There is no credible reason for "the need" of any web site to place a cookie on a person's hard drive in the guise of making that web site operable or more serviceable to the user. The Washington Post for example tells you that it wants most of your pertinent information to deliver ads to the reader .

"Why do we ask you to register?
We use registration information to better understand who our readers are and the areas that are of interest to them online. This information also allows us to deliver ads based on reader demographics."

Note that they ask you to register but won't allow you to view the website if you don't hand over your information to them. Also buried within the Post's privacy policy it tells you were to go to opt out http://www.privacychoices.org but alas this website is inoperable in both the FireFox and IE browsers.

Address Not Found
Firefox can't find the server at www.privacychoices.org.

The browser could not find the host server for the provided address.

* Did you make a mistake when typing the domain? (e.g. "ww.mozilla.org" instead of "www.mozilla.org")
* Are you certain this domain address exists? Its registration may have expired.
* Are you unable to browse other sites? Check your network connection and DNS server settings.
* Is your computer or network protected by a firewall or proxy? Incorrect settings can interfere with Web browsing.

And in IE:
The page cannot be displayed
The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser settings.

Until websites are willing to pay for the valuable commodity that is the users information, set your browsers to block cookies and install ad blockers on your browser.

Why should they pay you for your information? You get to access the content on the site without paying right? Okay then. There's your payment. In exchange for some information from you, the company will let you view their web site without payment.

If that's not a favorable exchange for you, then advocate for more subscription-based web sites, where you have to pay a fee to access the content.

that's exactly right!! I wrote to the author a few mins ago.. this is what I wrote:

I think if ISP's profit from snooping into their customers' browsing habits then customers themselves should get a piece of the action too (i.e., part of the earnings these cos. make from violating their customers' privacy should go to the customers themselves -- especially since it doesn't look like this system will have an "opt-out" feature for anybody who doesn't want their browsing behavior tracked just so someone else can profit from the information that is gathered -- customers should also profit then... either that or it should be OUTLAWED -- PRONTO....)