The issue about that extension is how it handles consent.
In most cases, the add-on just blocks or hides cookie related pop-ups. When it's needed for the website to work properly, it will automatically accept the cookie policy for you (sometimes it will accept all and sometimes only necessary cookie categories, depending on what's easier to do
You should be aware that it will often just accept all cookies, because that is easier.
Gdpr seemed like it was designed to ban this, but lately companies (especially German ones?) seem to be trying this. I guess it won't be resolved without a big, slow, expensive court case.
GDPR wasn't designed to prevent this. It's a simple choice: accept tracking and get stuff for free OR pay them for stuff with no tracking.
Everything doesn't have to be free on the Internet
Some companies got into trouble because their pop-ups weren't clear enough as to the consumer's rights per GDPR. So they paid the fine and fixed their wording.
When I want to read something e.g. on t-online.de, I do it in a private browsing window. Not perfect, because of fingerprinting, but better than nothing. Or I skip the article and go somewhere else.
Tracking via cookies means gathering personal data, the exact thing GDPR regulates. GDPR says that data must not be collected except on one of a few lawful bases, one of which is consent. Article 7 clause 4 of the GDPR says:
When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether [...] the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the processing of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of that contract.
to me this reads like: "consent does not count if you need to agree in order to access a service" and that they imagined consent as being, "yes, you can have my personal data to serve me personalised ads, because I'd rather have personalised ads than generic ones," which some people (probably not many here!) do think. However, it's only expressed as "account shall be taken" when determining whether consent was "freely given" and the lawful basis does not specify that consent must be "freely given," which is where I imagine these kinds of gaps creep in.
I keep seeing this a lot lately. I also saw one that had the style from the image (accept all or refuse maybe), but if you hit refuse, a second one popped up that said:
[pay to read]
Or
[read for free]
I opened it in private mode and read for free just let me into the article. Iām guessing it accepts all.
I need to verify this, but I vaguely remembered youāre supposed to be able to exit these safely in two clicks maximum, though they sometimes obscure it.
Usually, itās something like āCustomizeā then āSaveā without checking anything, or just āReject Allā.
It dosn't delete cookies. I use 'Cookie Autodelete' for that togehter with 'I still don't care about cookies', which is the community version of 'I don't care about cookies'. It is much better at removing the Popups.
I would recommend enabling strict mode in Firefox. But then Cookie AutoDelete does not work in Firefox if you enable Total Cookie Protection (which is enabled in strict and standard mode).
But you don't even need an extension to prevent cookie persistence.
For those wanting more information, the extension description states:
This add-on will remove these cookie warnings from almost all websites!
In most cases, the add-on just blocks OR hides cookie related pop-ups.
When it's needed for the website to work properly, it will automatically accept the cookie policy for you (sometimes it will accept all and sometimes only necessary cookie categories, depending on what's easier to do).
"No, I don't want ads. No, I don't want cookies. No, I don't want to even be asked about cookies, or subscribing to your newsletter, or to sign up for access to this article. Fuck off."
The part that annoys me is that I have Do Not Track enabled in my browser and there's one (1) website I use that respects this choice, as intended by GDPR. (geizhals.de)
All others choose to bother me about their stupid ad tracking.
That's because they have to. If I remember correctly it is supposed to be as easy to reject as to accept, but until it has been judged in a court it is "unknown" what the sites can or should do.
Maybe I'm getting things backwards here, but wouldn't disabling cookie persistence actually stop some of the more malicious forms of tracking, where different websites track your activity across websites? I'm not an expert on this specific matter but my understanding was that website A saves a cookie in your browser, which website B then uses to identify you (maybe with some extra steps of shipping that data off to some data broker or w/e but you get the picture). I thought that disabling persistence would stop that from occurring in the sense that once your restart your browser and go to website B, there is nothing from A for them to look at.
It will stop tracking between session (after a restart), but not during a session (or "in session"). There is plenty to be collected during a session and you might even actually use some of that data to correlate a user between sessions.
It's more important to keep cookies separate per sites, like Firefox's Total Cookie Protection does.
I think people really misunderstand cookies and have been lead to get angry at exactly the wrong things which actually give the biggest companies huge advantages so they're fine with all of this mumbojumbo.
