5 ms·

Why can't sites just provide simple cookie-less browsing experience, turning off their cookie-based features? Instead of forcing this click-through just to show

by watt 14y ago

Why can't sites just provide simple cookie-less browsing experience, turning off their cookie-based features? Instead of forcing this click-through just to show the article, they should just show what they can in read-only mode (without sending the cookie). This is such a misguided knee-jerk campaign from developers. Cookies are NOT OK, I don't want to see them, and just show me the article (or page I originally came to view), thanks. And after I have viewed it, and if I decide to become a user of your site - then you will have my permission to use cookies. The click through pages are the worst (like what www.games-workshop.com has). The pop-up/notification bar some news sites have (like bbc.co.uk) is somewhat acceptable, while obnoxious, as it allows you to read the content without accepting the cookies, and just go your merry way when your're done. So this plug-in is going to auto-accept the cookies on your behalf. But why would you want to do this?

john-n 14y ago
Those banners (in most cases) are not you turning on or off cookies. The bbc sets cookies immediately (they do allow you to unset some here http://www.bbc.co.uk/privacy/cookies/managing/cookie-settings.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/privacy/cookies/managing/cookie-setting...), but you already have a session cookie that will last 4 years once the page is loaded. Most sites will state they are assuming consent based on your continued usage of the site.
aidos 14y ago
That's oversimplifying things a little. Say I build a website and fill it with content you want to see. I'd run Google Analytics to track popular content etc. You're saying my default choice is to no longer have analytics on my site at all? Agreed, all these other solutions are rubbish. But your solution isn't a good solution either.
- smokel 14y ago
  Note that (at least in The Netherlands) the cookie law does allow you to use Google Analytics for measuring anonymized user statistics, without asking a visitor to accept cookies. (In Dutch http://www.nu.nl/internet/2987889/cookiewet-versoepeld.html http://www.nu.nl/internet/2987889/cookiewet-versoepeld.html)
mbesto 14y ago
Why can't sites just provide simple $INSERT_ANYTHING_HERE experience Because anything that adds features costs money. This is a non-issue for most website developers. But why would you want to do this? Because, pre-law, I (like many people) were happy to exchange a cookie for access to free content from virtually any website. Accessibility is king.
- watt 14y ago
  I am somewhat upset that Rails sets a drive-by session cookie when I visit a site with no intention of logging in or doing anything.
  - jonknee 14y ago
    There are other reasons to have sessions than to facilitate logging in (message flashing being a biggie for Rails, but it's also critical in things like A/B testing). What's the harm? If you don't want to play nice, don't accept the cookie. You will probably never know what you're missing.
    - watt 14y ago
      Well my point is I guess there should be no cookie set for the read-only experience. Once you do something that requires tracking some state server-side, then the session cookie might be set. For example if you are searching, or you submit some data (that might trigger the message flashed), I guess the page where you perform said action could contain the cookie notice and notify user that to perform such stateful action user will need to accept the cookie. For example, if you visit a web shop, you shouldn't need to get any cookies when viewing a product page. If you decide to put it into shopping cart - then you would consent to getting a cookie. But no sooner!
      - untog 14y ago
        ...unless there is an A/B test running.
      - 14y ago
dangrossman 14y ago
Popular "read-only" sites need cookies. Take sites like NY Times or TMZ. They need advertising revenue to pay for offices, people in those offices to write the content you want them to "just show", etc. Much of that potential revenue is locked up in advertising networks, and you need cookies to serve them on your site. Even if it were possible to sell out the ad space in-house, you need cookies to accurately track the delivery and results for the advertisers. They need analytics to bring in the traffic that will view those ads. Especially for large publications, real-time analytics drive the decisions of what content to write, what content to expand, and what content to promote to the front page in order to maximize page views and thus ad views. They're decisions made minute-by-minute throughout the day. You need cookies to do that kind of analytics. So while technically they can "just show you" the article you want without cookies, the practical implication is that the content you want them to show you wouldn't exist without cookies.
- rmc 14y ago
  They do not need cookies for adverstising. In fact using cookies for advert networks is sorta what this law is aimed at. Be careful when using them. Just because a business model currently relies on cookies, doesn't mean we should get rid of the privacy law. Maybe the business model should change. After all, if the business model required employees to work more than 13 hr shift (Working Time Directive), then tough, your business model needs changing.
  - jonknee 14y ago
    They do need cookies for advertising. Have you ever sold online advertising before?
    - tijs 14y ago
      Current advertising networks use cookies for analytics and cross site profiling. While useful for advertisers it does have privacy implications and there is no, technical, reason why an advertising network could not serve advertisements without the 3rd party cookies.
    - 14y ago
jonknee 14y ago
If you don't want my cookie, feel free to not use my website which is provided to you free of charge (and ironically, if it was not free you would definitely need to accept the cookie). It does me no good to provide you a service when I can't monetize it. I don't understand the sense of entitlement. The result is annoying, but that's because of the poorly thought out law. If you don't want annoyed, use this extension.
- rmc 14y ago
  The law doesn't work that way. If the law says "you must gain users consent before storing things on their computer", then "well if you don't like it, don't visit my site" is not an acceptable legal defence.
  - jonknee 14y ago
    Of course, the point was no I will not let you access my content before you decide about a cookie. The OP finds having to make this decision to be annoying and thinks the site should just not set any cookies.
- watt 14y ago
  I guess if you are putting some service out there, you actually WANT people viewing your content/using the service. Way to antagonize your potential customers which such "my way or the highway" attitude! And how do you feel about the 'Do not track' header?
  - jonknee 14y ago
    What if the service comes with accepting a cookie? A potential "customer" that does not accept cookies is simply a waste of bandwidth. Not a big fan of DNT, it relies on trust which prevents it from working when you want it to most. If you don't want tracked, don't accept cookies. If you can't use a service without cookies and are not happy using something like Incognito mode, stop using that service.

