5 ms·
Seems like in this particular case, notwithstanding Google's long history of abuse and opportunism, this one is a genuine case when you enable a cookie for tech
by dvfjsdhgfv 4y ago
Seems like in this particular case, notwithstanding Google's long history of abuse and opportunism, this one is a genuine case when you enable a cookie for technical and not (necessarily) user tracking reasons.
- thih9 4y agoIs it certain that Google will not use these (i.e. cookies enabled for technical reasons) also for tracking? Some companies are requesting permissions for more or less valid reasons and later using these permissions for their own goals as well.
- robertlagrant 4y agoThere's no need to use cookies for this when they control the backend. They know you're accessing a file because their server had to authenticate you.
- bogwog 4y agoWhat about sharing a link with an unauthenticated user? Last I checked, Drive lets you create a public download link for your files.
- robertlagrant 4y agoHmm, yes, that's true. I wonder if that works with cookies disabled.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y agoIt's just another dark pattern their middle management cooks up under the guise of legitimacy.
- dvfjsdhgfv 4y agoIn other cases - yes. In this one - not necessarily. The content itself is hosted on a different domain and for a good reason. Most importantly though, they don't need another cookie to track you: you are already there, they know who you are, they know you already requested a resource, and they can track you over all Google services and many others anyway. They don't need to use a dirty trick to send you an additional cookie although the very fact that we're having the discussion means Firefox made a good decision and hopefully people will notice this pattern more.