Cookie monster

Cookie monster

: I like cookies. Cookies are good. Cookies are our friends.

Cookies remember my passwords, because I can’t. Cookies remember which ads I’ve suffered through so I don’t have to suffer through them again. Cookies can target content and ads to what I want. Most important, cookies allow sites to more accurately count their audience and traffic so advertisers can pay them to support those sites I like.

I am a cookie monster. I firmly believe we need more cookies. We need cookies on blogs so we, too, can make that money and support this medium. We need cookies on RSS so we can count that audience, too (everybody’s linking to TLB ecosystem traffic counts but the truth is that they’re pretty meaningless because they don’t include RSS readership — I’m now serving four times more RSS than HTML — because RSS isn’t cookied).

But there is an idiotic belief in some quarters that cookies are bad because they somehow impinge on our privacy — when, in fact, I dare anyone to say how a content site’s simple traffic-tracking cookie violates your privacy in any meaningful way.

Privacy is the boogeyword of the age. It is tech’s version of politically correct idiocy. All you have to do is invoke the spectre of “privacy” against someone and they’re assumed to be evil. It’s a particularly comical form of nerd McCarthyism: I have in my hand a list of cookies!

All this is leading to stupid moves that hurt the internet: its convenience, its revenue, its business.

Spyware programs massacre cookies (and with them, your passwords and other helpful bits). Firefox kills cookies on some regular basis. Cookies aren’t being built into new programs that matter, like RSS readers.

The result for publishers is that they can no longer accurately count their audience for advertisers, to support their work: At my old day job, we saw what looked like a rise in audience but in fact was a rise in cookie murders, making old friends look like new audience. Ad agencies will catch up to this and use it to devalue our new medium (which is already horribly devalued against overpriced old, mass, untargeted media).

So the media and marketing industries have decided to fight back. They started Safecount.org. I’m not a member and didn’t know it was starting up but Fred Wilson told me about it and I will sign up. See Fred’s anti-anti-cookie screed here. And here’s a Wall Street Journal story about the effort (free link).

It’s time to take the cooties off of cookies!

26 responses to “Cookie monster”

  1. GCW Avatar

    My computer. My Hard Disk.
    If I want one to remember my password, I’ll approve it.
    How would you feel if every time you bought a newspaper, the vendor put a little tattoo on your skin somewhere to count how many papers you’ve bought in your life?
    You’re looking at the consequences of not having cookies, which is fine, but why not look at other ways of keeping the online economy going without invasive methods?

  2. Michael Zimmer Avatar

    The use of cookies (esp. by companies like DoubleClick) threaten free and anonymous browsing. I should be able to visit sites with anonymity as the default setting, not something I need to tweak within my browser. We should follow the lead of the of the 2002 EU telecommunication privacy Directive (Article 5 Paragraph 3) which requires that users are informed of any cookie and have the right to refuse it.

  3. Pete Avatar

    Amazon.com is a great example of why online privacy matters. Amazon will charge different prices for their wares depending on what cookies customers have on their computers. I’ve seen instances where clearing the cookies from my browser has made a $5 difference on the price of a DVD. True, this invasion of privacy only costs me a little, but if Amazon can do this, then what else is being done with this information by sites that don’t have a reputation to lose like Amazon does?
    Tracking web traffic is a laudable goal, but we need a much more secure way of doing it than cookies. We should all be demanding that the computer industry comes up with a better way because you are correct that it would benefit everyone.

  4. Jeff Jarvis Avatar

    Michael:
    That is so much lazy cant. “Free and anonymous browsing.” What does that mean and who says it’s a right? What’s the damage to you in a cookie that tracks unique audience so the creator of that free content you can take in anonymously can get paid by an advertiser? And you study media? How do you think media is supported?
    GCW:
    Well, it’s my content and I’m not charging you to see it. But that’s the alternative, isn’t it? That’s the way you get around cookie killers to support sites: Require registration… or charge. Cookies are a very tiny price to pay. They carry no price at all.

