|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 30 2013 @ 11:06 AM EDT |
I don't know, I don't really like this plan either. Of course that's because I
have my doubts that it will block enough cookies, not too many. The problem as I
see it is that every cookie you want to block will take some time, but changing
the cookie slightly should be easy. While you can block cookies from pure
advertisers with a blanket ban, you can't do the same to facebook. So companies
like facebook will likely be able to largely avoid this program just by changing
their tracking cookies regularly. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 30 2013 @ 05:42 PM EDT |
Mozilla initially blocked the inclusion of the WebKit enabled
Safari feature to block third party cookies for a number of
detailed reasons. They didn't state the obvious: it doesn't work.
At least it doesn't stop a number of "third parties" from setting
cookies whenever they want.
Calling it a "cookie clearing-house" sounds like somebody else
is making decisions on what is a good cookie and what is bad.
Why can't the user be allowed to make that decision?
Rather than build it into the browser, can't Mozilla leave it
as an optional extra? Surely there must be plugins like
http://sweetpproductions.com/safaricookies/
that work for other browsers, other OS? This allows a user
to block all cookies and suffer those sites that don't work
without them; or to allow cookies, and purge at end of
session all cookies from sites that the user has not designated
on a favorites list.
It even deals to the "local storage" databases that many
sites are now using instead of cookies. If you watch an
embedded Youtube clip on say an Arstechnica page,
you will get a <youtube-nocookie.com> "database"
created in your browser's local storage area. What's
inside that? I have no idea. I do know it goes away
every time I log out, or sooner if I visit the Preferences tab.
It purges Flash cookies too, will Mozilla even want to do that?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|