two principles when designing tools that have an impact on consumer privacy: Identify the required data, and collect only that data. "What’s the point of collecting ubiquitous information, and what’s the point of keeping it?"
And be transparent with the data-collection process: "If you’re not breaking the law, then why not be transparent in what you’re doing?"
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Why delete your cookies?
Why not delete your cookies?
Are you aware that when using Internet Explorer and other browsers to surf the internet, your surfing history and habits can easily be viewed and tracked by third partys by your cookies.
Technology enables others to see and track all the sites you've visited! Deleting your cookies, downloaded internet files and images, prevents others from tracking your behavior.
There are plenty of reasons you might want to delete your cookies., and you should not trust all cookie removal software therefore you may have to delete cookies manually.
Cookies may contain credit card information and have passwords!
Deleting cookies can improve computer preformance especially on older machines
Almost 73.5% of all forturne 1000 companies admit they "record and review their employees' communications and activities on the job." This includes cookies.
Advertisers may track and record your movements and purchases!
Your computer may contain hidden or temporary Internet files left behind from surfing the Web. Frequently as you surf the Web, sites that you visit "push" information onto your computer without you knowing it and without your approval. These files, if left on your computer, may automatically spawn other objectionable Web sites or transmit personal information without your consent.
Things every Web site can find out about you
Thought your visit was anonymous? Think again. The Internet gives an image of anonymity, but dig a little deeper and you'll find it's a false front.
Almost all Internet sites, and certainly the bigger ones, collect information about their visitors. It's logged by the site server that sends Web pages to your computer, and the data is referred to as Web server logs or weblogs. You'll be surprised how much information your disloyal computer passes over to the site you're visiting. Nothing as serious as your name or email address, but probably much more than you'd expect. Here are the main items:
IP address
This is your "street address" for the Internet, it's a string of numbers that identify exactly where you are in the huge ever-changing mass of networks that make up the Internet. It has to be passed to the site so that it knows where to send the pages that you've requested.
The bad news is that your IP address is quite distinctive. It's easy to tell from the numbers which country you're connecting from and which Internet Service Provider you're using. The good news is that most ISPs use a rolling address system, so you get a different address each time you log on to the Internet (from a range held by your ISP). Though if you're using a computer on an office network it might have its own IP address that never changes.
Ultimately, you can be tracked down from your IP address. Even if it's a rolling address, your ISP keeps records of who is using any address at any given time. In the space of a few seconds they can link any address with a specific user. That's you. But naturally they're reluctant to do it, even for the police.
If you use a free ISP account that didn't need registration, the detail comes from your phone line. These accounts only work with "line recognition", which means the ISP receives your phone number when you log on. So however you access the Internet, you can be traced. The IP address collected by the site server for its records can be linked directly either to you or to your phone line.
Referring page
Many sites also collect referring page information. Your computer obviously knows where it's just come from, and the shameless electronic traitor freely passes this information on to the next site. "This is the site we arrived from," it says. Hey, who's in control here?
Browser and operating system
Your computer also tells its electronic friend at the other end what kind of browser you're using, including the version number, and what kind of operating system you have - Windows, Mac, Unix, whatever.
Screen details
Although not all computers do this, many also tell the site server what size screen you have (in pixels, not inches) and what kind of colour resolution you're using - 256, 16 bit, 24 bit. Is there no end to their treachery?
Pages viewed
And finally, without the assistance of your computer, the site server records everywhere you go on the site and how long you stay on each page.
So, these are just some of the reasons to delete your cookies.
Are you aware that when using Internet Explorer and other browsers to surf the internet, your surfing history and habits can easily be viewed and tracked by third partys by your cookies.
Technology enables others to see and track all the sites you've visited! Deleting your cookies, downloaded internet files and images, prevents others from tracking your behavior.
There are plenty of reasons you might want to delete your cookies., and you should not trust all cookie removal software therefore you may have to delete cookies manually.
Cookies may contain credit card information and have passwords!
Deleting cookies can improve computer preformance especially on older machines
Almost 73.5% of all forturne 1000 companies admit they "record and review their employees' communications and activities on the job." This includes cookies.
Advertisers may track and record your movements and purchases!
Your computer may contain hidden or temporary Internet files left behind from surfing the Web. Frequently as you surf the Web, sites that you visit "push" information onto your computer without you knowing it and without your approval. These files, if left on your computer, may automatically spawn other objectionable Web sites or transmit personal information without your consent.
Things every Web site can find out about you
Thought your visit was anonymous? Think again. The Internet gives an image of anonymity, but dig a little deeper and you'll find it's a false front.
Almost all Internet sites, and certainly the bigger ones, collect information about their visitors. It's logged by the site server that sends Web pages to your computer, and the data is referred to as Web server logs or weblogs. You'll be surprised how much information your disloyal computer passes over to the site you're visiting. Nothing as serious as your name or email address, but probably much more than you'd expect. Here are the main items:
IP address
This is your "street address" for the Internet, it's a string of numbers that identify exactly where you are in the huge ever-changing mass of networks that make up the Internet. It has to be passed to the site so that it knows where to send the pages that you've requested.
The bad news is that your IP address is quite distinctive. It's easy to tell from the numbers which country you're connecting from and which Internet Service Provider you're using. The good news is that most ISPs use a rolling address system, so you get a different address each time you log on to the Internet (from a range held by your ISP). Though if you're using a computer on an office network it might have its own IP address that never changes.
Ultimately, you can be tracked down from your IP address. Even if it's a rolling address, your ISP keeps records of who is using any address at any given time. In the space of a few seconds they can link any address with a specific user. That's you. But naturally they're reluctant to do it, even for the police.
If you use a free ISP account that didn't need registration, the detail comes from your phone line. These accounts only work with "line recognition", which means the ISP receives your phone number when you log on. So however you access the Internet, you can be traced. The IP address collected by the site server for its records can be linked directly either to you or to your phone line.
Referring page
Many sites also collect referring page information. Your computer obviously knows where it's just come from, and the shameless electronic traitor freely passes this information on to the next site. "This is the site we arrived from," it says. Hey, who's in control here?
