On 12 Aug 2009, at 12:26, [email protected] wrote:
You are correct about the shared object. But if someone is browsing away from the page, the most they will get is the next url, and perhaps some tricky js to Flash hand offs. It's not that much more useful than the standard tracking of what Omniture or Google Analytics would do. There's nothing beyond that domain.
I've never implied that it could be used to track your browsing habits across the internet—only one a particular site. They don't even need to store a URL. All they need is a unique ID to know that it's you.
But, I can see what you mean, because at least you can nuke a cookie from the browser, and clearing the Flash memory is not obvious to the user. It *could* work like a session keeper, or keeping the next browser url. I agree that Adobe should honor the browser cache clearing.
That's my only complaint. I don't have any beef with the plug-in having a memory (cache) or it supporting (it's own version of) cookies. The user needs to know that it's there though and have an easy way to flush it (something that does not exist today). Most people have at least heard of cookies. As was discussed on the uFlash mailing list, there would not be easy way for browsers and plug-ins to talk to each other and simultaneously purge together when the user executes the command so it's not something that would be fixed soon (even if it were a priority for Adobe). That said, I think that the better solution (although I don't know if it would be possible) would have been for Flash to set and read normal browser cookies instead of Macromedia creating it's own version.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ UPHPU mailing list [email protected] http://uphpu.org/mailman/listinfo/uphpu IRC: #uphpu on irc.freenode.net
