I wonder if instead of blocking cookies we could make a browser extension to share the tracking cookies (and only those) with random people on the web, to confuse trackers?
Things not available when someone blocks all cookies
161–170 of 231 posts
Re: Things not available when someone blocks all cookies
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
>For regular users "Cookies" is a catch-all term for any persistent identifiers and tracking. Geez I hope that's not true. Cookies and localStorage serve a very different purpose. localStorage is exactly what it says: local storage. Cookies are sent to the server with every request and are quite wasteful in comparison. I would expect my browser to be accurate of its labeling in the user settings.
I agree it's a misnomer and it's confusing for developers to find that disabling cookies breaks local storage, but I think it's understandable. When a user disables cookies their intent is presumably for the website to not be able to track their device, and it's quite easy to work around this with local storage (just add a locally stored identifier to each request made). At the end of the day it's about either surpri…
I can appreciate the argument, but it still bothers me. Don't you think there's an argument to be made for educating the user, rather than reinforcing their misunderstanding?
localStorage is just one of many ways to track users. You could also store data in indexedDB, the new File API, installed service workers, or even the browser cache if you're clever enough.
If we start lumping all forms of tracking (storage) under "cookies", that's going to get real messy, real fast.
Re: Things not available when someone blocks all cookies
#163> All I am using is some innocent localStorage and IndexedDB to persist user settings like the values of the sliders or the chosen color scheme. When you turn off cookies you're telling the browser not to let sites persist information. Otherwise, whatever goals you had in disabling cookies would just be worked around through these other technologies.
I disagree. For example, a simple todo-list web-app doesn't need any cookies but stores everything in localStorage. Cookies are made for a server, localStorage for a client.
What happens when the web app decides to send the server the entire contents of the localStorage every time it loads? Now we are back to emulating cookies with localStorage.
Re: Things not available when someone blocks all cookies
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just like Windows Control Panel has "Printers and Devices" - because I guess people don't think of printers as devices?
From what I saw, that was indeed one of the more common complaints about Windows 8. Nobody could find printers and thought Windows 8 didn't support printers because Windows 8 merged everything to just "Devices" (and the short-lived Devices "charm" as an intended one-stop print shop/"universal Print button", RIP). It didn't help that Windows 8 tried to at the same time update the ancient Windows Printer driver model a…
Why can Microsoft seemingly not commit and stand by decisions in the way Apple does?
Re: Things not available when someone blocks all cookies
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about — Allow websites to store data on your computer [ ] short-term [ ] long-term or permanently Some websites need to store data for some features, or to work it all. Storing data can also enable them to track you. And I'd be inclined to blame the state of the web in general.
I'd be tempted to nuance that: [ ] Cookies - stored locally and sent to web-sites automatically [ ] Local Storage - not automatically sent to web-sites In all cases I veer towards sharing explicit details. If users choose to not understand it fully that is fine. I don't like 'dumbing-down' or simplifying taking away explicit details with no easy way to get it in the same place as the 'simple' exposition.
That’s a distinction without a difference IMHO.
Local storage (or Cache API, IndexedDB) + Service Worker = Cookies (simply add a header to every request)
Local storage + DOM manipulation to add search params with the stored content = Cookies (apart from first navigation)
And on the flip side
Cookies set using JS + Ignore cookies server side = Local storage
It’s almost like the object/closure equivalence.
Re: Things not available when someone blocks all cookies
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just like Windows Control Panel has "Printers and Devices" - because I guess people don't think of printers as devices?
I guess that well behaved devices took offense of being put in the same category as printers. And I understand them.
Yeah if I was a device and someone called me a printer I tell you hwat!
Re: Things not available when someone blocks all cookies
#167> All I am using is some innocent localStorage and IndexedDB to persist user settings like the values of the sliders or the chosen color scheme. When you turn off cookies you're telling the browser not to let sites persist information. Otherwise, whatever goals you had in disabling cookies would just be worked around through these other technologies.
I don’t think so, else we should change the name. Cookies are sent to the server on every request so it has tracking implications that locally caching something like dark mode preferences does not. One issue is that there’s a hysteria over cookies which muddies the water.
It’s trivial to emulate cookies with other Web APIs (storage + service worker, for one). You’re focusing on the label of the toggle and not user intent. If a website can send information about my visit 2 days ago to an upstream server, clearly my expectation of “Disable cookies” is broken.
Re: Things not available when someone blocks all cookies
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would make it "more innocent"?
A cookie is a tiny plaintext file limited at 4kb. Your browser keeps an inventory of them, lets you read or delete them, and automatically clears them out regularly. Local storage can contain just about any type of user data without letting users know, and theoretically forever. If you have to store local data, and you cared about "innocence" (author's word), it seems to me a cookie set to the local domain leaves les…
Looks like local storage has a max size of 5MB and cookies 180 * 4KB = 0.7MB, so a similar order of magnitude. AFAIK, cookies can be set to expire in hundreds of years by sites and local storage can be cleared the same way as cookies.
Re: Things not available when someone blocks all cookies
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I saw, that was indeed one of the more common complaints about Windows 8. Nobody could find printers and thought Windows 8 didn't support printers because Windows 8 merged everything to just "Devices" (and the short-lived Devices "charm" as an intended one-stop print shop/"universal Print button", RIP). It didn't help that Windows 8 tried to at the same time update the ancient Windows Printer driver model a…
Why can Microsoft seemingly not commit and stand by decisions in the way Apple does?
Microsoft seems to have a crapload of competing teams with each fiefdom vying for attention and authority over decisions, whereas Apple, at least from an outsider perspective, more looks like an authoritarian, top-down corporate hellscape. Another very important distinction that explains this is that Apple doesn't give much about backwards compatibility, whereas it was a core part of Microsoft to keep backwards compatibility even at very high cost.
Both methods of corporate behavior have their advantages and disadvantages.
Re: Things not available when someone blocks all cookies
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
A cookie is a tiny plaintext file limited at 4kb. Your browser keeps an inventory of them, lets you read or delete them, and automatically clears them out regularly. Local storage can contain just about any type of user data without letting users know, and theoretically forever. If you have to store local data, and you cared about "innocence" (author's word), it seems to me a cookie set to the local domain leaves les…
Looks like local storage has a max size of 5MB and cookies 180 * 4KB = 0.7MB, so a similar order of magnitude. AFAIK, cookies can be set to expire in hundreds of years by sites and local storage can be cleared the same way as cookies.
I mean, you can make a cookie that is anything you want, but browsers accept what they accept. For Chrome that's a I think localStorage being slightly better or worse than a local cookie is up for discussion. I just think you're weird if you think local cookies are bad but localStorage is good.