Greg, > , in place of your chronic depression, isnt the > > explanation that it would require a (packet sniffing?) search engine > > site to *follow the user to see whether the delay is because s/he's > > stopped there, or gone on to another link (or jumped ab novo to > > another site) before coming back? And that that sort of tracing is > > of course *unthinkable* -- at least as of 10 May 99? > > I didn't say this was impossible. I said it was very difficult. > Among other things, it requires processing of massive volumes of > data over long periods of time. Furthermore, the nature of such > studies is itself controversial because of people's feelings about > privacy. I asked who was working on it. You said it was difficult? I agree it would almost take a computer to keep track of all the data, but if search sites havent got privacy policies by now wherein it says that anything a visitor does is fair game, it's a wonder they can sell any advertising at all! The FBI is able to elicit the necessary cooperation to backtrace links; are you saying that people should be slightly warm about that? Does anybody get on the net expecting privacy anymore, anyhow? Now wouldnt an encrypted search engine be a hot item?! "Naah, it would take too much processing." (*That's depression.) kerry
