An increasing number of people are blocking cookies or deleting them to protect their privacy or security, according to a new Jupiter Research study.
Nearly 58 percent of online users deleted the small files, which are deposited on computers to track Web site habits, the research firm's 2004 survey found. As many as 39 percent may be deleting cookies from their primary computer every month, according to the study, released on Monday.
The market researcher attributes the trend to heightened concern over privacy and security issues among Internet users. Many people are using anti-spyware and firewall applications, it said.
"Many of these applications block third-party cookies by default, and many more will regularly delete cookies from consumers' computers," the report stated.
According to a consumer survey quoted by Jupiter Research, 38 percent said they consider cookies invasive of their security and privacy. Lawmakers and consumer lobbies have been considering the impact of cookies, and network security company Netcraft on Monday pointed out the risks to personal information posed by the theft of cookies by attackers using cross-scripting flaws.
For online businesses, the trend means that cookies may not be an accurate method of tracking regular visitors to their Web sites. If users block cookies, accurate measurement is compromised and higher numbers may be categorised as anonymous, the study said.
"Given the number of sites and applications that depend heavily on cookies for accuracy and functionality, the lack of this data represents [a] significant risk for many companies," analyst Eric Peterson said in a statement. "Because personalisation, tracking and targeting solutions require cookies to identify Web visitors over multiple sessions, the accuracy of these solutions has become highly suspect, especially over longer periods of time."
Talkback
Heist by their own petard!
Who are we supposed to feel sorry for?Surely not the people "relying on" this data?
I'm really annoyed that cookie technology has been abused so it can't be used for what it was designed for - to improve user experience with limted bandwidth by speeding up web interaction - by holding repetitive data such as logins and data intensive objects like images locally?
Shouldn't this article be celebrating the rather predictable problems faced by stealth invasions of privacy by vendors hijacking useful cookie technology for commercial gain?
Give any immoral/greedy charachter a bit of cool technology and they'll find a way to abuse it for personal gain and spoil it for everyone else. Plus ca change.
Serve 'em right, a shame cookies and our altruistic Web technology have been spoilt for the rest of us by the greedy fat polluters using this technology badly - you know who you are.
Any problems for a vendor using cookies beyond their original intent are both easy to anticipate, richly deserved and obviously going to happen.
Lodging unwanted spyware liable to attack on a prospect or customer's PC as a means of "managing customer intimacy" is as inappropriate as it comes. Really.
Claiming users " opt-in" to cookies is mostly rubbish.
Most users have problems understanding basic preferences, never mind understanding cookies - and often don't know what opt-in, opt-out and default even mean(i).
If vendors want customer information they should ask for it overtly by screen presented opt-in. But I bet they get a lot less that way.........
As ye sow, so shall ye reap.The Bernie Ebbers model of business ethics is a bad idea.
Can't we have the IETF or whatever body revoke the Internet adresses of people who misbehave this way?
Brian
(i) e.g.: Yesterday it was reported on Silicon.com that half the people returning Bluetooth Headsets do so because their phone doesn't support Bluetooth.....