Lawmakers call for probe into supercookies

[The_Dude 1,142]

Lawmakers call for probe into supercookies

Lawmakers are calling for a probe into the tracking mechanisms known as supercookies, which are a more persistent type of the common cookie.

Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Joe Barton (R-Tex.), co-chairmen of the bipartisan privacy caucus in the House, wrote to the Federal Trade Commission on Tuesday to ask the agency to look into the supercookies, saying that they invade user privacy.

Hulu.com and MSN.com were both identified as Web sites using the new kind of tracking method in research from Stanford University and the University of California at Berkeley, the Wall Street Journal reported. Supercookies, which are legal, can re-create a users profile information even after he or she has deleted traditional cookies, the report said. Companies also use a tracking method that compares user histories against a set of 1,500 Web sites to build user profiles. Many sites found to be using the method were seemingly unaware of the fact. MSN.com and Hulu both said that they have taken action to deal with the tracking.

Markey and Bardon said that they believe supercookie use could be in violation of the FTCs rules regarding unfair and deceptive acts of practices.

I think supercookies should be outlawed because their existence eats away at consumer choice and privacy, Barton said in a statement.

Source

ETA Link

Edited September 28, 2011 by The_Dude

[rsn 135]

no idea why the media has invented a new word for this. They are referring to etags. The last thing we need is a bunch of incompetent lawmakers passing laws to restrict something that they probably do not understand. This article really does readers a disservice by dumbing down the topic. abuse of etags should be dealt with by browser manufacturers and/or plugin developers, not politicians.

Edited September 29, 2011 by rsn

[rsn 135]

I have included a link to a research paper that details how all of this works. A follow-up article is available here as well.

[scandal 951]

The last thing we need is a bunch of incompetent lawmakers passing laws to restrict something that they probably do not understand.

You're surprised? They do this routinely.

I do think it's appropriate for our legislators and regulators to make rules which affect the public welfare in complex technical areas. That may include food and drug safety, mining safety, environmental practices, amongst many other area, - including information technology. However I expect that they rely heavily on technically trained advisers and experts in creating such laws and regulations.

What's bizarre in today's culture is high profile politicians willing to go on-record about scientific matters they know nothing about - global warming, evolutionary development, stem cell research all come to mind - and pontificate on policy. Anti-science is everywhere, and growing.

[rsn 135]

You're surprised? They do this routinely.

I do think it's appropriate for our legislators and regulators to make rules which affect the public welfare in complex technical areas.

I'm not sure it's worth taxpayer money to enact laws that cover the abuse of etags and respawning of HTTP cookies. I suspect this article suggests both are occurring, though it it hard to tell due to the lack of detail. The articles I cited certainly do prove that this type of activity exists. I, for one, don't want my tax money spent on this sort of thing. How could such a law be enforced, especially if offenders outside of our jurisdiction are involved?

Here are some more reasonable ways to handle this:

• Browser manufacturers should allow users to prohibit etags in HTTP headers, either for all domains or specific domains. The solution is a bit more complicated than this, and users should be aware of the benefits of etags first.
• Browser manufacturers should make it much easier for users to disable flash shared objects & HTML5 local storage so users can better prevent respawning of HTTP cookies, if they wish.

I think Google, Mozilla, and Microsoft, among others, will not balk at adding these types of protections to their browsers.

None of this really concerns me, but I can understand why some might be a bit concerned.

Edited September 29, 2011 by rsn

[slim 1,514]

So the government can spy on us... just not businesses.

Thanks, congressman.

[mawilson 2,133]

I want a chocolate chip or an oatmeal supercookie.