6 ms·

Please provide a link, I could only find this, which suggests Google has reversed course: https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/google-is-phasing-out-third-party-c

Please provide a link, I could only find this, which suggests Google has reversed course: https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/google-is-phasing-out-third-party-cookies-in-chrome-to-protect-your-privacy https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/google-is-phasing-out-thir...

rpastuszak 6y ago
> By undermining the business model of many ad-supported websites, blunt approaches to cookies encourage the use of opaque techniques such as fingerprinting (an invasive workaround to replace cookies), which can actually reduce user privacy and control. https://blog.chromium.org/2020/01/building-more-private-web-path-towards.html https://blog.chromium.org/2020/01/building-more-private-web-... I'm going to copy paste my older comment on this: I find their "removing 3rd party cookies will incentivise businesses to rely on fingerprinting" discourse dangerous. It implies that other browser vendors (Mozilla, Safari/WebKit, new Edge) are in fact making the Web a more dangerous place. I believe it's dangerous because it creates a harmful, unproductive PR narrative—people might just assume this is a true statement, without learning about both sides of the problem. I'm not trying to strip anyone of agency, I just don't think most of my friends would have time to research this topic and might decide to follow the main opinion instead. The answer I'd like to hear: Yes, it does push some actors towards fingerprinting, but preventing fingerprinting should be dealt with regardless. Changes should happen both on legislative and browser-vendor level.
- Jabbles 6y ago
  Thank you for the additional background.
  - rpastuszak 6y ago
    Thanks for asking, we need more comments like yours
- Viliam1234 6y ago
  Sounds a bit like: "By locking your door, you only encourage thieves to break your window, which can actually increase the damage they cause you."
  - rpastuszak 6y ago
    Precisely.

rpastuszak 6y ago

> By undermining the business model of many ad-supported websites, blunt approaches to cookies encourage the use of opaque techniques such as fingerprinting (an invasive workaround to replace cookies), which can actually reduce user privacy and control. https://blog.chromium.org/2020/01/building-more-private-web-path-towards.html https://blog.chromium.org/2020/01/building-more-private-web-... I'm going to copy paste my older comment on this: I find their "removing 3rd party cookies will incentivise businesses to rely on fingerprinting" discourse dangerous. It implies that other browser vendors (Mozilla, Safari/WebKit, new Edge) are in fact making the Web a more dangerous place. I believe it's dangerous because it creates a harmful, unproductive PR narrative—people might just assume this is a true statement, without learning about both sides of the problem. I'm not trying to strip anyone of agency, I just don't think most of my friends would have time to research this topic and might decide to follow the main opinion instead. The answer I'd like to hear: Yes, it does push some actors towards fingerprinting, but preventing fingerprinting should be dealt with regardless. Changes should happen both on legislative and browser-vendor level.

Jabbles 6y ago
Thank you for the additional background.
- rpastuszak 6y ago
  Thanks for asking, we need more comments like yours
Viliam1234 6y ago
Sounds a bit like: "By locking your door, you only encourage thieves to break your window, which can actually increase the damage they cause you."
- rpastuszak 6y ago
  Precisely.