Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mozilla Backtracks On Third-Party Cookie Blocking

Unknown Lamer posted about 9 months ago | from the w3c-google-mozilla-sell-out-together dept.

Mozilla 173

An anonymous reader writes "Remember when Mozilla announced that it would soon block third-party cookies by default? Not so fast. According to a new behind-the-scenes report in the San Francisco Chronicle, 'it's not clear when it will happen — or if it will at all.' Mozilla's leadership is apparently no longer committed to the feature, and the related Cookie Clearinghouse collaboration is delayed well into 2014. Who's to blame? According to Dan Auerbach, Staff Technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, 'The ad industry has a ton of people, basically lobbyists, who spent a lot of time trying to convince Mozilla this was bad for the economy... I think they were somewhat successful.' Not a good showing for the purportedly pro-user organization."

cancel ×

173 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Mozilla is not free (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45344489)

Mozilla is not free, they get a boatloads of money from various organizations which depend on AD tracking.

Re:Mozilla is not free (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45344535)

What does AD stand for?

Re:Mozilla is not free (2)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about 9 months ago | (#45344615)

Advertisement

Re:Mozilla is not free (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45344627)

What does the D stand for?

Re:Mozilla is not free (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45344663)

What does the D stand for?

Dvertisement

Re:Mozilla is not free (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45344957)

The Dick, or cock in Slashdot parlance. Something you are a fan of, or so I hear.

Re:Mozilla is not free (5, Funny)

bzipitidoo (647217) | about 9 months ago | (#45345271)

What does AD stand for?

After Disgrace. It's the period of time that follows Before Commercialization.

Re:Mozilla is not free (5, Informative)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about 9 months ago | (#45344591)

More like ONE organization (Google). At one point, they were getting over 90% of their funding from Google alone. I imagine that may have had something to do with this reversal.

Re:Mozilla is not free (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 9 months ago | (#45344671)

I would love to see an organization like wikipedia take over a browser. Let them do their once a year fundraiser. They could block whatever they like out of the box.

Re:Mozilla is not free (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about 9 months ago | (#45344795)

Because wikipedia does so well being independent, along with all the PR folks hired to edit articles for corporations and edit them negatively for said corporations' competition?

I would not like to see it happen, wikipedia can't even manage the shit the're responsible for.

Re:Mozilla is not free (2)

Somebody Is Using My (985418) | about 9 months ago | (#45344927)

Because wikipedia does so well being independent, along with all the PR folks hired to edit articles for corporations and edit them negatively for said corporations' competition?

Does that really affect how Wikipedia runs, though?

Sure, their content is often biased by monied interests, but that goes hand-in-hand with making a publicly-edited encylopedia. It would be difficult to crack down on that without at the same time infringing on the rights of individuals.

But has Wikipedia ever backed down or changed its policies because Coca Cola (or whomever) threatened to cut donations? That would be a fairer comparison, I think. Like the Mozilla Foundation, Wikipedia just is offering up a tool and largely leaves it up to its users to curate how that tool is used, for good or ill. Unfortunately, Mozilla is increasingly seen as being beholden to its advertising partners and some of its policies (reflected in their software) - such as the one mentioned in TFA - seem to reflect this. Have we seen similar actions from the Wikimedia Foundation?

No Wikipedia expert, so honestly wondering.

Re:Mozilla is not free (2)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 9 months ago | (#45344867)

Wikipedia?

All of a sudden Jimmy Whales' huge face would appear over your entire browser window begging for money.

NO WAY.

Re:Mozilla is not free (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45345015)

Disclaimer: I work for an ad company.

You know, I'm not sure that Mozilla backtracking on this is such a bad idea. Actually, it may have been a bad idea to announce it in the first place. Fearing the loss of third party cookies (which IMO is not that much of a privacy issue) ad companies were forced to develop alternative methods to track people. Now, the cat is out of the bag and this tracking is already effective on all Safari browsers (which have always blocked third-party cookies - take that Apple haters) and show a lot of promising results.