  5. John Avatar

    Choice…I find it a little ironic that Jeff, a firm believer in choice of the content we want delivered to us, (via RSS, Tivo, or other devices/tools) is such a strong defender of cookies. Based on his post it would seem that he wants us to passively accept content, and data that in most cases we don’t want. It is a free marketplace, and itís not my responsibility because I am on line to make my PC available to advertisers and content providers because they provide “free” content. On a personal note, my PC was recently trashed due to some spyware/virus issues and its a happy, content PC now that I am running Webroot Spysweeper and MS beta anti-spyware sweeper. I didn’t even know that it was ridding me of cookies.

  6. Michael Zimmer Avatar

    Jeff – on the right to anonymous browsing, read Georgetown Law professor Julie Cohen’s excellent article A Right to Read Anonymously: A Closer Look at “Copyright Management” In Cyberspace, where she ties the right to read anonymously to the right of free speech: “The right to read anonymously…is predicated on the likely chilling effect that exposure of a readerís tastes would have on expressive conduct, broadly understood ó not only speech itself, but also the information-gathering activities that precede speech”
    And, yes, I study culture and communication. Yes, I understand that our dominant media system is advertising supported. (Try not to be so condescending.) We’re talking about cookies here, and, while some sites use cookies responsibly to help earn advertising dollars, not all uses of cookies are anonymous nor benign.

  7. Barry Avatar

    For someone who obviously spends an inordinate amount of time on a computer, you have little knowledge of the power of cookies Jeff. Why don’t you just give me your credit card # and SSN now and save me the trouble of sending a cookie your way to get it for me?
    (btw, I’m really not threatening to do any of that, it’s a hyperbole for the use of example to the destructive power of such a ‘useful’ tool).

  8. William Letendre Avatar

    As much as I like the idea of cookies, from a technical point of view they’re very very dangerous. Here’s why. Any site you visit can place a cookie on your PC through a Java applet embedded in their web page. You should know that if an application can place a cookie on your PC, they’re also capable of READING *all* of your other cookies and downloading them. Cookies are kept in a public folder in your Windows directory. That web site now knows much of your internet browsing sites and your viewing habits, including those porn sites you may occasionally visit. Yes – porn sites also drop cookies on your PC. Not only that, but the cookies retrieved from your PC may also have your encrypted passwords. How do you know how safe the encryption was on that site where you left a login and password combination? The encryption can be broken very easily. As a long-time software developer, I know this can be done. I like the convenience of Amazon’s one click purchase and pricing decisions based on my buying habits, but I’ll gladly give that up to secure my privacy. I wipe out ALL my internet history, cookies, and off-line files after each session. And – I sleep well at night.

  9. robertdfeinman Avatar

    Other ways to track visitors:
    Visitors can be tracked by machine IP address (not perfect for those with IP assigned each time by ISP). Or they can use MAC address with a little more effort (unique to a given PC).
    Visitors can be tracked by allowing people to login to site (can be automated in browser by saved form information).
    Google not only keeps track of visitors, but correlates each visit to a record of all searches done. This is for “demographic” purposes, but if I search for TNT one day will I have the FBI visiting me the next?
    The problem with cookies is that for most people they aren’t aware that they are being tracked.

  10. Itinerant Librarian Avatar

    From someone who otherwise seems both savvy and respectful of freedoms and privacy, I find this defense of cookies simply. . .disturbing? I have to agree with the various readers here when it comes to concerns of privacy. Companies do not need to know what else I am looking at on the internet. Not to mention all the baggage that cookies leave when they start piling up. Like other commenters here, I also clear out ALL those history files and folders after I surf. Giving up your privacy should not be an acceptable price for convenience, definitely not something to simply dismiss.

