SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the if-the-advertisers-don't-like-it,-it-sounds-like-a-good-idea dept.
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow5743
Apple's limits on tracking will "sabotage the economic model for the Internet."
Apple's latest operating systems for the Mac and iPhone will soon be rolling out, and with that comes new restrictions on ad-tracking in the Safari browser. Adding a 24-hour limit on ad targeting cookies is good for privacy under Apple's new "Intelligent Tracking Prevention" feature. But if you're an advertiser, the macOS High Sierra and iOS 11 Safari browsers spell gloom and doom for the Internet as we know it. The reason is because Safari is making it harder for advertisers to follow users as they surf the Internet—and that will dramatically reduce the normal bombardment of ads reflecting the sites Internet surfers have visited earlier. Six major advertising groups have just published an open letter blasting the new tracking restrictions Apple unveiled in June. They say they are "deeply concerned" about them:
The infrastructure of the modern Internet depends on consistent and generally applicable standards for cookies, so digital companies can innovate to build content, services, and advertising that are personalized for users and remember their visits. Apple's Safari move breaks those standards and replaces them with an amorphous set of shifting rules that will hurt the user experience and sabotage the economic model for the Internet.
Apple's unilateral and heavy-handed approach is bad for consumer choice and bad for the ad-supported online content and services consumers love. Blocking cookies in this manner will drive a wedge between brands and their customers, and it will make advertising more generic and less timely and useful.
The letter is signed by the American Association of Advertising Agencies, the American Advertising Federation, the Association of National Advertisers, the Data & Marketing Association, the Interactive Advertising Bureau, and the Network Advertising Initiative.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @12:21AM (49 children)
Exactly what browser standard does it break?
It's not talking about Mosaic/Netscape/IE specific html tags from the 90's that weren't supported in other respective browsers, but this is about blocking ads. Ads are part of the www, but were never a www standard.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 18 2017, @12:39AM (48 children)
Keeping cookies until they expire is. Sure, allow users to nuke them any way they see fit if you like. Breaking standards as a default is a bad thing though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by mhajicek on Monday September 18 2017, @12:54AM (3 children)
Sure they keep them until they expire. They expire in 24 hrs.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @01:21AM
Some cookies expire before they are even set! Amazing.
And, isn't it nice that cookies are set, like just set out there to cool, or something, rather than violently inserted against my will! NOBODY expects the Violent Imposition of the Cookies! Mostly because the corps will not tell you about them, because they know that if they did, people would object to digital rape and stalking.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 18 2017, @05:59AM (1 child)
I think you should take another look at cookies. A lot of cookies do expire in 24 hours. Then, you've got things like supercookies that never expire. https://www.techopedia.com/definition/27310/super-cookie [techopedia.com] There is an entire spectrum of cookies, in between. Your banking institution may insist on relatively short term cookies, forcing you to log back in periodically. Many cookies are good for a week, or a month. Those supercookies are the worst - they are intended to be permanent, and to track everything you ever do, for-fucking-ever.
Cookies that last 24 hours should be "the standard". Better yet, session cookies. The moment I close the browser page, the cookies are deleted.
Being tracked does me no good at all. Other people and corporations, most of whom I've never heard of, profit by tracking me. The bastards should offer to PAY ME for the data, not to sneak around behind my back stealing my data.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Monday September 18 2017, @02:37PM
Honestly, I don't have too much of a problem with being tracked by the website I go to, using a cookie linked to that site's domain. If my bank or some other site wants to keep a cookie on my computer showing when I last logged in, I don't see a problem with that. And for a lot of sites, it is handy to not have to log in every day; this site is a prime example, though password managers do make this easier now. The real problem is information is shared cross-site: site A should not be able to find out from site B's cookie that I was looking at item X.
(Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Monday September 18 2017, @01:24AM (13 children)
Where are our DN posts, Buzzard? What have you done! Did you break standards, or just censor some innocent AC?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @01:56AM (1 child)
Buzzard wants to have a silly feud with a troll, that's fine. But he should not be causing collateral damage to the site to pursue his personal vendetta.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @05:00AM
Collateral damage?
I salute TMB for his work in keeping this site running. If his regexes are hindering yet more postings of dn spam here ( and I do trust it was properly moderated as spam ), good work!
This looks to me like a Bayesian filter keyed on crowdsourced spam moderation to disallow future postings of like material?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Monday September 18 2017, @02:01AM (10 children)
Somehow I'm not surprised to see YOU taking ownership and spouting indignation.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by aristarchus on Monday September 18 2017, @02:30AM (9 children)
Our posts, frojack, not mine! They belong to all Soylentils, as a side benefit of our total commitment to free speech, even Nazi free speech. I am sure you know that DN is not my style at all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @11:19AM (8 children)
If any part of that posting belongs to me, its like dogshit on my shoe.