When you cant have local cookies, or there are hoops, companies that need not bother with this because they own your browser (Google) or companies that own major search engines (Google) or companies that most other companies rely on for ads or social media integration etc (Google) are tremendously advantaged.
Now, basically only Google can collect a wholistic profile of a user, while regular websites must now waste extra man power implementing completely useless cookie preferences when in reality this should have been simplified, at worst, to 3 buttons.
All, No Marketting, No Telemetry.
Anything else is just the user wasting their time or destroying the functionality of a website for no reason/requiring busy body work to comply with ill conceived regulations.
With the downfall of third party cookies in most browsers, cookies literally just serve as some temporary storage for websites on your local machine. Cookies existing or not existing arent what control whether you are tracked, especially given all the fancy fingerprinting that goes on nowadays.
It's just that cookies are only one tool for tracking. When you accept all you consent to tracking but it doesn't necessarily use cookies for that tracking.
Are you trying to suggest that I would be better to just deny the cookies? I don't know what you're trying to say by linking to that article.
Device fingerprinting as a technique it's pretty easy to defeat. There are plenty of privacy focused browsers that will also include device fingerprinting protection. In fact pretty much any browser that doesn't store cookies will also do this device fingerprinting protection as well.
And when I finally lose my shit and just press "accept all" and "save my preferences for an eternity along with all my private information", it still pops up every single time!
Settings -> Privacy and Security -> Enhanced Tracking Protection -> Custom -> All cookies (will cause websites to break)
Open site -> it breaks -> do i really need it? (no) Move on to the next site. (yes) Ctrl+I -> Permissions -> Set Cookies - uncheck "Use Default" - Allow
These forms are actually about consent of tracking and cookies are just one of the ways to do tracking. You're still consenting to tracking.
Also Firefox Total Cookie Protection is a better solution for cookies. You should enable strict mode and Cookie AutoDelete does not work with Firefox strict mode.
Why oh why didn't the lawmakers add an obligation to use a standardized cookies selection popup.
I remember day one of it coming into effect and it was already obvious this was a necessity.
Lobbying. One of those laws pretending to do the right thing but sabotaged.
Or maybe its even worse than that.
Before you could just have the cookies deleted. But if you do that now you get the awful popup every time, so you just accept them in the end.
I know I do.
This law has made me accept cookies spying.
If you make a vague law that companies can circumvent they will do it.
That's why you force the use of a standardized menu, because nothing else makes sense, no?
The same way you don't leave it to the tobacco manufacturers to implement the warnings on the box ; you force them all to adopt the same one that's clearly visible.
It feels like it's either severe incompetence, or the work of lobbyists. But I don't know enough about the matter
Why not mandate a x by x pixel popup with a specific wording?
I remember this French company, I think SFR (phone), which had to show on their website their condemnation. Since there weren't clear specifications they made it so the message would disappear when you scrolled down one pixel, so almost no one saw it.
Well, that could make the popup unusable depending on screen size. I think the wording is pretty clear, the issue is just that there's no followup and not clear enough incentives to avoid skirting the rules at the moment.
Because those laws were made with good intentions in mind.
But businesses never have good intentions, especially if it eats into their revenue. So they use malicious compliance to make it seem like it is the law that is bad.
So really naive lawmakers then? Come on, that's not how you make a company obey, everyone knows that, yet legislators time and again do an oopsie and make a highly symbolic law that obviously won't work because there's no coercion!
If a website pops up and asks for permission, and I bypass that pop-up in some way (like killing the pop up with an addon or some you can just ignore it and keep scrolling with it on the bottom of the screen)
Until ive clicked agree, do websites just not start tracking or creating or doing anything with cookies? After all, they've acknowledged they need, dont have permission.
Or is this by and large pointless, and unless ive jumped through their hoops, they've already started the page with cookies enabled?