  11. Old Grouch Avatar
    Old Grouch

    I’ve been routinely blocking cookies since about 5 years ago, when, in response to an article on Slashdot, I opened up my cookies.txt file and looked at what was in it.
    Bottom line: For every cookie that might be useful to me (or useful to a site I might want to support) there were– literally– dozens from adservers and browsing trackers like doubleclick, al-awola, servedby.advertising.com, webtrends, extremecounter, etc. I have no relationship with any of these guys (and don’t want to), so no cookies for them. And because I don’t want to spend endless hours culling the junk out of my cookies.txt, no cookies for anybody else– unless I switch them on, which I do for rogersimon.com (and other Typekey sites), timblair.net, rantburg.com, and littlegreenfootballs. (Plus a couple of e-commerce sites I routinely do business with.) Note the distinction: *I* switch cookies on when *I* get a benefit from doing so.
    Bottom line: The advertising and data-mining people have pissed in the punchbowl. Safecount looks like it might be a way to regain some user trust (the homepage and FAQ are pretty content-free), but until I have finer controls on my browser (ideally a “whitelist” that would let me permit a “buzzmachine.com” cookie while blocking “nasty-data-miners.biz” that might be on the same page), then I’m leaving cookies off, thank you.
    And if the content creators decide to make first-party cookies mandatory, there’s always the HOSTS file. As you’ve said before, the user *is* in control. Get used to it!

  12. Cal Avatar

    Well here’s my question. I do not delete cookies every night, but probably a few times a week. I also run 2 different programs–spy bot and ad aware and also have anti-virus protection. So I know all that is good. But once they have a cookie, isn’t that enough? What does deleting them do if they were already allowed to set one? In other words, don’t they already have certain info even if you delete the cookie?
    Man…I sure hope my wife doesn’t find out that I’m on buzzmachine every night…

  13. Avatar Avatar

    Let me get this straight… you’re worried that periodic cookie-cleaning is going to affect your advertising numbers, because your advertisers will say “ha! Those aren’t new readers, they’re merely old readers who have wiped their cookies!”
    Yet you serve 4x as much through the RSS feed. Aren’t you being undercounted pretty terribly as it is?
    I’ve got to agree with the Grouch. I don’t particularly care that you’d like to be able to place cookies to track visits. I want to clean a lot of the cookies that I get because, frankly, they’re not from people I’m interested in talking to. Unfortunately, it’s a lot of effort to continually go through and comb my cookies to separate the good from the bad, and the benefit -I- get from your cookie is tiny compared to the amount of time it would take to manually spare it from my automated purging.
    (I mean, I don’t want to be rude, because I genuinely enjoy reading the site, but… it’s up -now-. Presumably this means the amount of advertising revenue you’re pulling in is sufficient to keep you interested in running it. I’m not necessarily opposed to you making more money off it, naturally, but not to the degree of taking steps that are against my own interest, right?)

  14. Jeff Jarvis Avatar

    Michael:
    There is much debate whether there is a right to hear and not just speak. I would argue that there is and so I’m surprised you wouldn’t argue with me that there isn’t. Sorry if you took offense (though I have to say the tone is similar to that which you use here often). I see that you do acknowledge that not all cookies are evil and that’s the point. Also, you acknowledge that media ventures — whether companies or individuals — have a financial interest in knowing their audience size and such.
    Others:
    A simple tracking cookie that says when you were last on this site or last saw this ad is, indeed, useful for sites to give advertisers reports on unique audience — aka reach — to their sites and the ads on them. It is a business necessity. The alternatives, again, are paying for sites, which we all hate, and registering, which we all dislike. A simple tracking cookie is not some evil sin against privacy. It simply says whether you’ve seen this page or ad before. No big. But not having it is a big deal.
    Avatar:
    Note that I dont have advertising here (yet). I’m talking with my big-media publishing hat on (quite dapper, don’t you think?). I paid penance on the Audit Bureau of Circulation committee that defined the page view and unique audience and all that. I also know what advertisers demand. And advertisers are the ones paying the freight — though not enough of it — for online services.
    Librarian:
    Well, yes, they do need to know if they’re going to support the content you’re looking at. The alternative, again, is to charge you for the site just as they charge you for the paper or the magazine or the book (or make you shlep to the library to see a tattered copy).
    There’s a less-PR-friendly way to put this that the industry group just formed wouldn’t say. But for the sake of argument (which is already underway, thank you), how about this choice:
    1. You have to accept cookies to get to see a site.
    2. If you refuse to, you have to register — whicih means handing over even more personal information (e.g., a working email).
    3. If you refuse that, you have to pay, which means handing over a credit card, which is even more personal information.
    A simple cookie that says this person has seen this ad so I’m not going to subject her to it again is quite benign and even beneficial if it supports the content and services you enjoy.
    The alternatives are less enticing.
    And all the hysterics about privacy boogeymen is overblown.

