posted on August 7, 2001 10:08:52 AM
THat should not be allowed when they are placing cookies and applets on your system though!. THAT should be the real issue. And I believe that Congress will be interested.
Websites can put anything they want on their sites, insert any source code they want in their webpages. Visitors to websites do so voluntarily
Exactly ... that's my point. It's a non-issue as far as government goes.
This pop-up thing started when I complained to "Him" that I was getting porn pop-ups when visiting "His" site. "He" and "His" Disciples told me I was wrong and nothing but a Mr. Nagativity yada yada yada, the issue grew, and the rest is history.
posted on August 7, 2001 10:17:22 AM
Cookies don't just monitor your advertisement profile, they are also used to maintain things like stock portfolio data, individualized "MyPages" for sites like Yahoo, Webcrawler, etc. that offer personal formats, and the like.
There are bad cookies and good cookies.
We are obviously going to need the Cookie Police to sort through all of this.
typo.
[ edited by dimview on Aug 7, 2001 10:18 AM ]
posted on August 7, 2001 10:23:13 AM
Yes Dim, I understand about good and bad cookies. I am talking about the ones associated with spyware. These pop ups and ads are placing them on our files and registries. And they are coming from Flycast, and Fastclick.
Inow have a program that searches for the spyware, it picks out these cookies, but not the password ones for the sires etc., (the good ones)
posted on August 7, 2001 10:34:31 AMYes Dim, I understand about good and bad cookies. I am talking about the ones associated with spyware. These pop ups and ads are placing them on our files and registries. And they are coming from Flycast, and Fastclick.
All sites are visited voluntarily so I think that the websites can insert whatever source code they want on their webpages. Our decision is whether or not to visit those sites found to contain the source code that inserts cookies, changes registry entries, or launches pop-ups.
The solution is simple enough. If a website utilizes the "services" of Engage/Flycast, FastClick, or any of the other advertiser-oriented cookie manufacturers, delete that website from your browser's "favorites" or "bookmarks". And don't go back.
Inow have a program that searches for the spyware, it picks out these cookies, but not the password ones for the sires etc., (the good ones)
I presume your talking about Ad-Aware. That's fine for after-the-fact cleanup, but after you remove all those cookies and go back to the website, you'll find they've put new ones on your hard drive.
I suppose you really are looking for a "proxy" that analyzes the source code and passes it on to the browser. If a predefined cookie manufacturer is identified according to a "signature file," that websites pages just won't load.
posted on August 7, 2001 10:50:50 AM
Most of the sites I know of that you need a password to go to tell you up front that if you want the password remembered, this is done with a cookie. That is fine. You are then aware and acknowledge that and give inplicit permission for THAT cookie by clicking the "remember" button.
But I do not believe it is right to place the info gathering cookies, etc on your equipment without your knowledge and permission. At the very least, this violates privacy, and could be considered the same as a wiretap.
So I feel that it should be illegal, if indeed it is not already. certainly we know that Spam isn't illegal, because the spammers tell us it's not.
posted on August 7, 2001 10:57:53 AMBut I do not believe it is right to place the info gathering cookies, etc on your equipment without your knowledge and permission. At the very least, this violates privacy, and could be considered the same as a wiretap.
A more thorough analysis would have considered that both Engage/Flycast and FastClick offer opt-out options:
posted on August 7, 2001 11:14:31 AMBut I do not believe it is right to place the info gathering cookies, etc on your equipment without your knowledge and permission.
Agreed. I think, though, that most of us know this IS going to happen when we visit certain sites (like Bidville), so the best defence against this practice is ....
At the very least, this violates privacy, and could be considered the same as a wiretap.
I believe that would be a stretch in any Court of Law! You still always have the option of not visiting these sites. I happen to believe that asking us for personal information like credit card numbers, bank account information, etc. is more of a violation. I cannot see any need for this type of information (remember that we are not dealing WITH the site but only using their site as a VENUE), but without them, you cannot use the venue whether you want to or not.
And let's face it guys, that information IS used for things outside of any agreement you may have made with the venue.
So I feel that it should be illegal,
There is a difference between what is "not right" and what is "illegal". Fortunately, we have the ability to make decisions based on what we know - if something is "not "right" to us, we should avoid it. Again, I refer to the change-the-channel analogy.
Maybe somebody out there actually likes these pop-ups - we can't take away their right, can we?
posted on August 7, 2001 11:22:09 AMMaybe somebody out there actually likes these pop-ups - we can't take away their right, can we?
They can be the source of enjoyment too. I have often opened cookies in a text editor, changed some of the numbers, and saved it. Who knows how the accuracy of their database was effected when they collected data from a now faulty cookie.
posted on August 7, 2001 11:35:56 AM
"A more thorough analysis would have considered that both Engage/Flycast and FastClick offer opt-out options:"
Lets be thoroughly thorough, (??), those opt out cookies disappear after 30 days, as so stated by the site. So every month you would have to redo the optout for something they never asked you about to begin with.
posted on August 7, 2001 11:38:51 AM great idea Dim ... thanks!