If the site is GDPR-compliant, they are not allowed to set any cookies until you click the accept button. But, a ton of sites and ad agencies are not. For example, Russians commonly just put a "we tracking you, deal with it. [OK]" banner, thinking they are funny, when it's clearly illegal even by Russian law, but they are shielded from it by responsible officials incompetence. Same story in the US, I believe.
legally youāre assuming the correct way itās supposed to work in a lot of jurisdictions but in practice who actually litigates these sorts of things?
people get away with it all the time.
thereās also tons of sites hosted in places where itās totally legal to just have cookies with any user from anywhere with or without consent, those might have a permission banner just as a UX thing to make the site feel more āfamiliarā or āofficialā. learning how whole contemporary stack works, at least broadly speaking, is one of the only remaining ways to actually be proactive. knowledge is power.
Should have been handled on protocol level. Cookies get priority levels, set browser to only accept required cookies and done. Everyone just wanted to do it the easy way... add a banner and ask the user.. or dont even make the banner, call a third party library that does it for you.. and has its own tracking code.. yay!
These forms are actually about consent of tracking and cookies are just one of the ways to do tracking. You're still consenting to tracking.
Also Firefox Total Cookie Protection is a better solution for cookies. You should enable strict mode and Cookie AutoDelete does not work with Firefox strict mode.
I generally just accept because its faster and i have additional filters in place, cookies will be deleted on browser close, and usually a vpn running so i really dont give a shit if the site wants to build a profile out of false data.
Besides opening up and viewing a lot of these sites on private tabs, I'm just getting used to cleaning all cookies after I finished checking up what I wanted.
brave browser gives you a lot of options to block that bullshit and delete it before it's ever able to make a profile on you...I've already heard what everyone on here has had to say about it. It works and it also works really well against most fingerprinting techniques used by invasive websites
adguard for windows, mac and linux can also be helpful for that stuff.
nextDNS and ReThinkDNS are also helpful for blocking garbage from advertising companies landing on your computer like the leech it is
157 Comments
ZkhqrD5o@lemmy.world · 110 pts · 282d
Out of principle I always reject all, even though they are blocked by pf blocker anyway.
Shmandom@feddit.uk · 80 pts · 282d
Consent-o-matic is your friend š
devfuuu@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 282d
Been using it for a long time. In my experience it covers maybe 30 or 40% of sites only.
konalt@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 282d
I still don't care about cookies seems to work for the rest for me!
Localhorst86@feddit.org · 21 pts · 281d
The issue about that extension is how it handles consent.
You should be aware that it will often just accept all cookies, because that is easier.
acockworkorange@mander.xyz · 1 pts · 281d
That's why you get Cookie Auto Delete.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 282d
I'll have to give this a shot. Thanks for the link!
5A7A@feddit.org · 5 pts · 281d
Also, enabling cookie notice blocklists on ublock origin
kamenlady@lemmy.world · 74 pts · 282d
Today i had a new one:
[ Accept ]
Or
[ Pay to Reject ]
darkdemize@sh.itjust.works · 80 pts · 282d
That's when you choose option 3:
[Close tab]
lena@gregtech.eu · 19 pts · 282d
Was it The Sun (the shitty tabloid)? I've seen people get that on it.
bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de · 18 pts · 282d
It's on many German sites. One of them the tech news site heise.de that regular reports on court rulings deeming the practice illegal.
echodot@feddit.uk · 4 pts · 281d
Presumably because no one is actually prepared to pay to read the sun. It's not like it contains any actual news anyway.
arudesalad@piefed.ca · 4 pts · 282d
It feels like every uk news site does it. The guardian and the independent are the ones I have trouble with the most. Reader mode "fixes" it though.
Jakule17@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 281d
The guardian also started doing this
lena@gregtech.eu · 1 pts · 281d
The UK is
slowlyrapidly turning into a shithole for various reasonsFishFace@piefed.social · 14 pts · 282d
Gdpr seemed like it was designed to ban this, but lately companies (especially German ones?) seem to be trying this. I guess it won't be resolved without a big, slow, expensive court case.
BenLeMan@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 281d
GDPR wasn't designed to prevent this. It's a simple choice: accept tracking and get stuff for free OR pay them for stuff with no tracking.
Everything doesn't have to be free on the Internet
Some companies got into trouble because their pop-ups weren't clear enough as to the consumer's rights per GDPR. So they paid the fine and fixed their wording.
When I want to read something e.g. on t-online.de, I do it in a private browsing window. Not perfect, because of fingerprinting, but better than nothing. Or I skip the article and go somewhere else.
