Cookies

[SKG_Scintill]

Based on the latest video of Computerphile, I felt like starting a discussion regarding cookies. First-party, third-party and the future (mis)usage of cookies.
First of all, the video I'm talking about:

Before this video, I wasn't aware of third-party cookies or "tracking". But it felt a bit paranoia to just accept it at that.

Now,
There is an extra video, linked at the end of the first:

Normally I'm not one to just accept a random youtube comment, but one of the top comments rightly gives the counterargument I was missing with my previous statement (it seeming paranoid that is).

I believe some of the best content on the internet comes from people who are able to do it professionally. These people can spend all day creating content because their basic needs are met: food, shelter etc.. Right now, the biggest systems in place to support these people are based on ad revenue. If these people cannot support their careers, we are just left with the hobbyists and the 14 year olds who are not "in it for the money" because they can live off of their parents.

The problem to me is:
- The first statement is based on a youtube video
- The second statement is based on a youtube comment
Both aren't the most reliable sources of information, but both brought a good point. (will admit I lean more towards the vid as far is validity goes)

Personally I have no problems with first-party cookies, they seem mandatory to make the internet... well... work.
I'm a bit torn when it comes to third-party cookies. There's no real way to figure out the intent of said party.
To ban them entirely obliterates ad revenue, on which some companies with good intent may rely.
To allow them may open possibilities of ill-intent, or in the long run limiting our privacy.

As is usual for critical discussion, what do you think?

inb4ololconspiracytheory

[Syhto]

Re: Cookies

*cookies*

[UserNameGoesHere]

Re: Cookies

As is usual for critical discussion, what do you think?

I don't think this is a critical discussion-worthy topic. And "cookies" could always be replaced with something else. I think, for example, "Privacy on the Internet and its implications for the future of free society." could be a critical discussion-worthy topic, but not simply "Cookies".

Also most of this boils down to how much you know and what your agenda is.

[SKG_Scintill]

Re: Cookies

I honestly thought (your words scrambled) internet privacy was a pretty critical topic. "Cookies" is just the specific subject, I'm not typing my college thesis here
Nevertheless, despite my awkward approach, I'm still interested in what people think.

Regardless of whether it's first- or third-party cookies, these cookies can be abused and limit our privacy, unnoticedly extract information about us, plant data onto our computers, and conspiracies alike.
To make it a bit more topical: I'm not an American, but your politicians have a certain tendency to create controversial internet laws. Even though it's not so bad at this moment (as far as I can tell), it might affect us in a significant way in the future.
Where do we draw the line? How could we monitor that line? Is the line necessary?

[UserNameGoesHere]

Re: Cookies

Internet privacy is a pretty critical topic but just focusing on browser cookies is too short-sighted. I think if your interest is Internet privacy, browser cookies should be exceedingly low on your list of things to worry about.

Also, any solution to which the answer is "more laws" needs to be completely rethought because it's almost always the wrong answer. What we need aren't more laws. In fact, we could do with far fewer.

Think of it like this. Attention, especially in Europe, has shifted to browser cookies lately. So while you're so focused on that, your attention is diverted from much more pressing privacy issues, such as Facebook, smartphones, surveillance, and so forth.

[Cavernio]

Re: Cookies

"Also, any solution to which the answer is "more laws" needs to be completely rethought because it's almost always the wrong answer. What we need aren't more laws. In fact, we could do with far fewer."

Well that obviously makes sense. Glad that came with some sort of point or anything sort of backup at all when that was said.
Not that I like beaurocracy for adding redtape and pointless procedures to go through, but with any new technology, especially one that changes society so much, it's foolish to not change laws to adapt to it. When you don't, you get people doing things like abusing old laws because, technically, they can still apply to situations that they were never intended for. The best examples of this, I think, are copyright laws that worked well back in 1600's for printing press companies. But now some 12 year old can't legally put up star wars clips on youtube in any way, shape or form, because they law doesn't fit. Depending on whose 'ideas' you're stealing, you can get more than a slap on the wrist. Prime example: Disney.

I dunno, I like cookies. I find it funny when my 30 year old single man friends keep getting youtube adds for diapers, or when I get adds in some Asian language that I don't even know which one it is, or razors for men. And when they work, its nice to actually learn about products I might otherwise not know about.
Of course I like psychology and anyone who studies advertising essentially uses psychological techniques for targeted advertising, and I find that all kind of interesting. I suppose at some point a line has to be drawn for what's private and what's not, but I guess I don't feel like we're impinging on people's rights using cookies.
One thing I DON'T like though, is how some companies want you to sign in using Facebook as your login, because then all your facebook friends get to see what you're doing. I value privacy from people I know much more than privacy from strangers. And I don't really like facebook.
As to people potentially using the data for harm, I suppose the over-arching idea that things like google hits are targeted towards me can feel like I lose the center of control over what I choose to see, that society chooses for me...but that's sort of an issue regardless. But beyond that I haven't thought of any way these companies could cause problems. Some examples of abuse of such data would be nice, I can't really think of any of my own.

