Watch out, Yahoo! EFF looses BADGER on sites that ignore Do Not Track In the wake of Yahoo!'s decision to stop honoring browsers' Do Not Track signals, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has released a new blacklisting tool that will automatically block tracking cookies from sites that refuse to support DNT. Dubbed Privacy Badger, the tool is available as a browser plugin for Chrome and Firefox …
Exactly, and I block them to by default. So if you don't accept third party cookies will this version of Badger do anything for you?
Normally use FF with NoScript as my general browser and have set annoying repeat offender cookies to be automatically scrubbed when it closes (also cache, logins, etc...). One usability problem with this is that drag&drop or cut&paste doesn't work from the show cookie sub-window to the scrub sub-window; have to type them in manually (take note Mozilla).
... thanks for the tip - Privacy Badger has greatly improved my browsing experience of The Register as it has the effect of blocking ads. Flashblock did a good job of not distracting my eyeballs but page loading is much faster now that I don't even see the space a blocked Flash ad used to take up. But ultimately I guess my selfish actions are contributing to the death of "free" content made possible by advertising. Oh dear...
I see that most people on here advocate not allowing cookies
a compromise is to allow cookies and then either use an addon to delete them each time you close FF / or other browser of choice, or use something like CCleaner to delete them all on a regular basis
Neither option is really all that labour intensive
It's really only 3rd party cookies that are the problem. You usually DO want the one(s) belonging to the sites you log in to.
Almost all privacy issues are 3rd party ones (they let a 3rd party track you as move from site to site!).
Firefox lets you disable all 3rd party ones. But some actual sites then are confused unless you delete the cookies for that site and let them be re-created. I don't know if it's a bug. But at the FIRST time you disable ALL 3rd party cookies you might have to log out of a site, delete (not same as disable) all cookies, close browser, open browser then log in again and the "desired" site cookie then works.
I recommend the 'Cookie Controller' FF (i.e. Pale Moon) add-on.
Set default for the 'off state' (cookies blocked) to 'force at start'; and default for the 'on' state (click the 'Toggle' button to allow cookies for all sites or the 'Permissions' button to allow just the current site) to 'session only'.
The vanishingly-small no. of sites you want to keep the cookies from you can set to, e.g for Ixquick or somewhere else you genuinely trust: 'Cookies allowed'. For sites like El Reg: 1st party only, which keeps your log-in details
If in a hurry and clicking the 'Cookies Toggle' button to, say, enable global 'session only' cookies, next start it will have reverted back to 'blocked' by default.
There's a Firefox addon I advise less technically inclined relatives to use called Self-Destructing Cookies. It automatically blocks all third-party cookies. For first-party cookies you click on the addon icon when visiting a page and get 3 simple options: the cookie self destructs after you close the tab (default), after you close the browser or never (useful to stay logged in to sites you trust).
It works out better than a simple system of blocking everything apart from the stuff on your whitelist since some sites kick up a fuss / refuse to work without first-party cookies. Having the cookie self-destruct after you close the tab is a good compromise.
Someone has to pay for your content because you sure as hell don't. You want if for free (as in, no money direct from your wallet).
So companies have come up with innovative and groundbreaking ways to sell advertising space to cover cost. And now you block that.
Luckily the impact will be slight as this is just neckbeard extremists from the EFF, not a group many have heard of and even less take seriously.
What these sites should do is detect content thieves like you (which is what you ate, reading without paying) and block you. That way you get what you paid for; nothing.
If you don't like tracking, don't use the WWW or pay for your content.
I'm quite happy to pay reasonable prices for content - though news sites are unwilling to provide it (e.g. I might want to look at Le Monde for an hour a month, but that will cost me 20 euros - there is no PAYG)
I am also prepared to put up with adverts for free content.
What I am not happy about is all the tracking of me as an individual by organisations which may, for all I know, be as criminal as you can get. How do I know who information is being sold to? Google at least tell me their policies, but what about these trackers that most people have never heard of?
So your dichotomy is a false one; it's a trichotomy at least. The third option is, if you don't like tracking, only accept ads from companies with which you have an explicit relationship.
No, it's a true dichotomy because the ONLY ads that matter anymore are tracking ads. All the dumb ad networks have since disappeared. And as for an explicit relationship, that's a loophole one could drive a lorry through. They'll FIND a way to make the relationship explicit, and then all bets are off.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
