[deleted]
I'm pretty sure that's exactly his point...
11–20 of 43 posts
[deleted]
I'm pretty sure that's exactly his point...
It seems a bit disingenuous to present numbers like that. For the lay person, it may sound scary that there as 44 cookies on a given page, but that's a completely arbitrary measure. I would think that the important thing isn't the number of cookies, but rather what which entities they are shared with and to some extend the information attached to them. First party cookie for example are not a privacy issue at all.
As I see it, a website should upon landing either set zero or one cookie, depending on if the website has some sort of persistent functionality (like a message to first time visitors).
The other 43 cookies are, in my view, therefore unnecessary to the normal functioning of the website, and is therefore more likely being used for other purposes such as tracking and advertising.
It seems a bit disingenuous to present numbers like that. For the lay person, it may sound scary that there as 44 cookies on a given page, but that's a completely arbitrary measure. I would think that the important thing isn't the number of cookies, but rather what which entities they are shared with and to some extend the information attached to them. First party cookie for example are not a privacy issue at all.
In my opinion it is actually pretty scary. As I see it, a website should upon landing either set zero or one cookie, depending on if the website has some sort of persistent functionality (like a message to first time visitors). The other 43 cookies are, in my view, therefore unnecessary to the normal functioning of the website, and is therefore more likely being used for other purposes such as tracking and advertisin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my opinion it is actually pretty scary. As I see it, a website should upon landing either set zero or one cookie, depending on if the website has some sort of persistent functionality (like a message to first time visitors). The other 43 cookies are, in my view, therefore unnecessary to the normal functioning of the website, and is therefore more likely being used for other purposes such as tracking and advertisin…
I agree that a lot of functionality can be encapsulated in a session cookie. But for some cases it might not be worth the server overhead, ie language or currency selection for unregistered users.
Self plug: we've developed cookie-checker.com. A way to check which cookies are placed with first time visitor. ico.org.uk places 3 cookies (1 session, 2 other valid up to today and 2017): http://www.cookie-checker.com/check-cookies.php?url=ico.org....
When I visit the ICO site I also get a "civicCookieControl" cookie which you don't list. I guess that this is probably coming from javascript and your site isn't processing this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that a lot of functionality can be encapsulated in a session cookie. But for some cases it might not be worth the server overhead, ie language or currency selection for unregistered users.
I agree that if you start using the website, setting more cookies to remember choices and such is perfectly fine. I was referring to when you first land on the website, that first page load.
Self plug: we've developed cookie-checker.com. A way to check which cookies are placed with first time visitor. ico.org.uk places 3 cookies (1 session, 2 other valid up to today and 2017): http://www.cookie-checker.com/check-cookies.php?url=ico.org....
Firstly - any number of cookies from a single domain are equivalent, you can always use whatever identifier is in the cookie's data to store and retrieve an arbitrary amount of data about the user. That there are lots of them implies either that the site is using a bunch of different front end libraries / components that don't talk to one another (which is irrelevant from a privacy perspective) or that more data is being stored/cached directly in the browser rather than being retrieved from a remote server which is the opposite of a privacy issue, since it's keeping your data in your browser.
Secondly - cookies are one of: "session", "expiring", "perpetual". With the first set to expire when you close the browser, the second expiring at some period between now and when your browser/cache/computer/operating system gets wiped or replaced (i.e. ~at any arbitrary date after that (i.e. anything with an expiration date of more than ~12 months is the same, who cares if it's two years or ten thousand).
It's horrifying that this is a study paid for with public money and fed back to the public from a source purporting to be an expert.
Edit: by saying "from a single domain" I'm expressly avoiding the differentiation between first and third-party cookies - it obviously makes a difference how many third parties you share data with, which defensibly has some relationship to the number of different domains that serve third party cookies on a site.
This happens because many webmasters build frankensites by copying and pasting snippets of code to get the functionality they need. Those load a bunch of resources from all over the net and dump a jar of cookies in your lap. It's the same laziness that makes devs set expiration to 9999.
The popouts, or banners, with cookie information are a pointless annoyance, not an encouraging development.