4 ms·

> But AFAICT from the bloomberg article, at least (I won't go through the Oath hoops to read engadget), I didn't need to allow oath that to read that. I have m

by dngray 7y ago

> But AFAICT from the bloomberg article, at least (I won't go through the Oath hoops to read engadget), I didn't need to allow oath that to read that. I have my browser configured like so https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix/wiki/How-to-block-1st-party-scripts-everywhere-by-default https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix/wiki/How-to-block-1st-par... For that page all I had was: https://i.imgur.com/DQe8TIr.png https://i.imgur.com/DQe8TIr.png you can clearly see oath was not enabled. It would appear you do need to allow 1st-party JavaScript to allow the <script type="application/ld+json"> portion to load which contains the "articleBody": ....." I am connected through my VPN, currently in NL, so yeah, GDPR.

jfk13 7y ago
Sure, I know there are ways I could work around it. But I shouldn't have to. It's supposed to be easy for a visitor to refuse consent for all that unnecessary tracking - which has no justification in terms of legitimate interest for the purpose of publishing a news article. It shouldn't require technical countermeasures (that 99% of users will not understand). If they don't offer an opt-out that is as easy as opt-in, I'm going to assume malign intent on the part of the site, and they can do without my traffic.
- dngray 7y ago
  My point is that if you don't allow, the two requests, the page still loads and you don't have to answer any questions. www.engadget.com -- script https://consent.cmp.oath.com/cmp.js 3p www.engadget.com -- script https://consent.cmp.oath.com/cmpStub.min.js 3p > Sure, I know there are ways I could work around it. But I shouldn't have to. Sadly that's the world we live in. > It's supposed to be easy for a visitor to refuse consent for all that unnecessary tracking - which has no justification in terms of legitimate interest for the purpose of publishing a news article. It shouldn't require technical countermeasures (that 99% of users will not understand). It shouldn't yet, it does . > If they don't offer an opt-out that is as easy as opt-in, I'm going to assume malign intent on the part of the site, and they can do without my traffic. With media that's a pretty safe assumption.

by dngray 7y ago

jfk13 7y ago

Sure, I know there are ways I could work around it. But I shouldn't have to. It's supposed to be easy for a visitor to refuse consent for all that unnecessary tracking - which has no justification in terms of legitimate interest for the purpose of publishing a news article. It shouldn't require technical countermeasures (that 99% of users will not understand). If they don't offer an opt-out that is as easy as opt-in, I'm going to assume malign intent on the part of the site, and they can do without my traffic.

dngray 7y ago
My point is that if you don't allow, the two requests, the page still loads and you don't have to answer any questions. www.engadget.com -- script https://consent.cmp.oath.com/cmp.js 3p www.engadget.com -- script https://consent.cmp.oath.com/cmpStub.min.js 3p > Sure, I know there are ways I could work around it. But I shouldn't have to. Sadly that's the world we live in. > It's supposed to be easy for a visitor to refuse consent for all that unnecessary tracking - which has no justification in terms of legitimate interest for the purpose of publishing a news article. It shouldn't require technical countermeasures (that 99% of users will not understand). It shouldn't yet, it does . > If they don't offer an opt-out that is as easy as opt-in, I'm going to assume malign intent on the part of the site, and they can do without my traffic. With media that's a pretty safe assumption.