Browser and operating system
Your computer also tells its electronic friend at the other end what kind of browser you're using, including the version number, and what kind of operating system you have - Windows, Mac, Unix, whatever.
Screen details
Although not all computers do this, many also tell the site server what size screen you have (in pixels, not inches) and what kind of colour resolution you're using - 256, 16 bit, 24 bit. Is there no end to their treachery?
Pages viewed
And finally, without the assistance of your computer, the site server records everywhere you go on the site and how long you stay on each page.
So, these are just some of the reasons to delete your cookies.
The Case of the Disappearing Cookies
Tiny files called "cookies" are the lifeblood of online advertising. Left on visitors' computers, they help Web sites track how many visitors they have, and how often they return — numbers crucial for determining the value of a site's ad space.
So advertisers got worried in 2000 when privacy advocates began denouncing cookies. Soon after, antispyware programs started identifying cookies and offering to delete them. In 2004, 18 percent of people who knew what cookies were said they deleted them very frequently, according to a study by Revenue Science, which helps advertisers find online audiences. A survey in December, 2005 reported a drop in that figure, to 8 percent.
But more recent studies have been less cheerful for advertisers. A February report by JupiterResearch found that 41 percent of male Internet users and 25 percent of women manually deleted cookies at least once a week. Those figures would be even higher if they included people who used antispyware programs to delete cookies automatically.
By ALEX MINDLIN
So advertisers got worried in 2000 when privacy advocates began denouncing cookies. Soon after, antispyware programs started identifying cookies and offering to delete them. In 2004, 18 percent of people who knew what cookies were said they deleted them very frequently, according to a study by Revenue Science, which helps advertisers find online audiences. A survey in December, 2005 reported a drop in that figure, to 8 percent.
But more recent studies have been less cheerful for advertisers. A February report by JupiterResearch found that 41 percent of male Internet users and 25 percent of women manually deleted cookies at least once a week. Those figures would be even higher if they included people who used antispyware programs to delete cookies automatically.
By ALEX MINDLIN
Google Cookies Expire Sooner, If You Stop Visiting
Google has thrown another bone to critics of its privacy practices, announcing it would no longer set cookies to expire in the year 2038. Now, Google will set cookies to expire two years after a user last visits the site, with the expiration date auto-renewing to two years after each visit.
The search giant says the decision to make the cookies renew is so that users would not have to re-enter their basic preferences. Google does not require visitors to log in to store search preferences, using cookies to retain the data. The move follows a recent announcement that Google would anonymize its server search logs -- including IP addresses and cookie IDs -- after 18 months.
The search giant says the decision to make the cookies renew is so that users would not have to re-enter their basic preferences. Google does not require visitors to log in to store search preferences, using cookies to retain the data. The move follows a recent announcement that Google would anonymize its server search logs -- including IP addresses and cookie IDs -- after 18 months.
Google to cut lifetime of 'cookies'
Google Inc., owner of the world's most popular search engine, said it would address privacy concerns by reducing the lifetime of "cookies" installed on the computers of people who visit its website.
The cookies, files planted on personal computers to track Internet use, will automatically expire two years after the last visit to Google's site, Peter Fleischer, the company's chief privacy lawyer, wrote Monday on the company's corporate blog. Mountain View, Calif.-based Google previously designed its cookies to expire in 2038, he said.
The European Union's data-protection agency has criticized Google for holding on to user information for too long. The New York State Consumer Protection Board on May 9 urged U.S. regulators to delay Google's $3.1-billion takeover of online advertising company DoubleClick Inc. until the company better protected consumers' privacy.
"After listening to feedback from our users and from privacy advocates, we've concluded that it would be a good thing for privacy to significantly shorten the lifetime of our cookies," Fleischer wrote.
Shares of Google rose 83 cents to $552.99.
The cookies, files planted on personal computers to track Internet use, will automatically expire two years after the last visit to Google's site, Peter Fleischer, the company's chief privacy lawyer, wrote Monday on the company's corporate blog. Mountain View, Calif.-based Google previously designed its cookies to expire in 2038, he said.
The European Union's data-protection agency has criticized Google for holding on to user information for too long. The New York State Consumer Protection Board on May 9 urged U.S. regulators to delay Google's $3.1-billion takeover of online advertising company DoubleClick Inc. until the company better protected consumers' privacy.
"After listening to feedback from our users and from privacy advocates, we've concluded that it would be a good thing for privacy to significantly shorten the lifetime of our cookies," Fleischer wrote.
Shares of Google rose 83 cents to $552.99.
Google trims lifespan of user-tracking 'cookies'
SAN FRANCISCO (AFP) - Google announced Monday that it is shortening the lives of software "cookies" used to track users' online preferences.
In coming months Google will begin issuing cookies that automatically expire two years after a person visits the website provided they don't return, according to the US firm's global privacy counsel Peter Fleischer.
"We've concluded that it would be a good thing for privacy to significantly shorten the lifetime of our cookies as long as we could find a way to do so without artificially forcing users to re-enter their basic preferences at arbitrary points in time," Fleischer wrote in a Google blog post Monday.
Online privacy advocates expect Google's new "cookie policy" to change little since the two-year lifespan of tracking software renews with each visit so people must stop using Google for the entire period for the cookies to self-destruct.
Cookies previously installed on computers by Google are made to expire in 2038.
"Google's change doesn't tame the cookie monster, of course," wrote Internet privacy expert Jim Harper on the Technology Liberation Front website.
"It remains with you to tame the cookie monster, if that's what you care to do. Your web browser provides you the ability to control them, which gives you the responsibility to do so. I control mine."
Google and other Internet firms put bits of code called "cookies" on users' computers to tailor services, for example determine whether a search for "WWF" should get World Wildlife Fund or Worldwide Wrestling Federation as a result.
In coming months Google will begin issuing cookies that automatically expire two years after a person visits the website provided they don't return, according to the US firm's global privacy counsel Peter Fleischer.
"We've concluded that it would be a good thing for privacy to significantly shorten the lifetime of our cookies as long as we could find a way to do so without artificially forcing users to re-enter their basic preferences at arbitrary points in time," Fleischer wrote in a Google blog post Monday.
