5 ms·
Something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track ? Which failed in part because Microsoft turned it on by de
by benjiweber 1y ago
Something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track ? Which failed in part because Microsoft turned it on by default which even further disincentivised publishers from respecting it.
- catlifeonmars 1y agoNo your browser can just… choose not to send cookies. The website publisher has no say in that.
- 9rx 1y agoCookies are the easiest way to keep track of a user, but if browsers regularly stop sending cookies then website operators will just find another method to fingerprint users and then we're back to square one with the law still requiring publishers to receive opt-in approval, but with no requirements on how.
- quectophoton 1y ago> then website operators will just find another method to fingerprint users Example: The identifier you get when you pass anti-bot challenges (Cloudflare, Anubis, etc).
- Thorrez 1y agoThat's not a cookie?
- quectophoton 1y agoIt probably is, currently. But even if cookies are not used, the identifier for this type of functionality would still need to be stored somewhere and passed to the server in some way to avoid showing another CAPTCHA to the user. Whatever mechanism they choose to uniquely identify you, they will insist it's necessary for another purpose and they totally are not piggybacking on it for tracking (e.g. for the CAPTCHA example, they would insist it's absolutely necessary to protect themselves from DDoS). As another example, they can always respond with HTML where all links themselves are an opaque hash that internally contain "route + your id" when decrypted. Then emphasizing that all links are always different even for same routes to "show they are randomly generated", and saying that they do this because... idk, detecting scraping or something random but plausible-sounding. Or whatever sneaky variation of the `?PHPSESSID=` query param from old times. (Yeah I know the last example doesn't a lot make sense, I didn't think too hard about it, the point is that they will probably find a way somehow.)
- beeflet 1y agoThe fix here would be to legally force them to comply with Do Not Track instead of forcing them to post compliant banners
- Cthulhu_ 1y agoThey are not forced to use banners, they are forced to get explicit opt-in permission before tracking users, which can be done in non-obtrusive ways.
- beeflet 1y agoOkay, so regard the Do_Not_Track header as explicit opt-out permission
- const_cast 1y agoThey would never do this willingly, because they don't want you to automatically opt out of tracking. The annoyance of the cookie banners is the entire draw for companies. Its not a downside. They're user-hostile. You are their enemy. Their goal is to wear you down and trick you into opting-in, so they can both track with impunity and follow the law.
- beeflet 1y ago>They would never do this willingly I know, that is why I am saying you would force them to respect Do_Not_Track by law.
- charcircuit 1y agoNo browser implements it as an explicit one where you have to explicitly specify which businesses you do not which to track you.