So all in all, ad companies got scared, reacted smartly and found that there was more efficient way to track users than third party cookies. They can even track users across different devices now. Granted, it is not as effective (in the same scope) as third party cookies, but the added benefit of being able to track users across devices - if approximately - gives then an edge over the old methods.

Re:Mozilla is not free (3, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 9 months ago | (#45345037)

Your first line proves you can't be impartial.
Third party cookies are a huge privacy issue. Alternative methods to track are not something anyone was forced to do. Advertisers have no need to track users. they lacked that with old media and survived.

Personally the law should step in and make this illegal.

Also please take Bill Hick's advice at your earliest convenience.

Re:Mozilla is not free (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45345175)

Your first line proves you can't be impartial.

That's why AC disclosed it.

Re:Mozilla is not free (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45345411)

It is not like people haven't already figured out ways of getting around the cookieless tracking: http://lwn.net/Articles/570534/

Missing the bloody point. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45345583)

As usual.

If someone is trying to stop being tracked, then the response is NOT "Find other ways to track them", but to realise that anything you get from them will only cause them to get pissed off at you even more.

And what do you think pissing people off when you want something from them does?

That's right: means they won't cooperate or even deliberately sabotage your efforts.

So how about, you know, respecting that some people do not want to be tracked and that any data you may get will be essentially worthless anyway and, well, stop trying to track them.

Re:Mozilla is not free (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about 9 months ago | (#45345341)

I would love to see an organization like wikipedia take over a browser. Let them do their once a year fundraiser. They could block whatever they like out of the box.

I can see a Wikizilla browser now:

Don't agree with a feature, edit it. then watch it get reverted by a later edit

Features get renamed by some drive by joker who thinks it's , to be Frank, err Francis,funny

Click on a feature and get the popular "This feature is a stub and needs more coding to work. Can you help?"

Opening up history and getting "cite needed" since ether all are single sources of information

Re:Mozilla is not free (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45345791)

I would love to see an organization like wikipedia take over a browser.

Just go ahead and do it. No need for 'wikipedia', this is open source. Anyone can fork mozilla. For this case, all they need is to maintain a patch that adds "blocking by default" - and publish the resulting binaries. If this is important to you, go create "no-ads mozilla". You will probably get lots of support . . .

This is bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45344525)

Names should be named.

Re:This is bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45344555)

Names should be named.

Names were named. It's right in the headline - Mozilla!

Re:This is bad (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45344585)

Is it? You can still enable blocking of third-party-cookies, can't you? As long as most people can be tracked easily, advertisers may leave us "advanced users" alone. Not worth the effort. When everybody blocks third party cookies, how long do you think it will take for the advertisers to track everybody in a different way? Personally I think we should stop pushing privacy enhancements on people who clearly do not give a rats ass about being tracked. People still subscribe to Facebook and Whatsapp. Giving these people privacy enhancements is a waste. Pearls before swine.

Re:This is bad (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45345063)

In a example everyone can relate to: if you don't know anything about mechanics it's ok for the gas stations to fuel you up with shitty gasoline. At the same price. Everyone deserves a certain amount (the more the better in my pov) of passive protection, even if they engage in risky behavior (use Facebook for one).

Re:This is bad (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45345375)

I work in the online ad industry. I can assure you that the /. crowd is not the target audience. If you turn off third-party cookies or use an ad blocker then chances are that even if you did see our ads you wouldn't click on them and certainly wouldn't make a follow up purchase - so serving ads to you is a waste of resources. The industry is looking for the folks that don't mind the ads. Hopefully we can deliver targeted ads that you might care about - turns out we really do care about the quality of the ads and which ads are delivered to which users.

Re:This is bad (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about 9 months ago | (#45344803)

Names should be named.