Online privacy advocates expect Google's new "cookie policy" to change little since the two-year lifespan of tracking software renews with each visit so people must stop using Google for the entire period for the cookies to self-destruct.
Cookies previously installed on computers by Google are made to expire in 2038.
"Google's change doesn't tame the cookie monster, of course," wrote Internet privacy expert Jim Harper on the Technology Liberation Front website.
"It remains with you to tame the cookie monster, if that's what you care to do. Your web browser provides you the ability to control them, which gives you the responsibility to do so. I control mine."
Google and other Internet firms put bits of code called "cookies" on users' computers to tailor services, for example determine whether a search for "WWF" should get World Wildlife Fund or Worldwide Wrestling Federation as a result.
Google Puts 2-Year Expiration Date on Cookies
Google has significantly decreased the lifespan of the cookies it distributes to users' computers. Instead of staying alive for 30 years, the data packets will now automatically delete after just two years. However, that decrease may not be as dramatic as it appears -- the cookies will still automatically renew their two-year countdowns each time the computer visits a Google site.
Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) decreased the length of time and amount of information the company holds on users' preferences and searches Monday with the announcement that it will shorten the lifespan of the small parcels of information it stores on users' computers, known as "cookies." The lifespan of Google's cookies will be shortened from more than 30 years to a comparatively brief two years, the company said.
"We are committed to an ongoing process to improve our privacy practices, and have recently taken a closer look at the question of cookie privacy," said Peter Fleischer, global privacy counsel at Google. "How long should a Web site 'remember' cookie information in its logs after a user's visit? And when should a cookie expire on your computer? Cookie privacy is both a server and a client issue.
"After listening to feedback from our users and from privacy advocates, we've concluded that it would be a good thing for privacy to significantly shorten the lifetime of our cookies. ... In the coming months, Google will start issuing our users cookies that will be set to auto-expire after two years," he continued.
The decision comes four months after Google announced that it would "anonymize" data logs containing details on users' searches -- such as search queries, IP addresses and cookie ID numbers -- after 18 to 24 months. The policy would make the data "much more anonymous, so that it can no longer be identified with individual users," the company stated.
Pre-Packaged Cookies
Cookies are bits of information sent from a Web site's server, in this case Google's search servers, to a visitor's Web browser, Jen Albornoz Mulligan, a Forrester Research analyst, explained to TechNewsWorld. They can track information about what Web sites the user visits and what searches are conducted.
There are two types of cookies. First-party cookies are those supplied, read and used by the same server. Third-party cookies are cookies set to track users across multiple Web sites and are commonly used by advertisers to improve targeted advertising .
"[Cookies] can keep track of this information over time, even if the computer switches IP addresses, such as moving from home to work," Mulligan continued.
Practically every Web site uses cookies to differentiate between its visitors or users and log data concerning their activities while on the site. Nearly every Internet surfer in the world, knowingly or not, is affected from the use of cookies multiple times a day during common activities such as logging in, using a shopping cart or having a personalized Web page on a site based on the user's preferences.
As is often the case, however, the very technology that makes using the Internet a bit easier at the same time poses a significant risk to users' privacy.
Cookies issued by Google enable users to maintain search histories and to personalize their iGoogle homepages, among other things. While beneficial for users, Google also uses the data to provide better search results as well as targeted advertising. The information is not just a boon for Google and its users; the government can also subpoena the data for use in its investigations, criminal and otherwise.
Google set its cookies to expire in 2038, Mulligan said, so that the company will know users' preferences over a long time. The time span of 30 years was arbitrarily chosen. "They probably wanted to be sure that they'd have the settings saved for as long as they'd imagine someone could possible keep their computer."
From 2038 to 2009
Although Google touts the reduction of its cookie lifespan as a boon for privacy, the policy revamp is in fact merely a "mild concession," according to Mulligan. The cookies may be set to auto-expire after two years, but they have also been programmed to auto-renew for active users.
In other words, say a student goes to Google for the first time to research an eighth grade science project. After it is completed, she does not return to the site again until the 11th grade. In that scenario, any cookies deposited on the student's computer would have expired. However, if the student used the site on a daily basis, each visit would reset the cookie's expiration date to two years from the most recent visit. That, Google said, will ensure that users' preferences are not lost.
"It is a step in the right direction, but two years is still a relatively long-lasting cookie," Mulligan pointed out. "The new policy does a better job of conforming to the privacy principles of collection limitation and use limitation -- meaning data should only be collected if it is really useful -- and should only be used for the purposes previously stated."
On the up side, Mulligan noted, Google's policy change will "force consideration of the issue by other search engines, just as now the EU (European Union) is looking at Lycos and Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) for how long they keep logs as well."
Privacy Promotion
Google, she added, is in a strong position to do some very good public privacy awareness campaigns that would go a long way in protecting users' privacy. "They have a lot of users and could actively teach those users about privacy and cookies," she continued. "They should train users about setting proper privacy controls, in their browser and on their machine."
Users, for instance, who really want to keep cookies off of their computers can set their Web browsers' privacy options to reject those cookies automatically.
The company needs to take their privacy considerations one step further, Mulligan stated, and review new products with a more discerning eye towards privacy to prevent issues such as inappropriate pictures on Google Earth.
At times it seems the search provider is caught between a rock and a hard place, with privacy advocates on one side and government on the other. Over the past 18 months, Google fought what it called an overreaching subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice, received a poor ranking from advocacy group Privacy International, and has come under fire from the European Union for its privacy policy.
"Google has been skewered by the media unfairly compared to its peers," Mulligan concluded. "It generally has not done anything worse [than other Internet search providers] and is garnering attention because it is the most popular. But with that popularity comes the responsibility to set a good example and behave ethically. Google is clearly working through the pain of having to trade off business effectiveness and user privacy, which is difficult for any business."
Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) decreased the length of time and amount of information the company holds on users' preferences and searches Monday with the announcement that it will shorten the lifespan of the small parcels of information it stores on users' computers, known as "cookies." The lifespan of Google's cookies will be shortened from more than 30 years to a comparatively brief two years, the company said.
