<rss version="2.0"
					xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
					xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
					xmlns:opensearch="http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearch/1.1/"
					xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
				  >
<channel>
<atom:link href="http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/real-costs-cookie-blocking/240071/#comments" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><title><![CDATA[Comments on: The Real Costs of Cookie-Blocking]]></title>
<link>http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/real-costs-cookie-blocking/240071/#comments</link>
<language>en-us</language>
<ttl>120</ttl>
<description><![CDATA[Mozilla and Microsoft's do-not-track browsers will hurt ad networks and small publishers.]]></description>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: Mike O'Neill]]></title>
<link>http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/real-costs-cookie-blocking/240071/#comments-108714</link>
<description><![CDATA[The identifiers (usually encoded in cookies) you say are anonymous only exist to single out the computers or devices individuals use to visit websites. They can easily be, and usually are, associated with other personal identifying data such as name, credit card details, friends and email addresses. If you visit a website where you log on, enter derails about your friends, buy something, or you open an email that contains a tracker or link that references the site that placed the cookie, that extra PII is connected to the identifier so you can be profiled or proactively contacted.
Using the &quot;anonymous&quot; (aka &quot;pseudonymous&quot; by some industry lobbyists in Europe) epithet for identifiers is simply a smokescreen designed to let the behavioural data dealers carry on their activities without informing us or getting our consent.]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2013 02:45 EST</pubDate>
<author>Mike O'Neill</author>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: Deborah Budd]]></title>
<link>http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/real-costs-cookie-blocking/240071/#comments-108686</link>
<description><![CDATA[Most web users see cookies as a means to push unwanted advertising to them, often while they are in the midst of reading something interesting. The argument that cookies help publishers direct users to more valuable, relevant content also runs counter to Web behaviors - many users enjoy the serendipity of web discovery; being &quot;directed to relevant content&quot; is only a good thing in the right circumstances. Advertisers and publishers have been pretty ham-fisted at knowing when direction is required or desired by users. Ultimately, behavioral tracking is great for content servers, but the mass audience consuming content still see it as intrusive, an invasion of privacy. The industry faces a long road in convincing web users that cookie benefits aren&#039;t one-sided.]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2013 11:01 EST</pubDate>
<author>Deborah Budd</author>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[By: Kevin Lee]]></title>
<link>http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/real-costs-cookie-blocking/240071/#comments-108517</link>
<description><![CDATA[The online media industry has clearly failed here to provide the public and the developers of applications with a solution to tracking that is understandable and low enough friction that the browser developers feel the users need are being met. Of course conspiracy theorists might postulate that the death third party cookie makes premium inventory the obvious choice for advertisers, driving up CPMs.]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:21 EST</pubDate>
<author>Kevin Lee</author>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>