8 ms·
I won't argue about these warnings uselesness, but they definitely are a pain in the ass because they require enabling JS, at least temporarily, on sites that o
by Momquist 9y ago
I won't argue about these warnings uselesness, but they definitely are a pain in the ass because they require enabling JS, at least temporarily, on sites that otherwise would work perfectly without it to be able to answer to these warnings.
How stupid is that? Privacy at the expense of security?
- kuschku 9y agoThat's not required. The site could use a redirect to set such a cookie, or could use the DNT header to identify this.
- Momquist 9y agoYou misunderstood me. It may not be strictly required for sites to use JS to build these warnings. But in practice, today, that's how it works on sites that display them. And it definitely requires the user to have JS enabled to pass these obnoxious pop-ups. JS is also used for things that are doable with CSS or even HTML only. This isn't the first time. My tin-foil hat persona suspects it's yet another way to force me to disable the various script and ad-blockers in the guise of protecting users for privacy concerns. But my more realistic side assumes this is just laziness.