On the Doubleclick website there is an option to set a cookie
that "OPTS-OUT". Which is under the privacy link. This is sort
of the same way that the PIII signature was able to hush the
privacy crowds.
Now all you have to do is inform all the users, they if they do
not want this behavior to perform this action to set this cookie.
And they will have to do it on every PC they use to access the
internet.
I can see the value of blacklisting this site.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of O'Shea, Dave
Sent: Tuesday December 21, 1999 8:01 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Doubleclick, Altavista & cookies
Actually I think this is a very significant concern.
I am surprised that Doubleclick or someone similar has not already been
subpoenaed in a civil case for some cause or other. If I were a plaintiff's
attorney in, say, a sexual harassment/hostile environment case, I would seek
a record of any hits logged by those companies. Ditto if I were fishing for
evidence in a stockholder suit. It's impossible to depose 10,000 separate
web sites to see if someone has his any of them - but if only two or three
companies can be queried about the same activities... It makes for short
work, and is certain to turn up enough of a "silicon trail" to make
*someone* uncomfortable.
Because of this possibility, I know of several administrators who simply
block, at the DNS level, about two dozen domains. Doubleclick, imgis,
preferences.com, focalink, flycast.. those are the first ones that come to
mind.
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