I have done that with some of those "fill this in for your free credit card" applications. My wife keeps asking me who the heck Urhiza Schrack is when they come back in the mail, or why I declared an income of 350,000 last year from my "farming" operation!
The only ones I won't screw with are the census reports - the government has no sense of ha ha at all
My 22 year old son likes to play with those guys who try to sell you stuff on the phone. He usually ends up selling them something.
posted on August 7, 2001 11:42:11 AM
"At the very least, this violates privacy, and could be considered the same as a wiretap.
I believe that would be a stretch in any Court of Law! You still always have the option of not visiting these sites. I happen to believe that asking us for personal information like credit card numbers, bank account information, etc. is more of a violation. I cannot see any need for this type of information (remember that we are not dealing WITH the site but only using their site as a VENUE), but without them, you cannot use the venue whether you want to or not. "
So from that I would assume that if the Phone Company decide to monitor your phone conversations, or where you make calls to, they could then sell or use that information for marketing purposes. Right?
Actually, with your stance regarding copyrights, etc. I am somewhat amazed at your responses here.
posted on August 7, 2001 11:43:22 AM
I just went to both Engage/Flycast and FastClock, creating opt-out cookies. No mention was made that they expire in thirty days.
posted on August 7, 2001 11:56:15 AM
If merely opening my personal email only to find two popups on my desktop, placed there to write to my registry is not an infringement upon my rights as a private citizen, then I don't know what is. I did not willingly visit a website to receive the component cookies, they invaded my email. I did not have to open anything to initiate the invasion, it happened while my mail was downloading from the server. In other words... I HAD NO CHOICE.
If I visit a site and it places a cookie in my browser directory that's the much different than having something popup and insert itself into my registry. I could be wrong, but a distinction should be made.
Additionally, opting out and allowing these advertisers to place yet another component within your registry seems just a little bit like blackmail to me. It isn't their registry, it's mine.
TO THE MODERATOR: Due to the condescending manner in which the term BidVille Cheerleaders is being used by some individuals choosing to post here I respectfully request that it be prohibited. Although it has been quite some time since I have seen the term BidVille Basher, it too should be prohibited. Thank you.
Neither one of us are lawyers, so we're both just guessing here.
So from that I would assume that if the Phone Company decide to monitor your phone conversations, or where you make calls to, they could then sell or use that information for marketing purposes. Right?
I suppose they could, and they probably do! I'm not that paranoid to think that they monitor my conversations though as that wouldn't give them any statistical data for marketing purposes.
Actually, with your stance regarding copyrights, etc. I am somewhat amazed at your responses here.
Don't be! Again, there is a difference between something being "not right" and something being "illegal". Fact is, there are laws covering the use of trademarks and copyrights. Being in this type of business, it bothers me to see my business affected by those who blatantly violate these laws, including the owners of the auction venues.
Besides, I cannot see any connection whatsover between some sleazy website invading your PC with bad cookies, and someone making and selling an illegal copy of something. If the auction venues themselves were to follow (enforce?) copyright law, I would have no stance. In this regard, it looks as though:
- eBay is trying to deal with bootleggers on their site, although they have a long ways to go.
- Yahoo used to deal with bootleggers very neatly, but they no longer seem to care. As a matter of fact, since the advent of their fee structure they have joined the other side and are actually terminating members who have been burned by bootleggers and who have complained to Yahoo about it.
- Bidville doesn't care at all about bootleggers on their site.
- Carnaby? Too soon to tell.
- the others? You tell me.
Hi Cuff ... I agree with the email problem, but I don't think that receiving email and voluntarily visiting a website are the same. OTOH, if you elect to open an email attachment, you are once again, "fair game".
posted on August 7, 2001 12:04:57 PM
Cuff >
If merely opening my personal email only to find two popups on my desktop, placed there to write to my registry is not an infringement upon my rights as a private citizen, then I don't know what is. I did not willingly visit a website to receive the component cookies, they invaded my email. I did not have to open anything to initiate the invasion, it happened while my mail was downloading from the server. In other words... I HAD NO CHOICE.
Look for legislation regulating e-mail. See discussion earlier for the reasons.
If I visit a site and it places a cookie in my browser directory that's the much different than having something popup and insert itself into my registry. I could be wrong, but a distinction should be made.
Additionally, opting out and allowing these advertisers to place yet another component within your registry seems just a little bit like blackmail to me. It isn't their registry, it's mine.
