4 ms·
But I don't think the intent of the lock in this case is to make federated services impossible to use properly. Clearly, the purpose of the lock in this case wa
by cromwellian 13y ago
But I don't think the intent of the lock in this case is to make federated services impossible to use properly. Clearly, the purpose of the lock in this case was to prevent third party tracking cookies. The problem is, there's no technological way to segment cookies used for authentication from cookies used for tracking in this way.
The Web has an authentication problem. Existing solutions have tried to work around it by leveraging browser features not originally designed for the purpose. The result is privacy snafus like this.
Google, Facebook, et al, would argue that they have platforms, and networks of sites, with a real need for this functionality, whose basic goal is not to invade privacy, but to improve enduser UX when using their services.
- jacques_chester 13y agoThat it is inconvenient not to abuse a bug is not an argument in its favour. It might be inconvenient not to trespass. Too bad, it's still trespass. I agree with the problem of authentication; I actually have a patent application in covering a solution to a tangential authentication problem. I tried for several years to do it all with cookies and javascript; my eventual conclusion was that it can't really be done securely. So the generalised design I submitted depends on piggybacking on extensible command channels -- HTTP headers, in this particular case.