A rather techie question - not sure if this is not the rig..

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:06:39 -0000 "William Tasso"
<SpamBlocked RemoveThis @tbdata.com> broke off from drinking a cup of tea at href=" <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.WilliamTasso.com/" target="_blank">http://www.WilliamTasso.com/"> William Tasso </a> to write:

 >Matt Probert wrote:
  >> ...
  >> It would appear that 75% of requests for pages to our server are dealt
  >> with by caches around the world (that is, for every one request our
  >> server handles, three others go unnoticed).
 >
 >That's nice, but how did you calculate 75% ?
 >

I *knew* someone would ask, and you *know* I can explain <g>

I compared advertising agency banner impressions (cache busting) with
server page requests. The banner impressions were 4x the page
requests.

Matt<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: A rather techie question - not sure if this is not the rig.. 

"david" <gohka.DeleteThis@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:8545b71e.0311300423.b452566@posting.google.com...
 > Igor Slyusar <me.DeleteThis@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:<mm4s3bjmon95.1tjwx1lh77i4z.dlg.DeleteThis@40tude.net>...
  > > On 28 Nov 2003 06:37:50 -0800, david wrote:
 >
  > > Very rare case. Only paranoids (or cretins) who think that cookies
threaten
  > > their privacy disable cookies.
  > >
 >
 > Hmm lol. so should I call myself paranoid or a cretin?
 >
 > Cretin sounds more fun.
 >
 > I am using IE tools-options-privacy tab-advanced and then choosing to
 > prompt on all cookies. This is a pain as I get popups from IE for each
 > new (ad) site with the message do I want to block. Alt+db blocks for
 > good so only a small pain.
 >
 > Looking for software to block cookies more automatically, it seems to
 > be a feature of most software that blocks popups. I would guess this
 > is very widely used right now although perhaps the cookie blocking is
 > not set on by default.
 >
 > Some time surfing (blocking sites from using cookies one-by-one) tells
 > me that many ads are using cookies. I assume they are third party ad
 > companies buying space on news sites (guardian, ny times, bbc,
 > telegraaf, etc.) This means the offline equivalent of allowing cookies
 > is allowing your local radio advertiser to know what other media you
 > read and even which articles you were interested in. I simply don't
 > trust such people not to misuse that info and make themselves a pain
 > in the ass at some point with unwanted and intrusive ads. So if I can
 > block them I will.
 >
I think you mis-understand how cookies work and the advantages they can
apply.

Quite a lot of sites I visit regularly - particularly the interactive ones -
use cookies to present the info I require and to present it that way I want
it.

Many sites with shoping carts only function if you allow cookies - as do
many sites that require an encypted password.

As for allowing sites to collect data on you via cookies - that can only
happen if you allow it, eg, by visiting the site in question. Yes, sometimes
we go to sites un-intended, being wise, we can then leave and never return.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: A rather techie question - not sure if this is not the rig.. 

Bill Logan wrote:
 > "david" <gohka DeleteThis @eudoramail.com> wrote in message
 > news:8545b71e.0311300423.b452566@posting.google.com...
  >> Igor Slyusar <me DeleteThis @privacy.net> wrote in message
 > news:<mm4s3bjmon95.1tjwx1lh77i4z.dlg DeleteThis @40tude.net>...
   >>> On 28 Nov 2003 06:37:50 -0800, david wrote:
  >>
   >>> Very rare case. Only paranoids (or cretins) who think that cookies
   >>> threaten their privacy disable cookies.
   >>>
  >>
  >> Hmm lol. so should I call myself paranoid or a cretin?
  >>
  >> Cretin sounds more fun.
  >>
  >> I am using IE tools-options-privacy tab-advanced and then choosing to
  >> prompt on all cookies. This is a pain as I get popups from IE for
  >> each new (ad) site with the message do I want to block. Alt+db
  >> blocks for good so only a small pain.
  >>
  >> Looking for software to block cookies more automatically, it seems to
  >> be a feature of most software that blocks popups. I would guess this
  >> is very widely used right now although perhaps the cookie blocking is
  >> not set on by default.
  >>
  >> Some time surfing (blocking sites from using cookies one-by-one)
  >> tells me that many ads are using cookies. I assume they are third
  >> party ad companies buying space on news sites (guardian, ny times,
  >> bbc, telegraaf, etc.) This means the offline equivalent of allowing
  >> cookies is allowing your local radio advertiser to know what other
  >> media you read and even which articles you were interested in. I
  >> simply don't trust such people not to misuse that info and make
  >> themselves a pain in the ass at some point with unwanted and
  >> intrusive ads. So if I can block them I will.
  >>
 > I think you mis-understand how cookies work and the advantages they
 > can apply.
 >
 > Quite a lot of sites I visit regularly - particularly the interactive
 > ones - use cookies to present the info I require and to present it
 > that way I want it.

That's one cookie allowed when setting user prefs

 > Many sites with shoping carts only function if you allow cookies - as
 > do many sites that require an encypted password.

That's one site that gets to set cookies then. This is too trivial

 > As for allowing sites to collect data on you via cookies - that can
 > only happen if you allow it, eg, by visiting the site in question.
 > Yes, sometimes we go to sites un-intended, being wise, we can then
 > leave and never return.

The point here is the 3rd party cookies, cookies in frames/iframes.

