A Gentleman's Agreement on Privacy

http://labs.mochimedia.com/archive/2011/06/01/do-not-track/#disqus_thread

by clay • 15 years ago

3 6 15 years ago

labs.mochimedia.com

ggchappell3• 15 years ago

Hmmm ...

> When the DNT header is present Mochi will not assign your browser a unique cookie ....

HOWEVER:

> In the Local Shared Object we still store some information about the ads you've seen, ....

A LSO is just a "cookie" that's controlled by Flash, not by the browser. So users usually know less about them, think all cookies have been blocked/deleted when LSO's have not, etc.

Conclusion: Maybe these people are trying to be ethical, or maybe they're trying to be sneaky, and pretend to be ethical. I can't tell. I hope it's the former. If it is, then I'm afraid a bit better explanation is still needed.

In particular: why not just store a browser cookie?

If this is an attempt to be ethical, then I'm sorry I had to be so cynical. But, as we all know, the web is full of scammers, and I don't know anything about these people.

ericflo2• 15 years ago

I think this explanation is fine: according to the post, it's storing information about the ads you see, not about you. So you're not being tracked.

ggchappell3• 15 years ago

Yes, that seems likely. However, it leaves my question unanswered: why not just store a browser cookie?

Is it because the user has requested that no browser cookie by stored? If so, then they're storing information in a place the user might not know about, due to the fact that the user has requested that it not be stored in a place they do know about. That sounds ethically iffy at best.

After all, LSOs are not well known, even among people who care about privacy and try to manage their own responsibly. Trumpeting the fact that they store no browser cookie, and then storing a LSO, smacks of shady dealing. Maybe they're okay, but, as I said, I'm not quite convinced.

A Gentleman's Agreement on Privacy

Related Stories