FishFace@piefed.social · 4 pts · 281d
Tracking via cookies means gathering personal data, the exact thing GDPR regulates. GDPR says that data must not be collected except on one of a few lawful bases, one of which is consent. Article 7 clause 4 of the GDPR says:
to me this reads like: "consent does not count if you need to agree in order to access a service" and that they imagined consent as being, "yes, you can have my personal data to serve me personalised ads, because I'd rather have personalised ads than generic ones," which some people (probably not many here!) do think. However, it's only expressed as "account shall be taken" when determining whether consent was "freely given" and the lawful basis does not specify that consent must be "freely given," which is where I imagine these kinds of gaps creep in.
evilcultist@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 282d
I keep seeing this a lot lately. I also saw one that had the style from the image (accept all or refuse maybe), but if you hit refuse, a second one popped up that said:
[pay to read]
Or
[read for free]
I opened it in private mode and read for free just let me into the article. Iām guessing it accepts all.
FosterMolasses@leminal.space · 3 pts · 281d
PopUpOff:
[Not Even Playing This Game]
carotte@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 282d
lemme guess
website owned by webedia
Katana314@lemmy.world · 42 pts · 282d
I need to verify this, but I vaguely remembered youāre supposed to be able to exit these safely in two clicks maximum, though they sometimes obscure it.
Usually, itās something like āCustomizeā then āSaveā without checking anything, or just āReject Allā.
lime@feddit.nu · 30 pts · 282d
it's even more straight forward than that; accepting and rejecting has to be the same number of steps.
FundMECFS@anarchist.nexus · 3 pts · 281d
So basically 90% of sites arenāt GDPR compliant.
lime@feddit.nu · 3 pts · 281d
correct!
Opisek@piefed.blahaj.zone · 22 pts · 282d
Correct. But companies seem to not give two fricks about it. There should be harsher punishments in place.
devfuuu@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 282d
Somebody should in some way pass that information to the companies then.
baronvonj@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 282d
I've seen a few sites set the toggles so that the on position is for options out instead of allowing the use of.
mrfriki@lemmy.world · 26 pts · 282d
Unlock origin and you wonāt see a cookie message ever again.
tyler@programming.dev · 37 pts · 282d
Ublock origin, but yes.
ZkhqrD5o@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 282d
No. Uclock Origin.
IcedRaktajino@startrek.website · 10 pts · 282d
Is that the plugin that blocks the increasingly unfunny clock memes in c/ProgrammerHumor?
mrfriki@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 282d
Hehe, naughty keyboard attacks again :)
Infernal_pizza@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 17 pts · 282d
Is that something you have to enable? I've used ublock for years but I still get cookie popups
Prox@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 282d
Yes. Settings > Filter Lists > Annoyances
mybuttnolie@sopuli.xyz · 12 pts · 282d
settings, filter list and cookie notices. select both lists there.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · 24 pts · 281d
Accept allBlock allAnd then the companies get all uwu but adblocking is stealing and damages our revenue! š
AeonFelis@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 281d
"Save preferences"? Save them where exactly?
Jyek@sh.itjust.works · 11 pts · 281d
In the strictly necessary cookies that you can't turn off you silly billy
AeonFelis@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 281d
This is where they get you.
Jyek@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 280d
We can have a necessary cookie, as a treat.
87Six@lemmy.zip · 21 pts · 281d
Install "I still don't care about cookies" on Firefox based browsers.
Cookies are declined immediately and the banners closed. Works most of the time unless it's a custom non-standard cookie prompt implementation.
You're welcome.
elucubra@sopuli.xyz · 9 pts · 281d
Consent-o-Matric also works great on Firefox
KyuubiNoKitsune@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 281d
I too use this.
Gloomy@mander.xyz · 7 pts · 281d
It dosn't delete cookies. I use 'Cookie Autodelete' for that togehter with 'I still don't care about cookies', which is the community version of 'I don't care about cookies'. It is much better at removing the Popups.
87Six@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 281d
Also try LibreWolf if you want to discard cookies by default
ivn@jlai.lu · 2 pts · 281d
No need to change browser, that's just a setting in Firefox that's enabled by default in LibreWolf but you can simply enable it in Firefox.
