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."
What if they *are* right? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What if they *are* right? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Time to fork (Score:4, Interesting)
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:Thick Skulls (Score:2, Interesting)
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:Mozilla is not free (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Third Party Cookies and Safari (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Missing the bloody point. (Score:2, Interesting)
Original AC here. Your point is all well and good, but for the fact that it is wrong. By tracking users adverting companies make MORE money, not less. Thus, they attract more publishers and more advertisers. And IT FUCKING WORKS.
So stop pretending for a minute that you hold the key to the ultimate truth "people will go away from your business" when reality has proven the very opposite for 10+ years now.
Come back on earth with the rest of us. It's not all pink bunnies and fluffy hugs, but that's reality.