Lets make it recursive and then name the names of the named

What if they *are* right? (2, Interesting)

Tristan Palmer (3394267) | about 9 months ago | (#45344533)

Internet sales and related advertising churn a hell of a lot of money through the world economy. I'm playing devil's advocate here, but is it possible that Mozilla saw that there was some merit to what these lobbyists were saying and made the decision based on the fact that as maker of one of the biggest browsers in the world their decisions really can affect economies on a global scale?

Re:What if they *are* right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45344603)

Yeah but they are making money from actions that aren't their own by adding data to your computer that transmits it back to them every time your browser sends a request without explicit permission from the user (you could argue that using a free site with ad's is giving implicit permission, but the adverts do not subsidize the users for the bandwidth and electricity they use by adding that data to your computer)

All I can say really is yay for third-party blockers for at least giving us a choice.

Re:What if they *are* right? (2, Interesting)

somersault (912633) | about 9 months ago | (#45344739)

Mozilla are giving the choice, they just are trying to decide on a sane default. Aside from the advertising issue, blocking third party cookies could break behaviour that the user is expecting. I haven't really looked into it, but maybe things like sites which use your Facebook account for authentication for example? I get that a lot of Slashdotters aren't interested in that type of facility, but your average internet user doesn't want their browser screwing around with what they can do online, no matter the reasoning behind it.

Re:What if they *are* right? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45344975)

I have third party cookies disabled and I can login with facebook (and twitter and google) on third party sites just fine.

Re:What if they *are* right? (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 9 months ago | (#45345763)

let broken behavior be, well, broken!

stop burying badness behind technology. 3rd party cookies are almost always evil and there's no valid excuse for it other than SPYING.

have we had enough of spying, yet? 2013 is the year where most people finally woke up to the spy-ridden world we live in.

time to say 'ENOUGH!'

Re:What if they *are* right? (5, Insightful)

Tom (822) | about 9 months ago | (#45345831)

I haven't really looked into it,

Maybe you should, then, before posting nonsense. Neither Facebook nor OpenID nor any of the similar schemes use 3rd party cookies.

Re:What if they *are* right? (3, Informative)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 9 months ago | (#45345873)

Aside from the advertising issue, blocking third party cookies could break behaviour that the user is expecting

Blocking third party cookies is the Safari default. If the site works for Mac and iOS users, it'll work for Firefox users too.

IIRC, fewer than 10% of Safari users have gone and turned on third-party cookies.

Re:What if they *are* right? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 9 months ago | (#45344689)

Sales and advertising are very different.
I buy eneloops/tenergy batteries on amazon, I have never in my life seen any advertising for these batteries.

Re:What if they *are* right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45344743)

People will buy what they want when they want. They don't need adverts blasted on every page. Other than those that are click bait for further adverts, just how many times have people got their wallets out from seeing a web based advert?

Adverts are like charities, they exist to create and maintain employment. Their costs are passed on to the consumer. The advertiser moves his outgoings around by choosing different outlets, but the balance book remains the same.

Re:What if they *are* right? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 9 months ago | (#45344771)

well, surely if the advertisers didn't get money they couldn't use that money to lobby for keeping 3rd party cookies in mozilla!

Re:What if they *are* right? (1)

ve3oat (884827) | about 9 months ago | (#45344935)

That's alright, Mozilla. You make your choice and I make mine. For a long time now, I have blocked ALL 3rd party cookies. Sure there are a handful of sites that I can't use, like my local city's newspaper site, but I don't really need them. I believe that no one should have to accept 3rd party cookies to use a website. If they insist on 3rd party cookies, then I won't use it.

Re:What if they *are* right? (3, Informative)

jbmartin6 (1232050) | about 9 months ago | (#45345389)

churn a hell of a lot of money through the world economy

This is an (implied) false dichotomy. It is not as if, without advertising in this way, economic activity would just disappear. The money would simply get spent on other things that people decide that they want. An economy is essential, yes, but no business model/music label/Wall Street bank is required for that.