by watt 14y ago

john-n 14y ago

Those banners (in most cases) are not you turning on or off cookies. The bbc sets cookies immediately (they do allow you to unset some here http://www.bbc.co.uk/privacy/cookies/managing/cookie-settings.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/privacy/cookies/managing/cookie-setting...), but you already have a session cookie that will last 4 years once the page is loaded. Most sites will state they are assuming consent based on your continued usage of the site.

aidos 14y ago

That's oversimplifying things a little. Say I build a website and fill it with content you want to see. I'd run Google Analytics to track popular content etc. You're saying my default choice is to no longer have analytics on my site at all? Agreed, all these other solutions are rubbish. But your solution isn't a good solution either.

smokel 14y ago
Note that (at least in The Netherlands) the cookie law does allow you to use Google Analytics for measuring anonymized user statistics, without asking a visitor to accept cookies. (In Dutch http://www.nu.nl/internet/2987889/cookiewet-versoepeld.html http://www.nu.nl/internet/2987889/cookiewet-versoepeld.html)

mbesto 14y ago

Why can't sites just provide simple $INSERT_ANYTHING_HERE experience Because anything that adds features costs money. This is a non-issue for most website developers. But why would you want to do this? Because, pre-law, I (like many people) were happy to exchange a cookie for access to free content from virtually any website. Accessibility is king.

watt 14y ago
I am somewhat upset that Rails sets a drive-by session cookie when I visit a site with no intention of logging in or doing anything.
- jonknee 14y ago
  There are other reasons to have sessions than to facilitate logging in (message flashing being a biggie for Rails, but it's also critical in things like A/B testing). What's the harm? If you don't want to play nice, don't accept the cookie. You will probably never know what you're missing.
  - watt 14y ago
    Well my point is I guess there should be no cookie set for the read-only experience. Once you do something that requires tracking some state server-side, then the session cookie might be set. For example if you are searching, or you submit some data (that might trigger the message flashed), I guess the page where you perform said action could contain the cookie notice and notify user that to perform such stateful action user will need to accept the cookie. For example, if you visit a web shop, you shouldn't need to get any cookies when viewing a product page. If you decide to put it into shopping cart - then you would consent to getting a cookie. But no sooner!
    - untog 14y ago
      ...unless there is an A/B test running.
    - 14y ago

dangrossman 14y ago

Popular "read-only" sites need cookies. Take sites like NY Times or TMZ. They need advertising revenue to pay for offices, people in those offices to write the content you want them to "just show", etc. Much of that potential revenue is locked up in advertising networks, and you need cookies to serve them on your site. Even if it were possible to sell out the ad space in-house, you need cookies to accurately track the delivery and results for the advertisers. They need analytics to bring in the traffic that will view those ads. Especially for large publications, real-time analytics drive the decisions of what content to write, what content to expand, and what content to promote to the front page in order to maximize page views and thus ad views. They're decisions made minute-by-minute throughout the day. You need cookies to do that kind of analytics. So while technically they can "just show you" the article you want without cookies, the practical implication is that the content you want them to show you wouldn't exist without cookies.

rmc 14y ago
They do not need cookies for adverstising. In fact using cookies for advert networks is sorta what this law is aimed at. Be careful when using them. Just because a business model currently relies on cookies, doesn't mean we should get rid of the privacy law. Maybe the business model should change. After all, if the business model required employees to work more than 13 hr shift (Working Time Directive), then tough, your business model needs changing.
- jonknee 14y ago
  They do need cookies for advertising. Have you ever sold online advertising before?
  - tijs 14y ago
    Current advertising networks use cookies for analytics and cross site profiling. While useful for advertisers it does have privacy implications and there is no, technical, reason why an advertising network could not serve advertisements without the 3rd party cookies.
  - 14y ago

jonknee 14y ago

If you don't want my cookie, feel free to not use my website which is provided to you free of charge (and ironically, if it was not free you would definitely need to accept the cookie). It does me no good to provide you a service when I can't monetize it. I don't understand the sense of entitlement. The result is annoying, but that's because of the poorly thought out law. If you don't want annoyed, use this extension.

rmc 14y ago
The law doesn't work that way. If the law says "you must gain users consent before storing things on their computer", then "well if you don't like it, don't visit my site" is not an acceptable legal defence.
- jonknee 14y ago
  Of course, the point was no I will not let you access my content before you decide about a cookie. The OP finds having to make this decision to be annoying and thinks the site should just not set any cookies.
watt 14y ago
I guess if you are putting some service out there, you actually WANT people viewing your content/using the service. Way to antagonize your potential customers which such "my way or the highway" attitude! And how do you feel about the 'Do not track' header?
- jonknee 14y ago
  What if the service comes with accepting a cookie? A potential "customer" that does not accept cookies is simply a waste of bandwidth. Not a big fan of DNT, it relies on trust which prevents it from working when you want it to most. If you don't want tracked, don't accept cookies. If you can't use a service without cookies and are not happy using something like Incognito mode, stop using that service.