I am quite happy TMB has an interest in making the spam pooper drop it somewhere else.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 18 2017, @11:47AM (3 children)
More than anything, I like playing with the regexes. A well designed one is a work of art, even if it does look like line noise to most people.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @02:24PM
Well, there are works of modern art that are harder to understand. ;-)
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday September 19 2017, @12:02AM (1 child)
Well there's no risk of art breaking out in the lameness filter anytime soon.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 19 2017, @12:41AM
Ha! Everyone's a critic...
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday September 19 2017, @03:29AM (3 children)
Agreed, except that it goes against the stated values of SoylentNews, an absolute respect for free speech! And what are regular expressions, but speech? If we ban them, what is next, spam modding some ancient Greek philosopher who is uncomfortably critical of adolescent libertarians?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 19 2017, @10:33AM (2 children)
You've been around quite a while. You know perfectly good and well that spam has always been specifically excluded from our commitment to free speech. It's at best disingenuous of you to pretend otherwise, even for a troll.
And no, we won't be Spam modding you or allowing you to remain Spam modded unless you start spamming again. If you have something repetitive to say, put it in your sig and it shall be instantly spread unto every post you've ever made.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday September 19 2017, @07:01PM (1 child)
You don't say! What if you, O Mightenly Brazzeire, have something repetitive to say, should I put that in my sig? Or are you saying sigs are spam?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 19 2017, @07:57PM
Really, I'd leave your sig as it is right now. You'll get more Informative mods.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Monday September 18 2017, @01:46AM (16 children)
When a cookie expires should be a user's decision.
Helping the user apply limits is a courtesy.
The real objection here is these limits are only applied to advertising tracking cookies, not the cookies every user expects to be set to so that a web site can retain your place and pick up tomorrow where you left off today - or merely resume the order you were putting together without holding a great deal of state information from one page view to the next.
There is not much you do on the web that needs cookies to last longer than a day.
So one could take the view that this is merely ENFORCING the standard as it was originally written and intended. Cookies are for fleeting information so that the server can resume were it left off. They were never intended for tracking you from site to site for advertising.
This is why I cringe every time I see one of those EU warnings that "This site uses Cookies". It gathers permission without ever divulging what those cookies are used for and who else can read them. Its security theater once again, and it empowers advertisers: After all you said yes. And yes is forever, unlike what it means on a date.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @01:50AM (1 child)
Yeah, porn binges are self-limiting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @09:46AM
I find your lack of stamina. . . Normal..
(Score: 5, Informative) by edIII on Monday September 18 2017, @02:24AM (5 children)
I like the idea of the default being no cookie survives the session. Close your browser, and it's all gone. That's consistent with the original idea for a cookie; Enhance site operation and remember limited user data for the next session.
You have to add sites to a white-list when you want cookies and sessions to persist. As always, I can decide based on whether a cookie is 3rd party or not. Other plugins like Ghostery help me block traffic cookies by default.
I'm always for opt-in when it comes to tracking and advertising, and surprise surprise surprise, Big Ad is not.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 18 2017, @06:04AM
I agree - mostly. There are some places that I choose to allow the site to set a more durable cookie. But, that durability should be the user's choice. Unless I click the "remember me" button, the cookie expires with the session, or within 24 hours, and I'll be happy.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by rob_on_earth on Monday September 18 2017, @10:35AM (2 children)
"Welcome to X we use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use this site you agree to accept cookies. Do you want to know more? "
"Welcome to X we use cookies to enhance your experience. Please click "Allow persistent marketing" in your browser to continue. Do you want to know more?"
for page after page after page just like Europe currently forces companies to do for even session cookies. Users will blindly click to Close/OK and accept these new messages they have the old.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Monday September 18 2017, @07:19PM (1 child)
I agree. The Stupid Tax is quite high, but I think we all pay it in different areas. All we can do is educate the people around us about it, and if they're willing to receive information/help, we inoculate them against the bullshit and engage their defenses.
That's all we can do. It is death by 10,000,000,000 cuts to the industry though. Every person I've set up has not gone back to advertising. I pulled out one of my pfSense routers I set up for some relatives that was successfully blocking all advertising on iPhones, Androids, computers, etc. It was sorely missed, and demanded to be put back in.
Teach a man to fish....
