Hello Paul,
> Some explanations of cookies and privacy issues
Thanks ...
> "my daughter for your stock picks"
>
> If you go to the AT&T long distance site you will find that you can
> look up someones name, get their telephone number and be given a
> map showing the exact location of their house in about 15 seconds.
Yep ... been doing it for years ... and have really surprised some people who aren't very Internet aware. It's a good way to shake some people up ... ;-)
> Have your name and address disclosed on the internet and someone
> has a roadmap to your house. Have children and you have placed them
> at risk. I hope I've cleared that up.
Yes ... but this has been possible for a long time ... even before the Internet. I know that it is now easier, but it's been doable and has been done.
So what you are saying is that *anyone* that knows your name and address can post it on the Internet and put you and your family at risk. I agree with this completely. Piss off your neighbor and he can tell your enemies where to get you ... ;-)
The issue here is that *lots* of people know who you are and where you live. So any of them could put you at "risk".
> So by posting here do I risk my families security?
Of course ... and you do the same by pissing off the guy in a grocery store parking lot by stealing his parking space! And he doesn't have to use the Internet to find you ... ;-)
> ==============
>
> "I'm surprised that the browser vendors don't catch more flack for
> not educating the end-user about what cookies are being used for,
> and for not making the *default* of the browser to reject them!"
>
> Scott you cannot get access to certain sites without allowing
> cookies.
Yep ... but not my point at all ...
> For example even a paid subscription to WSJ requires cookies to be
> accepted to work.
Of course ... and this is an example of a poorly designed web site, since they aren't necessary ... it's lazy programming. (Not meaning content, just the web programming ...)
> Many commercial interent sites including those operated by
> Microsoft require cookies.
Actually, since I use Microsoft sites all the time, and don't accept cookies (except when I'm going to delete them minutes later) I've not noticed any content that I am after that requires cookies. And many of the cookies that Microsoft drops are "Session" cookies ... these are only kept for that session with the web site and then deleted ...
> I've had my browser set to reject cookies and I'm constantly
> rejected by sites. They demand disclosure.
I rarely accept cookies at all ... the only site that I can think of right now (and verified by viewing my cookies files) is Quicken.com, which is ok with me. There is also one from Novell's developer site, but I delete it from time to time.
So it is your decision on how to handle cookies, and how bad you want the data/information that the site has. I rarely find a need to access something that forces cookies ...
> =================
>
> > "We want a digital identity that cannot be compromised and that
> > sits in a digital identity vault. You don't exchange it.
>
> Hmmm ... sounds really good. But who owns the vault?"
>
> The simple answer is the entity issuing that element of your
> identity.
So it sounds like you are a proponent of numerous and multiple vaults! Since information is issued to you by numerous entities ...
> However ownership doesn't imply much in my idea of a
> transaction based identity vault where the purpose is to
> give certainty in commercial transactions that you are who you
> claim to be and therefore eliminate 90% of the information you are
> required to disclose to commercial web sites for unnecessary
> verification.
But ownership of the physical storage and information dictates who has the ability to view that information, and who they can allow to view it. As you know, "possesion is 9/10s of the law" ... or something like that ... ;-)
What you are describing above is something much more oriented towards communities anyhow ... the ZeroKnowledge direction.
Or, another way to think about it is to use a "third-party" to handle the "transaction" ... a common community that we both belong to and trust. I agree with this completely and have several scenarios where this is a very useful feature.
> ==================
>
> So that is the state of things on the net Scott.
Yep ... and have been this way for quite a long time ... people are just now learning ... ;-)
> And today's NYTimes features a front page article which says in
> effect that heavy internet use is bad for people based on some
> Stanford survey.
Do you have an URL or a repost of the article?
> Just a couple of more heavy duty hacker attacks and I expect the
> FBI to demand that every internet session be traceable and every
> internet user have a "file".
And so, as I have predicted and continue to believe, this is why proxies and communities will develop, and then methods to sanction these proxies and communities. Just like in the real "biologically evolved" world ... ;-)
(I know ... I have this distorted view of life, but it keeps meeting my expectations and predictions and has done me very well in the market! ;-)
Scott C. Lemon |
