<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"Recently, online properties like Hulu, MSN and Flixster have been caught using a tougher version of the common cookie. These \u201Csupercookies\u201D (aka \"Flash cookies\" and \u201Czombie cookies\u201D) serve the same purpose as regular cookies by tracking user preferences and browsing histories. Unlike their popular cousins, however, this breed is difficult to detect and subsequently remove. These cookies secretly collect user data beyond the limitations of common industry practice, and thus raise serious privacy concerns.\nSupercookies are similar to the standard browser cookies most folks are familiar with, but are stored in different locations on a user\u2019s machine, for example, in a file used by a plug-in (Flash is the most common). This makes them harder to find and delete, especially since a browser\u2019s built-in cookie detection process won\u2019t remove them either. Furthermore, some supercookies have additional capabilities, like regenerating regular cookies to prevent their removal by the user. \nTo make matters worse, removing master supercookies is much more difficult. It requires the user to dig through the file system and delete them manually, an inconvenient task even for advanced users. The novice, on the other hand, likely won\u2019t even realize supercookies exist, let alone be able to find them.\n\n\nSEE ALSO: 10 Travel Tips for Protecting Your Privacy\n\nThe kind of data supercookies track isn\u2019t typical cookie material. A browser limits the typical cookie to be written, read and ultimately removed by the site that created it. The supercookie, on the other hand, operates outside of established safeguards. It can track and record user behavior across multiple sites. While it\u2019s easy to understand that a site would want to track a user\u2019s activity while she navigates its turf, it\u2019s ethically questionable that site operators are able to record a user\u2019s actions beyond site parameters. \nIn several cases, a company\u2019s supercookie is the result its partnership with a digital marketing firm that places a high value on user behavior. In response to FTC pressure, the Internet ad and marketing industry responded by publishing \u201Cself-regulatory\u201D policies, although it restricts itself from little else than a user\u2019s medical records. \nTo the majority of the public, this type Internet tracking is outside of the bounds of acceptable conduct. While the \u201Cright to track\u201D may be written into a terms of use or user agreement contract, it is often not fully disclosed or within the realm of industry standards, rendering its legal defense moot. Furthermore, tracking provokes a breach of trust between user and site \u2014 and consumers have historically exhibited intolerance to brand betrayal.\n\nWhile many companies that had been challenged on their use of supercookies were quick to cease, some choose to continue the practice. Many web marketing firms, advertisers and less-than-scrupulous websites still refuse to follow industry best practices \u2014 they continue to practice knowingly. And many more sites don\u2019t even realize they\u2019re utilizing supercookies in the first place. \nWhether it has decided to cease web tracking or not, the company at risk needs to beware of losing control of already collected data. A data breach would result in catastrophic \u2014 and perhaps incurable \u2014 brand distrust. A user\u2019s discovery of a company\u2019s surreptitious data collection and the subsequent vulnerability of that data could easily spell the end of a brand\u2019s reputation.\nCompanies that care about reputation and user trust should audit their sites and properties to ensure that data collection and the use of supercookies parallel user expectations. This analysis applies to the site, its advertisers and any third party tools or plug-ins. Companies need to ensure that all data collection has been thoroughly disclosed in order to avoid legal liability.\nCompanies should not wait for a problem to arise before initiating a comprehensive data security overview. A regular screening of all user data and its safeguards is good practice. The cost a company suffers for securing its data and customer trust is small compared to the business and public relations fallouts that would result from a security breach. \nA successful company will always make a comprehensive attempt at transparency by handling data responsibly. The use of data tracking tools like supercookies does not rank highly in consumer acceptance, whether its application is technically \u201Clegal\u201D or not. Regardless of the manner in which information is collected, know that negligent data handling will not be excused by claims that a company was in the dark about its collection practices. In the eyes of the consumer, the more data collected, the more of an obligation that company has to keep it safe.\nImages courtesy of Flickr, ssoosay, Jeremy Brooks"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://mashable.com/2011/09/02/supercookies-internet-privacy/>