this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2024
1033 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

60116 readers
4247 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] daniskarma 95 points 11 months ago (6 children)

It should be just a browser option.

You set cookies on or off, ans the browser sends the option in the headers. Websites just need to take the option from the header instead of a banner.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It already exists and is called "do not track".

[–] MrOtherGuy 53 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately by sending DNT you are merely suggesting to the server that you wish to not be tracked. There's no requirement for the server to actually care about you at all.

Now, if DNT were actually legally binding though - that would indeed be very cool.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Yes and this is what they should have legislated. I don't know if lobbyists or stupidity got in the way, or both. But the fact that this news comes now so close to Google Chrome abolishing cookies for its new "privacy" feature is suspicious timing.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 11 months ago (2 children)

That has been tried with the DoNotTrack header. Turned out servers didn't oblige by it.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 11 months ago

That's because it was entirely voluntary. It should be integrated in the browser by law, and the choice should be binding

[–] ilinamorato 17 points 11 months ago

Yeah, but if the EU required sites to pay attention to them...

[–] CheeseNoodle 16 points 11 months ago (2 children)

There are addons (for firefox at least) where the cookie banner will come up but your browser auotmatically refuses all cookies.

[–] FishFace 2 points 11 months ago

Yes, but it often doesn't work and even when it does the site is unusable while it works, which for some particularly awful banners is several minutes. The situation is worse on mobile where most people have a browser that you can't install add-ons to (and I'm not sure if that one works in firefox mobile anyway)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

https://consentomatic.au.dk/

This is the one I use. It's FOSS and developed at a university.

[–] Falcon 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Am I mistaken in believing it is an already a browser option?

Off the top of my head Qutebrowser and Falkon both support not-saving 3rd party cookies.

[–] FishFace 3 points 11 months ago

Your browser can not save third party cookies, but it might break some sites. Some advertising situations allow the use of first-party cookies, and blocking first-party cookies will break most sites.

In either case you will still have to fill out the consent form, and if the consent is stored in the kind of storage you block, then you will have to fill it out every single time you visit.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago

The DuckDuckGo browser has this baked in as 'Cookie Pop-up Protection'. It doesn't quite get rid of them all, and doesn't let you set a default for what you want (it'll basically pick the most privacy-forward option) but I've found it works pretty well.

[–] JaddedFauceet 4 points 11 months ago

if website has a choice, then they will often choose an option that benefits them the most.

Good news is third party is being phased out now https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/blog/goodbye-third-party-cookies/