4 ms·

Hiding the popup is not the same as clicking reject. It should be but it's not.

coldpie 1y ago
You think these websites give a shit about your privacy because you clicked on a div with a "No" in it? Not a chance. It's like asking thieves to promise not to steal from you. Protecting users is the browser's job: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enhanced-tracking-protection-firefox-desktop https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enhanced-tracking-prote... https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/introducing-total-cookie-protection-standard-mode https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/introducing-total-cooki...
- toomuchtodo 1y ago
  The act of indicating no is frictionless if automated through an extension, and if it turns out orgs are not respecting the action, it'll end up in a class action or other legal event eventually (assuming statute or other regulatory mechanisms exists on the topic). "Porque no los dos?" Strongly agree the browser should still aggressively act in the user's interest and protect them. (privacy law and how it relates to customer user experience is a component of my work in finance)
  - dns_snek 1y ago
    I think that's a distinction without a difference in general, but certainly under the GDPR where any form of consent must be explicit.
  - coldpie 1y ago
    I mean sure I guess, do whatever you want. I will always have uBo installed and I prefer to have less software on my machine (fewer things to go wrong), so uBo's list plus Firefox's protections is good enough for me. > if it turns out orgs are not respecting the action, it'll end up in a class action or other legal event eventually Not a chance.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- berkes 1y ago
  > You think these websites give a shit about your privacy because you clicked on a div with a "No" in it Yes. For a subset of "these websites". Because this is enforced and EU has fined billions already. The fines for doing what you say they do, are steep and a severe risk for many "these websites".
  - coldpie 1y ago
    > For a subset of "these websites". So for websites that are not in that subset, they will still track you regardless of what you click on, so you still need browser-level protections for those websites, and those browser-level protections will also work on the websites that are in that subset, so you still gain nothing by clicking the No.
    - berkes 1y ago
      Yes. But "these websites" will then be prosecuted, their owners cannot enter the EU ever again without the risk of severe penalties, they cannot do business in the EU and can and often will, lose access to many services that do want to stay on the good side the EU (i.e. will see their google ads blocked, their stripe frozen, their hosting closed etc) Edit: what I'm trying to say is: this "technical" problem has a real and working "solution" that's not technical at all: law and enforcement. Now, that won't work for all and everything, it never does. There will always be malicious, scammy, malware, criminal and illegal webservices around. But it makes it very hard for malicious actors to do so and make money.
      - coldpie 1y ago
        Yeah but the question is how you, as a user, should best protect yourself. I'm saying clicking the "No" provides no advantage over using a browser that just protects you from tracking by default. Then it doesn't matter whether the website is following the law or whether the EU (where I don't live) will enforce the law or change it in the future or whatever. > Now, that won't work for all and everything, it never does. There will always be malicious, scammy, malware, criminal and illegal webservices around. Yeah, exactly. So if I have to protect myself from those websites anyway, I may as well apply the same protections to all websites. Clicking the "No" does nothing for me.
- IggleSniggle 1y ago
  I'm currently at a small ad tech firm and while I can't speak for other outfits, we definitely are extra careful about respecting user consent indicators. Because we are small, it's not easy to do this, because there are many possible ways for users to "reject". This includes situations that merely imply non-consent due to inaction, rather than active non-consent like a reject cookie indicator, or living in a jurisdiction that makes non-consent automatic (as it should be!). Many of the "reject cookies" tools are especially useful because even if a website doesn't respect your choice (and therefore tries to send data to us) your browser can still tell us if you are non-consenting. This means it's easier for us to notice non-consent and drop the data as soon as possible, before any logging or analysis can occur. We do not materially benefit from this in any way, nor do we market it. I am not a spokesperson for my company nor do I want to be publicly identified with it. I'm advocating here because you said "not a chance" but there is a chance. It's not just that we are worried about some sort of regulatory enforcement, either, although existence of such regulations does help convince the less scrupulous people from pursuing a bad path. The free internet is built on ads. I still believe in the free internet. I still think we can make it work. I welcome regulation and regulatory enforcement even though it's hard for a small outfit like us, because it reduces the chances that our ad tech has to compete with less scrupulous people. I think we've survived as a small outfit since roughly the dotcom era because we've tried to be good stewards. People wouldn't need uBlock if there was better regulation/enforcement, and companies like mine, who are trying to do the right thing (even as we operate in the loathed ad space), would benefit. I'm worried about AI on this front because it means in the future your ads will be served up to you out of a black box instead of out in the open where we can all inspect who is trying to get what from us (and block bad parties via eg uBlock), and, to a degree, who is trying to shove what down our throats.
  - skeeter2020 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - troupo 1y ago
    > The free internet is built on ads. And ads don't require pervasive and invasive tracking. The industry made us all believe they do.
jsheard 1y ago
Yeah I find that list is more trouble than it's worth, because some sites will block interaction until you dismiss the cookie notice, so you get softlocked if the notice is hidden. I assume that's why uBO disables that list by default.
- moebrowne 1y ago
  Agreed. YouTube is a notable example of this, at least in the EU.
dongkyun 1y ago
This is incorrect. The GDPR requires affirmative consent before processing user information, hiding is not "affirmative." Additionally, there's been increasing litigation via wiretapping statutes (most notably in California where there's statutory minimums for damages) that pose additional legal risk for companies using analytic cookies w/o affirmative consent.
queenkjuul 1y ago
Legally it is the same Doesn't mean people implement it correctly though

