Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FTC Is In Talks With Adobe About the 'Flash Problem'

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the would-you-like-a-delicious-cookie dept.

Privacy 179

jamie links to news that the FTC is talking with Adobe about persistent Flash cookies. "Flash isn't actually necessary to watch YouTube videos, but the rest of this article is interesting."

cancel ×

179 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

timothy in talks with well hung niggers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34454216)

about the "there's no dick in my ass" problem.

Flash Problem? (-1)

ThePromenader (878501) | more than 3 years ago | (#34454256)

What Flash problem? Are they going to finally give up trying to proprieritize that encapsulated javascript(ish)?

Re:Flash Problem? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34454356)

Flash is proof that niggers use the internet.

Re:Flash Problem? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34454510)

You are proof that sometimes murder should go unpunished.

Re:Flash Problem? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34455064)

sure, when you kill a nigger.

Whatever color you are, you are a nigger (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34455264)

OK. Since the definition of nigger is an incredibly ignorant person, I think that all of use who are not niggers (black, white, brown, and all) can agree that it should not be a punishable offense to kill you, so I guess we all finally agree on something ;-)

Re:Whatever color you are, you are a nigger (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34455532)

OK. Since the definition of nigger is an incredibly ignorant person, I think that all of use who are not niggers (black, white, brown, and all) can agree that it should not be a punishable offense to kill you, so I guess we all finally agree on something ;-)

So this is what you are saying: "Hey, you used free speech in a way I don't like, therefore you must die!"

You'd really want somebody dead because they used a politically incorrect word? A fucking WORD? You are the true nigger and that has nothin to do with color. Fuck you ACs and fuck the way you keep wishing people dead over a few words. It's just WRONG. If you wanna prove how not-racist and good you are this is how not to do it.

Re:Flash Problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34455934)

You are proof that sometimes murder should go unpunished.

Indeed. I was thinking about incentives, maybe tax breaks or subsidies.

Re:Flash Problem? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34454532)

I thought Myspace was proof of this?

Re:Flash Problem? (-1, Troll)

jo42 (227475) | more than 3 years ago | (#34455024)

What Flash problem?

The problem that it refuses dry up and blow away and continues to hang around like a rancid stench.

Re:Flash Problem? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34455340)

You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about if you think actionscript is like javascript. Any experienced AS3 coder has a far easier time jumping into C# or Java than javascript.

Re:Flash Problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34455912)

Second that-- posting anonymously because I'm embarrased that I write Actionscript to exclusion of most other things.... JAVA is a close second tho.

Re:Flash Problem? (3, Insightful)

redJag (662818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34456234)

ActionScript isn't like JavaScript? They are both based on ECMA Script, they are very similar as languages.

I've (unfortunately) written a lot of both and they are extremely similar to each other. Yes, there are a lot of features inside that bloated Flash runtime, but that doesn't mean ActionScript is not like JavaScript.

What if the local storage is made zero? (5, Interesting)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 3 years ago | (#34454268)

Flash player settings has an option to set the amount of local storage permitted for the player. What happens if I set that amount to zero and mark it permanent (i.e. check box remember)? Would it remove the ability of the flash player to set cookies?

Re:What if the local storage is made zero? (5, Interesting)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34454314)

I have read that rm -rf ~/.adobe; mkdir ~/.adobe; chmod 000 ~/.adobe does the trick. Can anybody confirm?

Re:What if the local storage is made zero? (4, Funny)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#34454340)

No. None of us really uses Linux. We just say that to look cool.

Re:What if the local storage is made zero? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34454448)

I actually use Linux, what scares me is that the ONLY closed source piece of software on my computer is flash.
I think Adobe knows, or hopes, that they will one day be providing massive amounts of video content from actual television channels and Cable Company's and the only way to build some kind of content protection system, DRM, or paid service model would be to keep Flash closed.

Re:What if the local storage is made zero? (0)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#34454544)

Have an experiment going at my house, swfc-gnash seems to be working ok for my wife on her PowerPC laptop with Ubuntu 10.04. Bought that G4 used but the osx filesystem started to have that particular problem Apple's fsck can't fix (but a few commercial disk repair wares can, wtf Jobs?) I'm still a flash weenie on my x86-64 Ubuntu, but I have to study for stupid certifications for my job where the exam simulators are in Flash that the swfc can't do yet.