Re:What if they *are* right? (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 9 months ago | (#45345743)

mozilla has ties to google.

that's all there needs to be said. if you work 'with' google, you better NOT fuck with their ad revenue.

Maybe 'cause they get the majority of their money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45344537)

Maybe 'cause they get the majority of their money from Google.

And Google would never do evil....

Why bother? (1)

pla (258480) | about 9 months ago | (#45344577)

Although a good idea in general, one totally not needed.

Turn on permanent private/incognito Browsing mode. Done.

I let sites I visit set whatever obnoxious privacy-stealing cookies they want - Because those cookies cease to exist outside the current tab.

Re:Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45344655)

This would make my browsing sessions a nightmare considering that I use two-step verification for some services as well. Rather I'd suggest using a plug-in such as Disconnect or Ghostery for Firefox or Chrome.

Re:Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45344737)

Cookie White list plugin is a favorite of mine. I highly recommend it.

Re:Why bother? (1)

mdm42 (244204) | about 9 months ago | (#45344849)

Ghostery plugin is your friend here.

Re:Why bother? (1)

Somebody Is Using My (985418) | about 9 months ago | (#45344985)

Alternately, you could use Albine's [abine.com] DoNotTrackMe [mozilla.org] add-on if you don't want to use an add-on funded by advertisers and businesses paying them for ad data and compliance

Although from what I understand, the only info that both apps send back to the mothership is generic usage data, so the risk (or lack thereof) is probably the same for both.

Re:Why bother? (1)

Dr. Manhattan (29720) | about 9 months ago | (#45345031)

Self-destructing cookies [mozilla.org] . They go away as soon as you close the tab.

I have that on my Firefox browser, and I have a Chrome browser that clears everything on exit. Between them, I can surf anywhere and keep tracking to a minimum. Won't stop the NSA, of course, but...

I have it on good authority (1)

lesincompetent (2836253) | about 9 months ago | (#45344583)

Someone at the Mozilla Foundation must have found a horse's head in his bed.
Ahhh those "lobbyists" and their quirky italian accent... That'sa badda forr dee economee...

Re:I have it on good authority (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45344647)

Wouldn't a fox head be more appropriate?

Or maybe a gecko head.

Re:I have it on good authority (1)

Elbart (1233584) | about 9 months ago | (#45345637)

Firefoxes are pandas, not foxes.

Money talks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45344605)

Nobody walks.

You are a few years out of date here (2)

Arker (91948) | about 9 months ago | (#45344621)

"purportedly pro-user organization"

Yeah right. Someone hasnt been paying attention to them for many years, it does appear.

Thick Skulls (5, Insightful)

rtkluttz (244325) | about 9 months ago | (#45344637)

Why should web marketers feel entitled to additional data just because of the media change. When I read a newspaper, marketers can't even tell I read an ad much less who I am or what I did before or after reading the ad. They have the ability to tell the browser requested the ad, that should be all info they get about anyone.

Re:Thick Skulls (1, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 9 months ago | (#45344865)

They are willing to pay more for the advert if they know how many people see it. That's what the internet does for them, it makes marketing more efficient and measurable.

Re:Thick Skulls (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45345033)

They THINK it makes it more efficient and measurable, but as soon as I turn ad's on I get the biggest load of annoying bollocks plastered all over my browser.

As Bill Hicks said, 'Kill yourself'.

Re:Thick Skulls (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 9 months ago | (#45345085)

If you don't click on an add, they pay less (or not at all.) Try that with Radio, TV or billboards. You actually pay more and then have no idea if it's working.

Re:Thick Skulls (1)

musixman (1713146) | about 9 months ago | (#45345055)

Exactly someone who understands how advertising online actually works.

Re:Thick Skulls (3, Insightful)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about 9 months ago | (#45345359)

Why should web marketers feel entitled to additional data just because of the media change. When I read a newspaper, marketers can't even tell I read an ad much less who I am or what I did before or after reading the ad. They have the ability to tell the browser requested the ad, that should be all info they get about anyone.

