3 ms·

Am I missing something? Abusing the cache meta-data to store data on the user device seems much worse than a cookie. I would have serious doubts of the longevi

Am I missing something? Abusing the cache meta-data to store data on the user device seems much worse than a cookie. I would have serious doubts of the longevity of such a trick, let alone some of the technical limitations I am sure the service has.

o_m 4y ago
Cookie tracking without consent is illegal in Europe, so it is a clever way to still do some basic web analytics.
- masklinn 4y ago
  Tracking without consent is illegal. This is a clever way to get absolutely reamed, because you’re not only in breach of data protection laws you’re actively trying to obfuscate it.
  - andix 4y ago
    The obfuscation part is probably irrelevant from a legal perspective.
- roelschroeven 4y ago
  Tracking without consent is illegal in Europe, regardless of the method. Alternative tracking methods are not workarounds to get around the law; they are only workarounds in trying not to be caught.
- atoav 4y ago
  Yeah nice try. Law makers are not that stupid. Any way of storing personal data is subject to this regulation. And before you try the next thing, personal data is everything that can be linked to a specific user, e.g. IP addresses have been ruled to be personal data, some uuid that helps you identify a user as well. People should really read the law, and/or at least literate commentary on it instead of assuming things or repeating what someone else assumed.
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    This is definitely not personal data. The piece of information is not linked to an individual and cannot be used to identify an individual (not the same as a 'user'), not least because it is not unique to each visitor: According to the article all first requests get the same 'last-modified' date, same for all second requests, etc. Still, this stores data in the browser in a way that might be deemed a technology similar to a cookie, and therefore this might still fall within the various cookie laws, but this is completely outside of personal data regs.
bonestamp2 4y ago
The missing piece is that no fingerprint is involved. They don't have a way of identifying that user, but they are still able to count the number of times that visitor loads the page. So, it's not a tracker, it's a counter. It's like a loyalty punch card at your local sandwich shop -- they can track how many times you've been there by counting the hole punches, but they don't have a unique identifier, so they can't track details about those visits. On the other hand, a cookie or a browser fingerprint contains info that can uniquely identify that user so it can be used for tracking.
- legitster 4y ago
  A cookie doesn't have to contain a fingerprint though. In the same way, nothing in their current method necessarily says they couldn't find a way to insert a fingerprint here.
  - bonestamp2 4y ago
    Fair enough. At least they've told us how it works, so if the data no longer matches that methodology in the future then we can speculate that they've implanted a UID, unless they tell us how it works again and the data is consistent with the new methodology.

o_m 4y ago

Cookie tracking without consent is illegal in Europe, so it is a clever way to still do some basic web analytics.

masklinn 4y ago
Tracking without consent is illegal. This is a clever way to get absolutely reamed, because you’re not only in breach of data protection laws you’re actively trying to obfuscate it.
- andix 4y ago
  The obfuscation part is probably irrelevant from a legal perspective.
roelschroeven 4y ago
Tracking without consent is illegal in Europe, regardless of the method. Alternative tracking methods are not workarounds to get around the law; they are only workarounds in trying not to be caught.
atoav 4y ago
Yeah nice try. Law makers are not that stupid. Any way of storing personal data is subject to this regulation. And before you try the next thing, personal data is everything that can be linked to a specific user, e.g. IP addresses have been ruled to be personal data, some uuid that helps you identify a user as well. People should really read the law, and/or at least literate commentary on it instead of assuming things or repeating what someone else assumed.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  This is definitely not personal data. The piece of information is not linked to an individual and cannot be used to identify an individual (not the same as a 'user'), not least because it is not unique to each visitor: According to the article all first requests get the same 'last-modified' date, same for all second requests, etc. Still, this stores data in the browser in a way that might be deemed a technology similar to a cookie, and therefore this might still fall within the various cookie laws, but this is completely outside of personal data regs.

bonestamp2 4y ago

The missing piece is that no fingerprint is involved. They don't have a way of identifying that user, but they are still able to count the number of times that visitor loads the page. So, it's not a tracker, it's a counter. It's like a loyalty punch card at your local sandwich shop -- they can track how many times you've been there by counting the hole punches, but they don't have a unique identifier, so they can't track details about those visits. On the other hand, a cookie or a browser fingerprint contains info that can uniquely identify that user so it can be used for tracking.

legitster 4y ago
A cookie doesn't have to contain a fingerprint though. In the same way, nothing in their current method necessarily says they couldn't find a way to insert a fingerprint here.
- bonestamp2 4y ago
  Fair enough. At least they've told us how it works, so if the data no longer matches that methodology in the future then we can speculate that they've implanted a UID, unless they tell us how it works again and the data is consistent with the new methodology.