LibreWolf, is my response.
I want websites to all have a button that says “yeah you can sell my personal data but the website contractually agrees to give me half”
“ NOOO YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND BRO! OUR BUSINESS MODEL DOESN’T WORK IF WE CAN’T DO MASS SURVELIANCE BRO!”
I DECLARE “LEGITIMATE INTEREST” !!
I still run umatrix in Firefox snd the level of calling out that even simple pages do is shocking. And likely all those called sites even for fonts are collecting something about you.
I wonder how they can even find those 1142 partners to share my browsing data with
Poly culture is freaking wild.
Not if you’re using a Chromium based browser. Ublock Origin no longer supported in Chromium v3.
You can’t get it from the store, but it still works as long as you already had it, install using a browser running Chromium V2 before updating, or install it from file, right? Better yet, switch to Firefox (but the most de-Mozilla’d one)
No it won’t work. Chromium V3 disables or removes features that it relied upon to work. That’s not to say they might not have found a workaround. But I’m sure it’s harder and doesn’t work as effectively.
Edit: also Firefox does not use Chromium. So yes switching to Firefox is a viable option. But in no way part of my point.
Use adblocking DNS on your router, so you don’t need to mess with every device separately
DNS blocking doesn’t work with cookie prompts since they’re from the same domain as the website. You need something like ublock origin which has the feature to block specific DOM components on the website.
But they will block those tracking cookies even if you “accept” to being tracked. But yeah, good point, best to combine both
Unfortunately some pages have started blocking scrolling when the cookie banner is not closed properly. That can also be fixed with uBlock of course, but I encounter that specific problem quite often.
Some sites do those blocks very haphazardly and you can get past just removing couple html-lines, they don’t really care since most people won’t bother to look (or don’t know you can do it). At minimum it might just be “overflow: hidden” added on the top somewhere lmao. It’s a pain to do but if it’s something specific you need only once, might be worth to check
Repeat frame #2 again once you start using No Script extension on top of uBlock Origin
Is this page worth my time…nope
*closes tab
Onto the next tab
How I stopped worrying and learned to love the Cookie
That shit should be illegal. Accept all / reject all. That’s it. If somebody is disabling cookies, literally nobody in the entire world wants any of them! “Oh yeah, please, only keep my location data but not the data about my purchase decisions”…
I have good news for you: In the EU (which forced everyone to have the cookie-accept-banners in the first place) it IS illegal.
It was pretty crazy taking my phone from the United States to the EU and seeing all of the notifications of how my data is being shared by “free” apps! It just goes to show that the saying “if the product is free, you’re the product” is 100% true!
The EU didn’t force anyone to have the cookie banners. If the site only uses nessecary cookies - the kind you can’t turn off in the prompt - there doesn’t need to any prompts because that’s perfectly fine. The intrusive, obnoxious and deliberate confusing popups are from data harvesters throwing a tantrum because they can’t stalk you every waking second any more, and complying in the most malicious and disrespectful way they can.
Cookie banners are nothing to do with the EU and everything to do with tech-bros.
The EU knew about DNT signals before GDPR was finalized and decided to ignore them. I know, I was a web dev at that time (and still am, yes I’m ancient in internet years). This is on the EU and techbros, but having internet explorer and other browsers like firefox (not sure if chrome did it?) enabling DNT by default would make tech bros upset, and the EU couldn’t have that, so they made the tech bros a little happier by allowing the consent banners instead.
From the working party back then, which was promptly rejected in the final GDPR we have today:
2016
The Working Party recommends rephrasing the requirements in the current Recital 66 of Directive 2009/136/EC. Instead of relying on website operators to obtain consent on behalf of third parties (such as advertising and social networks), manufacturers of browsers and other software or operating systems should be encouraged to develop, implement and ensure effective user empowerment, by offering control tools within the browser (or other software or operating system) such as Do Not Track (DNT), or other technical means that allow users to easily express and withdraw their specific consent, in accordance with Article 7 of the GDPR. Such tools can be offered to the user at the initial set-up with privacy-friendly default settings. Adherence to accepted technical and policy compliance standards must become a common practice. In addition, website operators should respect and adhere to browser control tools or other user preference settings.
2017
The Working Party recommends that terminal equipment and software must by default offer privacy protective settings, and offer clear options to users to confirm or change these default settings during installation. The settings must be easily accessible during use. Users must be enabled to signal specific consent through their browser settings. Privacy preferences should not be limited to interference by third parties or be limited to cookies. The Working Party strongly recommends to make adherence to the Do Not Track standard mandatory.
Heck, the W3C was even talking about working to make it happen.
Point is, the EU sucked up to corporations, surprise surprise.
Receipts:
https://ec.europa.eu/justice/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/index_en.htm
https://ec.europa.eu/justice/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2016/wp240_en.pdf
https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/redirection/document/44103
I mean… The EU could’ve also said ‘no privacy invasive cookies’ instead of ‘cookie Banner if privacy invasive cookies’. I don’t think being able to disable is bad, I think they didn’t go far enough (and also of course datapeople only comply in the most malicious way possible. It’s literally their job, a job that shouldn’t exist.)
Even the idea of tightening regulations for igaming has many EU countries frothing at the mouth, what makes you think that this didn’t start as “no privacy-invasive cookies?”
It is not fine, you still need to be informed and accept
If the cookies are nessecary for the site to technically function, you don’t need to be promoted to accept. The law - which doesn’t even mention cookies - allows the absolute minimum amount of data required to provide a service to be gathered. For a website, that included cookies for storing preferences, shopping baskets, login tokens, etc.
But it must still inform you and give you the right to not use the service if you don’t want this form of collection happening, its just that you can’t use the service and refuse the bare minimum they need to operate.
My setup is by default all cookies are session cookies unless manually changed.
Unlock doesn’t really give that as an option but Vivaldi has it built in.
Yeah sure, give me whatever cookies aren’t already blocked. I love cookies. Is that all of them?
(closes LibreWolf, which nukes everything except whitelisted sites)
…pathetic.
That plus containerised tabs for “dirty” websites