The simple answer is "MONEY." The more they know, the more they can charge.

Thick skulls contain big passionate BRAINS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45345501)

Why should web marketers feel entitled to additional data just because of the media change.

They don't feel entitled; they simply want it, so they're fighting to get it. And they want it more than you want it not, so they have worked hard to persuade Mozilla to keep Firefox lame. What did you do, to try to persuade Mozilla to publish a not-lame browser? (Did you pay more? Did you pay at all?)

They win, because they care more than you do. That's also why Republicans and Democrats are in power; people don't care about governing, as they prove every two years.

Proves my post about honesty in another topic (1)

jkrise (535370) | about 9 months ago | (#45344641)

All open source projects are heavily vulnerable to bribery; honesty alone triumphs.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4411077&cid=45334083 [slashdot.org]

Ad industry goons have gazillions more cash to throw than ideologists in the open source world can say no to.

Re:Proves my post about honesty in another topic (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 9 months ago | (#45344703)

How is that different than Free/libre software or commercial projects?

The ad industry has lots of money and bribes developers of all kinds, or at least tries too.

Re:Proves my post about honesty in another topic (1)

jkrise (535370) | about 9 months ago | (#45344825)

How is that different than Free/libre software or commercial projects?

The motivation for developing a non-free commercial software is to make money; not necessarily by making a superior product.

Open source code is developed to engineer superior products, period. Which is why open source alternatives are more largely adopted by users than proprietary ones. Hence the ad industry needs to bribe open source developers; to make them foresake their ideals, and compromise their users.

Re:Proves my post about honesty in another topic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45344719)

Ad industry goons have gazillions more cash...

Yeah, but we can fork and route around the damage. So, who has more power? Whoever the people follow.

As Long As It Is Still An Option (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45344673)

As long as it is still an option in Preferences. The first thing I do when I install the browser is go to Preferences and disable third party cookies, choose delete cookies when I close the browser and auto updates. As long as these options are available I'll still use mozilla or a clone.

"pro-user organization" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45344749)

"pro-user organization"?

I think this could be said years ago, when they actually delivered a fairly stable browser, which did just that: Browse the internet.
Nowadays there's so much crud in each version, where my personal opinion is that most of the extra features should either be done through downloading plugins, or at least give me the option to disable some of it.

Dan Auerbach? (1)

ToolFiend (206582) | about 9 months ago | (#45344767)

Dan Auerbach? That guy makes great music...

Time to fork (3, Interesting)

hebertrich (472331) | about 9 months ago | (#45344789)

Time to fork Firefox and have a totally privacy minded browser , no advertisement , no user tracking possible and no third party cookies.
We need to be secure and free from the tyranny of advertisers and spying agencies. Time to make a browser that have OUR ( We the Users ) interests in mind.
It's time to make a fork and may the man who has the interests of the users in mind win .

Re:Time to fork (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 9 months ago | (#45344877)

It already exists. It called TOR (which uses firefox btw)

Re:Time to fork (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45345113)

Being pedantic, you mean the Tor Browser Bundle [torproject.org] , of which Tor [torproject.org] is but one component. And using Firefox as the base browser is not without problems [torproject.org] .

Re:Time to fork (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45344905)

Tor Project makes an effort to cleanse Firefox for all privacy invasive "features" prior to adding it into the Tor Browser Bundle. I guess that could serve as a good basis for a privacy-oriented fork.

Re:Time to fork (4, Informative)

higuita (129722) | about 9 months ago | (#45344979)

humm... why fork?

the option to manually disable third party cookies is still there, it's not just enabled by default. Other than ads companies, big sites also use cookies between their multiple sites, changing that default could break big sites not ready for that change, throwing even more pressure for mozilla not change the default (breaking current sites is always very dangerous and tricky)

but anyway, firefox is one of the most privacy oriented browsers. If you install the add-ons noscript + requestpolicy and/or ghostery you are blocking almost all ways of tracking. add the "better privacy" to the list to also remove flash cookies (if you allow then) and be done.

having all this by default is hard, not only because the user-friendly, but because could rage many companies against mozilla if done alone... now try to talk to google to do the same to chrome (and by the way, disable the auto-submit of everything one writes to the url bar to the google servers)

Re:Time to fork (1)

gsnedders (928327) | about 9 months ago | (#45345087)

Opera tried changing to blocking third-party cookies by default, and had it break a lot of major Russian sites. Needless to say, the change lasted from 10.50 to 10.51 --- with less than a week between those releases.

