3893Re: Anti-Spyware Coalition defines terms
- Oct 31, 2005Good response, Andrew.
Has the association given much thought about how to respond given the
coalition's self-righteous response? I agree that a more substantial
response may be warranted at this point ... otherwise you run the risk
of allowing the anti-spyware forces, given their apparent organization
and the sizable companies in their membership, to further establish
cookies as "evil and unwanted."
Unfortunately you've got AOL, Microsoft, McAfee, Dell, Yahoo! and a
host of other companies who depend heavily on cookies themselves
supporting this new definition, potentially making the defense of
cookies very much an uphill battle.
I appreciate your willingness to keep those of us not in the WAA
informed about your work and decisions.
--- In email@example.com, Andrew Edwards <aedwards@t...> wrote:
> The WAA has decided that, at this stage, the best way to interact with
> Anti-Spyware Coalition is through our active paricipation in NAI
> (National Advertising Initiative). The NAI has aggregated a number of
> marketing interests and engaged in substantive discussions with the
> Coalition. Over the summer I participated in an event specifically
> the Coalition's approach to cookies, and the Coalition had a
> representative at the meeting.
> On behalf of the WAA I made it clear to that representative that we
> the Coalition was misstating its purpose, insofar as it failed to
> acknowledge that its members were demonizing cookies for the purpose of
> their own enhanced marketing efforts.
> Needless to say, the Coalition takes a self-righteous approach when
> confronted with this fact. Now that they have come out with their
> self-serving definitions of "unwanted technologies", we probably
> respond more substantively.
> --Andrew Edwards
> Eric Peterson wrote:
> >I think the oddest thing about the Anti-Spyware coalition is that
> >neither the WAA nor any web analytics vendors are already participants
> >in this group. I've heard that the coalition has had some problems
> >but certainly it would seem like a group like this would be one worth
> >participating in (or perhaps lobbying) if your cookies kept getting
> >added to anti-spyware blacklists.
> >Anyway, just an observation.
> >--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Akin Arikan" <akin@s...> wrote:
> >>If you haven't seen already, the Anti-Spyware coalition has released
> >>their terms and definitions for public comment. The last one among
> >>terms is "Unauthorized Tracking Cookies". I am wondering whether it
> >>would make sense for the Web Analytics Association's Advocacy
> >>to seek membership in the Anti-Spyware coalition in order to
> >>ongoing guidance and refinement that our industry wants to give?
> >>Their definitions:
> >>The document is open for public comment
> >><http://www.antispywarecoalition.org/comments/> until November 27,
> >>Yahoo's news story:
> >>Right now their definition has both pros and cons. However, we may
> >>to suggest further refinement in order to distinguish between good and
> >>bad cookies, if there is such a thing. For example, we could burn 3d
> >>party cookies in order to save 1st party cookies.
> >>Akin Arikan
> >>from Sane Solutions
> >Web Metrics Discussion Group
> >Moderated by Eric T. Peterson
> >Author, Web Analytics Demystified
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> Andrew Edwards
> Managing Partner
> Technology Leaders
> 230 Park Avenue
> New York, NY 10169
> (212) 808-3058
> Cell: (917) 602-0083
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>