"We are committed to an ongoing process to improve our privacy practices, and have recently taken a closer look at the question of cookie privacy," said Peter Fleischer, global privacy counsel at Google. "How long should a Web site 'remember' cookie information in its logs after a user's visit? And when should a cookie expire on your computer? Cookie privacy is both a server and a client issue.
"After listening to feedback from our users and from privacy advocates, we've concluded that it would be a good thing for privacy to significantly shorten the lifetime of our cookies. ... In the coming months, Google will start issuing our users cookies that will be set to auto-expire after two years," he continued.
The decision comes four months after Google announced that it would "anonymize" data logs containing details on users' searches -- such as search queries, IP addresses and cookie ID numbers -- after 18 to 24 months. The policy would make the data "much more anonymous, so that it can no longer be identified with individual users," the company stated.
Pre-Packaged Cookies
Cookies are bits of information sent from a Web site's server, in this case Google's search servers, to a visitor's Web browser, Jen Albornoz Mulligan, a Forrester Research analyst, explained to TechNewsWorld. They can track information about what Web sites the user visits and what searches are conducted.
There are two types of cookies. First-party cookies are those supplied, read and used by the same server. Third-party cookies are cookies set to track users across multiple Web sites and are commonly used by advertisers to improve targeted advertising .
"[Cookies] can keep track of this information over time, even if the computer switches IP addresses, such as moving from home to work," Mulligan continued.
Practically every Web site uses cookies to differentiate between its visitors or users and log data concerning their activities while on the site. Nearly every Internet surfer in the world, knowingly or not, is affected from the use of cookies multiple times a day during common activities such as logging in, using a shopping cart or having a personalized Web page on a site based on the user's preferences.
As is often the case, however, the very technology that makes using the Internet a bit easier at the same time poses a significant risk to users' privacy.
Cookies issued by Google enable users to maintain search histories and to personalize their iGoogle homepages, among other things. While beneficial for users, Google also uses the data to provide better search results as well as targeted advertising. The information is not just a boon for Google and its users; the government can also subpoena the data for use in its investigations, criminal and otherwise.
Google set its cookies to expire in 2038, Mulligan said, so that the company will know users' preferences over a long time. The time span of 30 years was arbitrarily chosen. "They probably wanted to be sure that they'd have the settings saved for as long as they'd imagine someone could possible keep their computer."
From 2038 to 2009
Although Google touts the reduction of its cookie lifespan as a boon for privacy, the policy revamp is in fact merely a "mild concession," according to Mulligan. The cookies may be set to auto-expire after two years, but they have also been programmed to auto-renew for active users.
In other words, say a student goes to Google for the first time to research an eighth grade science project. After it is completed, she does not return to the site again until the 11th grade. In that scenario, any cookies deposited on the student's computer would have expired. However, if the student used the site on a daily basis, each visit would reset the cookie's expiration date to two years from the most recent visit. That, Google said, will ensure that users' preferences are not lost.
"It is a step in the right direction, but two years is still a relatively long-lasting cookie," Mulligan pointed out. "The new policy does a better job of conforming to the privacy principles of collection limitation and use limitation -- meaning data should only be collected if it is really useful -- and should only be used for the purposes previously stated."
On the up side, Mulligan noted, Google's policy change will "force consideration of the issue by other search engines, just as now the EU (European Union) is looking at Lycos and Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) for how long they keep logs as well."
Privacy Promotion
Google, she added, is in a strong position to do some very good public privacy awareness campaigns that would go a long way in protecting users' privacy. "They have a lot of users and could actively teach those users about privacy and cookies," she continued. "They should train users about setting proper privacy controls, in their browser and on their machine."
Users, for instance, who really want to keep cookies off of their computers can set their Web browsers' privacy options to reject those cookies automatically.
The company needs to take their privacy considerations one step further, Mulligan stated, and review new products with a more discerning eye towards privacy to prevent issues such as inappropriate pictures on Google Earth.
At times it seems the search provider is caught between a rock and a hard place, with privacy advocates on one side and government on the other. Over the past 18 months, Google fought what it called an overreaching subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice, received a poor ranking from advocacy group Privacy International, and has come under fire from the European Union for its privacy policy.
"Google has been skewered by the media unfairly compared to its peers," Mulligan concluded. "It generally has not done anything worse [than other Internet search providers] and is garnering attention because it is the most popular. But with that popularity comes the responsibility to set a good example and behave ethically. Google is clearly working through the pain of having to trade off business effectiveness and user privacy, which is difficult for any business."
Google in cookie concession to dead peoplePrivacy in the hereafter
Hoping to appease privacy advocates who've come down hard on its data retention policies, Google has made a practically meaningless change to its cookie policy.
The world's most popular search engine will soon issue browser cookies that automatically expire if you don't come back to the site for two years.
El Reg estimates that most people who don't return to Google after two years are either dead or confined to maximum security prison - most likely dead.
"After listening to feedback from our users and from privacy advocates, we've concluded that it would be a good thing for privacy to significantly shorten the lifetime of our cookies - as long as we could find a way to do so without artificially forcing users to re-enter their basic preferences at arbitrary points in time. And this is why we're announcing a new cookie policy," Google global privacy counsel Peter Fleischer writes on the company's official blog.
Sometime "in the coming months", according to Fleischer, Google will introduce cookies that "auto-expire" for users who don't return for two years and "auto-renew" for active users. The "auto-renew" bit means that anytime you visit the site, the two year clock starts all over again. Or as Fleischer puts it, "regular Google users will have their cookies auto-renew, so that their preferences are not lost".
Existing Google cookies were set expire sometime in 2038. "We were mindful of the fact that users can always go to their browsers to change their cookie management settings, e.g. to delete all cookies, delete specific cookies, or accept certain types of cookies (like first-party cookies) but reject others (like third-party cookies)," says Fleischer.
The way we see it, even after the policy change, the onus is still on users to manage their own cookies. Unless they kick the bucket.
The world's most popular search engine will soon issue browser cookies that automatically expire if you don't come back to the site for two years.
El Reg estimates that most people who don't return to Google after two years are either dead or confined to maximum security prison - most likely dead.