Re:Time to fork (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 9 months ago | (#45345819)

the option to manually disable third party cookies is still there, it's not just enabled by default.

its not sticky, either. I use prefbar for firefox (have been since 1.x or 2.x days) and I like being able to click on a direct widget to enable/disable cookies, jscript, animations (!), etc.

problem is, if you disable cookies, it turns them all off (good) but when you click the prefbar cookie button, it re-enables 3rd party again! you have to do into prefs (menu) and turn it off, which defeats the whole convenience feature of prefbar.

I consider this broken - and I'm sure its on purpose, too.

No matter (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | about 9 months ago | (#45344813)

Informed users have any number of plugins to ensure their privacy while browsing. I personally use ghostery (breaks a minimum of sites), Adblock (currently disabled, but doesn't reall break anything) and NoScript (which makes browsing hell, but does a damn good job). Plus I block third party cookies and clear all other cookies on browser restart, clear all flash cookies on restart via Ghostery (and store them in a ramdisk for good measure) and disable HTTP referers (depressingly spelled incorrectly). Nothing's more annoying than sites that use referers as a form of authentication, so I generally just sign on to those services less. Finally, I've started doing sensitive things (logging into email/banking) in a private tab, thanks to LinkedIn's kindly alerting us to how people may like to abuse your sessions on other sites. If I get really paranoid about this, then I'll just start doing this stuff in a VM instead. I'm sure that there's more that can be done, which I'll research in my spare time, but as long as I have control of my device (which you damn well better believe I do... I hope) then tracking is a game that's bent towards those being tracked, and we should be able to adapt to whatever they do.

But for those users who don't know/care, fine with me. Advertisers prey on the ignorant and they are the ones that make the market work. They're also the ones that make the market crash due to vulnerability to idiotic schemes like the sub-prime mortage crisis and ponzi schemes a la Madoff, but it's a valid trade-off.

Re:No matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45344919)

Add Cookie Monster to your list if it's still around.

Anyone can disable third-party cookies ... but (0, Troll)

Chrisq (894406) | about 9 months ago | (#45344835)

You suddenly find lots of things not working. Your credit card goes though the "verified by visa" then shows an error - leaving you unsure if the payment went (it didn't). The google login to other sites fail, facebook login fails all by itself. I tried it for a bit then gave up!

Re:Anyone can disable third-party cookies ... but (5, Informative)

0123456 (636235) | about 9 months ago | (#45344903)

That's odd, because I've been running with third-party cookies blocked for years with no obvious problems.

Re:Anyone can disable third-party cookies ... but (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about 9 months ago | (#45345515)

That's odd, because I've been running with third-party cookies blocked for years with no obvious problems.

What have you got in your exeption list? I started building a list (with google.com so that 3rd party sites could log in, etc) but gave up.

Re:Anyone can disable third-party cookies ... but (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45345295)

You must have turned off *all* cookies.

Re:Anyone can disable third-party cookies ... but (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about 9 months ago | (#45345495)

You must have turned off *all* cookies.

No.

Re:Anyone can disable third-party cookies ... but (2)

locofungus (179280) | about 9 months ago | (#45345333)

Verified by visa only reliably works on a vulnerable version of IE. Anything else and it's completely random whether a particular card/website combination will work.

