I've got to say I was really disappointed when I came back here after a long absence and saw that you are now sticking cookies on to the computers of web visitors. Don't get me wrong. I know why you're doing it and I think you have good intentions with this new feature ability to add authors to an "ignore list." Please take what I'm about to say as constructive criticism. I'm not here to bitch. But there are some serious issues with what you've done.



At first glance, that's a really cool feature addition. But the bottom-line is that the feature can never work without flaws. Prime Example: There has been a long history of people posting under the screen names used by others, cases specifically where the "bogus" author is attempting to discredit someone. Now, with that feature, it's relatively easy form some goof ball to come here, post a message that is totally vile (e.g., like those gross messages that someone used to post about sheepdog liking his horse and... well, I need not say more). Sure, the messages would always be deleted, but not for a few hours in many cases. And with your new system, that is all that would be needed for some people to decide to zap some specific screen name, and agent provocateurs have more free time than IMC editors. This hypothetical scenario is going to happen.



But the real beef is privacy. Earlier this year, the FBI asked San Francisco's IMC staff to provide server logs of visitors. This was reported in the San Francisco Chronicle, if I remember correctly, and the staff people simply told the FBI that there were no logs to provide because no logs were kept. Now, here you are, sending cookies on to the machines of visitors to power-up the each person's "ignore list," which by definition means that your server keeps a log of that cookie and makes the programmed changes to message thread display on an ongoing basis.



NOT COOL