"After listening to feedback from our users and from privacy advocates, we've concluded that it would be a good thing for privacy to significantly shorten the lifetime of our cookies - as long as we could find a way to do so without artificially forcing users to re-enter their basic preferences at arbitrary points in time. And this is why we're announcing a new cookie policy," Google global privacy counsel Peter Fleischer writes on the company's official blog.
Sometime "in the coming months", according to Fleischer, Google will introduce cookies that "auto-expire" for users who don't return for two years and "auto-renew" for active users. The "auto-renew" bit means that anytime you visit the site, the two year clock starts all over again. Or as Fleischer puts it, "regular Google users will have their cookies auto-renew, so that their preferences are not lost".
Existing Google cookies were set expire sometime in 2038. "We were mindful of the fact that users can always go to their browsers to change their cookie management settings, e.g. to delete all cookies, delete specific cookies, or accept certain types of cookies (like first-party cookies) but reject others (like third-party cookies)," says Fleischer.
The way we see it, even after the policy change, the onus is still on users to manage their own cookies. Unless they kick the bucket.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Rachael Ray to feature local cookies
COOPERSTOWN — Shortbread baseball cookies from the Cooperstown Cookie Company will be featured as the "snack of the day" on "The Rachael Ray Show" on Wednesday, July 4.
Members of the show's audience will enjoy tins of the Classic Baseball Shortbread cookies in all four flavors — Classic Shortbread, Boys of Summer Lemon, All-Star Almond and Mudville Mudball Chocolate Chip.
"Classic Baseball Shortbread cookies are the ideal all-American treat," said Pati Drumm Grady, the company's founder and president. "What better day to be featured on 'Rachael Ray' than the Fourth of July."
Locally, "The Rachael Ray Show" can be seen at 10 a.m. on WKTV.
The cookie company will also be featured on an episode of the Food Network's "Unwrapped" on Friday, July 6.
Members of the show's audience will enjoy tins of the Classic Baseball Shortbread cookies in all four flavors — Classic Shortbread, Boys of Summer Lemon, All-Star Almond and Mudville Mudball Chocolate Chip.
"Classic Baseball Shortbread cookies are the ideal all-American treat," said Pati Drumm Grady, the company's founder and president. "What better day to be featured on 'Rachael Ray' than the Fourth of July."
Locally, "The Rachael Ray Show" can be seen at 10 a.m. on WKTV.
The cookie company will also be featured on an episode of the Food Network's "Unwrapped" on Friday, July 6.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Is the Browser Battle Heating Up on a New Front?
For a long time, the battle over which is the best operating system has been a three-way one. The vast majority of computer user still depend on some version of Windows, but the market share for Linux in all its varieties has grown over the years. And there is an even larger (although still small) following for the Macintosh.
Here's the way it's broken down as of May 2007, according to the Market Shares web site run by Net Applications: Windows XP currently enjoys a little over 82 percent of the market, with other Windows operating systems making up another 11 percent or so.
Macs come in second with almost 9 and half percent (includes both MacOS and MacIntel), and Linux - despite open source advocates' best efforts - is reported with less than 1 percent of the market. The numbers don't add up to 100 percent because a few other specialty operating systems, such as Hiptop (for mobile phones) and PSP (for gaming consoles) are also included in the statistics, but the top three dominate desktop computing.
The web browser is arguably the most used piece of software on most computers and similarly, the browser wars have been primarily a battle between three contenders: Internet Explorer (with almost 79 percent), Firefox (with just over fourteen and a half percent) and Safari (with almost 5 percent). There are many other browsers available, including the one-time favorite Netscape, Opera, Konqueror and versions of Mozilla, but the rest all show under 1 percent of market share.
Safari has, up until now, suffered a disadvantage in this contest. Since it ran only on Macs, and Macs are on less than 10 percent of computers, most users weren't able to run or even try the browser.
Thus, most folks, when you say "alternative web browser," think only of Firefox. But now, if you happen to like the Safari web browser that comes with Mac OS X, but prefer to use Windows (or have to at work), now you can take a Safari without switching your OS. Apple has just released a version of Safari for Windows.
Some pundits warn that it's just a ploy to lure Windows users over to the Mac. Others applaud the ability to use Mac programs they like without having to switch platforms. Some speculate the Safari for Windows release will hurt Firefox more than IE. Whatever your opinion may be, it was downloaded more than a million times in its first two days of availability. Somebody must be interested.
This release is a beta, and it was announced by Steve Jobs at the Worldwide Developers' Conference 2007 last week. The Windows version has the safe features as the one that runs on OS X. Apples claims that Safari runs twice as fast as IE and significantly faster than Firefox. Since the need for speed seems to be a common trait of computer users, this makes Safari look like an attractive alternative.
It also boasts some interesting features such as SnapBack, a button that lets you instantly go back to the top level of a web site after browsing deeply into it or create an anchor point to snap back to after browsing through many links and sites. And it has a security feature called "private browsing" that lets you turn off storage of search results, cookies, site history, download history and other normally cached information, instead of having to erase those caches after the fact.
I wanted to find out for myself. I always install multiple browsers, for several reasons. Some web sites won't render properly (or at all) in one browser but look fine in another. And I create web pages, so I like to take a look at my own pages in different browsers so I'll know how others are experiencing them. I currently have IE 7, Firefox and Opera installed on my primary desktop computer and I was eager to add Safari to the collection.
Download and installation of the beta took only a few minutes, but I made sure to create a restore point first, just in case. It was pretty non-intrusive; it did install an icon on the desktop, but interestingly it didn't open the browser after installation. I clicked the icon - and immediately got a message that the program had stopped working. Subsequent attempts rendered the same result. Although it was advertised as being for XP or Vista, my installation of Vista apparently didn't like it.
I tried changing the compatibility settings on the Safari.exe program to run in XP compatibility mode. That's worked for a number of programs that didn't work on Vista right off the bat, but it had no effect here. Next I tried running as an administrator. That didn't work, either. Okay, maybe - even though it didn't say so in the installation instructions - it required a reboot. I closed everything and restarted the computer. Still no Safari for me.
