Why you're hounded by pop-ups about cookies, and how they could go away:
If you've ever audibly groaned when a cookie pop-up takes over half your screen, we've got good news for you. A new law could help phase out the annoyances, which often deliver seemingly self-contradicting messages such as "We use cookies to make your experience better."
[...] The California attorney general is tasked with defining a browser setting that will let you automatically tell websites not to share or sell your data. By the time the new law comes into effect in 2023, major web browsers are expected to offer the setting as a privacy feature. At that point, companies will get to remove a button that says "Do not sell my personal information" from their websites if they honor the browser setting without splashing pop-ups across your screen asking you to opt back in to the sale of your data.
[...] The more recently approved law aims for something rare: privacy protection without constant interruption. It may sound small, but pop-ups are already indignities that slow down your workflow or, more likely, chip away at the joy of wasting time online. Pop-ups that simply annoy when they're meant to protect consumers add insult to injury.
[...] The new law, also supported by Mactaggart, updates the CCPA. The law doesn't ban cookie pop-ups, but it creates an incentive that advocates hope will make them far less common.
Companies have a choice. They can honor the browser setting, which will be a simple feature you can turn on or off to tell companies not to sell or share your data and stop asking you to opt back in via pop-ups or other requests. Or the companies have to display a button on their websites that says "Do not sell my personal information."
If companies take the first choice, "you're able to browse and know that the website is not selling your information," said Ashkan Soltani, a privacy expert who has worked with a group of like-minded technologists to develop a browser setting called the Global Privacy Control. Soltani and his colleagues hope California will adopt their setting as the standard in the state's privacy regulations.
[...] The law won't be enforced until 2023, but you'll see some benefit sooner. In the coming year, you can look forward to major web browsers rolling out settings that let you tell websites not to sell or share your data.
Some privacy-oriented browsers and browser extensions already offer this setting, including the Brave browser, the DuckDuckGo Privacy Browser and the EFF's Privacy Badger browser extension.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 29 2020, @08:04AM
hound
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 29 2020, @08:06AM (1 child)
point blank!
when kermie showed up to take her on a date, he couldn't believe his eyes, so he gouged them out with a steak knife.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 29 2020, @08:18AM
I still have her pussy juice on my penis and in a prescription bottle so I can smell it, taste it and pet it every now and then.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 29 2020, @08:44AM
It sounds like a sleepover at Michael Jackson's ranch.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 29 2020, @08:46AM (10 children)
The rise in these messages started about 2 years ago, triggered by the EU passing some laws to try and rein in the abuse of cookies for tracking. So now the pendulum swings the other way. Should be interesting to see them duke it out - US vs EU policies. Politicians have almost no grasp of what is actually going on with 'computers', do they?
(Score: 5, Informative) by Dr Spin on Tuesday December 29 2020, @09:31AM (4 children)
So, in retaliation for the EU legislation, the website designers went for maximum annoyance, assuming the annoyance would be aimed at the EU, not them.
Probably, in America, it is.
Here in the EU, it is the web designers that get the hate, split with the site owners.
What we the users want, is a button that offers the choice:
[get fucked, and take your cookies with you]
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 2) by legont on Tuesday December 29 2020, @10:58AM
Do you imply that they - the websites - are actually working with cookies blocked?
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday December 29 2020, @03:11PM (2 children)
But, the "get fucked" option needs to be the default, as in, we don't even need to think about, or click on the button. We sorta thought that's what we had when they offered the "Do not track" setting in the browsers. Unfortunately, the web site designers wouldn't accept that as a standard, and/or decided that the standard didn't apply to them. So, now we have to create a standard in law, and make it stick.
The GDPR may or may not be especially good, but it is a good start. We need it here, badly.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 29 2020, @06:45PM
"Unfortunately, the web site designers wouldn't accept that as a standard, and/or decided that the standard didn't apply to them."
Yay, more ignorant commentary from our resident Fox & Friends intern.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday December 30 2020, @02:45AM
>Unfortunately, the web site designers wouldn't accept that as a standard
I think you hit the nail on the head. Doesn't even matter if we make it into law. Figure:
1) Some websites have a legitimate need to use cookies, so the law must allow websites to ask for your permission to use cookies.
2) Every website that wants to track you, will thus have a legal window to ask for your permission every time you visit
2b) Without permission to use cookies, the website has no way to remember the fact that you told them not to use cookies (even if they wanted to - which they don't), and will ask again every time.