[UserNameGoesHere]

Re: Cookies

@Cavernio: Do I really have to spell out why more technology laws are generally a bad thing?
Here goes: Any technology problem which can be solved via technological means (and most can) is better served by a technical solution rather than a legal one as the technical solutions tend to work and are created by people with relevant special expert technical knowledge whereas the legal solutions aren't (they are created by people who are experts in law rather than technology) and thus are inferior for solving technological problems when compared with technological solutions, and generally create additional problems of their own while many times not even solving the intended problem. If you want further confirmation, call up any systems administator or competent programmer and ask them which is more effective -- a legal solution, or a technical solution, to a technical problem. 9 times out of 10 (and I'm being generous) they'll tell you the technical solution is best.

A perfect example of a bad technology law: The DMCA. While it was supposedly meant to stop piracy and copyright infringement (two things which were already illegal and covered by existing laws, by the way), it effectively stops neither. What it does do though is remove many fair use rights or, rather, makes impossible to legally exercise your fair use rights. You still legally have the rights. There is just no legal way to use those rights in certain circumstances, due to the DMCA. We almost got SOPA, though that was shot down.

It's funny you should bring up not being able to use small clips of movies in a fair-use sort of way on youtube as an example in your favor (your view of pro-more technology laws), when it is actually an example of the very sorts of things more technology laws tend to bring about. In fact, it's our good old friend DMCA yet again.

Give me any example of a technology law made or proposed since the year 2000 (or even 1995) which has actually been a positive thing, and not a detriment to technology, research, liberty, science, or progress. Provide me with a single example of any technology law which worked better than technical solutions to the same problem would have or could have.

Also, why do you make the assumption that laws are made only under necessity because people were breaking existing laws? What could possibly justify the creation of new laws when better enforcement of existing laws would have the desired effect without infringing on the rights and liberties of those acting within the law? To make an immediate assumption that a new law is necessary seems, to me, short-sighted.

Thus any possible new technology laws should undergo thorough analysis because the odds are exceedingly against their respecting the rights and freedoms of technology users and exceedingly pro bias towards heavily monied well-entrenched monopoly and oligopoly interests. In other words, the odds are exceedingly against their favor of being actual good laws.

What is foolish is to create laws to artificially encumber technology, especially when this isn't necessary or beneficial and there are better means to achieve the same ends.

[SKG_Scintill]

Re: Cookies

How typical:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/05/23/0227250/teens-social-media-and-privacy

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday May 23, 2013 @02:04AM

Btw, I'm going to read the two long posts when I wake up

[UserNameGoesHere]

Re: Cookies

@SKG_Scintill

Topic is changing to Internet privacy and technology laws, just in general, rather than browser cookies in specific. I hope that's okay.

It may have been your original intent even -- although my initial impressions were that it was only about browser cookies and not more general.

[SKG_Scintill]

Re: Cookies

No it's fine. It's probably because I don't use social media or mobile phones that this is the first time I feel vulnerable.

[SKG_Scintill]

Re: Cookies

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/05/24/0110209/twitters-new-money-making-plan-lead-generation

Well this is interesting. Now our privacy is limited to our own stupidity.
Still, if this gets "accepted behavior", this can also lead to phishing-variants where some people may fall for.

[Cavernio]

Re: Cookies

We're on the same side here usernamegoes here, we just disagree as to how to get to the same outcome. I certainly can't site any technological laws that have been good in the past few years. (Not that I can site ANY).
But you citing 1 horrible law that fearful money-grubbers that the US caused to pass which, as you clearly pointed out, IS simply branching out of an OLD law, is simply a snapshot of current times. I don't know the specifics at all of this law, but as Wikipedia cites it, it is simply a law enforcing DRM. DRM are technologies, not laws, that have been put in place that, ironically, prevents technology from being used. And DRM can hold technological advance back just as much.
Law is obviously being created far slower than technology, and it is not keeping up with it. And that 1 major law that exists in regards to technological sharing, and was made over a decade ago, doesn't mean that ALL laws surrounding such issues will not work or will be as backwards. It's quite a jump to say when 1 law doesn't work, (especially when it's based off laws that didn't have digitization in mind), means that all of them will be equally silly.

The biggest problem I have with what you say is that you go on about technology solving technological problems, when they're clearly social problems, ranging from economical problems to privacy ones. They're brought about by technology, but aren't technological problems.

If we truly wanted to keep technological advances up to speed, we'd put in laws that make DRM illegal. Simply saying that because the justice system in the US is broken because those with money make laws, therefore most laws are bad, is another topic of discussion altogether.

Actually, thinking about it, there is one good thing about DMCA, in that if we're going to punish anyone for copyright infringement, we're charging the individuals, NOT the technology (as has been done in the past.) ie: ISP's aren't charged. Definitely better than a bunch of rich tv and music execs trying to stunt the internet as a whole. While I agree that it's not always necessary to create a law, prior to DMCA, copyright laws still held true and still didn't make a whole lot of sense, and I think that under those laws, ISP's could be found culpable. So there was, (and still is), a need to change law.
For better or worse, we're already mired in laws.

As to the OP, enh, if someone falls for a phishing to save money on a purchase, whoever stole Id or money or whatever, it counts as theft. Rather, if cookies are mandatory, it could help to track the thieves who stole that person's data.