AnandTech just disappeared behind a "We value your privacy"

[halfeye]

I used to like reading bits of that sometimes.

[factotum]

As far as I can see you just click Agree and you're onto the main site? It's hardly disappeared.

[PhantomFox]

That's his point. He doesn't want to have cookies, and he didn't have to before, if I'm understanding correctly

[GloatingSwine]

That's his point. He doesn't want to have cookies, and he didn't have to before, if I'm understanding correctly

No, they just weren't *telling* him before ;)

If you don't want cookies click set preferences and reject all, or configure your browser to bin them after each session.

[halfeye]

As far as I can see you just click Agree and you're onto the main site? It's hardly disappeared.

Quite:

or click disagree, and get half of them. Or do what I do and drop those websites.

Generally cookies are definitely cruising for a bruising, but until the lawmakers realise what a load of intrusive junk they are and ban them totally, I'm just steering well clear.

There was a time when Firefox had the option to allow or ban cookies by site the first time you visited, then they changed it so you have to enter each one you want to ban by hand every time, and there's not that much time before the heat death of the universe.

[GloatingSwine]

Quite:

or click disagree, and get half of them. Or do what I do and drop those websites.

Generally cookies are definitely cruising for a bruising, but until the lawmakers realise what a load of intrusive junk they are and ban them totally, I'm just steering well clear.

There was a time when Firefox had the option to allow or ban cookies by site the first time you visited, then they changed it so you have to enter each one you want to ban by hand every time, and there's not that much time before the heat death of the universe.

No, you're just visiting websites that don't tell you about the cookies, or do so without a clickwrap.

If you're not browsing in incognito all the time, you're getting cookies.

[KillianHawkeye]

Generally cookies are definitely cruising for a bruising, but until the lawmakers realise what a load of intrusive junk they are and ban them totally, I'm just steering well clear.

Do you realize that any website that allows or requires a sign-in (such as a bank, social media, or these very forums) literally won't function without cookies? (Well, in the case of the forums, you could read it but not post.)

[Bohandas]

No, you're just visiting websites that don't tell you about the cookies, or do so without a clickwrap.

I think it would be optimal for it to do so without the clickwrap, because then you haven't agreed to anything

EDIT:

If you really want to get to the site without agreeing to anyging you could try turning off javascript, which bypasses these dialogs on most sites

[Eurus]

Do you realize that any website that allows or requires a sign-in (such as a bank, social media, or these very forums) literally won't function without cookies? (Well, in the case of the forums, you could read it but not post.)

That's true, but the large majority of cookies aren't necessary for anything that obvious or friendly.

[GloatingSwine]

I think it would be optimal for it to do so without the clickwrap, because then you haven't agreed to anything

EDIT:

If you really want to get to the site without agreeing to anyging you could try turning off javascript, which bypasses these dialogs on most sites

No, they just use browsewrap. ("by continuing to use the features of this site you agree to blah blah etc.)

And bypassing the message doesn't stop the site downloading cookies, because the default is "accept", nor give you any recourse if their information is misused or sold to unwholesome actors* (because you took action to circumvent the options).

You need to configure your browser to block or delete the cookies, use a privacy minded browser like Brave, or browse in Incognito.


*Not that any such recourse has ever been defined outside the EU, but there are eg. some places where you might not want your healthcare searches being revealed.

[Delicious Taffy]

As a person who's online a LOT, I'm embarrassed to admit that I don't really "get" what cookies actually are. It's one of those things I feel silently judged for, like if I ask I'm gonna get laughed off the web and banned for stupidity. Tried looking it up, but I genuinely have trouble understanding jargon and technical terms so it basically was like reading Sanskrit. I know they have something to do with your personal data (like what you click on?) and somehow websites sell them to advertisers, but the larger scope is lost on me.

Calling them "cookies" feels needlessly cutesy though, and as much as people earn about them I feel like they're called that as a deliberate trick.

[GloatingSwine]

As a person who's online a LOT, I'm embarrassed to admit that I don't really "get" what cookies actually are. It's one of those things I feel silently judged for, like if I ask I'm gonna get laughed off the web and banned for stupidity. Tried looking it up, but I genuinely have trouble understanding jargon and technical terms so it basically was like reading Sanskrit. I know they have something to do with your personal data (like what you click on?) and somehow websites sell them to advertisers, but the larger scope is lost on me.

Calling them "cookies" feels needlessly cutesy though, and as much as people earn about them I feel like they're called that as a deliberate trick.

