Something Jon Devree and I were thinking about: How would they handle cookies the size of 1 MB or larger? Scary as it sounds, looks like a simple DOS attack waiting to happen :\
JOhn Menerick On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Jake Matthews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Majdi S. Abbas wrote: > > On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 04:31:57PM -0400, Jake Matthews wrote: > > > >> Apparently Charter is going to packetsniff its users and use that for > >> commercial purposes. > >> > > > > I think you'd find they'd run pretty far afoul of 18 USC 2511 > > for that, without prior consent (18 USC 2511 2) (c)). > > > > I looked at that page, and as far as I can tell, they are just > > referring to web ads, likely placed on their consumer portal site. > > > > Where do you get the notion that they are intercepting traffic? > > Everything I see refers to a third party ad network, with no subscriber > > data provided by charter. i.e. a typical advertisers tracking > > cookie. > > > > Using another cookie to opt out of the first cookie isn't > > unusual, since it's the same mechanism that would be involved in the > > first place. > > > > In any case, trying to correlate captured traffic to a > > cookie that would only be exposed in web traffic and to the site that > > set it, would not be reliably possible. > > > > --msa > > > > > > http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20461817-HSI-Charter-to-monitor-surfing-insert-its-own-targeted-ads > > Apparently, not just their portal. > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG@nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