  15. Ted Holmes Avatar

    Hi Jeff;
    Muck-raking at it’s best, Jeff :)
    I used to believe in the value of cookies to the end user because they initially made it easier for a trusted Website to recreate all of your preferences. When used for good, they’re great.
    But ad companies soon discovered that they could buy the information about you and your preferences from lots of different sites. By aggregating all of this info they could build a very clear profile of you as an Internet user. And the end users best interests were no longer the criteria to how this new knowledge would be marketed and deployed.
    What I don’t like is that this system escapes the natural democracy we love about the ‘net. It’s done surreptitiously because the aggregators *know* most people wouldn’t like their browsing habits tracked, bought, sold and aggregated without their explicit consent.
    However, there are workarounds. Anonymous browsers, cookie managers etc.
    But I think the collective desire for transparency and fairness opens a huge opportunity for new systems which *are* permission based. That’s all most people want. Creative solutions must already be on the drawing board.
    This too will pass.
    Ted
    ~~~~~
    Thoughts on the emergence of computing Intelligence

  16. John Dowdell Avatar

    Jeff, our understanding of this story has been misshaped by the reporting process — that Jupiter study of last spring which started the “consumers deleting cookies!” scare campaign really measured third-party cookies, not cookies from sites people actually visit:
    http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/5438.asp
    (The difference? On Jeff’s blog there are graphics hosted from Technorati, Sitemeter and MyYahoo, so these “third-party graphics” *can* trigger the Technorati, SiteMeter, and Yahoo cookies when people visit Jeff’s site. The Jupiter study showed that only 1% of consumers delete cookies from sites they actually visit! This is quite different from the retellings in the commercial press.)
    For RSS, even if you could cookify that XML, it wouldn’t help you determine readership via serverside aggregation, where one copy feeds many readers. I’m for keeping RSS/XML simple, compact and efficient… use HTML for all the bells’n’whistles. Maybe you could measure total XML readership by comparing clickthrough ratios on links in your text….
    In the comments above there’s some misinfo — I have not yet seen a real way for a page in one domain to read cookies set by another domain. (There were some old multi-frame cross-site exploits a few years back but those possibilities have been removed in recent browsers.) A Java applet can set a cookie just as *any* content can — a cookie is tied to the delivery of an asset, not the nature of the asset.
    MAIN POINT: I’ve seen little evidence that “consumers are deleting cookies from sites they visit” — professional news reporters are skipping the info that consumers are actually choosing privacy/security software which blocks third-party cookies, which *could* concivably be used for such cross-site tracking.
    (I’ve been following this controversy closely because one firm tried to use the Macromedia Flash Player to bypass such consumer choice, and we’ve had to deal with this statement of intent on their part.)
    Regards,
    John Dowdell
    Macromedia Support

  17. Michael Zimmer Avatar

    “There is much debate whether there is a right to hear and not just speak. I would argue that there is and so I’m surprised you wouldn’t argue with me that there isn’t.”
    Jeff- I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. My argument is based on the right to read anonymously – to be able to buy books, check out books, visit a website, etc without fear of surveillance.