Re:What if the local storage is made zero? (0)

scdeimos (632778) | more than 3 years ago | (#34455610)

Bought that G4 used but the osx filesystem started to have that particular problem Apple's fsck can't fix (but a few commercial disk repair wares can, wtf Jobs?)

It's called planned obsolescence [reference.com] . Jobs mustn't have counted on third parties fixing the issue.

Re:What if the local storage is made zero? (0)

Cylix (55374) | more than 3 years ago | (#34454522)

You are mad...

I use linux all of the time and even when I'm not.

Just this morning I was using chmad to change some files. Then I was like, "I need to kat these files to my pipe."

It's not like I installed from floppies and just said I was using. I like to keep my systems up to date as well. I'm going to go grab the new version 4 kernel in a minute. Maybe later I'll sit down and write some scripts in Rattler.

It's not just an operating system... it's a way of life.

Re:What if the local storage is made zero? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34454712)

Whoosh...

Re:What if the local storage is made zero? (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 3 years ago | (#34454764)

Hehehe... chmad

Re:What if the local storage is made zero? (3, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34455724)

Just this morning I was using chmad to change some files. Then I was like, "I need to kat these files to my pipe."

Dude, you can't just talk the talk, you gotta type the type.

Re:What if the local storage is made zero? (1)

fishexe (168879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34455816)

I use linux all of the time and even when I'm not.

I see you got the new cranial implant with embedded Linux too, eh?

Re:What if the local storage is made zero? (5, Interesting)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 3 years ago | (#34454462)

Probably would work... Well, I'd simply do "rm ~/.adobe/*; chmod 500 ~/.adobe/*", which would be shorter and keep read/access rights to said directory.

That said, if Flash expects to be able to write to that directory, it might crash when it tries to utilize it. So it really isn't a foolproof method.

As per this moment, under .adobe in my home directory exists the following structure: "~/.adobe/Flash_Player/AssetCache/VSUUJTSX/". The directory is probably randomly generated just like profile directories in Mozilla (harder to predict in case of a flaw in the plugin/browser). In there are just files with the extensions .swz and .heu and one file called "cacheSize.txt". None of these files seems to be human readable (well, okay cacheSize.txt makes somehow sense). Oddly enough, the oldest file is from 25th September 2010. As I use my browser daily and don't mind youtube or the odd flash game, this is strange indeed. I would nearly say that they stopped using it.

Re:What if the local storage is made zero? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34454914)

I would nearly say they stopped using it.

Would that I had mod points... jawtheshark has done the science on this that everybody else just expects others to do. Applause, good sir.

Re:What if the local storage is made zero? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34454476)

I had tried something similar a while (~year?) ago. I had made the directory mode 555 owned by root instead. But browsing some pages caused flash to loop endlessly for some reason, chewing up 100% of one core. Had to kill the browser to stop it. It's been a while ago and can't remember which page it was, but it was something pretty common like cnn or youtube. I don't currently have flash installed to try the specific suggestion given in the parent.

Re:What if the local storage is made zero? (1)

ilikejam (762039) | more than 3 years ago | (#34454684)

Flash player also creates a ~/.macromedia directory...

Re:What if the local storage is made zero? (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 3 years ago | (#34455060)

I have read that rm -rf ~/.adobe; mkdir ~/.adobe; chmod 000 ~/.adobe does the trick. Can anybody confirm?

Looks reasonable. I did
rm -rf ~/.adobe;touch ~/.adobe;rm -rf ~/.macromedia;touch ~/.macromedia;

Re:What if the local storage is made zero? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34455496)

For Linux systems, a python script called s2x allows editing of the Flash configuration:

http://osflash.org/s2x

Use it to disable flash cookies on a Linux system.

Re:What if the local storage is made zero? (2)

anton_kg (1079811) | more than 3 years ago | (#34455772)

it should, but there is a legal way of doing it. Just edit /etc/adobe/mms.cfg file and deny everything.

