> Maybe, depending on your definition of "suspicious" ;-)

Of course, it's always a subjective "feeling", there is no proof that a web site is trustworthy (especially if you think of hijacking domains).

> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/default.aspx - pretty sure the
> left-hand contents pane is script-driven.

Yes, it is. So I would not use it (that way). I never needed it and always found links to information within MSDN with google for example.

> http://forum.sysinternals.com / - "Cookies and JavaScript must be
> enabled on your web browser in order to use this forum".

Never used that.

> https://www.bankofamerica.com/privacy/Control.do?body=overview -
> "Please note that the use of certain online products, such as Online
> Banking, do require the acceptance of cookies or similar files".

Never used that either. But it's clear that with online banking you need to whitelist this site.

> http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=hp_navbox_lnpriv_note?nodeId=468496
> - "if you block or otherwise reject our cookies, you will not be
> able to add items to your Shopping Cart, proceed to Checkout, or use any
> Amazon.com products and services that require you to Sign in".

Yes, therefore I was forced to whitelist it. I will (need to) do that for the Ztree forum too but in general I don't know why these techniques are used at all, especially, when a user log on is required anyway.

> IMHO equating cookies and scripting with "opening up his pc" is
> an untenable exaggeration.

I think it would be a bit naive to believe that scripting is harmless. It can be just the same as starting an unknown program without letting you know. I see that at work where we have lots of pcs locked up with spy/add ware. And they are already partly restricted without allowing flash and some other things. And they use Symantec anti virus and still catch viruses. So I prefer to be save(r) than sorry.

Jürgen.