5 ms·

I have one question: Why THE HELL isn't this a part of all browsers already? Why does it have to be some obscure 3rd party extension? And I don't mean just Chro

by uwuemu 4y ago

I have one question: Why THE HELL isn't this a part of all browsers already? Why does it have to be some obscure 3rd party extension? And I don't mean just Chrome, I mean all of them. All browsers should have this option: "I don't care about gdpr cookies". Set a window object window.dontcare and done. Sites can check this and automatically comfirm or don't even show gdpr banners if window.dontcare is set. This cookie bullcrap has been a forced on all of us from the bureaucrat bastards in the EU, and now everyone has to click on what are essentially popup banners of the 2000s every time they visit a new site (or even the same site a bit later!). Fuck that. No, let me say it again: FUCK THAT. Implementing this into a browser would be the biggest QOL improvement any web browser could possibly do at this point.

rileymat2 4y ago
There would be very little value to a website respecting that flag if it is a significant part of revenue.
- WanderPanda 4y ago
  He is talking about window.dontcare not window.icare
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dskloet 4y ago
  How would asking if it's OK to store cookies when you know the user doesn't care be part of revenue?
yrro 4y ago
Waah the big bad EU forced companies to disclose how they are using my data! What I would like to see browsers do is grow a feature that tells web servers what uses of my data I consider acceptable, so that I don't have to waste my time every time I visit nearly every site on the entire damn Internet. But we've been there before - P3P, Do-Not-Track, and now Global Privacy Control. Until regulators force web sites to obey signals from browsers, we're going to be stuck with these bloody popups.
- IMTDb 4y ago
  Big bad from the EU from forbidding your solution. Website have to receive informed and specific consent. This means that before getting your consent, each website has to show you the text. And they cannot get your consent from a setting that does not correspond to them, specifically. So if you tell your browser: « I accept that website track me on what I do on them, but do not allow marketing related stuff », website are not allowed to recognise that level of consent, skip the banner and act accordingly.
  - nicbou 4y ago
    What about an informed "absolutely not"?
    - Bewelge 4y ago
      In that case websites will absolutely show you a banner and/or intentionally make their services more difficult to use. Any website showing a cookie banner already prioritizes their ad revenue over your convenience of not seeing a banner. So why would they implement any extra work to spare you that banner, if you're one of those customers that won't drive ad revenue?
      - nicbou 4y ago
        I know, I know. If you introduce a blanket "no", websites will ignore it. They're not tracking us because it's what we want.
    - IMTDb 4y ago
      How can you tell "absolutely not" without going through the 37 pages of their policy, to make sure you understand exactly what you say "no" to ? Maybe there is something different about this specific website that might make you say "I usually say no, but this time, I'll say yes". So, please read those pages - on every website - then systematically click on "Reject all". That's what the law asks you to do, and it is indeed absolutely nuts.
IMTDb 4y ago
I fully agree with you BUT you proposal is actually not allowed by the GDPR law. The legislation forbids website to trust a global setting when choosing how to handle cookies. In other words: browsers are perfectly allowed and capable of implementing the setting, but websites are forbidden to use it. Yep, it’s that crazy. The legislator really likes blocking banners.
kayxspre 4y ago
If I recall correctly, Vivaldi has this feature built-in, though as part of the ad-blocking feature (the "Cookie" list is classified as "Ads", not "Trackers"). Vivaldi's list defaults to IDCAC and EasyList Cookie, though, so we'll have to see whether Vivaldi will continue to use IDCAC list or switch to other solution.

by uwuemu 4y ago

rileymat2 4y ago

There would be very little value to a website respecting that flag if it is a significant part of revenue.

WanderPanda 4y ago
He is talking about window.dontcare not window.icare
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dskloet 4y ago
How would asking if it's OK to store cookies when you know the user doesn't care be part of revenue?

yrro 4y ago

Waah the big bad EU forced companies to disclose how they are using my data! What I would like to see browsers do is grow a feature that tells web servers what uses of my data I consider acceptable, so that I don't have to waste my time every time I visit nearly every site on the entire damn Internet. But we've been there before - P3P, Do-Not-Track, and now Global Privacy Control. Until regulators force web sites to obey signals from browsers, we're going to be stuck with these bloody popups.

IMTDb 4y ago
Big bad from the EU from forbidding your solution. Website have to receive informed and specific consent. This means that before getting your consent, each website has to show you the text. And they cannot get your consent from a setting that does not correspond to them, specifically. So if you tell your browser: « I accept that website track me on what I do on them, but do not allow marketing related stuff », website are not allowed to recognise that level of consent, skip the banner and act accordingly.
- nicbou 4y ago
  What about an informed "absolutely not"?
  - Bewelge 4y ago
    In that case websites will absolutely show you a banner and/or intentionally make their services more difficult to use. Any website showing a cookie banner already prioritizes their ad revenue over your convenience of not seeing a banner. So why would they implement any extra work to spare you that banner, if you're one of those customers that won't drive ad revenue?
    - nicbou 4y ago
      I know, I know. If you introduce a blanket "no", websites will ignore it. They're not tracking us because it's what we want.
  - IMTDb 4y ago
    How can you tell "absolutely not" without going through the 37 pages of their policy, to make sure you understand exactly what you say "no" to ? Maybe there is something different about this specific website that might make you say "I usually say no, but this time, I'll say yes". So, please read those pages - on every website - then systematically click on "Reject all". That's what the law asks you to do, and it is indeed absolutely nuts.

IMTDb 4y ago

I fully agree with you BUT you proposal is actually not allowed by the GDPR law. The legislation forbids website to trust a global setting when choosing how to handle cookies. In other words: browsers are perfectly allowed and capable of implementing the setting, but websites are forbidden to use it. Yep, it’s that crazy. The legislator really likes blocking banners.

kayxspre 4y ago

If I recall correctly, Vivaldi has this feature built-in, though as part of the ad-blocking feature (the "Cookie" list is classified as "Ads", not "Trackers"). Vivaldi's list defaults to IDCAC and EasyList Cookie, though, so we'll have to see whether Vivaldi will continue to use IDCAC list or switch to other solution.