Walter Mossberg is one of the more powerful people when it comes to technology and Internet writing. As the technology writer at the Wall Street Journal, his influence can be quite substantial. He seems to have a love/hate relationship with cookies as evidenced by a few articles he has authored over the years. In general, he does not seem to mind them unless they have anything to do with advertising. But he’s gone over the top this week by declaring tracking cookies to be unequivocally spyware.
Back in 2000, in his article Now You See ‘Em… he wrote about how ads in print are fine, but on the Web they are an annoyance at best, and a detriment in general. Most of his concerns have to do with cookies, advertising, and privacy.
Now, cookies can be good or bad. Many Web sites use them to store user preferences and priorities, such as which stock quotes a user wants displayed. Others use cookies to collect information on user behavior. But at least these cookies are placed there by Web sites the user is consciously visiting, even frequenting. DoubleClick is putting its cookies on your PC without delivering any benefit at all. And because its ads appear all over the Web, the company can potentially track your behavior across many sites.
He continues to advocate overall ad and most cookie blocking, while acknowledging that it "interferes with a few legitimate Web sites and services".
By 2003, he wrote The Other Kind of Tracks that detailed the issues of privacy and how others can detect what you do on your computer. He explains that you might want to delete your cookies, but he also shows their value.
These activity trails all have legitimate purposes. Some, for instance, let you easily return to Web pages or other documents you’ve recently viewed, and cookies can keep track of your log-in info on certain Web sites. Most weren’t created to allow snooping. But they do allow it.
I would even say that he has a good understanding of them from this article.
You can also set the browser to refuse to accept cookies, after clearing out the ones you have, though this can also screw up your ability to have Web sites remember your log-in information or your preferences for such things as local news and weather or stocks to watch.
This brings us to 2005 and his latest article printed yesterday where he states that Tracking cookies fit definition of spyware. It appears as if he no longer understands the way that they work and are used. I also don’t think that he knows what is going on in th4e rest of the advertising world.
Suppose you bought a TV set that included a component to track what you watched, and then reported that data back to a company that used or sold it for advertising purposes. Only nobody told you the tracking technology was there or asked your permission to use it.
Has he not heard of TiVo? They know exactly how many times people rewound and viewed the Janet Jackson "Wardrobe Malfunction". How is this any different than advertising tracking cookies? He considers these evil snippets of code "secret" and an "invasion of privacy".
You would likely be outraged at this violation of privacy. Yet that kind of Big Brother intrusion goes on every day on the Internet, affecting millions of people. Many Web sites, even from respectable companies, place a secret computer file called a "tracking cookie" on your hard disk. This file records where you go on the Web on behalf of Internet advertising companies that later use the information for their own business purposes. In almost all cases, the user isn’t notified of the download of the tracking cookie, let alone asked for permission to install it.
The online ad industry is of course concerned about cookies being kept because this is how they track users, ad displays, and even calculate ROI for their customers – all something the print world can’t do.
What has happened to Mossberg that he thinks that cookies are all that bad when used by legitimate advertisers? How can he not know that there is no personally identifying information in the cookies and that the data is used in aggregate when reported and individual privacy is in now way violated.
To understand the tracking-cookie issue, you have to know something about cookies overall, and you have to know what spyware actually is.
Tracking cookies shouldn’t be confused with these other cookies. They have no user benefit except the vague promise that the ads you get as a result may be better tailored to your interests.
What is spyware? There are many definitions, but here is mine, in two sentences. Spyware — and a related category called adware — is computer code placed on a user’s computer without his or her permission and without notification, or with notification so obscure it hardly merits the term. Once installed, spyware and adware alter the PC’s behavior to suit the interests of outside parties rather than those of the owner or user.
To me, tracking cookies clearly meet the obvious definition of spyware.