Re:What if the local storage is made zero? (1)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 3 years ago | (#34455796)

Volume control problems. One of my extensions deletes LSOs so I'm good.

Re:What if the local storage is made zero? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34455976)

I actually did this and it does not work. Many sites are broken (hypem.com to name one of them). An alternative that works fine for me, is rm -rf ~/.adobe ~/.macromedia ; ln -s /tmp ~/.adobe ; ln -s /tmp ~/.macromedia. Since /tmp is cleared at every reboot, I get "session" cookies but never persistent ones. Yay.

Re:What if the local storage is made zero? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34454376)

From experience, 50/50 it will hang the flash as it waits for the storage write to finish, or fails to send a tracking ID to the server.

Even better, if you let it prompt you, third party local storage requests usually appear multiple times yet there is a 1 second lockout on the deny button between requests.

Re:What if the local storage is made zero? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34454558)

From experience, 50/50 it will hang the flash as it waits for the storage write to finish

Should be fixable by symlinking to /dev/null.

Or /dev/random.

Re:What if the local storage is made zero? (5, Insightful)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 3 years ago | (#34454698)

Flash's behavior when disable cookies is really terrible, mostly due to developers that don't care about such a situation. However, this is pretty much the same with any given HTML/javascript web app. From my perspective simply blaming Flash isn't constructive.

The real problem is having multiple locations to store local data and no single place to clear it. I'd say the browsers and W3C should be the solution to this. They should really put their collective foot down and set a standard by which plugins are allowed to store data and integrate with the browser. This would go a long way towards solving a lot of the privacy concerns of Flash and HTML5. There would still be some tricks to identify a user (font list, user agent string, plugin versions, etc) but again the solution is the same.

Re:What if the local storage is made zero? (2)

M. Baranczak (726671) | more than 3 years ago | (#34455368)

We're already part of the way there: HTML 5 includes its own local storage scheme. If this was around (and widely supported) when Flash was first being developed, I'm sure they wouldn't have bothered to concoct their own local storage, because there'd be no need.

All we need to do is encourage Adobe and other plugin developers to use the new standard instead of making up their own custom schemes. Which shouldn't be that hard, since in the long run it makes the developers' jobs easier.

Re:What if the local storage is made zero? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34455880)

We're already part of the way there: HTML 5 includes its own local storage scheme. If this was around (and widely supported) when Flash was first being developed, I'm sure they wouldn't have bothered to concoct their own local storage, because there'd be no need.

All we need to do is encourage Adobe and other plugin developers to use the new standard instead of making up their own custom schemes. Which shouldn't be that hard, since in the long run it makes the developers' jobs easier.

Local storage is a bad idea.

Evercookie is an excellent example of that.

Re:What if the local storage is made zero? (3, Insightful)

IrrepressibleMonkey (1045046) | more than 3 years ago | (#34454422)

Not sure, but experience shows that most Flash sites will stop working when you deny storage rights.

Re:What if the local storage is made zero? (5, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | more than 3 years ago | (#34454540)

If the site requires the ability to store flash evercookies as a cost of viewing the site, I'm OK with not being able to see their content. It's too much to pay.

Re:What if the local storage is made zero? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#34454576)

I've had good luck letting them read and write /dev/null.

Re:What if the local storage is made zero? (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34454514)

Flash player settings has an option to set the amount of local storage permitted for the player. What happens if I set that amount to zero and mark it permanent (i.e. check box remember)?

pIt probably still stores locally a flag that says you don't want it to store any data locally. Nuking it from orbit is probably the only way to be sure (it doesn't store data locally).

Re:What if the local storage is made zero? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34455574)

For many programs, setting such storage to "0" means not limiting it at all: it's the flag for "don't check this".

Re:What if the local storage is made zero? (1)

MichaelJ (140077) | more than 3 years ago | (#34455928)

On some websites, presumably due to poor coding on the part of the Flash applet developer, a storage amount of 0 will simply cause the Flash applet to fail. This is the experience I had when I tried this a year or two ago.