--
William Tasso - <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://WilliamTasso.com" target="_blank">http://WilliamTasso.com</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: A rather techie question - not sure if this is not the rig.. 

"William Tasso" <SpamBlocked.DeleteThis@tbdata.com> wrote in message
news:bqdtu0$20hik5$1@ID-139074.news.uni-berlin.de...
 > Bill Logan wrote:
  > > "david" <gohka.DeleteThis@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
  > > news:8545b71e.0311300423.b452566@posting.google.com...
   > >> Igor Slyusar <me.DeleteThis@privacy.net> wrote in message
  > > news:<mm4s3bjmon95.1tjwx1lh77i4z.dlg.DeleteThis@40tude.net>...
   > >>> On 28 Nov 2003 06:37:50 -0800, david wrote:
   > >>
   > >>> Very rare case. Only paranoids (or cretins) who think that cookies
   > >>> threaten their privacy disable cookies.
   > >>>
   > >>
   > >> Hmm lol. so should I call myself paranoid or a cretin?
   > >>
   > >> Cretin sounds more fun.
   > >>
   > >> I am using IE tools-options-privacy tab-advanced and then choosing to
   > >> prompt on all cookies. This is a pain as I get popups from IE for
   > >> each new (ad) site with the message do I want to block. Alt+db
   > >> blocks for good so only a small pain.
   > >>
   > >> Looking for software to block cookies more automatically, it seems to
   > >> be a feature of most software that blocks popups. I would guess this
   > >> is very widely used right now although perhaps the cookie blocking is
   > >> not set on by default.
   > >>
   > >> Some time surfing (blocking sites from using cookies one-by-one)
   > >> tells me that many ads are using cookies. I assume they are third
   > >> party ad companies buying space on news sites (guardian, ny times,
   > >> bbc, telegraaf, etc.) This means the offline equivalent of allowing
   > >> cookies is allowing your local radio advertiser to know what other
   > >> media you read and even which articles you were interested in. I
   > >> simply don't trust such people not to misuse that info and make
   > >> themselves a pain in the ass at some point with unwanted and
   > >> intrusive ads. So if I can block them I will.
   > >>
  > > I think you mis-understand how cookies work and the advantages they
  > > can apply.
  > >
  > > Quite a lot of sites I visit regularly - particularly the interactive
  > > ones - use cookies to present the info I require and to present it
  > > that way I want it.
 >
 > That's one cookie allowed when setting user prefs
 >
  > > Many sites with shoping carts only function if you allow cookies - as
  > > do many sites that require an encypted password.
 >
 > That's one site that gets to set cookies then. This is too trivial
 >
  > > As for allowing sites to collect data on you via cookies - that can
  > > only happen if you allow it, eg, by visiting the site in question.
  > > Yes, sometimes we go to sites un-intended, being wise, we can then
  > > leave and never return.
 >
 > The point here is the 3rd party cookies, cookies in frames/iframes.
 >
My point is I cannot see how a cookie can collect data that is not given
A cookie can provide info on what page you visited or link clicked but
cannot wily-nily simply collect any data the visitor does not wish to
provide. Also, any data collected is more of a statistical nature rather
than personal info. The main exception being user-names passwords which
should be encrypted and the user should be aware they are being given.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: A rather techie question - not sure if this is not the rig.. 

  > > That's one site that gets to set cookies then. This is too trivial
  > >

Agree. Of course I too allow cookies for domains that offer something
& I want features to be enabled for that domain.



   > > > As for allowing sites to collect data on you via cookies - that can
   > > > only happen if you allow it, eg, by visiting the site in question.
   > > > Yes, sometimes we go to sites un-intended, being wise, we can then
   > > > leave and never return.
  > >
  > > The point here is the 3rd party cookies, cookies in frames/iframes.
  > >
 > My point is I cannot see how a cookie can collect data that is not given
 > A cookie can provide info on what page you visited or link clicked but
 > cannot wily-nily simply collect any data the visitor does not wish to
 > provide. Also, any data collected is more of a statistical nature rather
 > than personal info. The main exception being user-names passwords which
 > should be encrypted and the user should be aware they are being given.

Example:
If capialist-big-brother.com has an ad on my-shopping-site.com and it
stores a cookie including the page I was looking at.

When I later go to my-personal-sex-fetishes.com where
capialist-big-brother.com also has an ad they update the same cookie
(IF I LET THEM)

Then I go to my-local-area-site.com and they have an ad again they
store more info.

Less likely but if I type anything into a form they could be saving
that too.

The info they have collected is that I went to all three of those
sites (and which pages), posibly anything I typed in a form and that
is not info that I agreed to provide or even would be aware they had
collected about me. If I typed my address-email it's associated with
me, they have the IP on their web log so it can technically be traced
to my tel no. etc etc.

Personally I don't find it hugely important however given the choice
of allow them to collect the info or not, I choose not.

I suggest a majority of non-paranoid non-cretins would also choose NOT
if they had the situation explained to them - probably more
simplistically than I am able.

Read elsewhere that the EU will this month bring in a law requiring
consent for cookies. Should be the WTO with penalties for
non-compliant coutries of course but perhaps a step along the way to
enforcing better practice.


David.

Software author.
Web Log Analyzer by Search Term
(http://www.1keytools.com/wlabstfeatures.htm)
Kybie GetEmAll - Make IE an offline browser
(http://www.1keytools.com/offline_browser.htm)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: A rather techie question - not sure if this is not the rig..