87Six@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 280d
Oh, cool, I had no idea. Glad I didn't change just for that haha
ivn@jlai.lu · 1 pts · 281d
I would recommend enabling strict mode in Firefox. But then Cookie AutoDelete does not work in Firefox if you enable Total Cookie Protection (which is enabled in strict and standard mode).
But you don't even need an extension to prevent cookie persistence.
Imhotep@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 281d
Observer@infosec.pub · 10 pts · 281d
For those wanting more information, the extension description states:
87Six@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 281d
Fair enough but I almost never had it accept anything. I monitor cookies. Perhaps on some sites ot does that, then.
But yea it doesn't delete cookies. I wouldn't want it to anyway? I want to stay logged into my stuff.
I recommend LibreWolf if you want to disable and discard all cookies by default.
87Six@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 281d
No, not really, and taken out of context. Glad someone replied to you already.
Imhotep@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 281d
Acting like I'm spreading misinformation while your comment still clearly states it declines which it does not. I was correcting that part.
Although I see how my comment could mean all cookies get accepted. Wasn't my intention
KeenFlame@feddit.nu · 0 pts · 281d
Nope, declined
archonet@lemy.lol · 18 pts · 282d
AdNauseam + PopUpOFF + CanvasBlocker + Bypass Paywalls Clean
"No, I don't want ads. No, I don't want cookies. No, I don't want to even be asked about cookies, or subscribing to your newsletter, or to sign up for access to this article. Fuck off."
BenLeMan@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 281d
The part that annoys me is that I have Do Not Track enabled in my browser and there's one (1) website I use that respects this choice, as intended by GDPR. (geizhals.de)
All others choose to bother me about their stupid ad tracking.
Scrollone@feddit.it · 16 pts · 281d
The Do Not Track header has been discontinued by most browsers. It's the sad state of affairs.
In an ideal world, all websites shouldn't even show a cookie alert if you have that header on.
dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 282d
Malicious compliance writ large.
Also, the number of hurdles you have to clear for this tells volumes about where the site owner priorities lie.
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz · 8 pts · 282d
Hence why the EU is now forcing an "easy way to decline". All compliant websites have a "reject all cookies" button now.
Which I learned on accident, because normally I have Ghostery installed, which just rejects all cookies automatically.
matti@sopuli.xyz · 8 pts · 282d
I'm pretty sure that was the law from day 1 and the only difference is they're starting to crack down on it now
aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 281d
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 281d
That was Adblock Plus.
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 281d
Hmmm... Must've been a long while ago. I've been using them for... 3? 4? years and never had any ads getting through.
aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 281d
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 281d
Well, I firmly believe in redemption arcs. Also, the product is just really good right now.
Amir@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 281d
Don't use Ghostery anymore
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 281d
Why?
Amir@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 281d
Check the Wikipedia page on it.
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 281d
Yeah? Still not seeing a reason not to use it today. Do you have any specific criticisms?
ivn@jlai.lu · 1 pts · 281d
Breach of trust and owned by a for profit company.
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 281d
By a different company. Owners changed in 2017.
Which makes a privacy-oriented search engine. Seems like they have a pretty good track record.
Madu@lemmynsfw.com · 16 pts · 281d
Many sites have a one click "reject all" now, and it's getting more common over time.
Kjell@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 281d
That's because they have to. If I remember correctly it is supposed to be as easy to reject as to accept, but until it has been judged in a court it is "unknown" what the sites can or should do.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 281d
Which doesn't reject all.
chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 281d
They need a cookie to remember your choice otherwise it has to ask you every single time. Itās the paradox of cookies!
Randelung@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 281d
There's always a category "necessary", so the preference cookie just falls in that.
PrettyFlyForAFatGuy@feddit.uk · 13 pts · 281d
i just disabled cookie persistence in my browsers.
now it doesn't matter if i click accept all or not
ivn@jlai.lu · 9 pts · 281d
It does, the GDPR does not talk about cookies but tracking consent. Cookies are one of the tools for tracking.
Also disabling cookie persistence does nothing against in session tracking.
