Originally Posted by oldbmw
I could not sign on, so thought I would just enrol again. It would not let me do that either
saying email address already in use).
eventually on a last ditch attempt I got around it by re enabling cookies where I was in trouble. I think the hubb now has a new server address also so teh previous cookie settings did not work. It is always worthwhile to block all cookies except from trusted and named sites.. Sometimes there is a price topay convenience wise for this policy. When sites change severs for instance
Nope, haven't changed servers, or address. The HUBB is at a slightly new url, that's all. (/hubb instead of /ubb)
And of course you can't re-register at the same address, and that wouldn't have worked anyway - you'd still have the cookie problem.
Note that ALL forums require cookies to be active, or they just can't work - the cookie is the only way to know that you are logged in.
Cookies ARE NOT the monsters that people make them out to be, they're pretty benign, and are needed to make the web what it is today.
(I would hope that we'd be on your trusted list anyway
We're pretty paranoid about security and privacy - Susan is a CISSP - Certified Information Systems Security Professional - and a privacy guru. And we allow cookies everywhere - mind you we don't visit really dodgy sites.
Fred Langa is a very popular computer writer, writes some great stuff - if you don't subscribe to his list, you should. I read it regularly. He recently wrote on this subject the following (hopefully he won't mind the quote, as I gave him a plug!
Fred Langa, the Langalist, in response to a question about cookies:
..."I consider trackers as spying tools registering all my facts, am I right or wrong ?"
As you know, if you've read this newsletter for any length of time, I'm a security fanatic, and go much further than most people do to keep things wrapped tight and snoop-proof. But that's not to say that I believe all threats are equal--- or even that all supposed threats are real.
"Web bugs," "web beacons," "tracking cookies" and the like are mostly the invention of purveyors of "security" tools designed to protect you from those very things. The people who make the tools have a vested interest in convincing you that those things are major, imminent threats that require eternal vigilance--- and not incidentally, the use of their tool.
But most "web bugs," "web beacons," "tracking cookies" and such are like simple turnstiles that do nothing more than count the number of times an ad is displayed, and (sometimes) which site displayed the ad. That's how the site owners get paid. It is almost always, overwhelmingly, and almost without exception a totally benign thing. In fact, it can be seen as a good thing, as it gets you "free" (ad-supported) content.
What's more, *any* embedded link can act as a "web bug." There is nothing--- repeat NOTHING--- special about what are called "bugs" and "beacons." They're EXACTLY like any other embedded link; and they return EXACTLY the same data to the server as any other link. They no more "mine your data" or "harvest private information" or any such thing than do any other links.
And that's the thing that really makes we marvel at the sales job some security tool vendors have done: When you click a link--- any link--- or allow an embedded link to open--- any embedded link--- your browser automatically sends a set of information to the server. It's not snooping; it's how the web works--- it's how the server knows what to send you, where, and in what format.
This exchange of information has happened with every link you have ever clicked on the web. It's happened with every inline image you've seen on a web page. It's happened every time you've use a framed page. Etc. It's very simply how the web works. But some security vendors have done a fabulous job convincing people that there's this mysterious, evil thing--- a "bug" or "beacon" or whatnot--- that somehow puts them at risk.
Nope, sorry. They are intrinsically no more dangerous than any other link you've ever clicked. Ever!
Usually, ads are on "free" sites, which is to say, ad-supported sites. So when you block web bugs and the like, you're preventing your viewing of the associated ad from being counted; so the site owner won't get paid. IOW, by protecting yourself from the largely imaginary danger of web bugs and the like, you're undermining the free content you were viewing. Stop enough ad-tracking devices, and free content goes away. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch--- or free content and services. Someone, somewhere, is paying for everything that's "free." IMO, if you want "free" content and services, you really need to let the ads do their thing; or you risk killing the services you're using.
And, to come full circle: Many kinds of security threats are very, very real and require high vigilance. But web bugs and their ilk are NOT among them.