• Follow Dan Pepper on Twitter
  • Follow Dan Pepper on Facebook

The Premier Technology & Internet Law Firm

361 Route 31, Suite 1402
Flemington, NJ 08822

908.698.0330 phone
908.248.9220 fax

Are online cookies that defy deletion legal?

By Dan Pepper (319 words)
Posted in Technology Law on September 22, 2010

There are (0) comments permalink

At least six new lawsuits are challenging online cookies that track Internet users’ browsing habits, claiming the modern tracking tools defy or inhibit deletion.

At issue is technology from Quantcast, also targeted in the lawsuit. Quantcast created Flash cookies that track users across the web, and used them to re-create traditional browser cookies that users deleted from their computers. These “zombie” cookies came to light last year, after researchers at UC Berkeley documented deleted browser cookies returning to life. Quantcast quickly fixed the issue, calling it an unintended consequence of trying to measure web traffic accurately.

Flash cookies are used by many of the net’s top websites for a variety of purposes, from setting default volume levels on video players to assigning a unique ID to users that tracks them no matter what browser they useUnlike traditional browser cookies, Flash cookies are relatively unknown to web users, and they are not controlled through the cookie privacy controls in a browser. That means even if a user thinks they have cleared their computer of tracking objects, they most likely have not.

One suit names CNN and the Travel Channel, claiming the companies track Internet surfing over mobile phones using unique ID numbers that can be “re-spawned” after deletion. Another suit against Fox Entertainment Group and Americanidol.com says the companies use “flash cookies” that can re-spawn deleted tracking files.

Although the legality of this practice is questionable at best, and a decision from the Court presumably several months away, the heightened awareness of this technology should prompt website owners to rethink the use of flash cookies.

Comments (0)

no comments posted

Leave a comment

Not a robot?

February 2012
  • S
  • M
  • T
  • W
  • R
  • F
  • S
  •  
  •  
  •  
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29