4 ms·
The article makes it sound a bit like the big companies are doing something very evil to the users data just because they are evil and greedy. I encountered thi
by stiff 15y ago
The article makes it sound a bit like the big companies are doing something very evil to the users data just because they are evil and greedy. I encountered this problem in my development work, and in reality it's much more complicated, while some companies might well be evil and greedy, the real problem is that the means available in the browser for doing cross-domain integration of web services while controlling privacy are really poor.
The P3P header is just a formal way of describing the companies privacy policy. Now, the problems is that when targeting MSIE, there is no way for a company to make their P3P header honestly reflect their existing privacy policy and still do integration with a third-party vendor on their page, because if the privacy policy described in the P3P is not restrictive enough IE blocks the cookies and there is nothing you can do about it, there will not even be a popup window for the user to decide what he wants do about it, it simply won't work.
Example: let's say you want to embed a facebook widget or whatever in your page and you have to do it via an iframe because that's the way facebook supplies it (and it might well be that for technical reasons no other way would work OK for both facebook and you). Then, after the user does something with the widget, you want your page to be called again, while maintaining the users identity (with the user still being logged-in in your page). This works well by default in all browsers, except for IE, which without the privacy policy being restrictive enough (as described in the P3P header sent by your page), will simply ignore the session-id cookie and log the user out in the iframe.
I don't think with a well thought out security model companies should have to make such a choice between functionality vs. having a specific privacy policy, those things should be completely independent. If the user actually wants to use third-party integration on a page supplied by a company with a not very restrictive privacy policy, why should the browser prohibit it? This is commonly needed, and currently the only way in MSIE to fix it other then sending an adequate P3P is AFAIR to lower the security settings, which most common users don't know how to do, and of course as a company you wouldn't like to recommend your users to lower their security level anyway. The browser should make sure the user knows what is going to happen, but then give him a choice and stay out of the way if that's the user wish.
- Drbble 15y agoGoogle could display a message in page, like they do when first party cookies are disabled or when firebug is running. Instead, they chose to "jailbreak" themselves and not even tell the user what they are doing. Google makes a tickertape parade of yellow see sticky notes every time they change the shade of grey in a form button, it is quite telling that they are ashamed of admitting "
- stanleydrew 15y agoThis makes no sense. The breaking behavior that Google is trying to avoid does not occur on Google properties. First-party cookies are not the problem. The breaking behavior occurs on third-party sites trying to include +1 buttons and the like. Your solution is to display a wall of text or a dialog on someone else's site when visitors have the default security settings in IE? Somehow I don't think anybody would be happy with that.
- stiff 15y agoThey in fact cannot even display a message, there is no way AFAIK to distinguish between this situation and someone simply not being logged-in. Even if they could, they would still leave IE users without some functionality. Again, I do not want to be Google's advocate and I do not know their specific use cases, I am just saying they are legitimate use cases for both not having the privacy policy that restrictive (eg. when processing and passing over the users data is actually part of the buisness model) and for doing third party integration, which the security model as implemented by MSIE makes impossible to handle.