Secret Cookies on your computer that you cannot delete

page: 8
84
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by SD-JH543
Here is a good visual on how Google uses cookies to Datamine you..
donttrack.us...

No where does that indicate the site owners also have your IP address to cross-reference with the search term that delivered you to the site... which they do not.

Alarmist and false information.




posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by tristar
You wont, but your pc might end up in some museum in the future along with a sign indicating, " Ancient Man's Devices"

holy smokes, lmao
hadn't thought of that



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


If browsing history is not valuable then why do cookies track it?



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
I actually looked inside those cookies that kept appearing after deleted and their expiration date was Dec 31, 5000

That's actually your computer doing that. Dates like that are the result of cookies that are set with no expiry date. The counter-proposal I'm working on with the Internet Advertising Bureau suggests a graceful solution to "cookie paranoia" by establishing a maximum expiry time for any cookie written by a third-party domain... which would be 24 hours from the time it's written, and can easily be accomplished by simple updates to the browser.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
If browsing history is not valuable then why do cookies track it?

On their own, they do not.

"Cookies" are text files that store variables written by a specific website domain, and can only be accessed by the domain that wrote it. The majority of cookies you see on your computer are used to retain session or preference information for the sites you visit.

An identifying variable stored in a cookie may be used to point to a database where accumulated data may be stored, however, such data could only be collected and stored from sites where the domain that wrote the cookie, can also "see" the cookie. For example... ad network ADS.com would only be aware of domains you visit that have ADS.com banners ads and/or code in their pages. Your entire history would not be available.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by boondock-saint
I actually looked inside those cookies that kept appearing after deleted and their expiration date was Dec 31, 5000

That's actually your computer doing that. Dates like that are the result of cookies that are set with no expiry date. The counter-proposal I'm working on with the Internet Advertising Bureau suggests a graceful solution to "cookie paranoia" by establishing a maximum expiry time for any cookie written by a third-party domain... which would be 24 hours from the time it's written, and can easily be accomplished by simple updates to the browser.

so it's a computer issue, not a cookie issue?
So that leaves me with a question, if not
fixed globally, are we looking at another
Y2K scare coming up in the yr 5000 AD???
How was that yr chosen btw ???



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
How was that yr chosen btw ???

It's the end of the "Unix Epoch" which is a time-stamp of the number of seconds from the beginning of the epoch on January 1, 1971 (I think). If each digit of the time-stamp were all 9's, the date will be what you saw.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by boondock-saint
How was that yr chosen btw ???

It's the end of the "Unix Epoch" which is a time-stamp of the number of seconds from the beginning of the epoch on January 1, 1971 (I think). If each digit of the time-stamp were all 9's, the date will be what you saw.


Careful now...your beginning to give out data about your age...
, now would you also say the same line to some woman at your local watering hole....i think not..!



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Honestly? I dont blame people for spreading paranoia about cookies. I blame the people who install cookies for spreading paranoia about cookies.

Its the fact they do things in sneaky ways, and make it hard for us to undo them, that make ME paranoid. If they would just ask my permission each and every time, with a short and simple explanation of what they were doing, I would allow some of it. But probably not ALL of it.

When you do things without peoples consent, you tend to make them defensive. When you make it difficult for people to undo what you did, you make them suspicious.

edit on 29-3-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Honestly? I dont blame people for spreading paranoia about cookies. I blame the people who install cookies for spreading paranoia about cookies.


Okay lets take a breather here, have you considered how practical it is, to say those who are physically are unable to interact with the internet via the methods you and i are currently using. ( ie a keyboard)



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
I blame the people who install cookies for spreading paranoia about cookies.

Why? There's nothing inherently bad about cookies.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
Y2K scare coming up in the yr 5000 AD???

No worries. Wiki says it won't happen til Y10K.


The Year 10,000 problem (also known as the Y10K problem or the deca-millennium bug[1]) is the class of all potential software bugs that would emerge when the need to express years with five digits arises.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Is there anything inherently bad about asking for consent?

And please correct me if I am wrong, and I might well be, but I was under the impression that a large infestation of cookies slowed my computer down, and thats why I have installed programs to clean them out periodically. No? Is that a myth?



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Is there anything inherently bad about asking for consent?

