Obviously
Cookiepedia is a "work in process" brought about by the EU's recent regulatory changes regarding cookies and how the data collected by cookies can be used. At this point Cookiepedia is dependent on the cookie developers to define how data collected by cookies will be used and reported to the public at large. Be that as it may, both the EU regulation and Cookiepedia are a step in the right direction.
IMHO Cookie management apps need to become a lot smarter. My ideal would include a system for categorizing cookies including such things as...
- what information they send
- what is done with the information — which may be site specific
- is the information encrypted in transit or plain text
- etc.
Then the informed user would have the information necessary to make intelligent decisions and the uninformed user could simply select what level of risk they find acceptable.
The trick in all of this is obtaining and maintaining the database used by the app and would imply a database subscription. Cookie Stumbler already uses a database approach and there is an annual subscription to keep it current but what is lacking is the categorization and fine tuning of the level of trust. Perhaps the EU's efforts to regulate cookies and their use of data will make it far easier to obtain the data from the publishers of
tracking cookies and make it possible for my idealized app to be developed. Windows users have paid for antivirus signature database subscription for years. It seems to me
tracking cookies might present an equally serious threat to privacy and security.
PERSONAL CHOICEThe identification of tracking cookies used in Cookie is such a blunt instrument that I have chosen to disable it in favor of Cookie Stumbler's approach. Then end results may not be noticeably different, but it appears more precise to me.
It sounds like you've never run across
Cookiepedia's parent website, which tells that they've built a database of more than
11 million cookies, and invites participation, as well as anticipates app development.
In addition, it links to
this chart, which tells an interesting tale.
My personal choice is to stick with Cookie, because, as can be seen in the linked chart, attempting to categorize cookies is nigh on to futile because of the 31% unknown factor (You've never mentioned how Cookie Stumbler treats __cfduid.), and because even if Cookie deletes the useful/beneficial 9% every minute as I've got it set to do, I've never noticed any ill effects other than losing my shopping cart on one or two websites.
Even a cursory look into the subject reveals that not all "tracking cookies" are bad and in fact many are beneficial to the user. The __cfduid being a case in point. Another example is FineTunedMac, which uses ubbt_hash which is a special code that validates and logs you into the site and ubbt_myid that identifies your user name. Technically both are tracking cookies and are so identified by both Cookie and Cookie Stumbler.
Are you sure of that?
I've been with Cookie pretty much since day one, and I'm virtually certain that it has NEVER identified a single cookie placed by FTM as a tracking cookie.
And if Cookie Stumbler is identifying those cookies as trackers it leaves their database suspect.
I also note that Prosoft's version of __cfduid (if, in fact, there are different versions) recreates itself within a minute after my Cookie timer deletes it, and I wonder how many other cookies do the same?
(Writer's block overcome!
)
