121–130 of 190 posts
I think this is a bad idea. Even though I personally block 3rd party trackers by default, breaking the web by default will cause problems. Also, ad blocking will start being a problem when enough people start doing it. I still remember the days of no websites yelling at you for blocking their ads. Things are going to get much worse.
Third party cookies shouldn't exist in the first place.
Why now, as opposed to several years ago? Are there downsides to blocking 3rd party trackers by default, and if so, what has changed recently to allow this to happen now?
Companies have begun switching tracking tech to first-party cookies (where possible) since Apple's introduction of "Intelligent Tracking Protection," so Mozilla's similar move probably won't have that much of an impact either. Apple has responded with ITP 2.1, though, limiting _all_ (persistent) cookie lifetime to 7 days, although these could probably be accurately re-issued/kept alive in my opinion: https://webkit.o…
I wish DNT was honoured, but it's as good as a "do not commit crime" sign.
In January 2019 W3C Tracking Protection Working Group concluded work on Do Not Track standard citing "insufficient deployment of these extensions" and lack of "indications of planned support among user agents, third parties, and the ecosystem at large." In February 2019 Apple Safari 12.1 was released without support for DNT to avoid it being used as a "tracking variable."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The next step is that they will let third-parties inject javascript from the backend. At that point all is lost and the web will die a horrible death.
Routing tracking traffic through a subdomain that proxies through to the third party is already a thing. And my adblocker, at least, already blocks that too. It's not death anyway; it's just that blockers will have to adjust to blocking bits of third party content.
Just wondering: how will that work when javascript is compressed and obfuscated together with the main code served by the website?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You send tracking events to your analytics/tracking partner from your backend instead of from the browser and they combine the cookie ids.
The next step is that they will let third-parties inject javascript from the backend. At that point all is lost and the web will die a horrible death.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The next step is that they will let third-parties inject javascript from the backend. At that point all is lost and the web will die a horrible death.
Are you speculating or is that a real plan?
Companies have begun switching tracking tech to first-party cookies (where possible) since Apple's introduction of "Intelligent Tracking Protection," so Mozilla's similar move probably won't have that much of an impact either. Apple has responded with ITP 2.1, though, limiting _all_ (persistent) cookie lifetime to 7 days, although these could probably be accurately re-issued/kept alive in my opinion: https://webkit.o…
I wish DNT was honoured, but it's as good as a "do not commit crime" sign.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Routing tracking traffic through a subdomain that proxies through to the third party is already a thing. And my adblocker, at least, already blocks that too. It's not death anyway; it's just that blockers will have to adjust to blocking bits of third party content.
> it's just that blockers will have to adjust to blocking bits of third party content. Just wondering: how will that work when javascript is compressed and obfuscated together with the main code served by the website?
Companies have begun switching tracking tech to first-party cookies (where possible) since Apple's introduction of "Intelligent Tracking Protection," so Mozilla's similar move probably won't have that much of an impact either. Apple has responded with ITP 2.1, though, limiting _all_ (persistent) cookie lifetime to 7 days, although these could probably be accurately re-issued/kept alive in my opinion: https://webkit.o…
I wish DNT was honoured, but it's as good as a "do not commit crime" sign.
I bet the ad industry wishes they'd played ball, now that browsers are baking tracking protection in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never used umatrix and just stuck with noscript over the years due to the lengthy process of allowing scripts / domains, going through random external scripts required to make pages work that are not self-explanatory. Is there anything in umatrix to make the switch worthwhile?
I migrated to uMatrix because it allows me to block cookies, media, javascript, and xhr by default. It replaced several different privacy extensions with a single control panel. You can set the defaults to be as strict or lenient as you wish.
That's a lot of configuration to do. I'd rather just use Firefox containers, noscript, and use Tor for things I don't want tied to my ad profile.