- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 19:42:15 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: Benjamin Franz <snowhare@netimages.com>
- Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
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.
Received on Thursday, 24 April 1997 10:46:43 UTC