The only way anyone will ever honor the default "get fucked" option without constantly harassing you about it, is if there's some some incentive to do so. (or alternately, some penalty for harassing you)
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bradley13 on Tuesday December 29 2020, @10:14AM (2 children)
The laws simply say that you cannot collect and sell personal data without permission. Cookies required for the normal operation of the website - including personal data - were never a problem, and require no explicit permission, as long as you keep that data private.
So: website owners had the option to not collect and sell personal information. Absolutely no popup required. Of course, the advertising industry couldn't stand this. They want their customers to believe that targeted advertising actually works (despite evidence to the contrary). Hence, they wanted to continue collecting data, hence the popups.
Smaller websites (that didn't collect/sell data) saw the big boys doing this, and thought the popups must be required, or just wanted to play it safe. Popups even got built into web frameworks. Which is all a giant misinterpretation of the actual law. Again: If you only collect data that you need, and you don't allow third parties access to this data, you don't need popups and never have.
Disclaimer: IANAL
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday December 29 2020, @03:15PM (1 child)
I thought it did work. I know that on Amazon and Ebay, after I have done the research and purchased a left-handed widget from Brand Z, I see a lot of offers for left-handed, right-handed, and no-hands widgets from brands Z, Y, X, and W. Neither has any idea that I might need or want a widget, until I have bought one - then they target every kind of widget under the sun at me.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Funny) by kazzie on Wednesday December 30 2020, @09:53AM
Which would be perfect, if only you had more than one left hand...
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Tuesday December 29 2020, @02:49PM
yeah, and this is the issue. eu, in it's usual glory passes a law that makes things worse, because the people in charge of the law know nothing about the subject matter.
now here in the states, the same morons are going to force browser vendors to have a do not track setting. which they already have, which is useless.
the real question is, why are a bunch of american sites serving html to americans in america displaying a fucking eu warning for us? the funnies thing is, a bunch of them I've encountered don't work in europe - I'd pop open a website from some eurocountry, and they say due to not being gdpr they can't let me access it. i vpn to the states, the site opens, and displays the eu cookie warning. it's mind-boggling.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Tuesday December 29 2020, @03:11PM
I think this can be summarized thusly:
The law's intent: Websites need to stop using tracking cookies and selling user data to advertisers without the user's permission.
The law's effect: Websites worldwide spawn popups reading, in effect, "Hey user, we're going to keep annoying you until you agree to let us do exactly what we were doing before the law".
A related development is easy ad-blocking detection, so that if like a sensible user you block third-party ads / malware on most websites, a lot of websites now show a giant popup telling you to turn off your adblocker rather than the carefully SEO'd content you actually came for.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 29 2020, @08:46AM (1 child)
Please stop the ads machine, seriously.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 29 2020, @08:49AM
Also, privacy-oriented and “Brave browser” in the same sentence, ugh…
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 29 2020, @09:18AM
Color me impressed, we're getting some reps that actually have half a clue about computers.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by ShadowSystems on Tuesday December 29 2020, @09:41AM (5 children)
I haven't had a pop up on my computer web browser since I found the security configuration to block all pop up's from unapproved sites. Since I've got zero approved sites, I get zero pop up's.
1st party cookies get prompted to be set (usually blocked), 3rd party cookies get blocked automaticly, and my MVP Hosts file includes so many blacklisted domains that it's a wonder there's anywhere left NOT on the list.
Last but not least, I refuse to run JavaScript. At all. Full stop. And no it is NOT a requirement - my bank doesn't need it, this site doesn't need it, & none of the news sites I frequent need it either; the sites that scream that it's *required* to use their stuff get added to the Hosts file & their content found from other sites. Got a news article behind a JS wall? Do a DDG search for a cached version of the site, ask to see just the plain text, & voila, instant content. Got a shopping site that screams to enable it? Nope, sorry, but you've proven yourself to be a security liability & I'll not be doing business with your insecure butt.
"But we use JS to secure our transactions!"
Pull the other one, it's got bells on. JS is *the* biggest security issue *period*. The more you try to secure it, the more the crims laugh at you when they use your own hardening against you. Don't believe me? Go ask Equifax how their JS security held up.
I refuse to run it, it's no longer an attack vector to my desktop browser, my Hosts file blocks a good portion of the crap sites, I don't allow pop up's, refuse 3rd party cookies, and am An Evil Bastard when it comes to protecting my privacy.
