3 ms·
Evercookies and analyzing TCP stack signatures are ok but banning third party cookies is like "using a cannon to shoot a mosquito"?! > Privacy is simple ... Do
by Ao7bei3s 14y ago
Evercookies and analyzing TCP stack signatures are ok but banning third party cookies is like "using a cannon to shoot a mosquito"?!
> Privacy is simple ... Don't submit ...
No it's not: ad companies aren't asking, they are grabbing what they can get. When users say "no" (eg by using adblockers or disabling cookies), these companies ignore that and try to find ways around.
Do you find that ethical?
- chewxy 14y agoNo. In my experience it's not the ad companies that ask for them. It's usually the advertiser (i.e. the people advertising) that ask for them. Market forces (i.e. the demand) means that technologies will be made available to them if they're willing to pay high enough a sum. As for evercookies and TCP stack analysis, I'm pointing out that the technologies to do cookieless tracking is already being used. And I feel it's a bad move. I would rather have cookied tracking where it's easier to control things, than to have cookieless tracking where it is generally grey area'd and difficult to see what advertisers are doing.
- Amadou 14y ago> No. In my experience it's not the ad companies that ask for them. It's usually the advertiser That is a distinction without a difference.
- taf2 14y agothe difference is it's the website you're using and enjoying that is demanding this extra information. it's what they get in return for giving something to you for "free"...
- jacquesm 14y agoYou have your parties muddled up. The website you are using is not 'the advertiser', they're the publisher.