Logical@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 280d
Maybe I'm getting things backwards here, but wouldn't disabling cookie persistence actually stop some of the more malicious forms of tracking, where different websites track your activity across websites? I'm not an expert on this specific matter but my understanding was that website A saves a cookie in your browser, which website B then uses to identify you (maybe with some extra steps of shipping that data off to some data broker or w/e but you get the picture). I thought that disabling persistence would stop that from occurring in the sense that once your restart your browser and go to website B, there is nothing from A for them to look at.
ivn@jlai.lu · 2 pts · 280d
It will stop tracking between session (after a restart), but not during a session (or "in session"). There is plenty to be collected during a session and you might even actually use some of that data to correlate a user between sessions.
It's more important to keep cookies separate per sites, like Firefox's Total Cookie Protection does.
PrettyFlyForAFatGuy@feddit.uk · 1 pts · 280d
They aren't asking me for permission to track me, they're asking permission to save cookies to that end.
I refuse them the permission they are legally required to acquire from me
Zacryon@feddit.org · 12 pts · 280d
https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/consent-o-matic/
Also available for other browsers.
theacharnian@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 280d
Wow, thank you!
Credibly_Human@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 281d
I think people really misunderstand cookies and have been lead to get angry at exactly the wrong things which actually give the biggest companies huge advantages so they're fine with all of this mumbojumbo.
When you cant have local cookies, or there are hoops, companies that need not bother with this because they own your browser (Google) or companies that own major search engines (Google) or companies that most other companies rely on for ads or social media integration etc (Google) are tremendously advantaged.
Now, basically only Google can collect a wholistic profile of a user, while regular websites must now waste extra man power implementing completely useless cookie preferences when in reality this should have been simplified, at worst, to 3 buttons.
All, No Marketting, No Telemetry.
Anything else is just the user wasting their time or destroying the functionality of a website for no reason/requiring busy body work to comply with ill conceived regulations.
With the downfall of third party cookies in most browsers, cookies literally just serve as some temporary storage for websites on your local machine. Cookies existing or not existing arent what control whether you are tracked, especially given all the fancy fingerprinting that goes on nowadays.
Uri@infosec.pub · 9 pts · 281d
Ublock origin is always the solution
ADTJ@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 280d
That doesn't remove cookie prompts
vpklotar@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 280d
It totally can of you enable that block list in the preferences/settings.
Capricorn_Geriatric@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 280d
Block. According to the GDPR consent has to be explicit, so never pressing "Accept" is surprisingly a valid tactic.
Enforcement, however, is a different story.
echodot@feddit.uk · 9 pts · 281d
Just use a browser that doesn't save cookies. Then accept all.
Cevilia@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 281d
KeenFlame@feddit.nu · 1 pts · 281d
...how does that help?
ivn@jlai.lu · 1 pts · 281d
It's just that cookies are only one tool for tracking. When you accept all you consent to tracking but it doesn't necessarily use cookies for that tracking.
KeenFlame@feddit.nu · 1 pts · 278d
Haha yeah, I doubt cookies are even a necessity in many modern stacks
ivn@jlai.lu · 1 pts · 278d
No, they are a necessity for so many things, no doubt about that. They've plenty of legitimate uses.
KeenFlame@feddit.nu · 1 pts · 272d
You can hold anything in a session on the server as 1kb here and there is nothing nowadays
ivn@jlai.lu · 1 pts · 272d
And how do you think the session is kept between requests? With a cookie.
echodot@feddit.uk · 0 pts · 281d
Are you trying to suggest that I would be better to just deny the cookies? I don't know what you're trying to say by linking to that article.
Device fingerprinting as a technique it's pretty easy to defeat. There are plenty of privacy focused browsers that will also include device fingerprinting protection. In fact pretty much any browser that doesn't store cookies will also do this device fingerprinting protection as well.
ivn@jlai.lu · 1 pts · 281d
It's really hard to know how efficient a device fingerprinting protection is.
Engywuck@lemmy.zip · 9 pts · 281d
Block all 3rd party cookies by default. Done.
MBech@feddit.dk · 8 pts · 282d
And when I finally lose my shit and just press "accept all" and "save my preferences for an eternity along with all my private information", it still pops up every single time!