The owner of a website has right to include whatever source code they want on *their* webpages. If you do not agree with the decision of a website to write "bad" cookies to your hard drive, DO NOT VISIT THAT WEBSITE.
posted on August 7, 2001 12:12:51 PMDim I was not requesting your advice but stating my opinion. I do not appreciate your sitting there waiting for my posts as you so obviously are. These boards are for everyone and you are not the beginning and end of all knowledge.
So, if I request your advice then feel free... other than that please back off.
CuFF
Hi RB... I agree, if you open it you're fair game. I opened nothing but Outlook when the popups flashed momentarily on my screen then landed on my desktop. Thanks for your post.
[ edited by CuFF on Aug 7, 2001 12:15 PM ]
posted on August 7, 2001 12:14:19 PM
"The owner of a website has right to include whatever source code they want on *their* webpages. If you do not agree with the decision of a website to write "bad" cookies to your hard drive, DO NOT VISIT THAT WEBSITE."
If that is the case, then by extension, you should not visit ANY website, as you have no way of knowing beforehand.
Also, Dim, I did see that statement. The other day, I somehow traced back one of the ads, and trhough the ad I found the optout, and that staement was there. I did not save it, nor add it to My Favorites. I just went and found the main suite and privacy policy, and you are correct, THERE, it does not state anything about 30 days.
posted on August 7, 2001 12:23:40 PM
Hi again Cuff ...
Not sure if you saw the comment above that stated: after you remove all those cookies and go back to the website, you'll find they've put new ones on your hard drive.
That is 100% accurate - you may want to ammend the "help" you provided to someone somewhere else to reflect this
posted on August 7, 2001 12:40:50 PM
I don't think boycotting any site is the issue.
The issue is to be able to go where you want on the web without having someone put attachments on to your files and programs without your knowledge and permission. There are even some out there, (not Bidville), that will automatically do you the favor of changing your homepage for you.
I think if this practice is legal, it should not be. It is a SIMPLE as that.
When we were kids, My father once took us to an Attraction Cave in Pa. in the parking lot, thye had somone who was simply putting the attraction's bummper stickers on all of the cars. My father stopped them, with some discussion from putting the sticker on his new car.
Just because we visited the site, does not mean they have the right to put anything on our property.
The referrence to boycotting is a response to the term now edited from the post above it.
[ edited by jimhhow on Aug 7, 2001 12:42 PM ]
posted on August 7, 2001 12:47:37 PM
If the source code is dead then it is no longer a problem at BidVille.
The use of Ad-Aware along with an ad-killer program may take care of the problem today, but as soon as one code is defeated another one 'pops up' (pun intended) and slips through. I believe that person you are referring to is aware that using Ad-Aware is a fix that is good only until you log back on. Ad-Aware coupled with an ad-killer will prevent most popups from entering your system. It is better to know what is happening, and have the tools to control it rather than just letting the components run rampant on your system.
I find multiple instances of these components in my registry all the time. I don't believe that constitutes one cookie.
posted on August 7, 2001 01:00:11 PMI don't think boycotting any site is the issue
You're right, but once you have made a conscience decision to visit that type of site, you will have to either put up with the pop-ups or run ad-ware everytime you leave the site. This isn't a problem for someone who only makes the occasional visit.
I wonder - do these bad cookies leech on to your Registry everytime you change pages in a specific site?
The issue is to be able to go where you want on the web without having someone put attachments on to your files and programs without your knowledge and permission.
Unfortunately that will never happen.
I think if this practice is legal, it should not be. It is a SIMPLE as that.
Then YOU will have to take an ACTIVE stance like I have with the copyright issue. Just be prepared to be flamed and insulted though everytime you stand on your platform to preach! I am speaking from experience here Jim ...
The other thing to remember, is that the first "W" in "WWW" stands for "worldwide". Even if you could get a law passed in your country it would be meaningless in the rest of the world. At least with copyright law, it's similar throughout the world.
I guess the bottom line is you have to chose which battles you want to fight. I think the one you are suggesting will be a losing one
btw, your anology about the parking lot is different. In that case, someone was actually defacing your property and possibly causing some damage (the paint that comes off with the glue). If someone stuck one of those things on my Jeep, it would be more than just a "discussion" that would result. I suspect that varmit would soon become "one with the cave".
posted on August 7, 2001 01:05:47 PM
Hi Cuff ... I believe that person you are referring to is aware that using Ad-Aware is a fix that is good only until you log back on
With all due respect, I believe you are crediting that person with much more smarts than s/he has ... reread
I'm sure anyone that's taken a look at cookies understands they are simply text files that record information and therefore cannot execute anything, making it impossible for a cookie to launch a pop-up on its own.
I'm sure anyone that's taken a look at the source code snipets that cause a pop-up to launch understands that it does so because the executable is located within the webpage itself.
I'm sure that accurate information was disseminated regarding both cookies and the source code snipets because any other explanations offered would be in error.
