6 ms·

This is pretty confusing and I'm not sure what it adds beyond an option to block all third-party cookies. Is the goal here to try to get to a policy that can b

This is pretty confusing and I'm not sure what it adds beyond an option to block all third-party cookies. Is the goal here to try to get to a policy that can be enabled by default?

sp332 8y ago
It allows third-party cookies except the ones on Disconnect's "Basic Protection" list.
- stanleydrew 8y ago
  Right, but it seems like almost everybody who cares about this would just enable third-party cookie blocking. Put another way, what problem is this new policy solving, and how big a problem is it?
  - user812 8y ago
    It solves the problem that the majority of firefox users is not blocking trackers, so enabling this at the end of January 2019 in Firefox 65 will protect all Firefox users, which make up around 10-15% of all Desktop web traffic in western countries. With this step it follow Safari, which is already protecting users against third party tracking.
    - userbinator 8y ago
      It solves the problem that the majority of firefox users is not blocking trackers Is that a problem, however? Or more precisely, one that Mozilla wants to think is a problem and "solve"? I use adblocking and such myself, but I think it should really be a personal choice --- browsers should just stay neutral. I have a suspicion that browser organisations taking sides in this will only lead to even more invasive tracking in the future, since this is a cat-and-mouse game. (Imagine if Firefox had adblock by default. It would just force adtech companies to come up with even more unblockable methods, since the defaults have changed.)
      - rectang 8y ago
        If ads have to come from the primary domain being served, then the website has greater incentive to vet those ads. If they let malware through, it's their reputation that goes in the trash. No more letting adtech do the dirty work.
        manigandham 8y ago
        Not really. It's as simple as hosting some scripts or using a CDN for a local proxy. Plenty of publishers are already doing this. If reputation was really that important, these sites wouldn't have put up these low-quality ad networks in the first place. It's not like they didnt know what was running.
      - rgbrenner 8y ago
        Like when browsers implemented popup blockers. Now we have even more invasive unblockable popups? Websites can't do anything the browser doesn't allow. Or said another way, websites can only do what the browser was programmed to support. The browser is the decider.
        userbinator 8y ago
        Like when browsers implemented popup blockers. Now we have even more invasive unblockable popups? Now the popups are almost always not new windows, but "pop-overs" inside the page itself.
        user812 8y ago
        If you start a war, you should be prepared to fight for a long time. That's why most browser makers don't even start. Safari did and had to make multiple changes to ITP because criteo was fighting back. It is always necessary to stay vigilant.
      - user812 8y ago
        Allowing third-party cookies wasn't a neutral decision to begin with, even though the implications only became clear later.
  - sp332 8y ago
    Well, that can break functionality on some sites. Not all third-party cookies are tracking cookies. Being more specific about which cookies are blocked reduces breakage.
    - justtopost 8y ago
      That is a dev mistake. So many default to no 3rd party, and for 95% of the web, nothing breaks. If you are in the 5%, the problem may be your design and not the user/browser/standard.

This is pretty confusing and I'm not sure what it adds beyond an option to block all third-party cookies. Is the goal here to try to get to a policy that can be enabled by default?

sp332 8y ago

It allows third-party cookies except the ones on Disconnect's "Basic Protection" list.

stanleydrew 8y ago
Right, but it seems like almost everybody who cares about this would just enable third-party cookie blocking. Put another way, what problem is this new policy solving, and how big a problem is it?
- user812 8y ago
  It solves the problem that the majority of firefox users is not blocking trackers, so enabling this at the end of January 2019 in Firefox 65 will protect all Firefox users, which make up around 10-15% of all Desktop web traffic in western countries. With this step it follow Safari, which is already protecting users against third party tracking.
  - userbinator 8y ago
    It solves the problem that the majority of firefox users is not blocking trackers Is that a problem, however? Or more precisely, one that Mozilla wants to think is a problem and "solve"? I use adblocking and such myself, but I think it should really be a personal choice --- browsers should just stay neutral. I have a suspicion that browser organisations taking sides in this will only lead to even more invasive tracking in the future, since this is a cat-and-mouse game. (Imagine if Firefox had adblock by default. It would just force adtech companies to come up with even more unblockable methods, since the defaults have changed.)
    - rectang 8y ago
      If ads have to come from the primary domain being served, then the website has greater incentive to vet those ads. If they let malware through, it's their reputation that goes in the trash. No more letting adtech do the dirty work.
      - manigandham 8y ago
        Not really. It's as simple as hosting some scripts or using a CDN for a local proxy. Plenty of publishers are already doing this. If reputation was really that important, these sites wouldn't have put up these low-quality ad networks in the first place. It's not like they didnt know what was running.
    - rgbrenner 8y ago
      Like when browsers implemented popup blockers. Now we have even more invasive unblockable popups? Websites can't do anything the browser doesn't allow. Or said another way, websites can only do what the browser was programmed to support. The browser is the decider.
      - userbinator 8y ago
        Like when browsers implemented popup blockers. Now we have even more invasive unblockable popups? Now the popups are almost always not new windows, but "pop-overs" inside the page itself.
        user812 8y ago
        If you start a war, you should be prepared to fight for a long time. That's why most browser makers don't even start. Safari did and had to make multiple changes to ITP because criteo was fighting back. It is always necessary to stay vigilant.
    - user812 8y ago
      Allowing third-party cookies wasn't a neutral decision to begin with, even though the implications only became clear later.
- sp332 8y ago
  Well, that can break functionality on some sites. Not all third-party cookies are tracking cookies. Being more specific about which cookies are blocked reduces breakage.
  - justtopost 8y ago
    That is a dev mistake. So many default to no 3rd party, and for 95% of the web, nothing breaks. If you are in the 5%, the problem may be your design and not the user/browser/standard.