  18. Jeff Jarvis Avatar

    Michael:It’s a side issue, really, but I’m not sure there is a right to hear or hear anonymously, either. On the latter: I could require you to give me your name and verify your identity before I let you read my publication; no one can force me to do otherwise. You can have a right not to have someone snooping on you without your consent (e.g., not releasing your library card) but a tracking cookie doesn’t do that. And it certainly does it to a lesser extent than other media: TiVo knows what you watch. Time Inc. knows what you read. The Times knows what you read, if you subscribe. If I cookied you, I wouldn’t know who you are, only that I can count you as new to me or to an ad. No privacy violation there. No violation of a right, real or imagained, to anonymity (unless I required registration).

  19. Jeff Jarvis Avatar

    John: I’ve had Firefox (which I love) do odd things to my cookies; I think — but dont know enough to demonstrate — that it deletes site cookies as well.
    And when I’ve seen some spyware programs work, they delete ALL cookies, I believe. I don’t use those programs, so I can’nt demonstrate that, either; but I saw that when my son helped a neighbor burdered with spyware the other day. I’ve also known people who go into their cookie folder and delete all. I take your point about third-party vs. site cookies but I think it is happening as reported in some quarters at least.
    As for RSS.. well, if content companies cannot count audience and get ad support for delivering via RSS, they at a minimum will not put out full-content feeds and will put out only headlines to drive traffic back to HTML where there is trackable advertising and that would be a sucky shame, since RSS is a damned convenient means of delivery. We should not shut off the discussion of RSS and cookies before it starts. Please.

  20. Tyler Avatar

    I am so surprised at all of the misinformation out there. Please forgive me for the next few sentences, but I only mention them to help establish some credibility.
    I am an application architect specializing in web applications, but have worked in many various IT capacities over the last decade. Nearly all of the web applications Iíve developed have had a very high need for security (ie. international banking, e-commerce, and contest web sites with some pretty appealing prizes). Iíve done projects for Disney, Discover, Con Agra and a number of other high profile companies where security on both the client (browser) and server have been of utmost importance. I also used to teach Comptiaís Inet+ certification Okay, enough of thatÖsorry.
    This topic drives me crazy every time I hear it repeated. Itís like one of those old wives tales that somehow seems to keep hanging on due to the propagation of misinformation; so let me say this loudly. THERE IS NO WAY THAT ONE WEB SITE CAN READ COOKIES ISSUED BY ANOTHER WEB SITE. This is a huge security violation that no major browser would allow. In other words, a cookie issued by xyz.com can only read cookies issued by xyz.com, period.
    Cookies are small text files that are issued by a web server. They canít hold any specifically identifying information you have not already given up to the web site that issues it. For instance, if youíve filled in a web form in which youíve posted info about yourself, some of that information can be stored in a cookie. Otherwise, the website knows very little about you and has no way of getting it without you somehow providing it. If you are using a website that stores credit card information or other unencrypted information that is security related (ie username or password in plain text) stop using that site. They are morons and are likely to have other security issues. The other danger here is that anybody that can access your computer can read those plain text files.
    There are a number of other security related issues that often get mixed in when talking about cookies. This generally does more to confuse the situation rather than clarify. Even here people have talked about third party cookies, java applets, and I believe some other security issues; and really havenít clarified much as it sounds like most people here are opposed to cookies. For instance, if someone has allowed a java applet to run in their browser as mentioned above, that applet could do much more damage than just read and write cookies, but this has more to do with user actions than with cookies. Opposing cookies for social reasons is one thing, but opposing them for fear of security issues is based on incomplete or inaccurate information. I am almost obsessive about security and I donít mind cookies a bit, although I do occasionally spot check and clean them out.
    This next part is just my opinion, but I am not opposed to cookies for social reasons as well because I view the web as a give and take situation. For websites to be able to provide free content, they have to be able to make enough money to stay afloat, or even make a small profit. There are many sites that I used to visit and no longer do because they started to charge for access. I like them, but not enough to pay and even if I were willing to pay, they will be collecting far more information from me when I sign up than most sites will ever know about me.
    I donít want to take up any more space on Jeffís site with a mammoth post, but I would be more than happy to expound more on this topic and even answer some questions on my own site if anybody wishes. The key thing to remember is that cookies by themselves are not bad. Itís only when you compromise your computerís security in some way that you can run into problems. If anyone wants more explanation on this, just let me know. You can contact me at http://www.BlogaFeller.com/
    Thanks.