RTFA ?? (0)

Janek Kozicki (722688) | more than 3 years ago | (#34454272)

what do you think? That I have time to read that fine article? Are you crazy? I like reading slashdot because of all those short summaries. And now, you didn't bother to even write a summary. So why do you bother to submit it?

Because you are glad, that adobe needs to provide a way to remove their stupid cookies?

Re:RTFA ?? (5, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#34454304)

Simple: this is slashdot and we hate flash and want to eliminate it. Except on the iPhone. We don't use the iPhone and don't know anybody that does, but it needs to support flash for some reason.

Re:RTFA ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34454466)

No no no, you have misunderstood. Not Flash Gordon, it should be Flesh Gordon. We want porn on the iPhone!

Re:RTFA ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34454584)

And you've got porn on the iPhone. Porny apps are now in the "top 25" free apps. Probably, they should've thought about what would happen to those top 25 lists when they started letting adult type stuff exist in the app store...

Re:RTFA ?? (1)

jc42 (318812) | more than 3 years ago | (#34454548)

We don't use the iPhone and don't know anybody that does, but it needs to support flash for some reason.

My wife has an iPhone (which we frequently compare with my G1). She watches a fair number of videos on it, including youtube, and she hasn't expressed any problems with this. She has noticed the lack of flash ads in a lot of sites' pages, but she doesn't consider that a problem, either.

If she's any example of the typical Apple fanperson, Apple just might do well to continue to block flash. Maybe they should make this an option for Macs, too.

Re:RTFA ?? (2)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 3 years ago | (#34454812)

You realize you can uninstall it, right? You dont need Steve Jobs to do that for you, although I think he wants to. :)

Re:RTFA ?? (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 3 years ago | (#34454646)

Many Slashdotters use an iPhone, myself included.

Re:RTFA ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34455738)

Many Slashdotters use an iPhone, myself included.

That's good for you but... for everybody else... so fucking what?!

If you refuse to use a platform-neutral system why should the rest of us be bothered with your non-neutral platform preference?

Re:RTFA ?? (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34454708)

Or, you know there are at least 561269 on shashdot and some of them hae different opinions.

Re:RTFA ?? (2)

RulerOf (975607) | more than 3 years ago | (#34454770)

Simple: this is slashdot and we hate flash and want to eliminate it

No no no... we hate flash because it sucks. We want flash to die to a better technology or for Adobe to get off their asses and fix it.

If you'll excuse me, I'll be turning up the volume so I can hear the YouTube video over my computer's fans.

Re:RTFA ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34455124)

+1 for cutting insight.

Re:RTFA ?? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34455424)

We don't want to install Flash on the iPhone, we want the possibility of doing so without Apple choosing it for us. Flash is just a notorious example of the iP* platform restrictions any geek/hacker should loath.

Re:RTFA ?? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34454814)

what do you think? That I have time to read that fine article? Are you crazy? I like reading slashdot because of all those short summaries. And now, you didn't bother to even write a summary. So why do you bother to submit it?

See, that's the beauty of this approach: you can just read the summary, and it's as if you read the article and formed an opinion (specifically, that Flash isn't necessary to watch YouTube, but that the rest of the article is interesting). All without having to read more than two sentences. Now that's a time-saver!

Because you are glad, that adobe needs to provide a way to remove their stupid cookies?

Hmmm, needs more commas.

Re:RTFA ?? (1)

PNutts (199112) | more than 3 years ago | (#34455022)

I like reading slashdot because of all those short summaries. And now, you didn't bother to even write a summary.

It looks like someone got their twitter ~ /. accounts confused.

Steve may have been right (3, Insightful)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 3 years ago | (#34454322)

More and more, its looking like Steve Jobs was right (albeit for the wrong reasons) about Flash. HTML 5 is capable of replacing Flash in 95% of cases and in almost all of those cases provides better performance and accessibility. Ending the web's dependence on Flash is a lot like ending dependence on foreign energy.

Re:Steve may have been right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34454370)

More and more, its looking like Steve Jobs was right (albeit for the wrong reasons) about Flash. HTML 5 is capable of replacing Flash in 95% of cases and in almost all of those cases provides better performance and accessibility.

He changed the universe by making an observation.

