Mozilla Backtracks On Third-Party Cookie Blocking 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."
Re:This is bad (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Thick Skulls (Score:5, Insightful)
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:This is great news! (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Mozilla is not free (Score:4, Insightful)
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:This is bad (Score:5, Insightful)
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 great news! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the internet runs on computers. It's being co-opted by advertisers.
Not my fucking problem. I don't give a rats ass about the profitability of online advertisers, I care about my privacy.
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:Thick Skulls (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:What if they *are* right? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.