You think these websites give a shit about your privacy because you clicked on a div with a "No" in it? Not a chance. It's like asking thieves to promise not to steal from you. Protecting users is the browser's job: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enhanced-tracking-protection-firefox-desktop https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enhanced-tracking-prote... https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/introducing-total-cookie-protection-standard-mode https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/introducing-total-cooki...

toomuchtodo 1y ago
The act of indicating no is frictionless if automated through an extension, and if it turns out orgs are not respecting the action, it'll end up in a class action or other legal event eventually (assuming statute or other regulatory mechanisms exists on the topic). "Porque no los dos?" Strongly agree the browser should still aggressively act in the user's interest and protect them. (privacy law and how it relates to customer user experience is a component of my work in finance)
- dns_snek 1y ago
  I think that's a distinction without a difference in general, but certainly under the GDPR where any form of consent must be explicit.
- coldpie 1y ago
  I mean sure I guess, do whatever you want. I will always have uBo installed and I prefer to have less software on my machine (fewer things to go wrong), so uBo's list plus Firefox's protections is good enough for me. > if it turns out orgs are not respecting the action, it'll end up in a class action or other legal event eventually Not a chance.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
berkes 1y ago
> You think these websites give a shit about your privacy because you clicked on a div with a "No" in it Yes. For a subset of "these websites". Because this is enforced and EU has fined billions already. The fines for doing what you say they do, are steep and a severe risk for many "these websites".
- coldpie 1y ago
  > For a subset of "these websites". So for websites that are not in that subset, they will still track you regardless of what you click on, so you still need browser-level protections for those websites, and those browser-level protections will also work on the websites that are in that subset, so you still gain nothing by clicking the No.
  - berkes 1y ago
    Yes. But "these websites" will then be prosecuted, their owners cannot enter the EU ever again without the risk of severe penalties, they cannot do business in the EU and can and often will, lose access to many services that do want to stay on the good side the EU (i.e. will see their google ads blocked, their stripe frozen, their hosting closed etc) Edit: what I'm trying to say is: this "technical" problem has a real and working "solution" that's not technical at all: law and enforcement. Now, that won't work for all and everything, it never does. There will always be malicious, scammy, malware, criminal and illegal webservices around. But it makes it very hard for malicious actors to do so and make money.
    - coldpie 1y ago
      Yeah but the question is how you, as a user, should best protect yourself. I'm saying clicking the "No" provides no advantage over using a browser that just protects you from tracking by default. Then it doesn't matter whether the website is following the law or whether the EU (where I don't live) will enforce the law or change it in the future or whatever. > Now, that won't work for all and everything, it never does. There will always be malicious, scammy, malware, criminal and illegal webservices around. Yeah, exactly. So if I have to protect myself from those websites anyway, I may as well apply the same protections to all websites. Clicking the "No" does nothing for me.
IggleSniggle 1y ago
I'm currently at a small ad tech firm and while I can't speak for other outfits, we definitely are extra careful about respecting user consent indicators. Because we are small, it's not easy to do this, because there are many possible ways for users to "reject". This includes situations that merely imply non-consent due to inaction, rather than active non-consent like a reject cookie indicator, or living in a jurisdiction that makes non-consent automatic (as it should be!). Many of the "reject cookies" tools are especially useful because even if a website doesn't respect your choice (and therefore tries to send data to us) your browser can still tell us if you are non-consenting. This means it's easier for us to notice non-consent and drop the data as soon as possible, before any logging or analysis can occur. We do not materially benefit from this in any way, nor do we market it. I am not a spokesperson for my company nor do I want to be publicly identified with it. I'm advocating here because you said "not a chance" but there is a chance. It's not just that we are worried about some sort of regulatory enforcement, either, although existence of such regulations does help convince the less scrupulous people from pursuing a bad path. The free internet is built on ads. I still believe in the free internet. I still think we can make it work. I welcome regulation and regulatory enforcement even though it's hard for a small outfit like us, because it reduces the chances that our ad tech has to compete with less scrupulous people. I think we've survived as a small outfit since roughly the dotcom era because we've tried to be good stewards. People wouldn't need uBlock if there was better regulation/enforcement, and companies like mine, who are trying to do the right thing (even as we operate in the loathed ad space), would benefit. I'm worried about AI on this front because it means in the future your ads will be served up to you out of a black box instead of out in the open where we can all inspect who is trying to get what from us (and block bad parties via eg uBlock), and, to a degree, who is trying to shove what down our throats.
- skeeter2020 1y ago
  [flagged]
- troupo 1y ago
  > The free internet is built on ads. And ads don't require pervasive and invasive tracking. The industry made us all believe they do.

jsheard 1y ago

Yeah I find that list is more trouble than it's worth, because some sites will block interaction until you dismiss the cookie notice, so you get softlocked if the notice is hidden. I assume that's why uBO disables that list by default.

moebrowne 1y ago
Agreed. YouTube is a notable example of this, at least in the EU.

dongkyun 1y ago

This is incorrect. The GDPR requires affirmative consent before processing user information, hiding is not "affirmative." Additionally, there's been increasing litigation via wiretapping statutes (most notably in California where there's statutory minimums for damages) that pose additional legal risk for companies using analytic cookies w/o affirmative consent.

queenkjuul 1y ago

Legally it is the same Doesn't mean people implement it correctly though