  21. Michael Zimmer Avatar

    Jeff – while subscription services like NYTimes or TiVo know what I am reading & watching, it is my choice to subscribe to those. And, while it is also one’s choice to visit a website, people are less likely to understand that such sites place cookies on their computers without their knowledge or express consent. That’s a combination of how the technology works and a lack of education. Again, I think the biggest problem with cookies/browsers is that the default setting is that they are enabled, and it takes some savvy in order to turn them off.

  22. The Cookie Wookie Avatar
    The Cookie Wookie

    Tyler wrote: I am almost obsessive about security and I don’t mind cookies a bit, although I do occasionally spot check and clean them out.
    Why? They’re perfectly safe. ;)
    First, my stats: I code content, much of which employs cookies for usage tracking and user authentication. (I hate them, but it’s how I make my money. I make enough of it that at least someone thinks that I know something about cookies. (The fools!!!)
    Tyler, the working assumption of your post is that folks are ignorant. Well, okay. Some are. But that would seem to include the substance of your objection: that one server cannot read another’s cookies. Either this is a red-herring, or you simply don’t understand the source of the privacy problem.
    Visits to sites often result in the transfer of cookies from third-parties to and from client machines. This is done by loading content from the third-party. These are not third-party cookies by technical definition; but they are cookies that are sent from and transmitted to servers and domains different from the site the client is visiting. And this creates a hell of a privacy problem. Let me create a practical scenario based on Jeff’s ideal cookie plan:
    I like to visit Jeff’s site. Per Jeff’s privacy-oriented concerns, one of his advertisers agrees to send a tracking cookie to the client machine and to record the URL that the client visits. But the advertiser will not collect any personally-identifiable information through Jeff, per agreement. Besides that, Jeff doesn’t require subscription and he knows nothing more about me than my IP address.
    So, I feel free to pay particular attention to Jeff’s more salacious posts. Sex, sex, sex, baby. Not every sexually-related topic, but only the ones that appeal to my specific interests. (Maybe other men? Younger women? Older women? Only Hispanic women?) Whatever my favorite material is, I click on the permalinks with those revealing URLs, and even post in the comments.
    Naturally, the advertiser characterizes each URL’s content — this is not only well within the limits imposed by the terms of the agreement, but is justifiable per Jeff’s intent: targetting ads to specific content.
    But there’s a problem. I’m also a subscriber to a business-content site. They do have my personal information. And since I’ve no reason to worry over whether an advertiser knows about my interests in various business articles, I accept that the site does share my information with trusted third-party advertisers who also use tracking cookies. And one of those advertisers happens to be the BuzzMachine advertiser that I just discussed.
    Using those tracking cookies, the advertiser now has far more information about me than I ever intended to share with it. As do their employees, and any hackers who happen to breach their security. And I know nothing about this company. Wouldn’t even recognize the name if you asked me. But they don’t just know that I’m into sex, but just what kinds of salacious stuff I’m into. Worth being slightly concerned? You bet.
    And this isn’t uncommon. Advertisers frequently gather far more information about users from subscription-based sites, also placing ads with tracking cookies on non-sub sites. It’s a great way to build a complete profile — not of an anonymous person, but of you. And that is exactly why we should be skeptical of cookies.
    Is this a grave privacy problem? Yes and no. If you’re mindful of the possible privacy intrusion, and ignore people who claim that no such intrusion is possible, then it isn’t a problem. Accept only cookies you must, and clean out your cookies regularly — like Tyler does. But if you decide to trust those folks who claim that cookies are “our friends,” you’re leaving yourself vulnerable.
    (Apologies for being long-winded. I’ve run across far too many otherwise tech-literate folks who simply don’t understand how cookies could possibly present a privacy concern. Sometimes, it takes a little bit to set them straight.)

