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

171–180 of 329 posts

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

#171

Post by jhpacker »

dheera wrote: post #154
AyyEye wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

With GA4, the tracker code is loaded from www.googletagmanager.com (even if the tag isn't loaded via a GTM container). The measurement requests can be sent to (region1|www).google-analytics.com or analytics.google.com (to share cookies with Google login better).

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

#172

Post by morjom »

codedokode wrote: post #85

Have been using Firefox for a long time, no issues, though long ago when I had little memory, Chrome was using less of it. Firefox also has HTTPS-only mode, encrypted DNS without fallbacks, supports SOCKS and Encrypted Client Hello (although almost no website support it). However, it is better to just buy more memory (unless you are lucky to use Apple products). Regarding analytics, I believe browsers should take use…

Firefox doesn't have ECH support (atleast not turned on by default)

https://privacytests.org/

(Scroll down to Misc tests)

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

#173

Post by willywanker »

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

[flagged]

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

#174

Post by thayne »

This is a tough situation.

Yes, this can, and will, be abused for tracking users across domains that they don't expect to be related.

But there are also legitimate use cases for this.

For example, consider the stackexchange family of sites. They are clearly related, have a unified branding, etc. but are on separate domains. On Firefox, which blocks third party cookies, I have to log in to each of those domains separately. I can't log in to stackoverflow.com, then go to superuser.com and already be logged in. That is a problem that First party sets would solve.

You can argue that it would be better for those sites to be subdomains of a single unified domain, but when the sites were created there wasn't any compelling reason to need to do that, because third party cookies were still very much alive and kicking. And I can say from experience that migrating an app to a different domain without breaking things for users is a royal pain, and can be very expensive.

I'm not saying that First Party Sets should be accepted as is, but it is attempting to solve real problems. And I think a solution that simultaneously protects users' privacy and maintains a good experience for sites that are legitimately related will be difficult to find, or maybe impossible.

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

#175

Post by thayne »

judah wrote: post #7
hashtag-til wrote: post #6

Does 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.

It's proposed, but it's unlikely to be accepted.

Firefox and Safari have both said "no, we're not doing that". And then chrome decided to move forward with it, regardless of whether it gets standardized.

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

#176

Post by willywanker »

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…

He was opposed to it as a private citizen, not as Mozilla CEO. His beliefs and supported causes as the former are nobody else's concern; had he been discriminating in terms of employment or otherwise making public statements it would be a different story. Or are we now witch hunting people for wrongthink?

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

#177

Post by smileson2 »

pennybanks wrote: post #21
cabbageicefruit wrote: post #11

Damn. If there was ever any doubt about why you should get off chrome, this seems to put an end to that.

right but at least google will tell you. brave a lot more shady and just wont say anything or let you opt out. many examples in the past. imagine if they were anywhere near a quarter of googles size it wouldnt be pretty imo.

that's false, why do you think that?

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

#178

Post by muratsu »

thayne wrote: post #174

This is a tough situation. Yes, this can, and will, be abused for tracking users across domains that they don't expect to be related. But there are also legitimate use cases for this. For example, consider the stackexchange family of sites. They are clearly related, have a unified branding, etc. but are on separate domains. On Firefox, which blocks third party cookies, I have to log in to each of those domains separa…

This reminds me how google conveniently made the switch to manifest v3 when there were legitimate use cases like adblockers. Sure, technically speaking v3 is more secure and that may be better for users but your comment just made me think the opposite is in motion here.

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

#179

Post by jonkoops »

thayne wrote: post #174

This is a tough situation. Yes, this can, and will, be abused for tracking users across domains that they don't expect to be related. But there are also legitimate use cases for this. For example, consider the stackexchange family of sites. They are clearly related, have a unified branding, etc. but are on separate domains. On Firefox, which blocks third party cookies, I have to log in to each of those domains separa…

First Party Sets are legitimately terrifying to me, it gives a commercial party (Google) complete control over who is and isn't allowed to set cookies in a third-party context. It's Google using their absolutely dominating market share to force even more control.

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

#180

Post by renegat0x0 »

muratsu wrote: post #178
thayne wrote: post #174

This is a tough situation. Yes, this can, and will, be abused for tracking users across domains that they don't expect to be related. But there are also legitimate use cases for this. For example, consider the stackexchange family of sites. They are clearly related, have a unified branding, etc. but are on separate domains. On Firefox, which blocks third party cookies, I have to log in to each of those domains separa…

This reminds me how google conveniently made the switch to manifest v3 when there were legitimate use cases like adblockers. Sure, technically speaking v3 is more secure and that may be better for users but your comment just made me think the opposite is in motion here.

In politics there is a Churchill quote "Never let a crisis go to waste".

In IT, big tech never wastes opportunity to introduce a dark design behind a useful feature.

Post reply on HN