Avast aquired "i-dont-care-about-cookies"

opting out of cookies is not that effective anyway:

https://www-sop.inria.fr/members/Nataliia.Bielova/cookiebanners/
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/gdpr-cookie-consent-eprivacy

One way is to use cookie autodelete and ublock origin filters that hide the cookie popups / notifications, while cookie autodelete means as soon as u close the tab the cookies from that site are gone

i don't care about cookies (and "i still don't care about cookies") do not actually decline the cookies popups, they only hide it, and sometimes even accept it for you which is very very bad needless to say

~ Copyrighted Content Image Removed ~

As such, i do not recommend to use this extension, just use ublock origin's filters to hide the cookie pop-ups, if that's your intent. Maybe i can do a check-up between the rules https://github.com/OhMyGuus/I-Dont-Care-About-Cookies/blob/master/src/data/rules.js of this extension and the filter lists in ublock origin, i can try to extract the ones that ubo's filters are missing and then report em so they can add em, then u get best of both worlds, don't have to use the bad extension while also getting its useful rules/filters added to ublock origin's filters

from what i can see https://github.com/wanhose/cookie-dialog-monster and https://github.com/cavi-au/Consent-O-Matic might be worth using, but i need to do more research. taking the filters from the smaller extension and adding em to the bigger extension would be better. i am not even sure if cookie dialog monster actively declines the cookies or just hides em, if it only hides em then just extract its rules and report the missing ones to ublock origin

 

I still don't care.

If the extension accepts them, it isn't that bad if you've configured your browser to decline third party cookies (and use uBLock Origin/browser tracking protection).
I don't mind first party cookies, since I delete them regularly.

From i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu:

 

I think the point of IDCAC is to simply get rid of the annoying banners without breaking website functionality. So people don't really care whether cookies are being accepted or declined. Tracking should be blocked by adblockers like uBlock Origin and the browser should be configured to block third party cookies anyway. In other words, these cookie dialogs are completely pointless and the people who invented them are completely retarded.

 

Yes but there's still first party cookies, and no the dialogs aren't pointless, the problem is the implementation, the dialogs feel meaningless because websites want them to be meaningless, just like the DNT do-not-track header, if sites actually respected that it wouldn't be meaningless (and bad because it increases uniqueness for fingerprinting), but they make it meaningless

 

No trust me, they are meaningless, because nobody cares about first party tracking. It's all about third party tracking that offends people. I have read that a couple of major Dutch websites claim they have now dropped third party tracking and have switched to an advertising company named Adhese. So these websites ask visitors to disable their adblocker, but some guy said he will only do this when they stop making use of usabilla.com, but the website claims that it's not a tracker.

 

well you should

https://www.tune.com/blog/first-par...okies-what-they-are-why-you-should-drop-them/
https://docs.treasuredata.com/displ...rver-Side First Party Cookies on Your Website
https://www.ml-quant.com/30349b49-1d89-49e6-86bf-9c2eb93fc193 -> https://dataskeptic.com/blog/episodes/2022/first-party-tracking-cookies

 

Nope, I still don't care. Because if you want to fix ''first party'' tracking then simply ban it! But don't bother users with pointless cookie consent dialog. To me it's not important that a website is tracking my behavior on the same website. But it shouldn't be tracking me on other websites, that's none of their business. But completely blocking third party tracking is difficult anyway, since many websites use imbedded content from Instagram, YouTube and Twitter. So they probably still get to see all of the newspaper articles that I'm reading for example. But it's not a real big deal.

 

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering:-Benefits-of-blocking-3rd-party-iframe-tags

in ublock origin do this


you can also block 3rd party scripts but that will really be a big hassle on every page, whereas with 3rd party frames you still get a huge benefit and you can then build a network of rules of what should be allowed (like youtube videos), and it's much less frequent that you have to unblock something compared to also blocking 3rd party scripts. i also block some extra ones:



what i was trying to say was, that if you just hide all cookie popups, they might track u, actively denying them is better, but many websites track u regardless of what you choose (deny, allow or anything in-between) so a mechanism to remove cookies is best. like, each time you close a tab clean the cookies from it, or every 10 minutes clean all cookies etc. unfortunately cookie autodelete is broken, it doesn't work, like at all, i don't even bother to make an issue in their github cuz nothing is working at all it's not just 1 or 2 things, but fortunately cleaning cookies is very easy i should prob write my own extension to do that, since cookie autodelete seems completely broken with ungoogled chromium

 

Thanks, but you're misunderstanding. I actually want to see the imbedded content of Twitter, YouTube and Instagram on certain pages. So that's what I'm trying to explain, most browsers can already block third party tracking, and nobody really cares about first party cookies, so those cookie consent dialogs are pretty much retarded. It really doesn't solve anything and annoys the hell out of people. It's a bit like UAC on Windows LOL.