Ending the web's dependence on Flash is a lot like ending dependence on foreign energy.

Might be the same thing, actually, given how much power Flash drains.

Re:Steve may have been right (5, Funny)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#34454386)

Ending the web's dependence on Flash is a lot like ending dependence on foreign energy.

1. It's a really good idea. 2. It's well within our ability to do it. 3. There are a million excuses for why no one is seriously committed to making it happen.

I think you've come up with an excellent analogy.

Re:Steve may have been right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34454546)

95% eh - you guys keep spamming sites with your ludicrous nonsense but somehow i get the feeling that other 98 percent of the computing world will just carry on using Flash- however much you moan about it.

Most of the developers i know are waking up to what html5 actually means - a return of the days of 'this site is best viewed with [insert browser] and that 'just won't do.'

If you step back and have a look at the stats it becomes clear what a laughable proposition it really is - even to the most deluded fanatic(...?...)

  98% of Internet connected PCs have Flash Player
  85% of the top 100 websites use Flash Player (Alexa)
  75% of web video is viewed using Flash Player (Comscore)
  98% of enterprises rely on Flash Player (Forrester)
  70% of web games are delivered using Flash Player (Evans Data Corp.)
  3.5 million developers use the Flash Platform
  19 of the top 20 device manufacturers worldwide have committed to shipping Flash technology on their devices

Re:Steve may have been right (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34454758)

So, basically what you're saying is that we need the DoJ to come in and break up the monopoly which is harming competition.

Re:Steve may have been right (2)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 3 years ago | (#34454816)

But but but... Silverlight!!!

Re:Steve may have been right (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34454982)

and java applets and java fx... and quicktime.

Re:Steve may have been right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34454962)

Er no, what I'm saying is the competition is crap and doesn't stand a cat in hells chance of getting anywhere.

HTML has been stretched way beyond its original intent - to deliver static, stateless text-based documents. It's not fit for purpose anymore.

The truth is that Flash is ten times more open than any of the walled gardens that Apple imprisons its poor users in. And while html5 likes to pretend that it is the product of open development its easy enough to see now that that in reality most of the work is done by a few companies - the browser vendors, and they just are writing down whatever they want anyway.

Re:Steve may have been right (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34455464)

HTML is simply a document markup language. It hasn't been "stretched" in any way. What are all those extensions that distorted HTML?

And just because many people use Flash, doesn't mean it's better. It was for a long time, if the current share is a reflection of its current quality or just a reflection of its history, it's not clear.

And who exactly do you think should written the HTML specs? What's the problem with browser vendors writing it? This isn't like the Netscape/IE wars, where each vendor wrote their own spec; this is a single, open spec for everyone.

Re:Steve may have been right (2)

JackAxe (689361) | more than 3 years ago | (#34454716)

Let's see some proof to back up your claims about HTML 5.

Proof? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34455246)

Are you new here? We don't need proof. We need a car analogy. A BAD car analogy.

Re:Steve may have been right (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 3 years ago | (#34455822)

He basicly just said that flash is shit instead of delivering a two page bullet point list of exactly why. Many have said that but he was just in a position where he does not need to support it.

Re:Steve may have been right (1)

SideshowBob (82333) | more than 3 years ago | (#34455832)

Weren't those exactly the reasons Jobs gave?

Re:Steve may have been right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34455850)

Would you care to provide some proof that HTML has better performance or accessibility? The comparisons I've seen show the opposite.

Old School Flash Problem: (0)

macraig (621737) | more than 3 years ago | (#34454328)

Naked guys wearing trench coats hanging out near schools?

THIS is a summary? (4, Insightful)

Rorschach1 (174480) | more than 3 years ago | (#34454450)

Seriously, WTF? How about a sentence telling us what the 'flash problem' is, and maybe a bit about WHY the article is interesting?

Re:THIS is a summary? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34454494)

Oh come on, it's interesting because the summary submitter says so. It's like reading a blog!

Re:THIS is a summary? (1)

frosty_tsm (933163) | more than 3 years ago | (#34455776)

Oh come on, it's interesting because the summary submitter says so. It's like reading a blog!

Or a tweet.

