Garth Wallace wrote:
>
> "Jerry Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Garth Wallace wrote:
> > >
> > > > Isn't this cookie thing kind of like "OPT OUT"? Shouldn't it be more
> > > > like "OPT IN" where I OK my 5 sites and the rest can F off?
> > >
> > > No, it's not like "opt out" because it won't set
> > > the cookie unless you confirm that you want it.
> >
> > That's a little disengenuous. It is "OPT OUT" because you have to do
> > something in order not to receive the cookie.
>
> If you want to think about it that way, it's also
> OPT-IN because you have to do something in
> order to receive the cookie (clicking "yes" rather
> than "no")
What would you think if SPAMMERS started spamming you every day, but
called it opt-in because you OK'd downloading the messages from your
mail server? The point is that if you are required to do something in
order NOT to receive something, it's opt-out. Opt-in, by common
understanding, means that nothing happens until you OK it (this includes
asking you if it's ok). Being asked if you want SPAM each and everytime
a spammer sends out a spam would not be opt-in, it would just be
substituting the question for the content - the questions become the
spam.
--
Jerry Baker
"The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well." - Joe
Ancis
PGP Key: http://keyserver.pgp.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x48D96D45
======================================================================
SOFTWARE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-=| LAME MP3 ENCODER |=-
LAME Binaries: http://www.jerrybaker.org/lame/
-=| APACHE 2.0 WEB SERVER (WIN32) |=-
Apache 2.0 Installer: http://www.jerrybaker.org/apache/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