A cookie is a text file that gets saved on your computer that tells websites something about you. For instance this website currently has 8 cookies on my computer, and the ones I can guess the function are:

User ID
Password (so it can auto login)
Session hash (a unique ID that identifies me *on this visit*, possibly to say I'm online)
Last visit
Last page viewed
Current page viewed (I think)

And a couple of others that are probably also involved in identifying me to the website. They'll also have information like what web browser I'm using, what my external facing IP address is (or what my VPN says it is), where in the world I am (or at least where my VPN says I am).

These are all pretty standard functional stuff, they help websites give you the convenience of logging in, showing you whether there are new posts in threads you've visited, what browsers and operating systems they need to be compatible with, and so on.

It's possible that others might have a few more from the sites that serve the adverts (I use adblock and Brave is configured to reject third party cookies by default).

And it's those third party cookies which people really take umbrage at. You could visit Website A and it serves you a cookie from Website B, so that when you visit Website C it shows you content (usually adverts) which is only relevant because you have visited Website A.

You can test this. Open an incognito window, go onto Amazon and look for something you wouldn't normally like car batteries or left handed screwdrivers, then go onto any website that serves google ads. You will see ads for car batteries you went onto Amazon for because Amazon told Google Ads what you were looking at by depositing a third party cookie that any website that also uses google ads can read back.

Over time this can build up into a frighteningly accurate picture of who you are, what your interests are, what your socioeconomic status, family status, sexuality, healthcare needs, general location, and much more are. This can be used to extremely laser focus adverts at you that you will respond to in the predicted way, which can be significant if you need to shift something very close one way or another or identify a narrow class of people. It's hard to discuss real world examples of this happening though because it would require stepping on the toes of politics.

[halfeye]

A cookie is a text file that gets saved on your computer that tells websites something about you. For instance this website currently has 8 cookies on my computer, and the ones I can guess the function are:

User ID
Password (so it can auto login)
Session hash (a unique ID that identifies me *on this visit*, possibly to say I'm online)
Last visit
Last page viewed
Current page viewed (I think)

And a couple of others that are probably also involved in identifying me to the website. They'll also have information like what web browser I'm using, what my external facing IP address is (or what my VPN says it is), where in the world I am (or at least where my VPN says I am).

These are all pretty standard functional stuff, they help websites give you the convenience of logging in, showing you whether there are new posts in threads you've visited, what browsers and operating systems they need to be compatible with, and so on.

It's possible that others might have a few more from the sites that serve the adverts (I use adblock and Brave is configured to reject third party cookies by default).

And it's those third party cookies which people really take umbrage at. You could visit Website A and it serves you a cookie from Website B, so that when you visit Website C it shows you content (usually adverts) which is only relevant because you have visited Website A.

You can test this. Open an incognito window, go onto Amazon and look for something you wouldn't normally like car batteries or left handed screwdrivers, then go onto any website that serves google ads. You will see ads for car batteries you went onto Amazon for because Amazon told Google Ads what you were looking at by depositing a third party cookie that any website that also uses google ads can read back.

Over time this can build up into a frighteningly accurate picture of who you are, what your interests are, what your socioeconomic status, family status, sexuality, healthcare needs, general location, and much more are. This can be used to extremely laser focus adverts at you that you will respond to in the predicted way, which can be significant if you need to shift something very close one way or another or identify a narrow class of people. It's hard to discuss real world examples of this happening though because it would require stepping on the toes of politics.

Yes, there are valid uses for cookies, but most of them are, as described above, offensive, cryptic and manipulative advertising farts.

What I object to is the <dalek>"YOU WILL OBEY"</dalek> aspect of some messages. If I can ignore their request and read on, I probably will, if it's click or don't see our content, then I won't look at their content.

In much better news, all of the webcomics I abandoned because of this seem to be back online without that stuff, which is great.

[Bohandas]

Over time this can build up into a frighteningly accurate picture of who you are, what your interests are, what your socioeconomic status, family status, sexuality, healthcare needs, general location, and much more are. This can be used to extremely laser focus adverts at you that you will respond to in the predicted way, which can be significant if you need to shift something very close one way or another or identify a narrow class of people. It's hard to discuss real world examples of this happening though because it would require stepping on the toes of politics.

You need to use an adblocker.

And on mobile platforms you need to either use a browser with a built-in ad blocker, and/or get a firewall program like Blockada or NetGuard that can block ads from loading. You'll need to go off of google play to an independent app store like F-Droid to get these firewall programs, but they're worth it as they can even block ads from loading in non-browser apps and they're free.

