3 ms·
They most of the time shouldn't be "we're using cookies (and we've planted all of them without your consent, oops)" anyway, but consent managers. But yeah, thi
by atleta 6y ago
They most of the time shouldn't be "we're using cookies (and we've planted all of them without your consent, oops)" anyway, but consent managers.
But yeah, this could be handled in a more user friendly way, if there was a standard way to express the consent options (with the cookies and their functionalities) that the browsers could parse. Then the page could check if the browser handles it or if it has to fall back to what they're doing now.
- pythux 6y agoAs mentioned in another comment, it’s actually possible: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23524626 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23524626
- atleta 6y agoMakes sense. Actually it could very much work without the active participation of the web sites, at least for cross-site tracking. Because we can collect and identify and categorize those cookies. And now that we're talking about it, Firefox does have something similar accessible from the URL bar, called "Enhanced tracking protection".
- pythux 6y agoWell, enhanced tracking protection is closer to what an adblocker/content blocker would do as far as I know. They classify some domains as trackers based on a static list from Disconnect then use that information to either block requests or enforce extra restrictions on those (like blocking cookies/storage).