Privacy zealots say, 'Cookies for me, none for thee'

Establishment of Cookie Clearinghouse shows support for user choice to be little more than rhetoric

By Daniel Castro, Computerworld |  Security, cookies, insider

Last week, Brendan Eich, the chief technology officer and senior vice president of engineering at Mozilla, announced that the organization is planning to block third-party cookies in future versions of the Firefox Web browser. In addition, the Center for Internet and Society (CIS) at Stanford Law School announced that it has created a new organization called the " Cookie Clearinghouse," which will begin publishing blacklists for websites based on whether it believes a website's particular usage of cookies "makes logical sense." Mozilla will use these blacklists to decide which cookies to accept or deny.

Large-scale blocking of third-party cookies may have profound negative consequences on the future of the Internet. There are three main concerns. First, this practice will result in a loss of revenue from online advertising for many websites, and thus lead to less free content available to consumers. Second, it will cut off many legitimate business models for companies that collect and aggregate user data across the Internet to understand user behavior to design better websites, content and features. Third, it will limit the functionality of websites, both today and in the future, by cutting off the ability to use third-party cookies in some cases or making it more difficult to use them in others.

Mozilla's position is both ironic and hypocritical. Not that long ago, Mozilla vociferously opposed the proposal in the Stop Online Piracy Act ( SOPA) to blacklist websites that promote piracy and counterfeit goods, yet now it is surprisingly optimistic about using third-party blacklists to effectively block parts of websites. When describing SOPA, Mozilla CEO Gary Kovacs stated, "More alarming is the reality that sites could be taken down based solely on the mere suspicion of illegal content, not based on the ruling of a body of legal authority. The lack of due process is a serious flaw, a threat to each of our rights as citizens, and simply should not be accepted." Basically, Mozilla opposed SOPA because it did not think anyone, including the government, should be trusted to monitor websites and determine what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. Yet Mozilla supports giving a week-old organization, which appears to really just be a group of six people with no accountability, the authority to make or break any website on the Internet based on whether they like how a particular website works. Or put differently, Mozilla thinks it has a responsibility to block targeted advertising on illegal websites, but not the illegal websites themselves.

To continue reading, register here to become an Insider. You'll get free access to premium content from CIO, Computerworld, CSO, InfoWorld, and Network World. Go now!

Don't miss...

Best programming fonts
The 13 best programming fonts of all time
Top 10 programming skills that will get you hired
Top 10 programming skills that will get you hired
Low tech solutions to high tech problems
Funny fixes! 8 low-tech solutions for high-tech problems

  Sign me up for ITworld's FREE daily newsletter!
Email: 
 


Originally published on Computerworld |  Click here to read the original story.
Join us:
Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Tumblr

LinkedIn

Google+

Answers - Powered by ITworld

Ask a Question