And bypassing the message doesn't stop the site downloading cookies, because the default is "accept", nor give you any recourse if their information is misused or sold to unwholesome actors* (because you took action to circumvent the options).

I didn't mean to imply that it would. My point was a worry that it might constitute some sort of official agreement. Which is particularly worrisome in light of the fact that a lot of the cookie customization interfaces seem to be designed to trick you into reenabling all cookies

[Aedilred]

Yes, there are valid uses for cookies, but most of them are, as described above, offensive, cryptic and manipulative advertising farts.

What I object to is the <dalek>"YOU WILL OBEY"</dalek> aspect of some messages. If I can ignore their request and read on, I probably will, if it's click or don't see our content, then I won't look at their content.

In much better news, all of the webcomics I abandoned because of this seem to be back online without that stuff, which is great.

In my experience, there are broadly speaking three types of cookie messages, in ascending order of obnoxiousness:

• This website uses cookies: "accept" or "reject"
• This website uses cookies: click here to select which you accept
• This website uses cookies: click here to read our privacy terms and then click "accept" without getting to change the settings

The second type can be annoying if the list is very long and has to be manually deselected for each option and/or to reach it you have to go to a separate page which then doesn't redirect you properly back to the original one. The third type is always aggravating.

The good news is that my browser privacy settings seem to block most cookies even if I'm just clicking "accept". "Legitimate interest" ones do sometimes sneak through. I presume that's going to vary depending on browser and setting, of course.

In any case, getting annoyed that sites are telling you about this stuff and requiring you to respond before continuing to use the site is... foolish. I seem to recall there's a phenomenon where if you've happily been doing something for ages and then it turns out that it's killing you and someone warns you about it, you get more angry at the person giving the warning than at the people who've been pushing this on you the whole time. See for instance: eating bacon, sunbathing, burning excessive amounts of fossil fuels. Reaction to cookie warnings is much like that. The notifications are kind of annoying, just like having to put on sun cream. But it's in our own interest.

For years sites on the internet were harvesting personal information and not telling us about it or giving us a convenient way to stop them. Now, in many jurisdictions, they have to, by law. That is an improvement. If a site is making its cookies opt-in, that adds a minor level of irritation but is also the best way of giving you as a private individual control over what information you are giving away. If you boycott sites that provide cookie notifications (etc.) then you're going to find yourself increasingly limited to the skeeviest sites, which may or may not be breaking the law and are certainly harvesting more of your data; they're also an obvious vector for hacks, etc.

[halfeye]

In my experience, there are broadly speaking three types of cookie messages, in ascending order of obnoxiousness:

• This website uses cookies: "accept" or "reject"
• This website uses cookies: click here to select which you accept
• This website uses cookies: click here to read our privacy terms and then click "accept" without getting to change the settings

The second type can be annoying if the list is very long and has to be manually deselected for each option and/or to reach it you have to go to a separate page which then doesn't redirect you properly back to the original one. The third type is always aggravating.

The good news is that my browser privacy settings seem to block most cookies even if I'm just clicking "accept". "Legitimate interest" ones do sometimes sneak through. I presume that's going to vary depending on browser and setting, of course.

In any case, getting annoyed that sites are telling you about this stuff and requiring you to respond before continuing to use the site is... foolish. I seem to recall there's a phenomenon where if you've happily been doing something for ages and then it turns out that it's killing you and someone warns you about it, you get more angry at the person giving the warning than at the people who've been pushing this on you the whole time. See for instance: eating bacon, sunbathing, burning excessive amounts of fossil fuels. Reaction to cookie warnings is much like that. The notifications are kind of annoying, just like having to put on sun cream. But it's in our own interest.

For years sites on the internet were harvesting personal information and not telling us about it or giving us a convenient way to stop them. Now, in many jurisdictions, they have to, by law. That is an improvement. If a site is making its cookies opt-in, that adds a minor level of irritation but is also the best way of giving you as a private individual control over what information you are giving away. If you boycott sites that provide cookie notifications (etc.) then you're going to find yourself increasingly limited to the skeeviest sites, which may or may not be breaking the law and are certainly harvesting more of your data; they're also an obvious vector for hacks, etc.

You are wrong. I am not getting annoyed with sites that are telling me about cookies, I am not using sites that are demanding that I let them set cookies.

"We value your privacy" seems to be a particular brand of "cookie preference notification" that was selling itself to comic websites in particular, and I am very glad that comics seem to have abandoned it.

The fact that comics that I see no longer use that is probably another bad thing due to Brexit, because now cookies that are set without permission are no longer illegal in Britain (unlike in the EEC).