Cookies help ad servers limit exposure to an ad (particularly pop-ups), serve more appropriate ads, track which ads a user has seen, and more. But none of this is linked to a person’s identity. How are tracking cookies spyware but not site cookies? You can argue the consent issue here, but cookies are not a program installed on a machine, they are a file that can only be read by the service that wrote it. If he wants to declare tracking cookies spyware, then go all the way. Look at his definition and see what else fits. Surely all cookies. What about CSS, Flash animations, etc.
Then again, there is the nebulous interpretation of suiting the owner. Does it not suit the user to no get the same pop-up ad on every page? Are users not better off with free access to sites that are supported by advertisers? Since this is his postion, can the advertisers ask that none of their money pay his salary?
Comment sent to
Cookies? Spyware?
Until EVERYONE learns more about ‘how the
computer works’, the big advertising industry
will continue to DESTROY what could otherwise be
a decent time on the Internet.
People ‘not aware’ need to visit
http://harbek.50megs.com and put the information
to use on their own systems. After doing this,
they’ll QUICKLY learn just how disgusting these
‘cookies’ are.
ALL COMPUTER USERS should realize exactly how bad
all this ‘cookies mess’ truly is. Users out here
may still operate with just a 20Gig hard drive. Other
users may have a lot more.
Don’t care about ‘Cookies’? Still pay for your
‘electric’? Find the need to purchase a larger
hard drive? Some have gone as far as purchasing
a completely new computer because of low storage
space (they’re the ones not savvy enough to learn
you can simply purchase a larger hard drive…).
“Cookies” begin taking up FAR too much storage
space on a computer. We, as potential customers
and non-paid commercial actors… RECEIVE ZILCH in
the form of ‘payment’ for allowing them partial
storage locations on all our hard drives, nor do
these ‘companys’ offer any form of electricity
cost re-imbursments.
How can they be harmful? THEY’RE USING OUR OWN
MONEY TO MAKE THEMSELVES MORE MONEY.
This is ABOVE AND BEYOND the fact numerous
cookies are used in extremely devious methods.
Computer users have little knowledge in
deciphering just what exactly is being placed
into these cookies. Trust the ‘company’? I
think not. Even Microsoft has been known to
utilize this ILLEGAL method of cookie usage.
You pay a chunk to purchase the computer, you
don’t even get full storage of whatever size
hard drive comes with the system, advertisers
want to take even more from this ’storage
allotment’, then we turn around to pay higher
electric bills for using the computer/ monitor
and what else we decide to connect to it.
ADVERTISERS PAY NOTHING TO GATHER INFORMATION
WHILE ALL COMPUTER USERS FOOT THE EXPENSE!
Too many ‘free’ programs (and some ‘purchased’
software programs are filled with tracking
programs containing ‘cookies’ along with
other ‘tracking software’ usually not known
to the unsuspecting users.
These additional ‘programs’ and ‘cookie’ programs
steal or rob system performance users could
otherwise utilize to perform their work FASTER!
The ‘cookie’ argument stands at this:
Cookie’s ARE VERY harmful when other software
installed on the system constantly writes to
them. System performance is GREATLY reduced
the more a person visits different web sites
around the Internet.
Visit about 1,000 sites all pushing different
‘cookies’ onto a system…. usually ten to a
hundred or even more.
Having developed their OWN software used
to ‘create’ the tracking progams utilizing
these cookies…. just how many possible
programs does one computer stand to
have in operation from say
ONE MILLION COMPANYS slamming their
own developed ’software’ onto
unsuspecting computer users?
Anyone whoever claims ‘cookies aren’t bad should
learn to THINK a little harder. Better yet,
tell them to leave their door wide open so we can
all walk into their homes, check the fridge to
see what types of foods they purchase needing
refridgeration… let us check their cupboards or
walk all through their house so we can LEARN what
‘types’ of products they prefer……
Cookies, tracking programs…. are doing exactly
this. Tracking into BILLIONS of homes to
determine what people like or want so they can
slam their television shows with MORE commercials
and less SHOW CONTENT!
A ‘one hour’ sitcom used to
offer at least forty-five
minutes of show content, time
commercials at home while
watching these shows today.
