4 ms·

FTR, Firefox is working on supporting this natively: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1783015 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1783015

• isthisthingon99 4y ago
  In the old days (Netscape Navigator) you'd get an annoying popup asking you if you wanted to store cookies. Firefox came from the open sourcing of Netscape. How things repeat!
• guilhas 4y ago
  Firefox should worry more with core browser, standards, speed, security, bugs... And less with implementing things that already exist as addons
  • stuartd 4y ago
    Browser add-ons require permissions which you might not want to grant to arbitrary code. And anyway, it’s a truism that products can and will absorb add-ons into their code (cf ‘Sherlocked’)
    • guilhas 4y ago
      They can spend time absorbing whatever they want, just make sure first you have a capable browser, that can be competitive, maybe absorb some market share from other Chromes. Instead of being a constant crippleware that we just barely tolerate, with half cooked "nice" to haves If you don't trust, don't install. Maybe don't install anything on your machine just to be safe Firefox can improve their addons security audit, their addons website to help users make a choice... absorbing addons seems like wasting time
    • boltzmann-brain 4y ago
      What is Sherlocked? I searched around on Google, but I couldn't figure out what you were referring to.
      • stuartd 4y ago
        This - https://www.howtogeek.com/297651/what-does-it-mean-when-a-company-sherlocks-an-app/ https://www.howtogeek.com/297651/what-does-it-mean-when-a-co...
• stuartd 4y ago
  cookies were once delicious delicacies - https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=213186 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=213186
  • aix1 4y ago
    Wow, what a toxic environment.
    • KronisLV 4y ago
      Having easter eggs is cool. Telling your users about what web technologies are and what certain settings mean is also cool. Wanting to be helpful to a wider audience rather than have a funny easter egg for tech nerds feels like an okay thing to do, once a project is past a certain stage and aims for larger adoption. That said, seeing "18 years ago" for the message dates in the discussion feels sobering.
      • aix1 4y ago
        I was referring to the tone adopted by what looks like a key participant in that discussion towards other participants. (I'll go back into my bubble now.)
• mjevans 4y ago
  If any Firefox Devs read this; PLEASE ADD: If I sign in / store a password for the website, allow cookies.
  • xigoi 4y ago
    Necessary cookies are not covered by the cookie law, so login should still work when you deny cookies.
    • Cthulhu_ 4y ago
      Should, but even the websites themselves don't seem to know this. And it's not about cookies either, it's about anything allowing tracking on and between websites.
    • billpg 4y ago
      I've seen websites that use no cookies at all put up the banner. (Just in case.)
      • mananaysiempre 4y ago
        (Not a lawyer.) The GDPR is not about cookies, the freely-given consent requirement applies just the same if they’re tracking you in other ways (perhaps submitting a fingerprint via XHR, or even server-side—arguably just storing IPs in an access log counts[1]). The recorded data doesn’t have to be actively used to identify you, only usable for that purpose in principle. The earlier 2002 “ePrivacy Directive”[2], which came to be known as “cookie law”, does mention cookies in the motivational part, though the actual text just refers to storing stuff client-side whatever the means. Storage strictly required for the website to function is specifically exempted. Unlike what the GDPR would say later, the preamble said sites would be able to tell users to GTFO if they refuse the cookies. [1] https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf?mode=DOC&pageIndex=0&docid=184668&part=1&doclang=EN&text=&dir=&occ=first&cid=35216 https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf?mo... (ruling), https://gdprhub.eu/index.php?title=CJEU_-_C%E2%80%91582/14_-_Patrick_Breyer https://gdprhub.eu/index.php?title=CJEU_-_C%E2%80%91582/14_-... (unofficial explanation) [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32002L0058:en:HTML https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX..., recital 25 and article 5(3).
• zmmmmm 4y ago
  I fully expect the EU will somehow find a way to regulate this out of existence .... (in protection of users all browser software must ensure privacy options are not supressed and displayed prominently with a dialog immune to any form of automation ....)
• Aardwolf 4y ago
  Does this use some regularly updated list to recognize the various different types of banner?
• xnzakg 4y ago
  Doesn't work on Android yet. Can't wait for this to be finished, cookie banners are even more annoying when you have as small a screen as on a phone...
  • mrich 4y ago
    The settings are available though, are they not working?
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  • boltzmann-brain 4y ago
    Firefox Nightly allows you to use your own collection of add-ons that you've set up on AMO, including I Don't Care About Cookies and forks as long as they're up on AMO: https://www.ghacks.net/2020/10/01/you-can-now-install-any-add-on-in-firefox-nightly-for-android-but-it-is-complicated/ https://www.ghacks.net/2020/10/01/you-can-now-install-any-ad... I've been using this on Android for a while now and holy crap, never going back.
• lulzury 4y ago
  This brings up a great point! Why didn't browsers jump in right away and offer this natively instead of letting the web get littered with annoying cookie banners that everyone is either going to (1) ignore (2) blindly accept?
  • Jack5500 4y ago
    They had do-not-track for ages. It was the choice of the cookie banner devs to not respect that flag.