I have no idea (truthfully, I don't really care either), but maybe they don't need "full tracking" at this time. But just because someone doesn't do something, it does not mean it's in the process of becoming illegal (or even illegal currently). There are an infinite number of things that I don't do, none of which are in the process of becoming "illegal". You assume way too much. Either way, you mentioned that only a certain type of cookie was going to become illegal. What type of cookie is that exactly? Regarding Google's legal department... they are afraid of poorly constructed/worded laws, not a specific law itself.
Shawn, are you sure you are not a lawyer, because you sure do sound like one sometimes (my fault, I told you to act as the defence), so do you want me to proceed with more links, or do you want to review the links provided in more detail?
No, you don't need to supply any more links. I really only have one question (which so far you have made the claim about, but are unable to answer the simple question)... You said they are going to legally ban a specific type of cookie. What type of cookie is that? If you don't know, that's fine, but maybe you shouldn't talk about things you don't actually know about then. If you *do* know, great... I'm wondering what it is.
You piss people off. Maybe if you stood back and looked for an alternative way to present the same message you might be more successful. It's great to have new ideas presented, and we don't expect to agree all the time but you appear to try to rile people before they've even started. This aint ice hockey! funny that!
I do not sugar coat most of my stuff, sorry. Plus I take a lot of ______, from a lot of folks and put up with it, sorry you are offended, I will try to be more tactful in the future.
Question, Shawn what do transmissions of page views mean to you? Is the transmission of page views to third parties a good thing for the computing public (not for webmasters), do you think this is a fair trade off so users can look at a page rank gauge? Do you think that tracking cookies that are considered spyware by software manufacturers would be a good enough case for an example here?
We're not looking for sugar-coating. Just coherance. Your link does nothing to add to the debate, so why not link to the external pages from the thread - except that you're spamming to get traffic. I'm trying to help here - although many will wonder why .
To me, "transmission of page views" means reporting on page views... Which also happens to have no relevance to my question. A cookie cannot transmit a page to third parties. A cookie also cannot be read by anyone other than by the domain that set it originally. And a cookie most definitely does not report what page you are viewing back to the original domain that set it. Maybe you are thinking that the Google toolbar is a cookie, but it's not. So again, I ask... What type of cookies exactly are in the process of being legally banned as you have claimed?
As I mentioned Shawn, software companies that have invented cookie blockers consider these cookies spyware, so if spyware laws are enacted, then most of these cookies that are considered spyware will be outlawed. You keep thinking along the lines of "one" cookie, or "whos" cookie. Did you read the article on the Google Cookie, I doubt you had time to completely study it?
the link was given as the point of the thread, but there was no info on the page, just abuse and more links. I've just searched our friend Google for anthonycea and found some interesting stuff. you're into domain reselling: http://www.internetnamebank.com what a guy these guys are anti: http://www.emailfeeds.com/feeds/143/114400/ you peddle google diatribe on a wrestling site? http://www.jrwrestling.com/forum/search.php?searchid=1180 but we know google is blocking you so I searched instead at http://www.fybersearch.com/web-fybersearch.php?fybersearch=anthonyseo&type= and got nothing.
So what you are saying is if laws are passed against spyware, and then a 3rd party entity considers something that isn't even software spyware, then whatever that is automatically becomes illegal? Gee, I hope they don't brand me as spyware. I might go to jail then. So the "type" of cookie that is going to become illegal isn't really a type at all? It's anything that an anti-spyware entity considers spyware?
Those idiots at SearchGuild are just trying to make money off of me, they are really a bunch of cowards, I am sure they will pick that up when they do a Google search on me like you did. Do you see how they are trying to make money off of my name? Sorry bastards they are, they censored entire threads that were started, now they want to put their sorry moderators response which was also originally deleted to make money off of my name. Scum bags, why don't they have the ______s to put up all the original threads, they only want to show their censored version of the story, that is why. Scumbags they are to make money off of that page. Thanks for finding it, I am not trying to hide anything, like some are, so thank you for your investigation.
Shawn you are too good to be put behind bars and much too young. I think you need to understand what spyware is, it is the collection of data that is not disclosed to the user (public). Do you think that these EULA's will hold up when the lawsuits start flying, that I doubt. You know now that I think about it Shawn, maybe you should be in jail
Spyware is not the collection of data without disclosing to the user. If that were the case, then every web server on the planet is spyware because of the http logs and those don't even have EULA. So yes, I do think EULA agreements will hold up in court, because one could argue that that every web server in the world is a much more malicious piece of spyware than a toolbar (because web sites don't have EULA). At least by your definition of spyware. Still has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread though (cookies).
Shawn, Cookies, AutoID, Spyware, Data Mining, these are mostly the same thing. I found the article in the other thread on M$ AUTO ID it is below. I have more on Cookies if you all are hungry, plus I know that none of you completely went through those original links because there are days of reading and understanding the pages could take months for some of us, Shawn maybe 2 hours. Well here is the link I asked you to look at last week Shawn on the M$ AUTOID Anyone that refuses the ID, should buy some Goats and start making cheese. http://channelzone.ziffdavis.com/article2/0,1759,1602142,00.asp
Also says nothing about "auto ID". TrustBridge is a central authentication system for web-based applications based solely on Microsoft technology (think .Net). It's nothing more than an extension of Active Directory (which is a terrible authentication system to begin with). So if your website already uses Active Directory to authenticate, then you can use it as an option (someday). But it does not lock anyone out, nor does it prevent anyone without a TrustBridge account (including Windows users) from using any website.
I have no idea what "auto ID" is. I'm guessing it's something you coined. If that's the case, you tell *me* what you define as auto ID. I guess www.digitalpoint.com already has auto ID installed because there is no need for a username or password. But if you want to talk about TrustBridge and what it actually means to end-users (or website owners), then do a search for it and read about it. But to sum it up, it will not affect website owners or end-users anymore than Passport does. The only companies Microsoft will get to use TrustBridge are the same ones that use Passport already (basically companies they paid to use it). And even THOSE companies do not require it's use by their users.
Microsoft also is committed to providing a product or technology called the "Identity System" in the Longhorn timeframe. This is a "simplified and secure digital identity consumer experience" The above is from this article linked below. http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1601752,00.asp