Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Safari is OK you could move to Orion: https://kagi.com/orion/
I would love to but I can't use the MacOS default password manager :(
Safari supports 3rd-party password managers like 1password no problem.
Show HN: A Chrome extension that will auto-reject non-essential cookies
51–60 of 175 posts
Re: Show HN: A Chrome extension that will auto-reject non-essential cookies
#52In todays world, having a performant and robust (that can support extension) browser on widely used Platforms (Ios, Android) seems like a dream. Is it too much too ask for?
Re: Show HN: A Chrome extension that will auto-reject non-essential cookies
#53uBlock Origin already has this. Enable the "Cookie notices" and "Annoyances" filters in uBlock Origin's settings. Bonus pro-tip: Firefox for Android supports uBlock Origin, which means you can get rid of these godawful banners on mobile, too. Only iOS users are stuck having to put up with them.
My ideal solution to this would be: accept all cookies, then delete them after page unload
this is called incognito mode
Re: Show HN: A Chrome extension that will auto-reject non-essential cookies
#54What's the difference between this and "I still don't care about cookies"[0]? [0] https://github.com/OhMyGuus/I-Still-Dont-Care-About-Cookies
It rejects cookies & reduces how much you are tracked, rather than accepting all tracking & cookies.
Re: Show HN: A Chrome extension that will auto-reject non-essential cookies
#55I never understood why the HTTP Do Not Track header wasn’t used to signal cookie preferences. It seemed like the perfect solution.
The issue is with how browsers implemented it. Instead of implementing it with a per domain granularity it was implemented as a global option. People may enable the option to block tracking from malicous parties, but may unknowingly block tracking from good companies. So now good companies would need to ask the user if they actually want tracking since they may accidently be blocking it.
> tracking from good companies
Say what?
Re: Show HN: A Chrome extension that will auto-reject non-essential cookies
#56In todays world, having a performant and robust (that can support extension) browser on widely used Platforms (Ios, Android) seems like a dream. Is it too much too ask for?
Firefox is that browser. Its not on ios but neither is any other browser that matters.
Re: Show HN: A Chrome extension that will auto-reject non-essential cookies
#57I noticed you deleted the privacy policy in Github, and link to this one instead https://privacy.reject-cookies.bymitch.com/ The one you link to doesn't really make sense: > Data is collected on specific sites that the product is not working on. This data is sent explicitly by users and when it is collected we do not collect any information that could be tied to a specific user. Only the name of the site is collected…
Agree! Unfortunately, that one was rejected by chrome.
Interesting. Did they explain why?
Re: Show HN: A Chrome extension that will auto-reject non-essential cookies
#58I never understood why the HTTP Do Not Track header wasn’t used to signal cookie preferences. It seemed like the perfect solution.
You assume the problem was to determine the user’s preference in the most efficient way possible. The problem, instead, was to fool as many users into consenting as possible; and from that point of view, it is indeed rational to ignore any advisory signals and annoy the user so they want to just make the message go away.
Re: Show HN: A Chrome extension that will auto-reject non-essential cookies
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think these websites give a shit about your privacy because you clicked on a div with a "No" in it? Not a chance. It's like asking thieves to promise not to steal from you. Protecting users is the browser's job: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enhanced-tracking-prote... https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/introducing-total-cooki...
> You think these websites give a shit about your privacy because you clicked on a div with a "No" in it Yes. For a subset of "these websites". Because this is enforced and EU has fined billions already. The fines for doing what you say they do, are steep and a severe risk for many "these websites".
> For a subset of "these websites".
So for websites that are not in that subset, they will still track you regardless of what you click on, so you still need browser-level protections for those websites, and those browser-level protections will also work on the websites that are in that subset, so you still gain nothing by clicking the No.
Re: Show HN: A Chrome extension that will auto-reject non-essential cookies
#60I never understood why the HTTP Do Not Track header wasn’t used to signal cookie preferences. It seemed like the perfect solution.
The issue is with how browsers implemented it. Instead of implementing it with a per domain granularity it was implemented as a global option. People may enable the option to block tracking from malicous parties, but may unknowingly block tracking from good companies. So now good companies would need to ask the user if they actually want tracking since they may accidently be blocking it.
No, the real problem was that it worked too good from the perspective of ad-tech and data-gatherers.¹
It relied on the goodwill of those who run these services to i) invest some effort and money to detect the DNT headers and then ii) not collect/store the data of these requests.
Back, when only a tiny portion of web-users would send these headers along, the industry was fine to implement it. If only for marketing purpose. But, as soon as they saw that it actually worked, the industry saw a threat to their revenues and stopped.
I believe a DNT2.0 that's more granular could've been a basis for GDPR, but the GDPR refrained -rightfully so, IMO- from any implementation details. For one, the GDPR never once requires some "popup", it merely states that if you are an a*hole and collect data that you shouldn't and/or send that to other parties, you should at least ask concent to do so - the idea being that web-owners would then massively ditch these services so that they don't have to nag their users.
And because the GDPR refrained from implementation details, the Ad- and surveilance industry adopted a "dark pattern" that annoys people to no end (the popups) so as to paint the GDPR in a bad light. This industry could've easily said "If we see a DNT header with level:x and domainmask:*, we'll assume NO to every tracking cookie and won't collect them". And the browser makers then could add some UI to allow users per-domain or global, or wildcard or whatever settings "set-and-forget". But alas, this industry is malicious at best and will annoy users to no end for their own agenda.
¹ edit: source: https://pc-tablet.com/firefox-ditches-do-not-track-the-end-o...