Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users
1–10 of 329 posts
Re: Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users
#2> and even after third-party cookies have been deprecated in Chrome
apparently this was written a few weeks ago :)
Re: Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users
#3> and even after third-party cookies have been deprecated in Chrome apparently this was written a few weeks ago :)
Care to explain?
Re: Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users
#4> and even after third-party cookies have been deprecated in Chrome apparently this was written a few weeks ago :)
Care to explain?
Chrome backtracked on the decision, they won't be blocking third-party cookies. There were a number of articles and a fair bit of discussion about it at the time, see e.g. [0] and [1].
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41038586
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/22/24203893/google-cookie-tr...
Re: Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users
#5> We conducted a user study with 30 Web users, recruited over social media, and presented them each with 20 pairs of websites. Website pairs were randomly selected from both the Related Website Sets list (i.e., sites Google designates as “related”, and so warranting reduced privacy protections), and the Tranco list of popular websites. Each user was presented with different pairs of websites, asked to view the sites, and then decide if they thought the two sites were operated by the same organization. This resulted in 430 determinations of whether unique pairs of websites were related.
> In our study, the large majority of users (~73%) made at least one incorrect determination of whether two sites were related to each other, and almost half (~42%) of the determinations made during the study (i.e., all determinations from all users) were incorrect. Most concerning, of the cases where both sites were related (according to the RWS feature), users guessed that the sites were unrelated ~37% of the time, meaning that users would have thought Chrome was protecting them when it was not.
> ... We conclude from this that the premise underlying RWS is fundamentally incorrect; Web users are (understandably, predictably) not able to accurately determine whether two sites are owned by the same organization. And as a result, RWS is reintroducing exactly the kinds of privacy harms that third-party cookies cause.
> Lest anyone judge the study participants for being uninformed, or not taking the study seriously, consider for yourself: which of the following pairs of sites are related?
1. hindustantimes.com and healthshots.com
2. vwo.com and wingify.com
3. economictimes.com and cricbuzz.com
4. indiatoday.in and timesofindia.com
> (For the above quiz, if you chose “4”, then, unfortunately that is incorrect. That is in fact the only pair of the four that isn’t considered “related” to each other.)
Re: Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users
#6Does this affect non Chrome users?
Re: Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users
#7Does this affect non Chrome users?
It's a proposed web standard, so ultimately yes, it could affect other browsers in the long run. And it would almost certainly affect other Chromium-based browsers.
Re: Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Care to explain?
Chrome backtracked on the decision, they won't be blocking third-party cookies. There were a number of articles and a fair bit of discussion about it at the time, see e.g. [0] and [1]. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41038586 [1] https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/22/24203893/google-cookie-tr...
It's complicated. Chrome won't block 3rd party cookies by default. But it will present the users with a choice of whether to block them (with what exactly that means TBD). If most or all users choose to block them then it would have roughly the same effect as blocking third party cookies by default would.
Though regardless of that, Related web sites (or whatever that set is currently called) does present a hole in that logic. It was originally meant to allow sites with different domains to share cookies/storage (like google.com and google.co.uk). From what it sounds like, bad actors are using it in the expected ways. There were supposed to be mechanisms to prevent this, but it seems like they failed in this case.
The list is in a public repository however, so Brave could have filled issues and a pull request to address the issue. Instead they decided to stage a meaningless survey and declare Chrome a threat to people everywhere.
Re: Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users
#9Does this affect non Chrome users?
It's a proposed web standard, so ultimately yes, it could affect other browsers in the long run. And it would almost certainly affect other Chromium-based browsers.
Only other chromium web browsers that enable that feature. Safari and Firefox already said they're not implementing the feature, so unless they change their mind it's not going anywhere.
Re: Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users
#10As if brave were a good or objective source for this topic.