Not one to give up that easily, I next tried to install Safari on a couple of XP machines - first one that belonged to my Windows domain and then, when I was unsuccessful again, on one that wasn't a domain member. This time I got a little further - Safari detected my proxy server and asked for my credentials. I had high hopes. However, after I entered them, I got the XP dialog box telling me that Safari had encountered a problem and needs to close.
If I canceled the proxy dialog box, I couldn't access any web sites, but I could examine the Safari menus and Help files. Unfortunately, the Help files provided no help for my problem. The good news was that the installation attempt didn't cause any problems for the OS or other programs, but darn it, I had used Safari on OS X and wanted to get a chance to actually use it to view web pages on XP or Vista.
Tom started mulling over the problem with me, and we came up with one last idea, based on the request for proxy credentials on the XP computer. Maybe the proxy authentication wasn't working correctly. He headed upstairs to the server room and turned off proxy authentication on the ISA Server that's installed on our network edge. Sure enough, Safari then worked fine.
It's not a very practical solution. For security purposes, we're not going to leave authentication turned off just so we can use the Safari browser. But at least we did track down what was causing the problem, and I got a chance to take a brief look at the browser.
The interface is the familiar OS X look (which I rather like). Its window frames are not transparent in Vista, though. And yes, it is fast. In side-by- side tests, it opened most pages more quickly than IE and Firefox, but not by a lot. In fact, the other two browsers sped up a lot when proxy authentication was off, too.
I had one immediate complaint: when you click in the address bar, it doesn't highlight the whole address as IE and Firefox both do, so you can type in a new one without dragging to highlight and delete the old one. Minor, but annoying. Also, as with all OS X programs, you can't resize the window by just grabbing the edge anywhere; you have to grab it at the bottom left corner. That can take some getting used to.
As promised, it imported my IE bookmarks without asking (not sure if that's good or bad). The way it handles bookmarks is interesting; there is a bookmarks tab that you can choose to show or hide. SnapBack also works as described, and I think I could get to like that feature.
Note that the initial release had some security problems, but Apple released an update on Thursday (June 14) to fix the vulnerabilities. Be sure you have version 3.0.1. If you have the Apple Update software installed, it'll be pushed to you through that. And you may want to read this article from Larry Seltzer that discusses the "halo effect" before installing Safari.
If you still want to give it a try, you can download the Safari beta here.
Let me know how you like it and whether you encounter any problems running it on Windows. Also tell us: what's your favorite web browser, and why? Do you use more than one browser? What features would you like to see on the ideal web browser?
Deb Shinder
Here's the way it's broken down as of May 2007, according to the Market Shares web site run by Net Applications: Windows XP currently enjoys a little over 82 percent of the market, with other Windows operating systems making up another 11 percent or so.
Macs come in second with almost 9 and half percent (includes both MacOS and MacIntel), and Linux - despite open source advocates' best efforts - is reported with less than 1 percent of the market. The numbers don't add up to 100 percent because a few other specialty operating systems, such as Hiptop (for mobile phones) and PSP (for gaming consoles) are also included in the statistics, but the top three dominate desktop computing.
The web browser is arguably the most used piece of software on most computers and similarly, the browser wars have been primarily a battle between three contenders: Internet Explorer (with almost 79 percent), Firefox (with just over fourteen and a half percent) and Safari (with almost 5 percent). There are many other browsers available, including the one-time favorite Netscape, Opera, Konqueror and versions of Mozilla, but the rest all show under 1 percent of market share.
Safari has, up until now, suffered a disadvantage in this contest. Since it ran only on Macs, and Macs are on less than 10 percent of computers, most users weren't able to run or even try the browser.
Thus, most folks, when you say "alternative web browser," think only of Firefox. But now, if you happen to like the Safari web browser that comes with Mac OS X, but prefer to use Windows (or have to at work), now you can take a Safari without switching your OS. Apple has just released a version of Safari for Windows.
Some pundits warn that it's just a ploy to lure Windows users over to the Mac. Others applaud the ability to use Mac programs they like without having to switch platforms. Some speculate the Safari for Windows release will hurt Firefox more than IE. Whatever your opinion may be, it was downloaded more than a million times in its first two days of availability. Somebody must be interested.
This release is a beta, and it was announced by Steve Jobs at the Worldwide Developers' Conference 2007 last week. The Windows version has the safe features as the one that runs on OS X. Apples claims that Safari runs twice as fast as IE and significantly faster than Firefox. Since the need for speed seems to be a common trait of computer users, this makes Safari look like an attractive alternative.
It also boasts some interesting features such as SnapBack, a button that lets you instantly go back to the top level of a web site after browsing deeply into it or create an anchor point to snap back to after browsing through many links and sites. And it has a security feature called "private browsing" that lets you turn off storage of search results, cookies, site history, download history and other normally cached information, instead of having to erase those caches after the fact.
I wanted to find out for myself. I always install multiple browsers, for several reasons. Some web sites won't render properly (or at all) in one browser but look fine in another. And I create web pages, so I like to take a look at my own pages in different browsers so I'll know how others are experiencing them. I currently have IE 7, Firefox and Opera installed on my primary desktop computer and I was eager to add Safari to the collection.
Download and installation of the beta took only a few minutes, but I made sure to create a restore point first, just in case. It was pretty non-intrusive; it did install an icon on the desktop, but interestingly it didn't open the browser after installation. I clicked the icon - and immediately got a message that the program had stopped working. Subsequent attempts rendered the same result. Although it was advertised as being for XP or Vista, my installation of Vista apparently didn't like it.
I tried changing the compatibility settings on the Safari.exe program to run in XP compatibility mode. That's worked for a number of programs that didn't work on Vista right off the bat, but it had no effect here. Next I tried running as an administrator. That didn't work, either. Okay, maybe - even though it didn't say so in the installation instructions - it required a reboot. I closed everything and restarted the computer. Still no Safari for me.
Not one to give up that easily, I next tried to install Safari on a couple of XP machines - first one that belonged to my Windows domain and then, when I was unsuccessful again, on one that wasn't a domain member. This time I got a little further - Safari detected my proxy server and asked for my credentials. I had high hopes. However, after I entered them, I got the XP dialog box telling me that Safari had encountered a problem and needs to close.