Qwel@sopuli.xyz · 8 pts · 281d
ublock has filter lists for these things. Doesn't always work but helps a lot.
the nice part is that if you don't ever respond to the popup, they are not allowed to presume you accepted
drath@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 281d
Settings -> Privacy and Security -> Enhanced Tracking Protection -> Custom -> All cookies (will cause websites to break)
Open site -> it breaks -> do i really need it? (no) Move on to the next site. (yes) Ctrl+I -> Permissions -> Set Cookies - uncheck "Use Default" - Allow
yaroto98@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 282d
And then you have to hope they honor your choice.
Amir@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 281d
Consent-o-magic
YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today · 6 pts · 281d
I will on rare occasions accept all if the site gives me the option to reject all but necessary.
superfes@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 282d
Accept all with Cookie Auto delete, best of both annoying worlds
gigachad@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 282d
Also use I still don't care about cookies for auto do whatever you want in combination with cookie auto-delete
superfes@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 282d
I didn't know that was a thing, genius!
ivn@jlai.lu · 2 pts · 281d
These forms are actually about consent of tracking and cookies are just one of the ways to do tracking. You're still consenting to tracking.
Also Firefox Total Cookie Protection is a better solution for cookies. You should enable strict mode and Cookie AutoDelete does not work with Firefox strict mode.
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · 5 pts · 282d
Reject all
~ tada! ~
Speiser0@feddit.org · 5 pts · 282d
Yeah, it's also super easy to prove P!=NP. Just do this one step:
prove it
~ tada! ~
Idk why anyone is still struggling with it.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 282d
YMMV. Some of the pop ups like to make the "Reject" button difficult to find.
FosterMolasses@leminal.space · 1 pts · 281d
Legitimate Interest has entered the chat
Imhotep@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 281d
Why oh why didn't the lawmakers add an obligation to use a standardized cookies selection popup.
I remember day one of it coming into effect and it was already obvious this was a necessity.
Lobbying. One of those laws pretending to do the right thing but sabotaged.
Or maybe its even worse than that. Before you could just have the cookies deleted. But if you do that now you get the awful popup every time, so you just accept them in the end.
I know I do.
This law has made me accept cookies spying.
Pelicanen@sopuli.xyz · 5 pts · 281d
That's already part of the GDPR, companies just aren't complying with it.
From the official GDPR site:
Imhotep@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 281d
"Make it easy"
If you make a vague law that companies can circumvent they will do it.
That's why you force the use of a standardized menu, because nothing else makes sense, no? The same way you don't leave it to the tobacco manufacturers to implement the warnings on the box ; you force them all to adopt the same one that's clearly visible.
It feels like it's either severe incompetence, or the work of lobbyists. But I don't know enough about the matter
Pelicanen@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 281d
Not "make it easy", it's "make it as easy", meaning it can't be easier to accept than to revoke, much clearer bar.
Imhotep@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 281d
And you dont think that's really vague though?
Why not mandate a x by x pixel popup with a specific wording?
I remember this French company, I think SFR (phone), which had to show on their website their condemnation. Since there weren't clear specifications they made it so the message would disappear when you scrolled down one pixel, so almost no one saw it.
Pelicanen@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 281d
Well, that could make the popup unusable depending on screen size. I think the wording is pretty clear, the issue is just that there's no followup and not clear enough incentives to avoid skirting the rules at the moment.
Imhotep@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 281d
Pixel or screen %, you know what I mean.
But yeah no followup seems to be an issue with the GDPR
Honytawk@feddit.nl · 3 pts · 281d
Because those laws were made with good intentions in mind.
But businesses never have good intentions, especially if it eats into their revenue. So they use malicious compliance to make it seem like it is the law that is bad.
Imhotep@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 281d
So really naive lawmakers then? Come on, that's not how you make a company obey, everyone knows that, yet legislators time and again do an oopsie and make a highly symbolic law that obviously won't work because there's no coercion!
FosterMolasses@leminal.space · 4 pts · 281d
Or just use PopUpOff.
I don't consent to jack shit that tries to hold my time hostage lol
vrek@programming.dev · 4 pts · 282d
The correct way to deal with cookies : eat them!
I may have diabetes...
