1996-06-15 - Re: doubleclick monitoring web browsing habits

Header Data

From: “Mark M.” <markm@voicenet.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 371212e0680e500b6cc644d7b165482f8bf5f2aa812820bfd95a0c971281389e
Message ID: <Pine.LNX.3.93.960614175916.153A-100000@gak>
Reply To: <199606132319.QAA14901@jobe.shell.portal.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-06-15 09:08:09 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 17:08:09 +0800

Raw message

From: "Mark M." <markm@voicenet.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 17:08:09 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: doubleclick monitoring web browsing habits
In-Reply-To: <199606132319.QAA14901@jobe.shell.portal.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.93.960614175916.153A-100000@gak>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Thu, 13 Jun 1996, Hal wrote:

> One question is whether enough information to uniquely identify users
> is routinely provided by widely used browsers like Netscape.  I have
> refrained from telling my Netscape browser my name and email address out
> of fear that it would reveal this information; as a result, I can't use
> mailto: links, which is annoying (and also suspicious; lynx allows me to
> do mailto: without permanently entering an email address).

I do this too.  Until recently, it was trivial for a server to either force
the browser to download something via FTP and record the e-mail address or use
the infamous Javascript hack.  I currently have Netscape setup to disable Java,
and issue warnings whenever sending a form via e-mail or accepting a cookie.
I think this will prevent my e-mail address from being revealed to any server,
but it is not enough to satisfy my paranoia.  I would be truely satisfied if
Netscape would prompt for an e-mail address whenever it sends mail or post to
usenet.

> 
> This points out the need for browser providers to be sensitive to the
> privacy needs of their users and to clearly explain when and under what
> circumstances private information is revealed.  It also suggests that
> services like www.anonymizer.com will be increasingly important for
> people to protect their privacy while browsing.

Definitely.  Although they will never be as secure as anonymous remailers
(messages can not be delayed), this will be much better protection against
information gatherers.

- -- Mark

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
markm@voicenet.com              | finger -l for PGP key 0xe3bf2169
http://www.voicenet.com/~markm/ | d61734f2800486ae6f79bfeb70f95348
"In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with
reality at any point."
                -- Friedrich Nietzsche


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBMcHiaLZc+sv5siulAQF6DwQAqjNIai5zPDqCUxyCq2Y9BuM7EjUjp7IF
7GhSalQAilThBB+v4N6cQ6glkGOE+9heGBqsob0HKdQdIP2/AdbVCCgobO5JRGy+
kUPpMBve51PWjBu+ey85AlcJIwi0d8Upkb8aC4HYf79UTfzkOd2/84eBY0F5iY4X
iuoTsUwcFt4=
=RfVo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----





Thread