If I canceled the proxy dialog box, I couldn't access any web sites, but I could examine the Safari menus and Help files. Unfortunately, the Help files provided no help for my problem. The good news was that the installation attempt didn't cause any problems for the OS or other programs, but darn it, I had used Safari on OS X and wanted to get a chance to actually use it to view web pages on XP or Vista.
Tom started mulling over the problem with me, and we came up with one last idea, based on the request for proxy credentials on the XP computer. Maybe the proxy authentication wasn't working correctly. He headed upstairs to the server room and turned off proxy authentication on the ISA Server that's installed on our network edge. Sure enough, Safari then worked fine.
It's not a very practical solution. For security purposes, we're not going to leave authentication turned off just so we can use the Safari browser. But at least we did track down what was causing the problem, and I got a chance to take a brief look at the browser.
The interface is the familiar OS X look (which I rather like). Its window frames are not transparent in Vista, though. And yes, it is fast. In side-by- side tests, it opened most pages more quickly than IE and Firefox, but not by a lot. In fact, the other two browsers sped up a lot when proxy authentication was off, too.
I had one immediate complaint: when you click in the address bar, it doesn't highlight the whole address as IE and Firefox both do, so you can type in a new one without dragging to highlight and delete the old one. Minor, but annoying. Also, as with all OS X programs, you can't resize the window by just grabbing the edge anywhere; you have to grab it at the bottom left corner. That can take some getting used to.
As promised, it imported my IE bookmarks without asking (not sure if that's good or bad). The way it handles bookmarks is interesting; there is a bookmarks tab that you can choose to show or hide. SnapBack also works as described, and I think I could get to like that feature.
Note that the initial release had some security problems, but Apple released an update on Thursday (June 14) to fix the vulnerabilities. Be sure you have version 3.0.1. If you have the Apple Update software installed, it'll be pushed to you through that. And you may want to read this article from Larry Seltzer that discusses the "halo effect" before installing Safari.
If you still want to give it a try, you can download the Safari beta here.
Let me know how you like it and whether you encounter any problems running it on Windows. Also tell us: what's your favorite web browser, and why? Do you use more than one browser? What features would you like to see on the ideal web browser?
Deb Shinder
Monday, June 18, 2007
Computer Cookies and How They Crumble
By ALEX MINDLIN
Published: June 18, 2007
Tiny files called “cookies” are the lifeblood of online advertising. When a computer visits a site or sees an ad for the first time, the site’s server slips a cookie onto the visitor’s hard drive, identifying the computer in future dealings with that site or ad network. Cookies let online hosts determine the number of unique visitors they reach, a key metric for advertisers.
But this system of measurement has a well-known flaw: users are prone to delete their cookies, either manually or by using antispyware programs. Users who delete a cookie are eventually given a new one by that cookie’s issuer, meaning that they are often counted as unique visitors, inflating the numbers at host sites.
In a recently released study, the research firm comScore examined the fate of two commonly issued cookies across a panel of roughly 400,000 computers last December. It found that only 7.1 percent of the computers deleted their cookies four or more times over the month. But these “serial deleters” accounted for a grossly disproportionate share of the servers’ apparent traffic, receiving 35.3 percent of the total number of cookies observed.
Published: June 18, 2007
Tiny files called “cookies” are the lifeblood of online advertising. When a computer visits a site or sees an ad for the first time, the site’s server slips a cookie onto the visitor’s hard drive, identifying the computer in future dealings with that site or ad network. Cookies let online hosts determine the number of unique visitors they reach, a key metric for advertisers.
But this system of measurement has a well-known flaw: users are prone to delete their cookies, either manually or by using antispyware programs. Users who delete a cookie are eventually given a new one by that cookie’s issuer, meaning that they are often counted as unique visitors, inflating the numbers at host sites.
In a recently released study, the research firm comScore examined the fate of two commonly issued cookies across a panel of roughly 400,000 computers last December. It found that only 7.1 percent of the computers deleted their cookies four or more times over the month. But these “serial deleters” accounted for a grossly disproportionate share of the servers’ apparent traffic, receiving 35.3 percent of the total number of cookies observed.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Privacy Group Gives Google Lowest Possible Grade
The Washington Post is reporting on a finding by London-based group Privacy International. In a new report, they find that Google has some of the worst privacy-protection practices anywhere on the web, giving them the lowest possible grade. "While a number of other Internet companies have troubling policies, none comes as close to Google to 'achieving status as an endemic threat to privacy,' Privacy International said in an explanation of its findings. In a statement from one of its lawyers, Google said it aggressively protects its users' privacy and stands behind its track record. In its most conspicuous defense of user privacy, Google last year successfully fought a U.S. Justice Department subpoena demanding to review millions of search requests."
Friday, June 8, 2007
comScore: Cookie Deletion Skews Site Stats
Market research firm says cookie deletion can lead Web sites to substantially over-estimate their number of visitors...and publishes a white paper to detail its stance.
In the Internet advertising game, the number of visitors and hits a site can draw is the name of the game, so there's a battle between companies, like Nielsen NetRatings and comScore Media Metrics, who attempt to measure the vistorship and user bases of major Internet sites, and those sites themselves, who sometimes claim these media analysis numbers can't possibly be right, because their own server logs show substantially higher levels of use. The sites are up in arms because the amount of ad money they bring is is tightly bound to these ratings, and the analysis firms aren't big on disclosing their rating methodologies.
Back in April, Internet Advertising Bureau head Randall Rothenberg had had enough, and posted an open letter to the two largest ratings firms (comScore and Nielsen) essentially demanding they disclose their methodologies and prove their numbers are on the money. In response, last month, Nielsen announced it would submit its audience measurement system to the Media Rating Council's accredidation process, essentially opening up to an independent audit to justify its numbers.
