this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
661 points (98.5% liked)
Privacy
32113 readers
630 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Hate when they remove the reject all button
In the EU and UK this is also forbidden as rejecting should be as simple as accepting cookies.
In theory yes, in practice "uh-huh."
Bruh
The most effective solution is just to wipe all cookies every time you close your browser, or creating strict cookie whitelists. Actually managing cookies on webpages is for normies.
and then every time you visit that one good news site, you have to go through their cookie banner each time. That or install a cookie-denying addon and hope that they don't sellout or sell your data.
You have a total of four choices:
1a. Wipe all their cookies every time, reject them every time they ask.
1b. Wipe all their cookies every time, accept them every time they ask. 2a. Don't wipe cookies, keep the "essential" ones. 2b. Don't wipe cookies, accept all our most of them.
2b is the only scenario where you might not get asked again. 1b is the easiest no thanks.
I use the duck duck go browser because it makes that the default and offers to whitelist sites for cookies if you log into them (but you can turn that off in settings). It also autorejects a lot of cookies that use common popups.
2a seems the most rational, no?
Also maybe switch to mullvad-browser instead of DDG browser, since DDG has some controversies (search: "Zach Edwards" on the wiki) on what data it saves.
Thank you. Where can I find the wiki?
Edit: Wired says
Still doesn't get rid of the popup, for that I use ublock origin.
The only way for the site to know to not show the pop-up again is ironically by saving that information in a cookie
Or you could block all cookies from all associated domains and use uBlock Origin element picker to hide the popup.
I'm tired of expecting service and site owners to be human beings, and have learned the tools needed to curate my own experience. Hell I used to browse with javascript off for years until every shitbag UI graduate decided to cram it into every single site regardless of applicability.
I like grid for that because it's by default per-site permissions and also by default allows the sites own cookies while blocking any cookies for other domains.
It can involve some trial and error to get things working if the site uses a CDN or third party services for functionality, but I've found that it hasn't yet been necessary to enable any 3rd party cookies to get any functionality working (at least none that I wanted to get working, maybe other sites that use Google or fb accounts would automatically log me in if I had those ones enabled, but those are things I specifically want to block).
Usually I'll just need to enable some scripts and media from CDNs.
I hate nearly everything about web 2.0, if I could thanos snap away Javascript and CSS I would it with zero remorse or regret. Humanity was happier before CDNs.
And enable the specific cookie alert list
No? If you accept tracking while on the page, this has consequences on your current session
Sounds like a job for the Mullvad browser, since that clears cookies on every restart by default.
Firefox Focus does this as well if you’re on a phone!
Sadly that is not an option for firefox on android yet (while it is on desktop), the only choises you are left with are:
That said, i believe Firefox should have (even on android) their "total cookie protection" thing which puts them in separate containers for each domain, so you are somewhat protected by cookie cross-tracking, but i would still prefer to delete most of them at close.
Eh?
I was talking about there being no option to whitelist some websites to keep their cookies, and as you can see it is not present there, while the desktop versione has it
Oh, right.
You could try an extension: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/android/addon/cookiewhitelist/
Having seem the inside of some of these trackers, I can assure you that cross-domain "protection" is a furphy. Also, 848 partners is small fries. For shits and giggles you should turn on network logging on Firefox or Chrome and open any modern news website.
Yea, 😂, I was very shocked on the amount of server contacted when I first time installed a pi-hole and opened a local news page while being on piHole webUI to test if it works.
Ghostery has an "auto-reject cookies" setting.
Consent-o-matic browser extension can handle a lot of cookie banners and automatically rejects all possible cookies.
Reject all is actually you agreeing on the legitimate interests loophole so this is also problematic.
Yea.. That is true. But I think, if uBlock blocks the banner, consent would not be able to reject/approve anything. Think of it as a fallback solution 😇well in my case.
But some pages stiff you by disabling scroll capability if you hide the banner
Yea, I tend to not use those sites and search for alternatives or archived versions. Sometimes you can scroll while reloading the page until scrolling is blocked again.
Javascript is the problem there
Yep, but some pages load the text content programmatically, so even if you switch to reader mode you only get the blurb
Yeah they get skipped or opened on Brave incognito
Please explain.
https://safereddit.com/r/YouShouldKnow/comments/14ddk4u/ysk_choosing_reject_all_doesnt_reject_all_cookies/
I used to rely on Consent-O-Matic a lot, but I'm somewhat uncomfortable by the fact that the extension has full access to all web page content. I mean I understand why, but I'm still uncomfortable with it. In the end I ended up uninstalling it because it broke some sites so that they wouldn't load at all, or got stuck into an infinite reload loop. On majority of cases it works alright though.
Yea, every extension has full access to any website, if you not make use of a whitelist/blacklist.
Some extensions, such as SponsorBlock for YouTube actually limit themselves so they can only operate when the browser is on youtube.com. This can be declared in the extension manifest. It's a separate permission to access data on all web sites vs. access data on a specific website.
Not helpful when something like Consent-o-matic needs to operate on every possible website with a cookie banner.
I have had the same concerns, since watching it click through things faster than I can see is scary. Maybe some day someone sneaks in a cookie banner detector that activates on banking pages to steal your money? uBlock Origin has similar risks, but at least it's not actively controlling browser inputs.
Oh alr thank you
I just implemented a cookie consent bar on my company's website and the agencies/vendors who advertise for us were giving me so much shit for having reject available right away. But thankfully our Legal department said keep it there... Or else. "Hands tied..... Soooooorry!"