Re:THIS is a summary? (3, Informative)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 3 years ago | (#34454506)

I believe the problem may have something to do with persistent cookies. I'm not sure why I have this impression ... it's just some idea that came to me out of nowhere ... oh, wait, I know where that idea came from! I read the first goddamn sentence of the summary.

Re:THIS is a summary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34454566)

FTS:

FTC is in talks with Adobe about persistent Flash cookies.

Can't you read?

Re:THIS is a summary? (1)

drolli (522659) | more than 3 years ago | (#34454632)

It was meant to be a tweet.

x@x:~$ wc
FTC Is In Talks With Adobe About the 'Flash Problem'; "Flash isn't actually necessary to watch YouTube videos, but the rest of this article is interesting."
            1 26 157

Re:THIS is a summary? (3, Informative)

eL-gring0 (1950736) | more than 3 years ago | (#34454674)

From TFA: "While a browser can remove “normal” HTTP cookies, the privacy controls in a web browser like Mozilla Firefox or Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) Internet Explorer can’t remove Flash cookies, which can only be removed by using two separate services available on Adobe’s web site."

Also: "At least one browser, Google Chrome, now allows users to control the Flash cookies from within their browser’s privacy controls."

I'm ignorant of other browsers' features, being relatively happy with my Firefox/Adblock/Noscript bubble of sanity, but it seems that Mozilla and other developers might push to clean up after more of their plugins' messes. If the plugin makers don't care, at least Google's team seems to. Why can't Firefox by default? Opera? Even IE? I saw no mention of Silverlight in that blurb, but I imagine it can be used for tracking too. Of course, people would actually have to use Silverlight for that to happen.

Re:THIS is a summary? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34455460)

In general, a browser plugin can do anything it wants, as is it just a normal piece of native code that gets control over part of a webpage. There is no way to know what a browser plugin is doing without wrapping in some kind of sandbox/VM, which could break the functionality of the plugin. Chrome does a lot of work to special case Flash. Mozilla only special cases Flash in that it complains about out dated Flash versions. Mozilla really do not wan to spend a lot of effort to get Flash working better because they don't want people using Flash at all. Google is taking a more pragmatic approach... especially as they are presently the main reason why Flash is being used so much (YouTube).

There is a Firefox plugin called BetterPrivacy which handles Flash cookies, but it does it by having knowledge about where they are stored, not by interacting with the Flash plugin directly.

Re:THIS is a summary? (1)

Arker (91948) | more than 3 years ago | (#34456238)

Everyone knows Firefox is useless without plugins. "Objection" handles LSOs.

Re:THIS is a summary? (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#34455088)

did you RTFA? its not much more

And the site is slashdotted... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34455194)

So even those of us who do RTFA must engage in uninformed postulation and speculation

Flash *is* necessary. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34454552)

What's this horseshit about Flash not being necessary to watch YouTube videos? What chain of fifteen broken beta plugins are you going to tell me to install that will let me browse & watch YouTube not as well as everybody else that does use Flash? Specifics, or you are full of shit.

Re:Flash *is* necessary. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34454610)

well lets have a quick look at the full-o-shit meter shall we...?

oh dear - it's not looking good timothy...

Re:Flash *is* necessary. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34455732)

1. A browser that supports HTML5 video
2. Clicking the link on the bottom of this page: http://www.youtube.com/html5 [youtube.com]
3. Profit!!!!!

CBG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34454564)

Worst summary EVER! - CBG

One Cookie Spot by forced Error (1)

muindaur (925372) | more than 3 years ago | (#34454636)

I would love to not need CCleaner(or whatever third party cleaner that grabs flash files) to clean out the cookies. Easy removal of Flash cookies is not the only thing. Microsoft, Mozilla, etc should force ALL cookies into one folder, and cause an error if a javascript(or any script) or flash attempts to place a cookie outside that one specific location.

Websitest that do this will be forced to comply or not get the data they need. An argument that they will hold customers hostage by not allowing the cookies at all is not valid. Those sites would cave rather than lose the money waiting for MS etc to change their minds.

Re:One Cookie Spot by forced Error (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34454842)

I don't think so, Tim.

