Re: Back from the grave: Unverifiable Transactions and Cookies
Koen Holtman (koen@win.tue.nl)
Thu, 24 Apr 1997 19:42:15 +0200 (MET DST)
Benjamin Franz:
>
>
>Oh boy. It looks to me like the 'but unverifiable transactions are GOOD'
>crowd just went the guerilla PR route. Those of you who get ClariNet
>should check out the article titled: "****Online Professionals Support Web
>Cookies 04/23/97" <URL:news:Naf6_35U@clari.net>, clari.tw.top.
I found the same article in biz.clarinet, which is a more common
newsgroup I believe. There is also an article about this at
http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,9962,00.html, though that one does
not have the quote below.
> If you were
>to take what the 'Association of Online Professionals (AOP)' says at face
>value you would think that the WG had just proposed turning off ALL
>cookies by default (naughty, naughty WG).
>
>Fair use excerpt:
>
> Among the negative impacts, according to McClure are a "potential
> loss of services from online services such as MSN, which rely on
> cookies for passwords, preferences and other common tasks; loss of
> all electronic commerce that relies on cookies, including those
> based on the "shopping cart" models; and loss of one of the major
> methods of advertising effectiveness analysis for Web sites that
> rely on such revenues and sponsorships for their economic base."
>
>Am I crazy or of the items they list is the ONLY one *actually* affected
>the "loss of one of the major methods of advertising effectiveness
>analysis for Web sites"?
Yes, only that one is affected somewhat. And even `advertising
effectiveness analysis' does not rely on cookies that much.
>
>The Big Lie lives....
>
>--
>Benjamin Franz
Koen.