  23. Tyler Avatar

    Ahhh…some friendly debate. I like this, and to be honest I kind of expected it. My original post was much longer than the one I submitted, but I edited it because it was far too long. In my original, I got into some of the stuff that “The Cookie Wookie” talks about, and actually a number of other cookie/security related issues. I refrained from doing that because my post was plenty long as it was and I didnít want to confuse the situation with lots of other stuff. Actually, I hesitate to call this debate because I agree with what Cookie Wookie says, but there are other ways to deal it.
    I will respond to Cookie Wookie and the 3rd party cookie situation he discusses. To expound on this for those non-nerd types and to make sure everyone is on the same page, when webmasters allow advertising on their sites they typically have to cut & paste some code into their site thus allowing the ads to be served. Most times this is a piece of javascript that calls back to the company serving the ads so that the ad can be served and tracked. These ad companies can then issue cookies because technically, they have served you a file. This is how the ad companies can track people from site to site provided the ad company has a big enough reach.
    The very easy way around this is to use your Advance Privacy Settings (this may be called something different depending on your browser) and block third party cookies. There are other browser settings as well that allow you to block or allow which sites you would like to allow cookies. In other words, the user/browser has control over the situation. The real thing to be wary of is allowing ActiveX controls and Java applets to run on your machine when you donít absolutely trust the source. This is how a lot of spyware, the real enemy, gets into peopleís computers. There are security settings for these as well. Be sure you set these or you could be handing control of your computer over to some unscrupulous webmaster.
    I could get into a lot more on security and safety, but this probably isnít the place to do that. I will, however, suggest 2 fee tools that people can use to help keep their systems clean, Ad-Aware and Spybot. I have no vested interest in suggesting these tools, other than wanting to be helpful. I too make my living from the internet, and therefore try to protect it from the scum bags that abuse it.
    Again, I would be happy to go into more detail on this and other security issues, but I donít think Jeff would appreciate too much of it. If I get a couple of emails [Admin@BlogaFeller.com ] from users I will be happy to answer some questions. Also, depending on responses, I am considering making a new category on my blog to address such issues. Cookie Wookie and any other knowledgeable source is invited to contribute as well.
    PS: Cookie Wookie you caught me with my hand in the cookie ÖuhÖ folder. Yes, I do occasionally look at my cookies to see what web sites are up to. Like I said, I donít want to be dealing with some knucklehead webmaster that has my password or cc info loaded into a cookie.
    Happy and safe computing to you all.

  24. AlphaPatriot Avatar

    I use cookies on my site to remember what skin the viewer wants. If you have a wide screen, you should be able to use it all, yes? This is an example of a good cookie.
    I use all kinds of anti-spyware programs. They keep the cookies I tell them to. The hundreds of others never make it to my hard drive.
    And although you can’t put cookies in your RSS feed, you can put your sitemeter graphic in (I do). At least you’ll get credit for the hit over at TLBs place.
    Also, I’ve seen more than a few RSS feeds with embedded advertisements. Should be something to look at, considering the amount of traffic you are getting.

  25. Vox Avatar

    Besides third party cookies, which I always block (I’m not visiting their site and so it is no business of theirs what site I am visiting), my main objection to cookies is simple – it isn’t my job to store your data. If you want to keep information about me, you find a way to do it on your end not mine.
    If your programmers aren’t clever enough to figure out a better method then you won’t know if I am new or returning…but that is not my problem. It isn’t my job to get revenue for the TV stations I watch, why should you require me to generate revenue for websites I read?

  26. Ian Lim Avatar

    Valuable info here, thanks for the share. If you want to hide what you are doing online then you should be using a VPN. There are some good ones here http://thebestproxyserver.com/overplay-review/