6 ms·

Annoyance, related to privacy. I vote for being "annoyed".

by panacea 14y ago

sjmulder 14y ago
Shame is that at many sites it’s not really opt-in. If you disagree, you get a lecture on why the site is obliged to track you and then you can accept anyway or leave. A cookie wall, if you will. Examples: * http://tweakers.net http://tweakers.net * http://nos.nl http://nos.nl * http://uitzendinggemist.nl http://uitzendinggemist.nl NOS (public news broadcaster) and Uitzending Gemist (public television catch up) are interesting cases because apparently they’re actually required by law to collect user statistics.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
jules 14y ago
In the abstract, I agree. Only somebody who does not understand cookies would say such a thing in this context however (like our Dutch politicians). You, the website visitor, are running a program called a browser. This browser sends and receives data from servers that host the web sites you visit. Some of that data contains a request to store a piece of information on your computer. Your browser stores that piece information, and later when you visit the site again, it sends the same piece of information back to the site. Note that cookies are not some evil technology created by website owners to track you. It is YOU who is running the software that stores the cookie. If you don't want cookies, DON'T STORE THEM. This is easily done in any competent browser. By analogy, if you don't want people to store things in your basement, don't give them the keys to your basement! The current Dutch law is: after you already gave them the access to store cookies on your computer, the law forces that person to ask you again if they are allowed to store cookies. Not only does it not keep any bad people out and thus gives a false sense of security, it's also annoying. The correct action to take is to educate people on the existence of cookies, and how to disable them completely or disable them for specific ranges of sites. This is less annoying for both the users and the site owners, and more importantly it also works for foreign sites that the Dutch law has no power over, like Google analytics & Facebook like buttons that track you all over the internet (which is a much bigger privacy concern than uitzendinggemist.nl or nos.nl). While they're at it they might as well sponsor efforts to make browsers less identifiable through other means than cookies, and support projects like Tor. Of course that's not going to happen, because the current security theater reminds millions of Dutch citizens every day that they are being protected by their politicians through messages in annoying popups.
- Nursie 14y ago
  The basement analogy is flawed. It's like a proxy holding your keys and giving them to anyone that asks, without your knowledge. Education wasn't going to happen without notices like these.
  - jules 14y ago
    Yes, I wanted to keep it simple. The fact is that that proxy (the browser) is the problem, and is also where the solution lies, not in the subset people that Dutch law happens to apply to who make use of that proxy to obtain your keys.
    - Nursie 14y ago
      Making them tell you they want the keys and give you a reason isn't all bad. But yes, the proxy ought to do more to encourage people. One problem is that two of the major browsers (Firefox and Chrome) are funded by a company that makes all its money from tracking and advertising (google), and it's pretty unlikely they would turn off third-party cookies by default, which I think would be a good start.
      - jules 14y ago
        I wouldn't be against a law that requires browsers to make third party cookies opt-in. Note also that the current law has no effect on Google's tracking whatsoever.
  - kintamanimatt 14y ago
    All analogies are flawed and quickly break down. They're only designed as a linguistic aid to help explain a concept by likening the unfamiliar to the familiar. They're not designed to describe the concept itself.
- onemorepassword 14y ago
  This entire argument boils down to "if you don't want to get raped, don't wear short skirts in public". People shouldn't have to take protective action in order to not get stalked by advertisers and marketers. Such activities require opt-in and informed consent, and standard browser functionality doesn't even come close to supporting that. Oh, I agree that the current law doesn't solve the problem. But "educating the people" is a completely backward solution. The opaque stalking of people by the likes of Facebook and Google should be outlawed completely, and heavily enforced.
kintamanimatt 14y ago
Be that as it may, you can still be tracked without cookies (HTTP or similar) just by looking at the browser's fingerprint. This method is less reliable which is why it hasn't been used in preference to cookies. Requiring explicit permission to store cookies on a user's browser is more likely to encourage privacy-invading companies to use the browser's fingerprint instead. This fingerprint can be loosely tied to a real world identity, and across sites too. The user wouldn't have any knowledge of such happening and they also wouldn't have any degree of control over it. At least presently it's trivial to block the most common form of tracking: HTTP cookies.