Cookies are a standard feature of web browsers since beta versions of the first Netscape, and cookie management tools have been provided in all browsers since. Your use of a web browser is implied consent... just as your use of Microsoft Word is implied consent for it to write and use temp files on your computer. Or your use of Microsoft Windows is seen as implied consent for it to periodically look at all your installed software and periodically check for updates.



I was under the impression that a large infestation of cookies slowed my computer down

That is a myth perpetuated by anti-virus (and related) companies in their attempts to spread misinformation about cookies so that you buy, use, and upgrade their software.

Cookies are very small text files that are never accessed unless you browse to the site that wrote a cookie, and that site needs to access the cookie data.

Back when people accessed the Internet with dial-up modems on slow computers with small hard drives, the potential existed for the exchange of cookie data to temporarily slow the initial loading of a website, or an inordinately large number of cookies may have slowed an already full small hard drive. But such issues have not been a concern for more than ten years.
edit on 29-3-2011 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 

Slightly off-topic, but it is about ATS and my computer so...

What happened to the little green message box?

"You have 1 New Message.
Read Now? or Ignore?"

I haven't seen that for about a week or so.
Is it gone, or is it something stupid that I have done to make it disappear?



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Even more reasons for cookie makers and installers to communicate with the people being installed upon.

If I had good information about cookies, I would not be paranoid about them . The refusal of cookie makers to treat me like an adult, and ask me for permission, explain to me whats going on, how to remove it if I want to, etc., leaves me totally open for people to point out the FACT of their disregard for my consent. People just like to have a choice. Most of us are very willing to be helpful and compliant, but the "screw you, eat it" force it down your throats methodology tends to make people distrustful and uncooperative.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Even more reasons for cookie makers and installers to communicate with the people being installed upon.

If I had good information about cookies, I would not be paranoid about them . The refusal of cookie makers to treat me like an adult, and ask me for permission, explain to me whats going on, how to remove it if I want to, etc., leaves me totally open for people to point out the FACT of their disregard for my consent. People just like to have a choice. Most of us are very willing to be helpful and compliant, but the "screw you, eat it" force it down your throats methodology tends to make people distrustful and uncooperative.


Well you do have a choice, simply set your browser security to its highest risk, do not run your computer under administration rights and disable all certificate installations.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Google.com cannot see the data written in a cookie by YouTube.com.


That statement is only partly correct. Precisely it would be "Your browser won't allow the Youtube webserver to access a Google.com cookie while you visit Youtube.com"

But the Google webserver could easily send any extracted data from any Google.com cookie to the Youtube webserver without you even being able to monitor such traffic. Only god knows what data is shared between the major corporations and/or the intelligence services.

Or they simply use a hidden i-frame to track you and read specific cookies, just like Facebook does...

And as far as Unix is concerned, here's a line of code that will get rid of any Macromedia based LSO ( Btw there's no need to use Macromedia Flash, since there's an Open Source version available )




rm -rf ./.macromedia/Flash_Player/#SharedObjects/



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
For those who are computer literate to a point but a bit challenged, here is a free LSO remover app you can download and use totally free as 100% freeware:

download.cnet.com...
edit on 3/29/2011 by YAHUWAH SAVES because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
I was a bit surprised to find my thread was moved to the Hoax bin. Especially given that it was moved there due to "paranoia". I would submit then that 90% of all threads on this site also need to be moved to the hoax bin, if paranoia is the basis for that decision.

Now that having been said, I do understand the reasoning behind the move. I truly do. I believe that the info in the article could have cost ATS money. And as much as I hate to admit it, if I owned ATS, I would have done the exact same thing. Except I would have simply deleted the thread. Moving it to the Hoax bin implies that I am some sort of liar, or cheat, at least that's what some people have been telling me.

But I am not a liar or a cheat, am I...

I was just trying to help people. Everything in my post was a fact. And quite provably so. So saying that I perpetrated a HOAX is a little harsh, don't you agree?

My reputation has taken a beating in the last few hours. I think that's a bit unfair. I am also pretty sure that if I rewrite the article without the "paranoia" that it will still get deleted. Maybe I'm wrong, so I ask you, Skeptic Overlord, may I rewrite the artcle? I do not wish to get banned, nor do I wish to cost you money, so I won't write it unless you say it's cool. On the otherhand, I've been quite unfairly painted as a hoaxer, and my rep has been unfairly damaged, and I would like to be given the opportunity to do something about that. If not rewrite the article then maybe something else.
edit on 29-3-2011 by woghd because: Classified





new topics
top topics
 
84
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join