Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users

brave.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 329 posts

Re: Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users

#151

Post by HnUser12 »

JohnFen wrote: post #42

That seems the obvious result of this sort of thing. > Related Website Sets (RWS) is a way for a company to declare relationships among sites, so that browsers allow limited third-party cookie access for specific purposes. So the website itself gets to declare other "blessed" domains that can bypass third party cookie blocks? Big websites are constantly looking for ways to abuse users by bypassing their attempts at p…

I don’t know too much about this but I’m curious if what I saw recently on safari is similar? When visiting related Microsoft websites, I got a pop up asking permission to share the cookie for login. I was up to me to approve or reject that request. Seems like a better implementation.

Re: Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users

#152

Post by chrisweekly »

greiskul wrote: post #139
autoexec wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've heard that fake data, like from AdNausium, just becomes noise as the advertisers know the patterns to filter them out. It's actually much worse. That fake data is dangerous because data brokers don't really care how accurate their data is. Even the fake data AdNausium stuffs into your dossier will be used against you eventually, just like the real data will be. If you get turned down for a job, or your health…

> If you get turned down for a job, or your health insurance rates go up, or you have to pay more for something than you would have otherwise It must suck to live in a capitalist dystopia. Dunno why Americans put up with it.

Where do you live, that sucks less?

Re: Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users

#153

Post by shiroiushi »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #118
raybb wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any recent examples? It's more often I see websites that claim they don't work with firefox but actually do if you change your user agent.

YouTube, FreshDesk, Google TV (sharing from Firefox)

Huh? I use YouTube all the time on Firefox and it's fine. Better than fine, really, thanks to the YouTube improvement extension I have loaded. Never heard of the other two though.

Re: Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users

#154

Post by dheera »

AyyEye wrote: post #128
autoexec wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regarding analytics, I believe browsers should take user's side and do not cooperate with marketing companies Browsers were supposed to act as agents working for the user. User-agents. These days it's getting harder and harder to find a browser that doesn't work for an ad company at the expense of the user. Chrome's entire reason for existing is data collection. Firefox can, for now at least, be hardened to work fo…

Mozilla is a Google vassal and nothing more. Google analytics? Check. Firefox Safebrowsing sending your private tab traffic to google? Of course! https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/firefox Mozilla only has their Google billion$ in mind, not you. https://digdeeper.neocities.org/articles/mozilla

> Google analytics? Check.

Add this to /etc/hosts

    0.0.0.0 www.google-analytics.com
    0.0.0.0 google-analytics.com
    0.0.0.0 ssl.google-analytics.com

Re: Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users

#155

Post by immibis »

kevwil wrote: post #90
JonChesterfield wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shed a tear for the Firefox that could have been

I'm concerned that if Google ever stopped paying Mozilla to be the default search engine in Firefox, Mozilla would not be able to afford continued development on Firefox.

Mozilla barely funds Firefox as is. All of its money is spent on other things.

Re: Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users

#157

Post by shiroiushi »

kevwil wrote: post #91
Filligree wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safari. That's the only browser I really use.

With the massive tide of browsers converting to Chromium under the hood, I wonder how long Apple can hold out. Fingers crossed they keep allocating budget for it.

Apple can hold out indefinitely. If a website doesn't work on Apple devices, that's not Apple's fault, according to legions of Apple users. And they're kinda right: there really are a lot of them, and they do tend to spend more money than other users, so websites that somehow manage to stupidly not work on Safari (presumably by using Chrome-only functionality and never testing) are potentially losing a lot of users and business.

I'm not normally a fan of Apple at all, and I have no interest in using Safari myself, but here I am glad that they've so far refused to jump on the Chrome bandwagon: it's good for keeping the web standards-based so we don't have a repeat of the IE6 days.

Re: Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users

#158

Post by bad_user »

radlad wrote: post #81
bad_user wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is wrong. All settings in Brave with an impact on user privacy are opt-in. They even inform you of their product metrics, when you first start it, despite having a paper on how they anonymize that data. Versus Firefox, which never bothered. Firefox, which also added metrics for ads, similar with Privacy Sandbox, without informing users. I've never seen a browser with such a strong focus on privacy, the only cont…

> Brave has received negative press for diverting ad revenue from websites to itself,[30] collecting unsolicited donations for content creators without their consent,[43] suggesting affiliate links in the address bar[49] and installing a paid VPN service without the user's consent.[58] These are the primary issues I hear about regarding Brave on this forum. It's also founded by Brendan Eich who was forced out of Mozi…

> "collecting unsolicited donations for content creators without their consent"

Those "donations" were from handouts of BAT. What they "collected" was their own BAT that they've donated to users of Brave. And it wasn't long lived. At least they've been trying to create a business model that's privacy preserving and that benefits content creators. Firefox has been selling their users to Google for years.

> "suggesting affiliate links in the address bar"

You mean like what Firefox also did?

> "and installing a paid VPN service without the user's consent."

I've never seen a VPN service installed with Brave. Is this a Windows thing? If you're talking about the VPN functionality in Brave itself, isn't this what Firefox also did?

> "It's also founded by Brendan Eich who was forced out of Mozilla for his strong and vocal opposition of same-sex marriage."

He never talked on the topic. And did you know that, at that time, both Obama and Hillary Clinton were also opposed to same-sex marriage? Times change, people's minds have changed. Whatever beliefs he still has, he keeps private, as he should.

But yes, this confirms my suspicion that this is a US-politics thing, and for non-US citizens, it's getting annoying. While we are on the topic, don't you find it problematic when Mozilla engages in political activism, promoting Marxism? Or when they promote cancel culture?

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/internet-culture/chris-smalls-ri...

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/we-need-more-than-deplat...

For me, these were never reasons to avoid Firefox, but seeing that this is how the world works now, maybe they should be. And I'm sorry for pointing at Firefox right now, I used it for years, but I'm sensing a serious double standard. So let's talk of Chrome ... have you surveyed the political beliefs of Chrome's developers? Because it's the big, faceless corporations that benefit from this kind of polarisation the most.

Re: Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users

#159

Post by bad_user »

JohnFen wrote: post #145
FMecha wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, BAT being a cryptocurrency already turns off people who aren't fan of crypto.

BAT was what kept me from trying Brave for a very long time, but I eventually tried it nonetheless (I'm back on Firefox now). In fairness to Brave, you can disable the BAT stuff and never have to see it.

The BAT stuff is entirely opt-in, not opt-out.

Re: Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users

#160

Post by jgraettinger1 »

autoexec wrote: post #150
adastra22 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don’t. Individualized health insurance rates like that are illegal.

We do. > Insurers contend that they use the information to spot health issues in their clients — and flag them so they get services they need. And companies like LexisNexis say the data shouldn't be used to set prices. But as a research scientist from one company told me: "I can't say it hasn't happened." source: https://www.propublica.org/article/health-insurers-are-vacuu... See also: > Is it legal? As explained by…

> which is a total joke since it's often trivial to re-identify anonymized data

HIPAA doesn't say ROT13 or anything else in particular counts as "anonymized". It's an after-the-fact assessment. If your "encrypted" data is accidentally released, and there's any reasonable suspicion inside or outside the company that it's crack-able, then it's a YOU problem and you need to notify a bajillion people by mail and per-state press release plus large fines.

I think you're being overly pessimistic on the strengths of US regulations on this with regard to preventing deliberate malfeasance, and that most of the stupid we see in stories is really just by accident or individual actors.

Post reply on HN