this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
646 points (98.6% liked)

Privacy

32096 readers
667 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A cookie notice that seeks permission to share your details with "848 of our partners" and "actively scan device details for identification".

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Mwa@thelemmy.club 169 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Hate when they remove the reject all button

[–] DmMacniel 143 points 3 months ago (2 children)

In the EU and UK this is also forbidden as rejecting should be as simple as accepting cookies.

[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 77 points 3 months ago

In theory yes, in practice "uh-huh."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ssm@lemmy.sdf.org 37 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (11 children)

The most effective solution is just to wipe all cookies every time you close your browser, or creating strict cookie whitelists. Actually managing cookies on webpages is for normies.

[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago (5 children)

Still doesn't get rid of the popup, for that I use ublock origin.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

and then every time you visit that one good news site, you have to go through their cookie banner each time. That or install a cookie-denying addon and hope that they don't sellout or sell your data.

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

You have a total of four choices:

1a. Wipe all their cookies every time, reject them every time they ask.
1b. Wipe all their cookies every time, accept them every time they ask. 2a. Don't wipe cookies, keep the "essential" ones. 2b. Don't wipe cookies, accept all our most of them.

2b is the only scenario where you might not get asked again. 1b is the easiest no thanks.

I use the duck duck go browser because it makes that the default and offers to whitelist sites for cookies if you log into them (but you can turn that off in settings). It also autorejects a lot of cookies that use common popups.

[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

2a seems the most rational, no?

Also maybe switch to mullvad-browser instead of DDG browser, since DDG has some controversies (search: "Zach Edwards" on the wiki) on what data it saves.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Petter1@lemm.ee 15 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (6 children)

Consent-o-matic browser extension can handle a lot of cookie banners and automatically rejects all possible cookies.

[–] filister@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Reject all is actually you agreeing on the legitimate interests loophole so this is also problematic.

[–] Petter1@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago (5 children)

Yea.. That is true. But I think, if uBlock blocks the banner, consent would not be able to reject/approve anything. Think of it as a fallback solution 😇well in my case.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Fluba@lemdro.id 5 points 3 months ago

I just implemented a cookie consent bar on my company's website and the agencies/vendors who advertise for us were giving me so much shit for having reject available right away. But thankfully our Legal department said keep it there... Or else. "Hands tied..... Soooooorry!"

[–] TheImpressiveX@lemmy.ml 123 points 3 months ago (2 children)

If trackers are disabled, some content and ads you see may not be as relevant to you.

Oh, the horror! (Not that we'll be seeing ads anyway.)

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 23 points 3 months ago (3 children)

"some content and ads you see may not be as relevant to you" is what we in mathematical logic call a vacuous truth.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

Back in the early 2000s, we were promised that the magic of ads online would be that they are always relevant and not terrible anymore. This is why the targeting and tracking was valid to do.

It never happened. Not for a moment.

[–] delirious_owl@discuss.online 51 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That doesn't include the partners of their partners

[–] devfuuu@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

I blame all these polyamorous relationships with barely any rules.

[–] stiephelando@discuss.tchncs.de 46 points 3 months ago (5 children)

This is for legal reasons mostly. They don't think anyone reads this so they went for the most blunt and transparent language, which also gives them the most legal certainty. The banner is missing the reject all button though, which in Europe is seen as required by many of the privacy regulators.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 32 points 3 months ago (3 children)

848 partners? Damn I hope y'all got tested.

Now name them all.

[–] Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 months ago

I think you actually usually can get them to list them all, never much interested, they're all going to be completely random names you never heard of, just so long as I can reject them all, that's all I care about, otherwise I have to browse a different website on principle.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] prof_wafflez@lemmy.world 32 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

As someone who works in tech, I can confidently say that many people plainly do not understand what cookies do and why they exist. There are plenty of cookies that are good and useful, but third party advertising tracking cookies are the devil folks don't like. Necessary, performance and functional cookies are all chill.

[–] vk6flab@lemmy.radio 24 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Like the cookie that stores the "Reject All the cookies" response for your next visit 😇

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml 10 points 3 months ago (2 children)

A question: What is preventing the site using one huge cookie for all purposes, thus preventing fully functional use of the site without also enabling all other forms of tracking?

[–] prof_wafflez@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Cookies are very small snippets of code that have a specific purpose. Making a one-size-fits-all cookie would make them complicated and much harder to track - which goes against the point of a cookie. Also, cookies are often independent of each other because they are from different providers/different tools. Having a one-size-fits-all cookie would also present a security hazard and make laws similar to GDPR about cookie tracking difficult to implement. An example of a tool that actually does use one cookie is Adobe's Marketo. You can read some more about them here. https://termly.io/resources/articles/types-of-internet-cookies/

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 30 points 3 months ago (4 children)

If the partner count is larger than the number of bananas I can imagine being in a bunch I decline cookies. If I can't disable performance or targeting cookies I decline cookies. These are my rules

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 21 points 3 months ago

til I can only imagine 0 bananas in a bunch

[–] Max_P@lemmy.max-p.me 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I switched to cookie allowlist, and manually add the sites I want to remember me. I don't want to play the cookie game anymore, period. The only reason they ask is because legally they have to, and even then they do the bare minimum and use dark patterns to make it as hard as possible to decline cookies.

No more cookies for anyone, should have used them responsibly in the first place.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] bitwolf@lemmy.one 10 points 3 months ago

Yea because I want a news site to have my precise geolocation data.

[–] Reddfugee42@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

Me: *logs on to their website*

Them:

[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

It's truly crazy how much our information gets shared these days and how long it lingers.

My house spent a few years as a rental. I still get mail from people who haven't lived here in over a decade (despite deliberate efforts to stop it).

My grandpa signed up for ever "store card" you can imagine to get all the deals and rewards programs. His landline virtually never stops ringing... On August 5th alone he got, no joke, 43 spam calls (I have his landline hooked up to Jolly Roger Telephone to try and filter some of this out and help him out, so I'm forming that statistic off of the emails from them).

It's completely ridiculous and all of it needs to stop.

[–] WhosMansIsThis@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 3 months ago

Don't worry bro, its just me and 2000 of my closest friends. Totally legit.

[–] emberpunk@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 months ago

Well. I appreciate the honesty.. I guess.

[–] Nyanix@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 months ago

2 days and this post has fewer likes than number of companies that get your data for visiting the Verge. Holy crap, that's terrifying

[–] xilliah@beehaw.org 6 points 3 months ago

Check out the Snowden movie. That's so much worse.

[–] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Remember when they passed laws protecting our library and video store rental histories instead of letting data brokers hoover up every song you listen to and every news article you read?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sverit@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›