Live data from Hacker News

New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

dataprotectioncontrol.org

211–220 of 269 posts

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#211

Been thinking of making a chrome/firefox extension that will detect those cookie notifications and automatically nope out of them all for you and submit, but been too lazy to implement.

I wonder how effective and blockers are on their own. I don't mind consenting when I know that the third party trackers will never load anyway.

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This exactly. This is also why I never feel "ashamed" when sites ask me to please disable my ad blocker because when I block ads they'll go out of business. Or why I'll always decline even "user respecting" ads on sites. We're fighting the ad and tracking industry here, the internet equivalent of a gang member with a shiv and a length of pipe. I'm not going to fight nicely. I'll deny you any chance and any method I g…

Just a small reminder for people using Firefox and ublock origin: you can remove almost all cookie prompts by enabling the annoyances filters in the addon settings

I can't find that. Could you be more specific?

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haha, no. You're falling for the trick, or maybe you're just 10 years behind. Publishers (and retailers, and anyone with a dataset) seek out adtech partner companies, to justify high CPMs and to sell their audience data . Adtech companies are market-makers, it's been years since the data they can get independently of supply-side partners was worth shit. The publisher is the one with the cookie warning and consent for…

> Publishers (and retailers, and anyone with a dataset) seek out adtech partner companies, to justify high CPMs and to sell their audience data. Adtech companies are market-makers, it's been years since the data they can get independently of supply-side partners was worth shit. You're correct, for large publishers ... I guess we could almost say they are adtech companies now.

IMO it's easier to just call them "surveillance companies" and be done with it. Regardless of whether they're collecting, storing, or processing surveillance data, they're all in the same business as Equifax, Google, Lexis-Nexis, and NSA.

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#214
I just want ONE option - ACCEPT ALL COOKIES.

Seriuosly, I reserve the right to expire, delete, manage and otherwise deal with cookies on my device myself.

Can anyone create a different standard with ONE flag - ACCEPT ALL COOKIES - SHOW NO BANNERS*

*User reserves right to delete, purge, modify, expire etc cookies on their device.

That's what I want.

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They want you to associate them with privacy, and conclude that privacy laws are pointless and should be repealed. This is a sentiment expressed surprisingly often even here on HN.

A huge proportion of posters either work at adware companies or are big time owners of adware stocks. And as the Sinclair adage goes, it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

I used to work in adtech. My position then, as now:

1. targeted ad buys are mostly a scam. Research shows that they are barely more effective than old-fashioned contextual ads.

2. Contextual ads, aka "dumb" ads, the kind that show ads based on the content they are displayed with, are fine.

3. adtech companies depend on advertisers not understanding (1) and publishers chasing dollars by signing up with ad targeting networks.

The ones that are actually making money are the ad networks, and it is in their interest to spread FUD about (1) and not offer (2), as they make their money as a percentage of every ad sale (auction) transaction, and the CPM is higher on targeted ads because of ignorance of (1)

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Publishers (and retailers, and anyone with a dataset) seek out adtech partner companies, to justify high CPMs and to sell their audience data. Adtech companies are market-makers, it's been years since the data they can get independently of supply-side partners was worth shit. You're correct, for large publishers ... I guess we could almost say they are adtech companies now.

IMO it's easier to just call them "surveillance companies" and be done with it. Regardless of whether they're collecting, storing, or processing surveillance data, they're all in the same business as Equifax, Google, Lexis-Nexis, and NSA.

I don't think it's useful for analysis or activism to group Equifax, Google, the NSA, the New York Times, Humble Bundle, Twitter, Airbnb, Walgreens, etc. under a single term. The flattening of this mess down into "adtech" is how most of them have avoided scrutiny, and relabeling that "surveillance" doesn't make the relationships between them any clearer.

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#217
post #7

Reminder that we've already had a spec for it. In the 90s! And it even has been implemented in the Internet Explorer: https://www.w3.org/P3P/ It did absolutely nothing for privacy. Google has been sending bogus P3P headers that broke IE's implementation and allowed all cookies. Adtech companies don't want users to have an easy opt-out. They didn't want P3P. They didn't want DNT. They will not want this new spec, unle…

But privacy laws are pointless and should be repealed. All this noise about cookie privacy, fingerprinting, FLoC, tracking, etc. --- what are the actual harms that make these things bad? Has anyone in the real world ever experienced a concrete harm arising from interest targeting? Doubtful. The EU privacy regime imposes a heavy regulatory burden in exchange for nothing. Information is a non-rivalrous good. Further li…

> what are the actual harms

The kind of question can only be asked by someone who has never been abused by a domestic partner, never been on the wrong end of debt collectors, the law, disgruntled employees, doxxers, or other real and persistent threats that are enabled by the data collection and aggregation that is the foundation of interest targeting.

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#218
post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a small reminder for people using Firefox and ublock origin: you can remove almost all cookie prompts by enabling the annoyances filters in the addon settings

I can't find that. Could you be more specific?

"Filter Lists" settings-tab -> expand "Annoyances" -> Fanboy's is by far the most popular one. Otherwise read the pages they link to / view the content (many have descriptions in content) - many of them are intended to work with Fanboy's, but if not you may have excessive duplicates.

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#219
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this extension trustworthy? It is "recommended" and says GPL3 but there is no link to the source code anywhere.

The author doesn't publish the extension sources. https://reddit.com/comments/bru6wd/comment/eohtox3

I don't think that's quite in compliance with GPL3, but I'm not a lawyer. The bundled release artifact doesn't allow someone to build the extension, and I think GPL3 takes that into account. If I have a Java program, I have the bytecode, and unless it's been run through and obfuscator, I can pretty easily recreate the Java code. But the GPL3 doesn't count that as compliant.

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But privacy laws are pointless and should be repealed. All this noise about cookie privacy, fingerprinting, FLoC, tracking, etc. --- what are the actual harms that make these things bad? Has anyone in the real world ever experienced a concrete harm arising from interest targeting? Doubtful. The EU privacy regime imposes a heavy regulatory burden in exchange for nothing. Information is a non-rivalrous good. Further li…

> what are the actual harms The kind of question can only be asked by someone who has never been abused by a domestic partner, never been on the wrong end of debt collectors, the law, disgruntled employees, doxxers, or other real and persistent threats that are enabled by the data collection and aggregation that is the foundation of interest targeting.

Do abusive domestic partners, debt collectors, random employees, or angry doxxers have access to targeted advertising interest data? The "harm" you're discussing is hypothetical and extremely unlikely. I'm asking for concrete examples.
Post reply on HN