Setting the browser to ‘ask’ first prior to
allowing cookies onto one’s system results in
ten to a hundred on up ‘cookie placement
attempts’.
This is ALL stored on the
computer taking up space the
user could utilize for their
own personal (even mportant)
information & use.
Want to SLAM cookies and tracking software down
my throat?????????? YOU HAD BETTER PAY UP!
STUFF THE COOKIES!
Harley,
I was nice enough to leave your comment, but you are way off base. Either you are selling something or you have bought into the misunderstood fearmongering of those who think cookies are evil.
You complain that cookies are taking up far too much storage space. I have a PC that has been used for five years. I have never cleared the cookie folder and I just found that I have 2951 cookies using up 46.7 MB of actual disk space. That sounds like a lot, but this is because the disk operating system wastes all the space. The files are actually 1.27 MB. But if I cleared cookies once a yar I would have 1/5th the disk space used. But who cares about 50 MB on a 20 GB disk where the OS takes up more than 2 GB and most programs start at 100 MB. You are talking about 1/4 of 1% of that 20 GB disk.
I have a newer PC that has been up for a month. It has 65 cookies on it taking up 304 KB of actual disk space. Since I now have an 80 GB disk, I don’t think I have anything to worry about. I might hit 1 GB of cookies in 100 years of so…
Your other “misconception” is where you spread the fear that sites write “ten to a hundred or even more” cookies into your system. This is wrong. There are a few rogue cookie stuffers who may do this, but they are the fringe and the ones in the wrong. 99.99% (or more) of the sites out there write one or two cookies, with 3rd party ad servers adding in their own.
If anyone is really worried, clear your cookies once a month and you will never use more than a few KB of disk space and likely never have more than a hundred or so cookies on your computer.
You’re nuts dude. I get over 4000 cookies a month on my computer. You either don’t use yours much, or you have it set to automatically clean out your cookies (or you don’t know where to find them all) and then the one time you look for them(after 5 years…yeah right) you only find 2951 cookies. Ha ha ha ha you’re sooooo funny!
It is agreeable that ‘most’ Internet advertisers
could be considered ligitimate where
their ‘tracking’ cookies are concerned.
Unfortunately even ligitimate, friendly or
most well known advertising companys utilizing
tracking cookies to serve up advertisements
are sometimes unknowingly ‘abused’ by the
programmers developing the software using this
technology.
First, please do properly categorize the malicious
intrusions provided in these programs. Spyware
merely spies, viciously at times causing computer
malfuntions/slow downs. Adware is used to ’spam’
ad-after-ad at everyone possible.
The ‘adequate’ term to use over the term
mere ‘cookie’ would refer to simply those used for
ill intent. All the ‘malicious’ files/programs
should fall under one major category – Malware.
Second, I DO hope everyone understands that one
of the major ’search engines’ operating on the
Internet UTILIZES certain forms of ‘malware’.
The GOOGLE Search Engine -
Which started under the company name – DoubleClick
(source – DBusiness Magazine.)
Reading your message again, I find it quite
disturbing you do not believe this intrusive
malware to be an ‘invasion of privacy’.
For you to better understand, Thirty-million
computer owners – vs. – Twenty-Five
million ‘companys’ all pushing this ‘malware’
onto our systems.
Not to question your math skills by any means,
this would mean one mass e-mailing from each
of the twenty-five million companys to the
thirty-million computer users.
If each computer owner’s e-mail address makes
it onto each company’s list, how many e-mails
would one individual receive in their ‘in-box’?
You could ask ‘Respond.com’ since their company
made it big overnight by utilizing my similar
idea but in ‘reverse’. One individual winds up
with over a million e-mails clogging up their
‘in-box’ overnight.
Now with e-mail, your ‘precious’ cookies also
come along. Not all are bad, but quite a few
can be very hazardous to your computer’s
operation.
Finally, let me cover the ‘invasion of privacy’
situation. The Constitution of the United States
covers quite a bit about ‘FREEDOMS’ supposed to
be honored right here in the United States.