In the end I changed my credit card to one that doesn't use VbV actually it's Mastercard so securecode (I think) because I got fed up of not being charged, being double charged, getting stuck half way through the process, forgetting my password which I then couldn't reset to something I wouldn't forget because it remembers the last 10^20 passwords, not being able to reset my password at all because it didn't give me the option.

It's particularly bizarre because my card might fail but my girlfriends card might work - for the same account in the same browser session.

Re:Anyone can disable third-party cookies ... but (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 9 months ago | (#45345853)

that VbyV stuff never seemed to matter when I encountered it. for newegg (a few yrs ago) they would always pop that crap up and I'd ^w it immediately.

my sale always went thru and newegg never cared.

not sure what VbyV is about, but it sure seemed optional.

The real problem (2)

MobyDisk (75490) | about 9 months ago | (#45344845)

The real problem is that sites are starting to expect this behavior by default. Someone with a lot of clout needs to ship a browser with 3rd-party cookies disabled, so sites stop relying on it.

When did Mozilla enable 3rd-party cookies? The original Netscape cookie specification back in the 90s specifically stated rules to prevent 3rd-party cookie usage. Yet somehow today it is on by default in most browsers. How and why did that change? There's simply no reason for it.

Firefox is so far over the shark... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45344855)

Mozilla jumped the shark long, long ago. It stopped being the browser to "take back the web" and became a bloat fest of crapulent features. The latest moves such as not being able to block javascript, and now now not block cookies, show how badly it has failed. Ho hum, fork and forget.

Easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45344863)

Google pays their bills after all.

Mozilla have sold out? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 9 months ago | (#45344907)

The ad industry has a ton of people, basically lobbyists, who spent a lot of time trying to convince Mozilla this was bad for the economy... I think they were somewhat successful.' Not a good showing for the purportedly pro-user organization.

The organization I most expected to be working towards our privacy and telling lobbyists to piss off has now sold out, apparently.

Do you have any idea how many metrics and tracking companies have their shit on pages? Do you think that we want all of that crap so that some marketing asshole can know everything we do and monetize it?

Apple is apparently incompetent at blocking 3rd party cookies in Safari (because it doesn't work), and now Mozilla is deciding not to do it. I doubt very much Google is going to do anything in Chrome which would cut into their revenues.

So, I have to conclude that Mozilla has decided they no longer want to be the ones to champion our privacy and keep the ugly bits of the internet at bay.

On behalf of your users, let me say: you suck, and you've sold out.

This is great news! (0, Troll)

musixman (1713146) | about 9 months ago | (#45344969)

The internet runs on advertising (youtube, google, gmail, twitter, facebook, etc...) and 3rd cookies are a HUGE part of tracking profitability for all online advertisers.

If you're buying ad's and cannot track your ROI your SCREWED. Thus companies can't pay for their servers, programmers it snowballs the entire web.

You want a free & open internet? Remove you ad blocker & help pay for the services you use for free.

Concerned about your privacy with ads? Wait till everyone starts "pay-walling" their websites (eg WSJ, NYT etc) and you have to shell out cash AND give up your credit card.

Re:This is great news! (5, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | about 9 months ago | (#45345019)

You want a free & open internet? Remove you ad blocker & help pay for the services you use for free.

We had a 'free and open internet' long before ads appeared.

Concerned about your privacy with ads? Wait till everyone starts "pay-walling" their websites (eg WSJ, NYT etc) and you have to shell out cash AND give up your credit card.

I have a simpler solution: I just don't go to paywalled sites.

Re:This is great news! (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 9 months ago | (#45345135)

The internet runs on advertising

No, the internet runs on computers. It's being co-opted by advertisers.

and 3rd cookies are a HUGE part of tracking profitability for all online advertisers.

Not my fucking problem. I don't give a rats ass about the profitability of online advertisers, I care about my privacy.

Concerned about your privacy with ads? Wait till everyone starts "pay-walling" their websites (eg WSJ, NYT etc) and you have to shell out cash AND give up your credit card.

Or stop using them. The day I need to pay money to a website and provide them with credit card details is the day I stop visiting a site.

