71–80 of 175 posts
uBlock 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree! Unfortunately, that one was rejected by chrome.
Interesting. Did they explain why?
> How to rectify: Ensure your privacy policy contains details about user data collection, handling, storage and sharing. Omission of any section is not allowed.
So I added a section for each. I could make the "Information We Collect" section less verbose for sure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hiding the popup is not the same as clicking reject. It should be but it's not.
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...
We do not materially benefit from this in any way, nor do we market it. I am not a spokesperson for my company nor do I want to be publicly identified with it. I'm advocating here because you said "not a chance" but there is a chance.
It's not just that we are worried about some sort of regulatory enforcement, either, although existence of such regulations does help convince the less scrupulous people from pursuing a bad path.
The free internet is built on ads. I still believe in the free internet. I still think we can make it work. I welcome regulation and regulatory enforcement even though it's hard for a small outfit like us, because it reduces the chances that our ad tech has to compete with less scrupulous people. I think we've survived as a small outfit since roughly the dotcom era because we've tried to be good stewards. People wouldn't need uBlock if there was better regulation/enforcement, and companies like mine, who are trying to do the right thing (even as we operate in the loathed ad space), would benefit.
I'm worried about AI on this front because it means in the future your ads will be served up to you out of a black box instead of out in the open where we can all inspect who is trying to get what from us (and block bad parties via eg uBlock), and, to a degree, who is trying to shove what down our throats.
Love the idea. I wish chrome extensions had a more granular permissions structure and/or reminders/security checkups on installed extensions and their permissions. As it is the content scripts manifest permission for https://*/ * for content.js is always so jarring to see. For those that don’t know this allows the extension to run that script on every site you visit after clicking accept ONCE when you install the ext…
The broad permissions were required from a usability standpoint. Granting permission on every site for this extension would just be a 1 to 1 replacement of clicking reject on the banner or pop up for every site.
I would hope that before Chrome approves an extension to be added to the store that they are auditing the content of package.
I never understood why the HTTP Do Not Track header wasn’t used to signal cookie preferences. It seemed like the perfect solution.
>I never understood why the HTTP Do Not Track header wasn’t used to signal cookie preferences. You aren't really giving preferences related to cookies with these "cookie banners". The laws in the EU require companies to get user permission for certain types of data processing. Cookies may be involved in that, but they may not be. Browser features like local storage or session storage would also be covered, and a lot…
There’s clearly no way to indicate what sort of knife based assault is acceptable using a single indicator.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting. Did they explain why?
They had this in the reply > How to rectify: Ensure your privacy policy contains details about user data collection, handling, storage and sharing. Omission of any section is not allowed. So I added a section for each. I could make the "Information We Collect" section less verbose for sure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 pur…
It's not a dark pattern, but actually is similar to terms of conditions and privacy policies that sites show. Requiring users to go through legal agreements sucks, but companies can't just ignore the law in order to make a better user experience.
In 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.
I’ve been running UBlock Origin and Privacy Badger. Planning to add a cookie consent denier after I type this.