I am troubled by the number of sites that require cookies to be enabled in
order for me to use the facilities they offer, EVEN IF I PAY for their
service. Why should I let them write on my hard disk to get the info I am
paying for?

It seems to me I should be able to charge for each cookie, say $1.00 per
month. They are receiving valuable marking data by tracking my useable and
if they had to get that data from some market research out fit, they would
have to pay handsomely.

The solution is for Microsoft to make a new facility for Internet Explorer
that lets each of us create and administer financial accounts for various
purposes, specifically charging for cookie storage and use. When a remote
site requests me to accept a cookie, I be able to say "Yes. For free", or
"Yes, give my PayPal account $1 for the next month." , "No. Go away".

I believe that the ability to implant cookies on my machine is one of the
two major steps to virus propagation: storing the code. All that is
required beyond that is some hole in the OS or browser that will execute a
cookie.

if you subscribe to a site or service that requires cookies you get what you
pay for. if you don't want cookies use a different service that doesn't
require them, its your choice.

"William W. Plummer" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:rSbYb.325313$I06.3331326@attbi_s01...
> I am troubled by the number of sites that require cookies to be enabled in
> order for me to use the facilities they offer, EVEN IF I PAY for their
> service. Why should I let them write on my hard disk to get the info I
am
> paying for?
>
> It seems to me I should be able to charge for each cookie, say $1.00 per
> month. They are receiving valuable marking data by tracking my useable
and
> if they had to get that data from some market research out fit, they would
> have to pay handsomely.
>
> The solution is for Microsoft to make a new facility for Internet Explorer
> that lets each of us create and administer financial accounts for various
> purposes, specifically charging for cookie storage and use. When a remote
> site requests me to accept a cookie, I be able to say "Yes. For free", or
> "Yes, give my PayPal account $1 for the next month." , "No. Go away".
>
> I believe that the ability to implant cookies on my machine is one of the
> two major steps to virus propagation: storing the code. All that is
> required beyond that is some hole in the OS or browser that will execute a
> cookie.
>
>

"William W. Plummer" said in news:rSbYb.325313$I06.3331326@attbi_s01:
> I am troubled by the number of sites that require cookies to be
> enabled in order for me to use the facilities they offer, EVEN IF I
> PAY for their service. Why should I let them write on my hard disk
> to get the info I am paying for?
>
> It seems to me I should be able to charge for each cookie, say $1.00
> per month. They are receiving valuable marking data by tracking my
> useable and if they had to get that data from some market research
> out fit, they would have to pay handsomely.
>
> The solution is for Microsoft to make a new facility for Internet
> Explorer that lets each of us create and administer financial
> accounts for various purposes, specifically charging for cookie
> storage and use. When a remote site requests me to accept a cookie,
> I be able to say "Yes. For free", or "Yes, give my PayPal account $1
> for the next month." , "No. Go away".
>
> I believe that the ability to implant cookies on my machine is one of
> the two major steps to virus propagation: storing the code. All
> that is required beyond that is some hole in the OS or browser that
> will execute a cookie.

Christ, another ranter that can't be bothered to search for and trial some
cookie manager. I use PopUp Cop to eliminate popups, flash movies, and such
plus it has cookie management. Any cookies whose domains aren't whitelisted
are forced to be per-session cookies (i.e., they get purged when the last
instance of IE gets closed). There's CookieWall from AnalogX. There are
lots of cookie managers out there, and some free ones, too. But mike would
rather rant than solve.

--
____________________________________________________________
*** Post replies to newsgroup. E-mail is not accepted. ***
____________________________________________________________

I agree. I also feel a bit violated with all these cookies
downloaded to my harddrive without my permission. (And who
knows what else might get downloaded without our knowledge
even when having good security.) bah i don't make sense.
>-----Original Message-----
>I am troubled by the number of sites that require cookies
to be enabled in
>order for me to use the facilities they offer, EVEN IF I
PAY for their
>service. Why should I let them write on my hard disk to
get the info I am
>paying for?
>
>It seems to me I should be able to charge for each
cookie, say $1.00 per
>month. They are receiving valuable marking data by
tracking my useable and
>if they had to get that data from some market research
out fit, they would
>have to pay handsomely.
>
>The solution is for Microsoft to make a new facility for
Internet Explorer
>that lets each of us create and administer financial
accounts for various
>purposes, specifically charging for cookie storage and
use. When a remote
>site requests me to accept a cookie, I be able to
say "Yes. For free", or
>"Yes, give my PayPal account $1 for the next
month." , "No. Go away".
>
>I believe that the ability to implant cookies on my
machine is one of the
>two major steps to virus propagation: storing the code.
All that is
>required beyond that is some hole in the OS or browser
that will execute a
>cookie.
>
>
>.
>

"*Vanguard*" <no-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:qtudnWiGWKCpOazdRVn-(E-Mail Removed)...
> "William W. Plummer" said in news:rSbYb.325313$I06.3331326@attbi_s01:
> > I am troubled by the number of sites that require cookies to be
> > enabled in order for me to use the facilities they offer, EVEN IF I
> > PAY for their service. Why should I let them write on my hard disk
> > to get the info I am paying for?
> >
> > It seems to me I should be able to charge for each cookie, say $1.00
> > per month. They are receiving valuable marking data by tracking my
> > useable and if they had to get that data from some market research
> > out fit, they would have to pay handsomely.
> >
> > The solution is for Microsoft to make a new facility for Internet
> > Explorer that lets each of us create and administer financial
> > accounts for various purposes, specifically charging for cookie
> > storage and use. When a remote site requests me to accept a cookie,
> > I be able to say "Yes. For free", or "Yes, give my PayPal account $1
> > for the next month." , "No. Go away".
> >
> > I believe that the ability to implant cookies on my machine is one of
> > the two major steps to virus propagation: storing the code. All
> > that is required beyond that is some hole in the OS or browser that
> > will execute a cookie.
>
> Christ, another ranter that can't be bothered to search for and trial some
> cookie manager. I use PopUp Cop to eliminate popups, flash movies, and
such
> plus it has cookie management. Any cookies whose domains aren't
whitelisted
> are forced to be per-session cookies (i.e., they get purged when the last
> instance of IE gets closed). There's CookieWall from AnalogX. There are
> lots of cookie managers out there, and some free ones, too. But mike
would
> rather rant than solve.

You need to read my original complaint. In fact if you bar pop-ups and
cookies, you will not be given the service provided. Ex: I must allow
cookies to see my phone bill, mutual fund accounts, etc.