Die a hero or live to see yourself become a villain.
Google delays third-party cookie demise yet again
51–60 of 112 posts
Re: Google delays third-party cookie demise yet again
#52I pay for Youtube Premium, which uses third-party cookies to not show ads on embedded videos. https://privacysandbox.com talks about advertising, but not "logged in elsewhere" functionality. Does Youtube or Google have something ready, or will all Youtube Premium subscribers see ads on embedded videos?
There is also a Federated Credential Management (FedCN) API coming in, that should help somewhat.
Re: Google delays third-party cookie demise yet again
#53I pay for Youtube Premium, which uses third-party cookies to not show ads on embedded videos. https://privacysandbox.com talks about advertising, but not "logged in elsewhere" functionality. Does Youtube or Google have something ready, or will all Youtube Premium subscribers see ads on embedded videos?
There is also a Federated Credential Management (FedCN) API coming in, that should help somewhat. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/FedCM_API
Thank you! Will look!
Re: Google delays third-party cookie demise yet again
#54Dear CMA, Can you please let Google do the right thing and disable third party cookies like every other browser vendor.
Dear Internet user, third party cookies are also used be embedded web applications in services such as salesforce. Cookies are not only used for tracking, but also as an example, secure session allowing the bank to secure your login and also the person on the phone when call in helping you via their login. There are decades worth of applications created that likely will not be fixed…
You do not appear to understand the “third party” part of “third party cookies”.
Secure sessions (ie first party cookies) are unaffected. Your bank is likely entirely unaffected beyond whatever tracking cookies they’ve been installing.
These cookies have nothing to do with the people you call into. If the bank’s help desk can access your first party cookies, may God have mercy on them because hackers and the government won’t.
These changes almost entirely affect third party tracking, and the occasional niche, legitimate use case. Those are fairly rare, in my experience. The vast majority of core functionality in applications are fine with only first party cookies.
Re: Google delays third-party cookie demise yet again
#55Meanwhile, in the Chrome MV2 -> MV3 extension saga, it seems like June 2024 is the newest new date in which MV2 may be phased out in pre-stable versions of Chrome. https://developer.chrome.com/blog/resuming-the-transition-to... At least, to Google's credit, they're starting to listen to users who give them solid reasons why a surprise migration isn't feasible... tomorrow.
I have a Manifest V2 extension in the Chrome Web Store that has a "featured" badge, and Google has been sending me emails that feel a bit coercive:
> To maintain your extension's Featured status, you will need to migrate it to Manifest V3 by June 3rd. [...] Extensions that do not complete this transition will see their Featured badge removed
> Manifest Version 3 extensions will be prioritized in the Chrome Web Store, including in search results and recommendations
> Beginning June of this year, we will begin to gradually disable extensions running Manifest V2 for Chrome users
> Thank you for your cooperation and participation in the Chrome extension ecosystem.
I am really dismayed that an advertising company has such a stranglehold on the web. They are not good custodians.
Re: Google delays third-party cookie demise yet again
#56Why don't they just unilaterally disable third-party cookies by default without providing any replacement? The only slightly valuable functionality that would be lost would be authentication in comment widgets like Disqus. Ah, right, the makers of the world's most popular web browser are also the world's most profitable online advertising company, that's why.
>Why don't they just unilaterally disable third-party cookies by default without providing any replacement? It's explained in the article, and below in this thread. They legally cannot due to intervention from the CMA.
I do love when rhetorical questions actually have a simple answer. I'll admit I had a similar thought as GP (though I wouldn't have posted that thought as a comment without at least taking a look to verify my assumptions). I'm glad to see that it isn't a simple conflict-of-interest with their business that is holding it up.
A great pro-tip I try to follow (but sometimes fail since this is human nature): don't make assumptions, and don't be over-confident if you don't know. It can be especially embarrassing if TFA is quite short and well covered
Re: Google delays third-party cookie demise yet again
#57Good enough for me. Chrome's implementation of partitioned cookies does not work for our use-case, though Firefox's implementation works well. Google has still got some work to do before they go ahead and break everyone's web apps, in my opinion: https://github.com/privacycg/CHIPS/issues/82
One additonal security mechanism you might suggest:
The opener specifically whitelists the embeder's domain in a response header.
Re: Google delays third-party cookie demise yet again
#58I pay for Youtube Premium, which uses third-party cookies to not show ads on embedded videos. https://privacysandbox.com talks about advertising, but not "logged in elsewhere" functionality. Does Youtube or Google have something ready, or will all Youtube Premium subscribers see ads on embedded videos?
Perhaps they should switch to first party cookies?
Re: Google delays third-party cookie demise yet again
#59I pay for Youtube Premium, which uses third-party cookies to not show ads on embedded videos. https://privacysandbox.com talks about advertising, but not "logged in elsewhere" functionality. Does Youtube or Google have something ready, or will all Youtube Premium subscribers see ads on embedded videos?
Perhaps they should switch to first party cookies?
How would that work on embedded videos on sites outside of YouTube/Google, which is what the parent comment is talking about?
Re: Google delays third-party cookie demise yet again
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Why don't they just unilaterally disable third-party cookies by default without providing any replacement? It's explained in the article, and below in this thread. They legally cannot due to intervention from the CMA.
I do love when rhetorical questions actually have a simple answer. I'll admit I had a similar thought as GP (though I wouldn't have posted that thought as a comment without at least taking a look to verify my assumptions). I'm glad to see that it isn't a simple conflict-of-interest with their business that is holding it up. A great pro-tip I try to follow (but sometimes fail since this is human nature): don't make as…
I think the CMA does think it's a conflict of interest which is why they are stepping in. It seems like they think it's in Google's favor to remove third party cookies without a replacement.