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: 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.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(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.