Or is this an issue with *mobile* browsers only?
Can you not navigate Menu>Settings>Security & Privacy, and disable all the aforementioned stuff?
Can you not use a Hosts file to blackhole the scummier bits of the web?
If not then why put up with such treatment?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 29 2020, @12:59PM (2 children)
What bank do you use that doesn't require js?
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday December 29 2020, @09:07PM (1 child)
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 30 2020, @05:59AM
And how many of them are actually web views of the same thing? 🤔
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 29 2020, @04:26PM (1 child)
Javascript sucks, and it's the worst language, practiced by the least skilled of all software developers (web developers) but the worst part is that they force us into it. If an idiot web developer chooses to use javascript, they are effectively forcing me to run their garbage. It's unethical. But I don't see any alternative besides dying alone in my house with nothing to do because I can't go outside and no websites work inside.
I still send messages to web developers of shitty sites asking them to fix them. They rarely respond. And they never agree.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Thursday December 31 2020, @12:43AM
Not that bad as a language. But many of the the accumulated popular publicly available libraries are crap.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Bethany.Saint on Tuesday December 29 2020, @01:00PM (4 children)
What am I missing? What's the difference between this and the DNT browser setting from years ago? Web sites will ignore it because it's financially better for them to ignore it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 29 2020, @02:42PM (1 child)
DNT was an attempt to get the ad industry to voluntarily regulate themselves. The ad industry of course rejected the idea of any kind of limits on their data slurping, so now they're facing government-backed regulation with government-backed punishments.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Dr Spin on Tuesday December 29 2020, @02:56PM
government-backed punishments.
Including nuking from high orbit?
We know its the only way to be sure.
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 29 2020, @03:00PM (1 child)
Back then, there was some confusion as to whether DNT was being transmitted by default or by actual choice: https://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-tracking-dnt-20111114/#determining [w3.org] .
This led to Mozilla not enabling it by default in Firefox ( https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2011/11/09/dnt-cannot-be-default/ [mozilla.org] ) and Microsoft enabling it by default in IE ( https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2012/05/31/advancing-consumer-trust-and-privacy-internet-explorer-in-windows-8/ [microsoft.com] ). MS eventually put it back unset by default : https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2015/04/03/an-update-on-microsofts-approach-to-do-not-track/ [microsoft.com] .
My guess is that after the initial fiasco, nobody was inclined to interpret DNT server-side because it was unclear whether the user actually enabled it or if it was the result of a default setting being applied (even though, ironically, ad tracking is opt-out...). Also, as I recall, DNT had no legal weight behind it - companies had little motivation to treat DNT seriously.
The format today clearly states that user agents must not put in on by default : https://www.w3.org/TR/tracking-dnt/#expression-format [w3.org] . So maybe it could be used properly today.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday December 29 2020, @03:32PM
That is the problem in a nutshell. Data collection should be opt-in, not by default. Even government sites should be opt-in, and they should collect no data at all unless and until you opt in. "Sharing", selling, or otherwise giving your data to anyone, whether they be "partners" or not should be another opt-in. That is, no data may be shared to anyone, under any circumstances, unless and until you have approved that sharing.
Let us go back in time, to the late 1940's when advertising in the USA was getting it's start. Imagine that advertisers lobbied government to allow "licensed agents" to tail consumers, for the purpose of collecting data. Those agents may look over your shoulder when you pick up your paycheck, cash your paycheck, make deposits and withdrawals, make purchases, large and small. Those agents may monitor your mailbox, and again, look over your shoulder when you read your mail.
That is pretty much what we have today. Advertiser's agents follow you EVERYWHERE on the web. If you use an online email provider such as Gmail, your mail is monitored.
It should be illegal for an advertiser to spy on you, it's as simple as that. Your data is yours, and if any agent in any industry wants that data, he should negotiate with you for it. Maybe Simple Sam is willing to sell his data in exchange for a tiny discount on his grocery shopping. Let Simple do that if he likes, it's his life. My data is not for sale, or at least not so very cheaply! (Yeah, I know, everyone has his price - mine is high.)
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by progo on Tuesday December 29 2020, @03:32PM
I'll bet the state attorneys and legislators have a plan for email spam, too.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 29 2020, @06:26PM
Some stupid cunt(s) that got nothing better to do.