Re:This is great news! (1)

musixman (1713146) | about 9 months ago | (#45345395)

Computers cost money... How do you think companies pay for them? Advertising.

Re:This is great news! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45345551)

The Internet ran without advertising just fine for a long time. Then a bunch of yahoos came along and decided that to get THEIR content, people had to pay. And now they have enough clout that they can strong-arm us into believing that it's both necessary and the only practical solution.

Advertising is merely an EASY way to do it. It's easy to convince people that ads are harmless, and that their privacy isn't important. It's neither noble, nor necessary, however. Although, funny enough, a lot of the younger generation seem to have been convinced that the world has ALWAYS run on ads and a lack of privacy, so it's fine to just let them.

So pay for mine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45345629)

If you want to put stuff on there I didn't ask for, then pay for my computer.

Re:This is great news! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45345425)

Runs on advertising? Oh please.

And sorry pal, if I go to www.yourwebsite.com and you want to be showing me ads you better damn well be serving them yourself and not hiring out to shady ad networks who subcontract three layers deep and wind up serving me malicious code.

If you want to force-feed people code you better damn well take legal responsibility for the potential damage it might do. Until you do, ads not served from your servers are going to get blocked.

Re:This is great news! (1)

jader3rd (2222716) | about 9 months ago | (#45345715)

How about this as a business model. I pay the ISP for access to the internet. The ISP's need some sort of justification to attract people to pay for internet connections, so the ISP's start paying websites that generate traffic.

Robin "Stormy" Peters has corrupted Mozilla now (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45345059)

Robin "Stormy" Peters has corrupted Mozilla now. Stormy Peters is the ultimate corporate assassin sent into pro user organizations to bend them to the Corporate Will. She nearly destroyed the Gnome foundation, almost causing it to break off from GNU and its principles entirely. She actually cooperated in a vote by the Gnome board to DO this! Now, obviously, this foul Corporate Speak cuckoo is laying her eggs in Mozilla now...this woman is a mortal enemy of Free Software and all it stands for.

Third Party Cookies and Safari (5, Interesting)

PineHall (206441) | about 9 months ago | (#45345211)

Apple's Safari already blocks third party cookies by default, and it is the number one browser on mobile devices. So why is the advertising industry is fighting hard to prevent Mozilla from blocking third party cookies by default while keeping quiet about Apple's Safari browser? Something is wrong here!

Re:Third Party Cookies and Safari (1)

jader3rd (2222716) | about 9 months ago | (#45345773)

Apple's Safari already blocks third party cookies by default, and it is the number one browser on mobile devices. So why is the advertising industry is fighting hard to prevent Mozilla from blocking third party cookies by default while keeping quiet about Apple's Safari browser? Something is wrong here!

Lots of 'normal' users talk about how much they hate viewing websites on their phones and 'need' apps. In a conversation with them they might say "Do you have the app for this website", and I'll say "No, it's a website, I just go to the website". To which they respond with tears in their eyes "But the app is soooo much better. It's more than a website". Most people refuse to visit a website on their phone, they only want to access the internet through apps. So the amount of browsing that occurs in the mobile browser is insignificant compared to either browsing on the desktop, or 'browsing' through an app that has Apple's ad platform tracking the user.

So much fuss (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45345259)

...about an setting that takes me seconds to adjust?

Re: So much fuss (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45345365)

It's a fuss about defaults.

Because lobbyists (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about 9 months ago | (#45345269)

Every single time something sh#tty happens which adversely affects the common population, there is a lobbyist. Has anything 'good' ever happened when these people were involved?

Open sores is WORSE for users (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45345277)

Open sores development is WORSE for end users, because the developers are not answerable to end users and can ignore them at will. This is why anyone who knows whats good for him avoids open sores software.

"Pro-user"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45345737)

Since when if Mozilla pro-user? They made Firefox, second only to Chrome in disregarding what the user wants. It's the developers pet project.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>