5 Comments

What Does Walter Mossberg Have Against Cookies?

Jul 15, 2005
by

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?

About Brad Waller

Some say Brad created the first affiliate program. We’ll never know for sure, but we do know that Brad has been running businesses online since 1994 and affiliate programs since 1996. When he is not running the affiliate program for EPage Classifieds, helping publishers monetize their sites with AdJungle, or working on iPhone applications, Brad is also busy starting up the Performance Marketing Alliance, a trade association created to represent and build the entire performance based industry.

Social Media:

Filed under: Media
  • http://harbek.50megs.com Harley B. Kelchner

    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!

  • http://adjungle.com Brad Waller

    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.

  • t. mann

    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!

  • http://AdJungle.com Brad Waller

    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.

  • http://harbek.50megs.com Harley B. Kelchner

    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.