3 ms·
Letting the browser generate the unique ID (such as a guid) may actually have benefits for users. As long as the identifiers are kept secret you would have the
by 7952 13y ago
Letting the browser generate the unique ID (such as a guid) may actually have benefits for users. As long as the identifiers are kept secret you would have the benefit of a login without the site needing to store any personal information. This gives much more positive control to users than an opaque cookie. It is also easier to make legislation around as you could mandate that the user supplied unique ID is the only information (along with basic browser details) that can be stored.
- webjprgm 13y agoAnd then remove the existence of cookies altogether, I infer. Since only a unique identifier is necessary, with all other session data and preferences being stored on the server. I notice in a comment further up that Apple has two separate IDs. One for advertising and one for tracking users of a vendor's applications. Should this browser ID system have two separate IDs, one for securely identifying a user and another for advertising? The secure ID would have to be unique per website, otherwise phishing schemes just became ridiculously easy.
- 7952 13y agoI suppose you could implement a browser plugin that maintains separate cookies for separate combinations of sites. So that buzzfeed + facebook would be put in one bucket, and cnn + facebook in another bucket. You could then ask the users permission to use real cookies.