|This page was nominated for deletion on 27 October 2010. The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn.|
Can we please remove the deletion notice now? Categories have been added.
The article claims evercookies have only been deleted on iPhone, but BleachBit 0.8.2 easily deletes evercookies on Linux and Windows. Check the boxes for Adobe Flash and for each browser: cache, temporary files, history, cookies, and DOM storage. I may have a COA, so I won't write this in the article itself. AndrewHZ (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Not so "difficult to delete" after all...
With Windows XP, IE 8, Flash set to prompt when a website requests storage, and Silverlight not installed, I can apparently delete the demo "cookie" at http://samy.pl/evercookie/ simply with Internet Options > Delete Cookies and Temporary Internet Files. (It doesn't even prompt me for the Flash storage.) Not very "difficult to delete" after all, then... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The first 2/3s of the Usage section sounds like marketing promo for Evercookie (a piece of software that deliberately circumvents the browser user's explicit intentions). This seems like biased POV writing (for the 99% of users who want their browser to delete cookies when they tell it to, there is nothing about Evercookie that is 'ideal' nor has it any 'advantage'). 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Agree. I don't think the point was intentional. Seems like the text was lifted from a source that was more marketing focused. If the advantages of it's marketing are to be included then the potential threat to a User's privacy and the possibility that they can be misused should be included as well.Jonny Quick (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Include Removal Methods
The article's description of how the Evercookie resists deletion reads just like the definition of malware. Given that, it seems appropriate to me to give the reader some kind of hint or indicator on how to remove these Evercookies, and the possible consequences of doing so. Not necessarily a full-blown Guide, but at least something.Jonny Quick (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
"Usage" section removed
I have removed the section called "Usage" from this article, and would like to explain why. (1) The first paragraph gave no sources. (2) The second paragraph contained a dubious assertion, and the listed source is a web page that no longer exists (or at any rate can't be reached). There are other parts of this article that strike me as inadequately sourced, but the section I removed was clearly the worst. Looie496 (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)