Annoyance, related to privacy. I vote for being "annoyed".

by panacea 14y ago

Annoyance, related to privacy. I vote for being "annoyed".

Shame is that at many sites it’s not really opt-in. If you disagree, you get a lecture on why the site is obliged to track you and then you can accept anyway or leave. A cookie wall, if you will. Examples: * http://tweakers.net http://tweakers.net * http://nos.nl http://nos.nl * http://uitzendinggemist.nl http://uitzendinggemist.nl NOS (public news broadcaster) and Uitzending Gemist (public television catch up) are interesting cases because apparently they’re actually required by law to collect user statistics.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

jules 14y ago

In the abstract, I agree. Only somebody who does not understand cookies would say such a thing in this context however (like our Dutch politicians). You, the website visitor, are running a program called a browser. This browser sends and receives data from servers that host the web sites you visit. Some of that data contains a request to store a piece of information on your computer. Your browser stores that piece information, and later when you visit the site again, it sends the same piece of information back to the site. Note that cookies are not some evil technology created by website owners to track you. It is YOU who is running the software that stores the cookie. If you don't want cookies, DON'T STORE THEM. This is easily done in any competent browser. By analogy, if you don't want people to store things in your basement, don't give them the keys to your basement! The current Dutch law is: after you already gave them the access to store cookies on your computer, the law forces that person to ask you again if they are allowed to store cookies. Not only does it not keep any bad people out and thus gives a false sense of security, it's also annoying. The correct action to take is to educate people on the existence of cookies, and how to disable them completely or disable them for specific ranges of sites. This is less annoying for both the users and the site owners, and more importantly it also works for foreign sites that the Dutch law has no power over, like Google analytics & Facebook like buttons that track you all over the internet (which is a much bigger privacy concern than uitzendinggemist.nl or nos.nl). While they're at it they might as well sponsor efforts to make browsers less identifiable through other means than cookies, and support projects like Tor. Of course that's not going to happen, because the current security theater reminds millions of Dutch citizens every day that they are being protected by their politicians through messages in annoying popups.

Nursie 14y ago
The basement analogy is flawed. It's like a proxy holding your keys and giving them to anyone that asks, without your knowledge. Education wasn't going to happen without notices like these.
- jules 14y ago
  Yes, I wanted to keep it simple. The fact is that that proxy (the browser) is the problem, and is also where the solution lies, not in the subset people that Dutch law happens to apply to who make use of that proxy to obtain your keys.
  - Nursie 14y ago
    Making them tell you they want the keys and give you a reason isn't all bad. But yes, the proxy ought to do more to encourage people. One problem is that two of the major browsers (Firefox and Chrome) are funded by a company that makes all its money from tracking and advertising (google), and it's pretty unlikely they would turn off third-party cookies by default, which I think would be a good start.
    - jules 14y ago
      I wouldn't be against a law that requires browsers to make third party cookies opt-in. Note also that the current law has no effect on Google's tracking whatsoever.
- kintamanimatt 14y ago
  All analogies are flawed and quickly break down. They're only designed as a linguistic aid to help explain a concept by likening the unfamiliar to the familiar. They're not designed to describe the concept itself.
onemorepassword 14y ago
This entire argument boils down to "if you don't want to get raped, don't wear short skirts in public". People shouldn't have to take protective action in order to not get stalked by advertisers and marketers. Such activities require opt-in and informed consent, and standard browser functionality doesn't even come close to supporting that. Oh, I agree that the current law doesn't solve the problem. But "educating the people" is a completely backward solution. The opaque stalking of people by the likes of Facebook and Google should be outlawed completely, and heavily enforced.

kintamanimatt 14y ago

Be that as it may, you can still be tracked without cookies (HTTP or similar) just by looking at the browser's fingerprint. This method is less reliable which is why it hasn't been used in preference to cookies. Requiring explicit permission to store cookies on a user's browser is more likely to encourage privacy-invading companies to use the browser's fingerprint instead. This fingerprint can be loosely tied to a real world identity, and across sites too. The user wouldn't have any knowledge of such happening and they also wouldn't have any degree of control over it. At least presently it's trivial to block the most common form of tracking: HTTP cookies.