51–60 of 144 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except Google Analytics doesn't use third party cookies so it's a moot point. https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection...
Does this mean that GA can't track users across websites?
Shameless self mention: Chartbeat does not do this either.
For those about to bemoan the breaking of things like Google Analytics: this patch only blocks third party cookies from domains that the user has never visited before. Since 99% of your visitors will have visited google.com, your Analytics should continue to function even after this update.
The GA script loads from google-analytics.com, not google.com. ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does this mean that GA can't track users across websites?
They could theoretically do both by having the JS on the page set one cookie on the host domain and having the server response set one on the GA domain. I don't believe they do, however. Shameless self mention: Chartbeat does not do this either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don't like being filmed in public and face-tracked everywhere you go, just don't ever leave home. Can you picture yourself saying that in 10 years?
You are not identifiable from an ad cookie AFAIK and the country I live in has laws preventing companies to abuse in collecting personal data (like IP address) This is far from being on video. And a lot of places have cameras now in addition to people with phones and maybe Google Glass in the future?
I don't actually think this policy will have the desired effect of improving privacy and similar. While I do think advertisers and analytics abuse third-party cookies, they also have a dozen other things they can switch to that the browser provides fewer facilities to control: http://samy.pl/evercookie/ Meanwhile, any legitimate services that rely on third-party cookies would have little choice but to switch to whate…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why is that creepy? Both websites are related through a retargeter. One sends the data over to the other. It's just like they were the same websites or same corporation. If you don't like this then you can avoid theses websites that sell/buy your information. Although that's a good chunk of the Internet. Just make sure you send private information to trusted sites only.
Because it's not opt-in and there's no way to opt-out.
Something like RequestPolicy allows the user to opt out of everything.
I blocked third party cookies in Chrome for awhile and finally gave up. It broke a surprising number of things, particularly Disqus embeds. Also the Instapaper bookmarklet although I admit that's a nerdy special case. Hopefully Firefox will have a way to let the user enable the few places where third party cookies are desired. That's a hard user interaction to get right. (Disqus apparently now works without third par…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would establish the web as a safe and secure platform, and I think that's in the best interest of the web. To hell with your personal ambition to underhandedly monetize other people's users. EDIT: I changed my statement from 'monetize your users' to specify 'other users' as that more accurately reflects the impact of Mozilla's change. Third-party cookies are used for tracking users that aren't yours.
With that statement, you're also saying "To hell with YouTube, Facebook, WordPress.com and every other site that wouldn't survive without money."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally I can't stand retargeting, if there is one turn-off I have when visiting websites it is being hounded from site to site by an ad. That signals to me to never ever buy that product. That it is 'exciting' to those in the advertising industry is a signal all by itself. Once a while ago I googled for a bit around the time I was buying a car. For weeks afterwards I got hounded by car ads for some brand. Needles…
There is a general rule of thumb that a person has to look at/interact with/be cognitively aware of an ad at least 7 times before any action can be taken. Showing ads across sites is just one more way to do that. In fact I would rather have relevant ads show up than irrelevant ads. I will admit that many companies out there do overdo their retargeting campaign though. That's what the company does that is mistaken, no…
I assume this is why I get ads for stuff I just bought on wildly different sites - the advertising network server asks for my cookie before serving the ad and so can identify me?
Yeah that's annoying. I will install adblock one day, but in defence of chewxy I just tend to avoid sites with that crap on them anyway.
I don't really like this. I work in the advertising industry and retargeting is honestly one of the most exciting things to come out. Sure there are ways of cookieless retargeting, but it is a hassle. I mean, everyone's heard of Samy's Evercookie right? Then there are TCP stack signatures, and other companies like a few European DSPs that use cookieless tracking to track a person (IMO it's quite easy to use a GET pix…
I'm interested in the culture implications of your willingness to comment on a story like this and openly admit that you work in this area of the advertising (surveillance?) industry. Certainly, I don't think anyone would feel comfortable commenting on a story about SPAM mitigation techniques (without using a throwaway account) with text like "This sucks, I'm a spammer, and I'm really excited about it. Don't like SPA…
That being said, I'm pretty adept at using my brain for ad blocking. I didn't even notice when Facebook rolled out sponsored posts.