Bubbaonthebeach@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 282d
xantonin@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 281d
I don't understand why US sites display this when their audience is US only.
uniquethrowagay@feddit.org · 4 pts · 281d
Which US sites have US visitors only? Apart from government.
theolodis@feddit.org · 3 pts · 281d
California also requires this, as well as Canada
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 281d
Probably from a common template.
axexrx@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 281d
So, probably stupid question.
If a website pops up and asks for permission, and I bypass that pop-up in some way (like killing the pop up with an addon or some you can just ignore it and keep scrolling with it on the bottom of the screen)
Until ive clicked agree, do websites just not start tracking or creating or doing anything with cookies? After all, they've acknowledged they need, dont have permission.
Or is this by and large pointless, and unless ive jumped through their hoops, they've already started the page with cookies enabled?
drath@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 281d
If the site is GDPR-compliant, they are not allowed to set any cookies until you click the accept button. But, a ton of sites and ad agencies are not. For example, Russians commonly just put a "we tracking you, deal with it. [OK]" banner, thinking they are funny, when it's clearly illegal even by Russian law, but they are shielded from it by responsible officials incompetence. Same story in the US, I believe.
jwmgregory@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 281d
depends on the site.
legally youāre assuming the correct way itās supposed to work in a lot of jurisdictions but in practice who actually litigates these sorts of things?
people get away with it all the time.
thereās also tons of sites hosted in places where itās totally legal to just have cookies with any user from anywhere with or without consent, those might have a permission banner just as a UX thing to make the site feel more āfamiliarā or āofficialā. learning how whole contemporary stack works, at least broadly speaking, is one of the only remaining ways to actually be proactive. knowledge is power.
PieMePlenty@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 281d
Should have been handled on protocol level. Cookies get priority levels, set browser to only accept required cookies and done. Everyone just wanted to do it the easy way... add a banner and ask the user.. or dont even make the banner, call a third party library that does it for you.. and has its own tracking code.. yay!
Scrollone@feddit.it · 1 pts · 281d
We also had the Do Not Track header, and then Microsoft fucked it up and now no browsers support it.
Valmond@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 282d
In the EU: bottom is same as the top one (but I still have ghostery etc).
eclipse7@feddit.nu · 3 pts · 281d
Just install Cookie Autodelete
ivn@jlai.lu · 2 pts · 281d
These forms are actually about consent of tracking and cookies are just one of the ways to do tracking. You're still consenting to tracking.
Also Firefox Total Cookie Protection is a better solution for cookies. You should enable strict mode and Cookie AutoDelete does not work with Firefox strict mode.
GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 282d
I generally just accept because its faster and i have additional filters in place, cookies will be deleted on browser close, and usually a vpn running so i really dont give a shit if the site wants to build a profile out of false data.
Eheran@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 282d
You.... You close your browser? You monster! But at least you leave all of your tabs along, right? Right...?
GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 281d
Of that i am guilty, lol
I know i really shouldnt, but it is just so convenient
TheObviousSolution@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 281d
Besides opening up and viewing a lot of these sites on private tabs, I'm just getting used to cleaning all cookies after I finished checking up what I wanted.
ivn@jlai.lu · 1 pts · 281d
Just use Firefox strict mode, no need to do the work when it can be automated.
ieatpwns@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 282d
10
Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org · 2 pts · 282d
The easier way is to do it in your browser.
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 282d
Just use Ghostery, mate. Does it all for you.
Nanook@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 282d
Been using Hush, works pretty well
Juice@midwest.social · 1 pts · 281d
OK Google
ThatGuyNamedZeus@feddit.org · 0 pts · 282d
brave browser gives you a lot of options to block that bullshit and delete it before it's ever able to make a profile on you...I've already heard what everyone on here has had to say about it. It works and it also works really well against most fingerprinting techniques used by invasive websites
adguard for windows, mac and linux can also be helpful for that stuff.
nextDNS and ReThinkDNS are also helpful for blocking garbage from advertising companies landing on your computer like the leech it is
black_flag@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 281d
You can also just toggle on a blocklist for that in ublock origin
ThatGuyNamedZeus@feddit.org · 1 pts · 281d
bypass paywalls is in ublock origin now?
is it ever going to be in ublock lite?
black_flag@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 281d
This is about cookie banners, not paywalls.
No.