‘Freedom of Choice’ is one major message the
Constituion provides. Please, explain to me
why it is when you set your ‘browser’ to ‘ask’
before allowing cookies onto your system that
when you visit a web site, you immediately get
slammed with a ‘very forceful’ page stating;
“You MUST allow cookies to view this site”???!!!
That, my friend, is NOT freedom of choice but
one site owner FORCING others to accept possible
intrusive malware onto their computer system.
We do reserve our rights by choosing NOT to visit
any specific website but then the site owner loses
out on potential sales if users choose not to
accept cookies from the site.
At no given time should computer users be ‘forced’
to accept these cookies – good or bad. I
literally make immediate ’screen prints’ when a
specific web site slams that ‘MUST ACCEPT COOKIES’
statement in my face.
Microsoft’s very own sites has been ‘guilty’ of
forcing this issue.
What the ‘big industry’ companys need to
understand is that ‘Individual Rights’ provided
by the Constitution far outweigh the
‘company rights’.
Feel ‘advertising’ isn’t so bad? Let’s have
about ten million people arrive at your home to
‘pitch’ their products at you… throw a few
bricks through your windows, beat down your door
’till you answer, and have them ‘all at once’
begin shouting their sales pitch at you.
That is the effect advertisers have on the
Internet community. Visit a single news group
forum and place a few company ads into their
message string and watch the response you receive
for ’spamming’ their message line.
Believe it or not, the general population is more
than aware of products currently on the market,
usually by simply visiting the local stores
carrying these products.
We DO NOT need them to slam their products in our
faces in hopes of getting us to purchase them.
The computer was designed to provide faster means
to accomplish things and for the most part, it has
provided this quite efficiently. With these
‘advertisers’ utilizing ill forms of malware, they
are straining the computer’s performance
capability drastically.
Every other day I am forced to perform scans to
remove their malicious files – these ARE NOT
coming from ‘hackers’ others would have you
believe but from the advertising industry itself.
After all, most malicious software is developed
by numerous companys having programmers instill
the ‘malicious’ methods directly into their
software.
What irks me the most is the fact a computer
purchased off a shelf at the store is not even
properly set up to provide the best possible
performance to the puchasing customer.
A number of my customers purchase brand new
machines they felt were quite fast. They were
stunned at how much faster and better their system
performed AFTER I finished going through it.
On another note, the ‘advetising’ you mention?
Television has become so bombarded by advertising
that I discontinued watching it in 1996. The more
they continue to bombard the Internet with
advertising, the worse the Internet will become as
a ‘tool’ providing decent information everyone
seeks.
AOL users THINK they’re ‘experiencing’ the
Internet when millions of them are duped due to
the massive ‘eye candy’ masking offered by AOL.
Walk into a motorcycle group and call them
wussies to see what happens. Same effect with the
general public. Sooner or later, they’ll all
become fed up with the Internet and how the
advertisers are hindering their computer’s
operation and they’ll simply walk away and ignore
what the advertisers are pushing so much into.
There IS a certain PROTOCAL most using the
Internet expect. The more intellectual
individuals stick strongly to their desired
newsgroup and I feel quite sorry for anyone
mistakenly wandering into their message line
to toss even one ad into their faces.
You’ll receive thousands of ‘flame-mails’ from
these individuals if you’re lucky to get away
with just these flames.
The United States was founded on the principle
people wanted to live a quiet, peaceful life.
Big industry and the U.S. Government are doing
all they can to destroy what our forefathers
initially set out to achieve.
Unfortunately for the most part, they are
succeding.
Allow these intrusions to continue, then there
will be no such thing as The United States of
America.
Harley,
maybe you need to get a column! You make very detailed comments which are articles in themselves.
Not that I follow your arguments. I don’t see cookies as “malicious intrusions” which “spies, viciously at times causing computer malfuntions/slow downs.” Cookies will not slow down your computer, and I have no idea what vicious spying is.
Google bought DoubleClick.