Comscore hasn't decided to open up to an audit, but it defends the accuracy of its Web usership numbers, and today published a white paper highlighting how cookie deletion can cause sites to inflate their number of users by as much as 2.5 times. Cookies are little snippets of data Web sites can request Web browser software store on a computer; when users go back to the site—or a site which knows about a particular cookie—the site can ask if you have its cookie, and, if so, ask for it back. The data stored in cookies can have significant privacy implications (as borne out through the DoubleClick fiasco back in the early dot-com boom), but many sites still use the technology to identify returning visitors and analyze users "paths" through a site, measuring what visitors load and what they don't.
With the privacy concern over cookies, many Web browsers and add-ons now include tools which let users decline cookies, automatically reject them from third-party sites, delete them altogether based on criteria or a certain period of time, and otherwise directly manage how cookies are used on their systems—if they so choose. comScore argues that these tools—combined with users' increasing propensity to use multiple browsers, multiple computers, and run security software, often lead sites to over-estimate the number of unique visitors they have. Instead, comScore argues, the sites are often assigning new cookies to returning users and inflating their audience numbers.
Next move? Expect sites unhappy with their audience measurement numbers to fire back, explaining they know all about cookie deletion and have already accounted for it in their own numbers—which are still higher than comScore's.
In the Internet advertising game, the number of visitors and hits a site can draw is the name of the game, so there's a battle between companies, like Nielsen NetRatings and comScore Media Metrics, who attempt to measure the vistorship and user bases of major Internet sites, and those sites themselves, who sometimes claim these media analysis numbers can't possibly be right, because their own server logs show substantially higher levels of use. The sites are up in arms because the amount of ad money they bring is is tightly bound to these ratings, and the analysis firms aren't big on disclosing their rating methodologies.
Back in April, Internet Advertising Bureau head Randall Rothenberg had had enough, and posted an open letter to the two largest ratings firms (comScore and Nielsen) essentially demanding they disclose their methodologies and prove their numbers are on the money. In response, last month, Nielsen announced it would submit its audience measurement system to the Media Rating Council's accredidation process, essentially opening up to an independent audit to justify its numbers.
Comscore hasn't decided to open up to an audit, but it defends the accuracy of its Web usership numbers, and today published a white paper highlighting how cookie deletion can cause sites to inflate their number of users by as much as 2.5 times. Cookies are little snippets of data Web sites can request Web browser software store on a computer; when users go back to the site—or a site which knows about a particular cookie—the site can ask if you have its cookie, and, if so, ask for it back. The data stored in cookies can have significant privacy implications (as borne out through the DoubleClick fiasco back in the early dot-com boom), but many sites still use the technology to identify returning visitors and analyze users "paths" through a site, measuring what visitors load and what they don't.
With the privacy concern over cookies, many Web browsers and add-ons now include tools which let users decline cookies, automatically reject them from third-party sites, delete them altogether based on criteria or a certain period of time, and otherwise directly manage how cookies are used on their systems—if they so choose. comScore argues that these tools—combined with users' increasing propensity to use multiple browsers, multiple computers, and run security software, often lead sites to over-estimate the number of unique visitors they have. Instead, comScore argues, the sites are often assigning new cookies to returning users and inflating their audience numbers.
Next move? Expect sites unhappy with their audience measurement numbers to fire back, explaining they know all about cookie deletion and have already accounted for it in their own numbers—which are still higher than comScore's.
Monday, June 4, 2007
Privacy Concerns with Internet and Computer Cookies
While using the Web the term “cookie” is often used. Many people don’t even realize this is a technical term and most people have no idea what it is. By definition, a cookie is a small amount of data which usually includes a unique number or string of characters to identify you. If the web site you are visiting uses cookies, their computers send this cookie to your browser which is saved on your computer’s hard drive. If you have you have configured your settings to allow web sites to send you cookies, each site can send, view or edit the cookie that they have placed on your hard drive. For privacy concerns, web sites are not allowed to view cookies placed on your hard drive by other web sites.
With the increase in the number of web sites that are using cookies, privacy advocates are concerned that these little amounts of data stored on their hard drive could pose concerns about their privacy. All Internet browsers give you the option to accept, reject or notify you each time a cookie is sent to your computer but if you simply choose to reject all cookies, you will not be able to use a lot of web sites including many of them that require you to log in like Google or Yahoo.
Advantages of Cookies
- Cookies help web sites customize their site for you. The information stored on that cookie communicates with the web site each time you come back. It can remember pages you have been to or on shopping sites, it can help you track a wish list so you can easily reference these items later.
- Many web sites give you options or preferences for their web site. You may be able to control what pops up when you first log in or simple things like the size of the font and color of the background. Cookies retain this information so you don’t have to change these preferences every time you go back to a web site.
- Since cookies retain information about some of the different pages you visit, the web site you are using can use this information to display advertisements that are directed more to you and your tastes. Instead of seeing advertisements that have nothing to do with you, you may see some advertisements that you find interesting.
- Many web sites also use the information on cookies to conduct research and help improve their web sites. Cookies can also be used to detect illegal activities on the web.
Disadvantages of Cookies.
- The major disadvantage of allowing web sites to send your computer cookies is issues with privacy. Many people don’t want to be identified on the web and have their moves tracked.
- One of the advantages listed above had to do with advertisements being directed to you. Many people consider this a disadvantage because they don’t want marketers tracking their moves and pushing specific advertisements towards them.
- Your Internet browser which communicates with the web site’s computer may be giving up more information than you are aware of. Your browser and cookies can tell web sites what kind of computer you are using, what software and hardware you use, what link you used to find their site and possibly your e-mail address if it is listed within the options or cookie. Depending on your Internet Service Provider (ISP), some web sites will request your identity when you navigate to their page. Many firewalls currently block this request but if you are not protected, you may be freely giving this information away.
- The cookie contains a number that is specific to you, similar to a serial number. It’s unique and you are the only one using it. Because of this, each time you click on a link, the web site can identify that it was you and where you are going based on this unique number. Your hobbies and web habits could potentially be sold to advertising companies that will direct their efforts to your specific hobbies and bombard you with all kinds of unwanted advertising.
Cookies can make the web a more enjoyable experience but if you are concerned about your privacy and potential unwanted advertising, check your browser options to turn them off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)