I have been following the government’s dicussion regarding the federal cookie policy. I even posted on the blog because I feel the policy is holding agencies back from offering dynamic web services. However, since the issue has come to the forefront, the media is taking notice. I came across a story today the reinforces just how little I know about tracking on the internet, and cookies. I’d never heard of “Flash Cookies” before this. And I still don’t know how to control/delete them.
Recent Articles on GovLoop
- How State and Local Agencies Can Join Forces to Strengthen Security
- How Autonomous Agents Could Ramp Up Government Efficiency
- Better Communications Tops Data To-Do List
- Inspiring an Unmotivated Team
- An Engaging Strategy for Audience Outreach
- Want to Be a GovLoop Featured Contributor?
- Put Zero Trust on New Footing
- 5 Steps to Overcoming Your Imposter Syndrome
- Transforming Government With AI
- 3 Management Productivity Hacks
I’m sure you saw this article, but just in case:
http://bit.ly/1nn6lR
No, I hadn’t. Thank you for sharing. Though I understand the concerns, I still think that the government needs to reverse the no-cookie policy. Many tools (besides Google) need cookies to reach full potential.
Jamie,
At the time that the ban was developed, a cookie was a cookie. They could be used to track where visitors go between sites. Tracking people is a “no-no”. Since then web and cookie technology has matured and it is time to reevaluate. Hence the article that you shared and the move to “revise the guidance to replace it with guidance that allows agencies to use persistent cookies to better serve customers’ needs” and still prohibit the use of “Tracking cookies”.
But that’s the issue – a persistent cookie by it’s nature is a tracking cookie. These flash cookies are tracking. For me, it comes down to – if you don’t want to be tracked, avoid using the web. As long as the government offers full disclosure of how/wy/what info it is collecting, then the public should be able to make an informed decision on whether they accept the risk of allowing it.
This is yet another case of policy by inertia. Policies should be flexible and adaptable as times and technology change. The problem is that while technology can and does change almost weekly, policies sit idle for years. As we’ve seen time and again with Gov 2.0, policies can and should be changed where it makes sense.