Here's why:

M$ doesn't need you money. Or my money. Or your mom's money. They need $MegaCorp's money. M$ does not work for your mom.

As long as $MegaCorp needs cookies, M$ will be glad to service them day and night, for a fee.

If M$ were to stop cookies, something like this might happen...

The $VP of $MegaCorp and a $VP of M$ are on the golf range one fine, sunny weekday morning. And the $MegaCorp d00d is like all, "DOOD!!! we need c00kies but M$ doe snot have them. BillG you really set us up the bomb!!! We will have to buy from Google now."

And the M$ dood will be all like, "OH NO!!! Me so sorry! Me so sorry! We put cookies back. Please don't call Sergy."

And the two corp's lived happily ever after. The end.

Re:One Cookie Spot by forced Error (1)

muindaur (925372) | more than 3 years ago | (#34455366)

You also realize I specified Firefox, etc. That means I was speaking of all browsers. I would be happy with just firefox doing that.

Also, you can completely block cookies now if you want to, and that was not my intent. It was simply to have them placed in a single location for easier management.

Re:One Cookie Spot by forced Error (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34455578)

Javascript could never choose the cookies' location, there was never any JS API to do it.

Flash, on the other hand, it's a binary blob outside of the browser's control, unless it uses a sandbox like Chromium is doing [chromium.org] .

Re:One Cookie Spot by forced Error (1)

muindaur (925372) | more than 3 years ago | (#34455766)

With firefox I normally see a plugin container running under processes, so it should be possible to make the container a sandbox that does that. I'm not sure if IE has a process that manages addons.

I would imagine it tells flash it's storing the cookie where it wants to, but uses a pointer to the address of the firefox cookie folder; then tells flash it grabbed it from the location flash said it was stored?

What Problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34454644)

#/bin/sh

#Firefox Launcher
firefox
rm -R $HOME/.macromedia/Flash_Player/#SharedObjects/*

Flash (3, Insightful)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 3 years ago | (#34454900)

Flash has seen its day come and go. With Webm and HTML5, Flash will be killed off!

Re:Flash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34455420)

Exactly, with HTML5 comes the dawn of a new age, an age in which innovation will no longer be required! The industry will happily hold itself to the rate of progress afforded by a standards committee and the whims of each individual browser maker for implementing new capabilities. Software companies everywhere will happily turn away from tools that provide innovations for making their lives easier or giving them opportunities to reach more customers at less cost with competitive features.

Thank goodness we finally see the light!!!

Someone has already brought this up, but (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 3 years ago | (#34455856)

What the FTC or whatever needs to do is not to build some Do-Not-Call system for Internet tracking. It's pointless to fine them insignificantly, and they never delete the data. Besides, they share it everywhere, and it's gone and done in minutes. Scattered everywher.

No, the FTC or whatever should build a Do-Not-TRY system. Internet sites should be required to not even try to track us, and honor a 'Universal Do-Not-Try-To-Track' cookie. Essentially, getting caught leaving cookies otherwise should be evidence of the attempt, and bill them. Among other things, troll for violations and fine them enough to at least pay for the system. Until they get it, and then it's the overseas sites that will be the culprits, and then we can play whack-a-mole and start in on forcing them to comply or sanction them along with the EU.

They are going to involve the EU also, right? If not, waste of time.

ps - Don't bother trying to sancton Chinese outfits. Just don't bother. You're kidding yourself.

BetterPrivacy Plugin for Firefox will delete LSO (4, Informative)

Hyperhaplo (575219) | more than 3 years ago | (#34455914)

Firefox plugin BetterPrivacy - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6623/ [mozilla.org] - will delete LSOs

It can be set up to automatically delete LSO on browser exit; on a timer (every x minutes/hours/days) or manually

It allows you to set a whitelist (protection list).

It doesn't 'solve' the problem; but in the mean time it at least breaks part of the cycle.

Also: Ghostery - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/9609/ [mozilla.org] - helps to stop the problem in the fire place.

Used with Ad Block Plus - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1865/ [mozilla.org] - it makes surfing the web much better.

The Wild West era ended when there was no one left to conflict with.. right?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>