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 19 2017, @03:01AM
pfSense looks interesting, thanks!
I'd +1 but I'm a coward.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by TheRaven on Monday September 18 2017, @01:08PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @07:36AM (4 children)
Cookies should be done away with.
Web sites use Javascript for everything nowadays, so just keep login information in a Javascript object. That would fix every problem caused by cookies - tracking, information leak between tabs, etc.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 18 2017, @11:49AM (1 child)
Speak for yourself. SN functions quite acceptably with javascript disabled entirely.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @03:46PM
I can vouch for this claim. I disable JS entirely in my browser and still much of the web is perfectly accessible, including SN.
Sweet, thank you!
Of course if you don't care about zero days and criminals violating your privacy and using your hardware to commit crimes in your name... go ahead, enjoy JS!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @02:36PM
That's doubly wrong:
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday September 18 2017, @07:21PM
What's wrong with session cookies? You log on, you get a session cookie. Don't interact with the site for so many minutes, your session cookie expires.
The people who rely on government handouts and refuse to work should be kicked out of congress.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @12:53PM (2 children)
Please don't call them EU warnings. The EU law doesn't require warnings, it simply forbids setting cookies without consent.
1: They set cookies before even showing the warning.
2: They don't have a no button. Refusing to accept a no is not consent. Ask any feminist if in doubt.
3: Even if you don't click yes, they just say that you accept anyway. That's not legal in the EU. It may or may not be in the US.
If you want to call them anything EU related, call them those "we refuse to follow EU law" warnings.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday September 18 2017, @01:10PM
Actually, the EU law forbids setting tracking cookies without consent and goes to quite a length to define exactly what is allowed. 99% of the sites that prompt you about cookies do not need to do so: As long as the cookie is only used to store state for visitors to a single site, they're fine.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @03:09PM
I guess most of those are actually "we don't really have a clue, but we heard somewhere that the EU requires us to show a warning if we set cookies so here it is"-warnings.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Mykl on Monday September 18 2017, @01:56AM (12 children)
It's important to note that Apple is providing this as a user-configurable option. You can choose whether to automatically expire 3rd-party cookies after 24 hours, or not.
Does that make a difference, TMB?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @02:24AM
Wait, somebody accepts third-party cookies? Setting that to "hell no" is always part of my initial browser config, along with installing add-ons like uBlock Origin and Privacy Badger.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 18 2017, @03:09AM (10 children)
Yeah, kudos to them for doing so. I have nothing whatsoever against users doing whatever they like with their machines. That should be an affirmative, opt-in setting though. Or change the standard official-like. Either works for me.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Troll) by http on Monday September 18 2017, @03:30AM (9 children)
Nice dodge, but the fact that you did says much. Is political office your ambition?
Which standard?
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 18 2017, @10:43AM (8 children)
That would be both this one [ietf.org] and the even older de facto standard implemented by Netscape in 1994 and used by every browser with more than three users since 1995.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TheRaven on Monday September 18 2017, @01:12PM (7 children)
Followed almost immediately by:
Sounds like Apple's implementation is exactly what the standard permits.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 18 2017, @01:33PM (6 children)
In fact, no. That is not what it looks like. Defaulting to destroying them after X-time-period is not remotely what that looks like. That looks precisely like letting the user do what they damned well please but defaulting to storing cookies until their expiration time.
If you don't like the standard, get the standard changed. This ain't politics though so don't go trying to redefine things to suit yourself, meaning be damned.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Monday September 18 2017, @02:25PM (1 child)
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 18 2017, @02:37PM
I was going to say the same of you. My statement would have the benefit of actually being true though. You're attempting to twist a well-documented standard to mean something entirely other than what it means. You sound like SCOTUS talking about the Commerce Clause.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @02:41PM (1 child)
Let me highlight the relevant part for you:
If the checkbox allows it, then it is disallowed by default. Therefore an implementation that defaults to not permanently storing a cookie is explicitly permitted.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 18 2017, @03:10PM
That's some nifty mental gymnastics you just performed to make something say the opposite of what is explicitly stated elsewhere in the RFC. You looking for a SCOTUS seat along with TheRaven?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @09:12PM (1 child)
What I see in Cookie Management:
This explicitly states that the user agent (I assume this means browser) may discard old cookies. It gives an example of a "least-recently-used" algorithm, but an "anything older than a day" algorithm would still fit with this statement.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 18 2017, @09:21PM
If that were why they were dropping them after N hours, that would be fine. It's not. Not even sort of. Their explicitly stated purpose is other than resource management and thus breaks the standard. Period. End of story.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.