IP: re: today's nyt story, about safeweb.com - 'what's wrong withthis picture dept'

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> To: farber () cis upenn edu
> Cc: catalyst () contractprivacyofficer com
> Subject: Re: IP: today's nyt story, about safeweb.com -  'what's wrong 
> withthis picture dept'
> From: pb () purportal com (Paul Bissex)
> Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 17:54:59 -0400
>
> Dave/Paul,
>
> Apologies for stating the obivous, but: cookies are a
> persistance mechanism, not a survellance technology.
>
> SafeWeb is a proxy service.  When you use them, every single HTTP
> request from your browser goes through their server. In other words, if
> you don't trust them, then cookies are the least of your worries.
>
> I understand the "credibility issue" point, but IMO SafeWeb should not
> eschew the use of cookies just because people have an irrational fear
> of them. Ad Bruce Schneier says, "Security is a process, not
> a product"; part of that process is education.
>
> Most IPers (Mr. Foldes included, most likely) know this stuff, I'm sure,
> but for those who don't, here's a good review:
>
>   http://www.w3.org/Security/Faq/wwwsf2.html#CLT-Q10
>
> FTR, I have no affiliation with SafeWeb.
>
> best
>
> pb



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/