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

Firefox getting smarter about third-party cookies

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 103 posts

Re: Firefox getting smarter about third-party cookies

#91

Post by pixelmonkey »

suhail wrote: post #89

Curious for people that actively write way more JavaScript and deal with cookies more than I do: Outside of Local Storage, is there still a loop-hole (though it defies user expectation) for ad retargeters (they must rely on third party cookies)? I feel, if not, that this will totally kill those businesses. I am neutral and just wondering if I am missing something. Google was sued for using iframes to get around this…

HTTP ETags are probably the most widely used workaround for 3rd-party cookie blocking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_ETag#Tracking_using_ETags

Not sure whether the Firefox folks have figured out a way to patch this workaround up or not.

I do think that retargeting businesses are in for a bit of pain given the headwinds re: third-party tracking across the US and world.

Re: Firefox getting smarter about third-party cookies

#93

Post by tpiddy »

jbooth wrote: post #62
brandnewlow wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your criticism of retargeting based in experience? I'd love to hear more about it. I work at a "retargeting shop" and our customers test the crap out of our tools to make sure we're actually driving results. Others may use more smoke and mirrors, but when done right, retargeting does in fact change user behavior and generate ROI.

Well, there are situations where retargeting makes a bit of sense, like selling business services on a low-traffic website. But most e-commerce retargeting, IMHO, is trading on the fact that a naive marketing manager will put too much stock in a high conversion percentage. All of those people were, by definition, aware of the product and actively shopping. Did you create a customer? Probably not, maybe by virtue of t…

sophisticated marketers have done hold-out tests with retargeting shown that it can drive incremental sales at a profitable roi. this includes big ecommerce brands.

granted not every viewthrough and clickhtrough conversion is driven by the advertising, but some definitely are and it is often profitable if a campaign is optimized and run well.

Re: Firefox getting smarter about third-party cookies

#94

Post by Too »

taf2 wrote: post #58
Too wrote: post #35

Finally. Third party cookies provide almost zero value for users . Only use case is for log in on iframe-embedded apps such as Discus comment boards, but the ones you use yourself can be counted on one hand so adding exceptions isn't such a big issue. Adding some UI that shows that you are logged in to Discus on a particular web page would just good imo. I think the "From visited" option is an excellent trade off as…

what about in the context of a widget. I built a reservation widget and we used third party cookies to help keep your order available as you might load the widget on other sites. It was not an Ad, but for casino websites, they would have multiple domains one for each casino but shared the same reservation system... blocking third party cookies pretty much breaks the widget...

If you are already logged in to the casino site, authentication can be done through the query string to the iframe. .

I've browsed with 3'd party cookies disabled for years and very very rarely had any problem. I wouldn't say never, certain widgets do break, but those are less than one in a thousand. Only one i can recall from the top of my head is Discus.

For Discus, authenticating through the parent site will be an issue since one of the reasons for using Discus is to avoid many different logins.

Re: Firefox getting smarter about third-party cookies

#95

Post by jmomo »

I have been blocking 3rd party cookies for years.

The only site that has ever had a problem was my local power company (aps.com). However, it was easy to get around because even though their site warned that 3rd party cookies were required, you could just click around it to pay your electrical bill.

I've never had a problem on any other sites that I use in at least five years, though I suspect it's been more than that.

Re: Firefox getting smarter about third-party cookies

#96

Post by hiddenfeatures »

mjn wrote: post #57
hiddenfeatures wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. Isn't the website just telling to load the script from a Google server (which could count as 3rd party) and execute it?

It's loading from a 3rd party (with a 3rd-party HTTP request), but the script itself is run by the first party: scripts are owned by whichever page executes them, regardless of how that page conjured them up. That's why you can load jquery from a CDN without breaking lots of things, because jquery still "runs from" your domain, same as if it were hosted locally. Also a reason that you really need to trust the third-p…

thanks for the cool explanation. That really filled in a few blanks in my understanding of the web.

Re: Firefox getting smarter about third-party cookies

#97

Post by ove »

cpeterso wrote: post #83
ove wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, I'm the author of this add-on. You might want to read the FAQ entry "Q: How is this different from disabling 3rd party cookies and installing Adblock?". Firefox's new 3rd party cookie policy is actually weaker than disabling them outright, so this will not change anything.

Back in the day, Firefox experimented with making third-party cookies session-only, but I believe this option was disabled because some websites using third-party login cookies required users to login every session. Have you run into any problem websites with self-destructing cookies?

Disabling 3rd party cookies has never broken a single site for me. I've heard that some banks require them, though. As for Self-Destructing Cookies: it's a pretty drastic measure. Considering this, it's surprisingly compatible. Among the sites that I frequent, not a single one stopped working. Inter-domain transaction - e.g. a shop forwarding you to Paypal and back - used to be a problem, but the latest version has a heuristic for that. Still, I'm pretty sure that some people will experience fallout. You can work around that; SDC has numerous functions that can help in such cases (pause, undelete, whitelist for session).

Re: Firefox getting smarter about third-party cookies

#99

Post by Nursie »

derefr wrote: post #80
Nursie wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"almost all cookies are friendly" I would really dispute this. Compare the number of sites visited to the number of ad-tracking cookies stored in the average browser, I think you'll find a very different answer.

If you consider ad-tracking cookies set by sites {A,B,C} to be read by ad-provider X all "one cookie", then the numbers balance out. (Which I would--tracking cookies, semantically, should be considered to be stored in the ad-provider's "bucket", as far as allowing them/purging them goes.

If you consider ad-tracking cookies set by sites {A,B,C} to be read by ad-provider X all "one cookie"

I'm not really sure what you mean by this. You said "almost all cookies are friendly" and I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Even if the numbers 'balance out' (which I doubt very much) that's still not close to 'almost all cookies are friendly'.

The pro-cookie side of the privacy debate really needs to just admit there's a problem here, then we can work together to try and ensure privacy and functionality, without making reckless assumptions that somehow tracking is sanctioned or providing value to the user without even the courtesy of asking.

Re: Firefox getting smarter about third-party cookies

#100

Post by Nursie »

Kiro wrote: post #98

So this will be the end of remarketing? IMO remarketing is the best thing that has happened to advertisement online. It's a win-win-win situation for visitors, advertisers and publishers.

A win for me is not seeing advertising, at all, ever.

Targeted ads are not a win-win, they're creepy.

Post reply on HN