 

i didn't say consent dialogs solves anything, it doesn't as many websites ignore your preference anyway, and key tracking can be in the "necessary" cookies which you cannot decline. i said that you need to use smth like cookie autodelete to help with first party tracking (check the links i left), and for ublock origin, you can make a global rule to allow 3rd party frames coming from twitter, youtube and instagram while blocking the rest, for example

yeah i agree with uac it's annoying but it helps prevent programs from using windows binaries and the likes behind your back, if you have it set on the highest level of UAC (the 2nd highest is equivalent to "prompt for consent for non-windows binaries in gpedit.msc)

 

New development:
Google lets websites show targeted ads via first-party cookies.
Via Security.nl.

 

My point is that how many people will actually carefully read the cookie consent dialog? Same with UAC, do you think that 99% of all people actually understand what UAC is for? Most people will just try to get rid of it as soon as possible. And like I said, I don't care about imbedded content from Twitter, YouTube and Instagram.

Like I said, I don't really mind this, as long as they can't be used to track people across the web, and Google claims that this is the case. The thing what annoys me more is that they mention that people once again have to approve this first party cookie, it's like the world has gone crazy. Let's face it, nobody cared about cookies 10 years ago. For me, it's enough to block third party cookies and third party trackers.

 

Don’t CNAME trackers use first-party cookies?

 

Yes, this is another problem of course. Because CNAME trackers are meant to make first party tracking behave just like third party tracking. From what I understood, uBlock can block this on Firefox but not on Chromium because it misses a certain API. But my point is, that if this is considered illegal, then simply ban it. But don't come with BS solutions like cookie consent dialogs.

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/ne...locks-sneaky-first-party-trackers-in-firefox/
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-best-on-Firefox

 

BTW, just a small tip. At first I coulnd't figure out how to unblock imbedded content on this page, because Vivaldi's adblocker and uBlock kept blocking it, but the solution is to allow 3rd party scripts, so that I could see Twitter again. Do I care about that Twitter tracks me on this page? No I don't, since I need to see those tweets, know what I mean?

https://www.iexprofs.nl/Nieuws/757617/Must-Read/Must-read-Shorters-hebben-meestal-gelijk.aspx

 

BTW, this is another page where the IDCAC list blocks Twitter from loading, I didn't know how to fix this in Ublock. So the only option is to disable IDCAC or uBlock.

https://www.hln.be/celebrities/kim-...kanye-west-valt-niet-goed-te-praten~aaf9f09a/

 

Where you write, "this is another page where the IDCAC list blocks Twitter from loading", do you mean not loading a clickable Twitter picture on that hln.be page, or do you mean the offered Twitter link does not lead you to a correctly loading Twitter page?
I don't use the IDCAC list but I use the IDCAC addon in Firefox. With the addon, on that hln.be page I see a Kim Kardashian tweet text that links to the Twitter page which loads correctly.

 

Yes exactly, Twitter is supposed to be loaded on this website, similar to how you would see YouTube videos or Instagram pictures. You shouldn't see only the text.

 

Are you sure it's IDCAC that blocks Twitter loading?
It may be the default privacy settings for the website that block Twitter loading.
If in the addon settings I disable IDCAC for hln.be, on that hln.be page now I get this for the Twitter item (translated from Dutch):
"You cannot view this content - This content includes cookies from social media or other external platforms. Because you have disabled these cookies, this content will remain hidden. Please accept social media cookies to still display the content. - Open privacy settings"

 

All I know is that when I disable IDCAC, then it works. Actually now that I think of it, I do block third party cookies on a global level in Vivaldi, perhaps this is the problem? It's a bit confusing, but I just removed all cookies on HLN and then I got to see to cookie consent dialog, which is apparently not blocked by IDCAC. But even if I accept everything, Twitter still gets blocked by IDCAC. And I have also disabled Vivaldi's built-in adblocker.

 

Thanks, Rasheed187. It sounds complicated.
As I don't use Vivaldi but Firefox and not the IDCAC list but the addon, I cannot replicate your findings, of course.
Apart from that, I'm happy with Twitter or other social media stuff not directly loading but a link being offered.

 

I didn't know you was using the IDCAC extension in FF, this might play a role. But what I'm saying is that I also rather use the standalone IDCAC extension because the filter in uBlock is giving me issues. But I don't trust Avast.

And about imbedded content from Twitter, YouTube and Instagram, well it's just handy to see those things, I don't really care about being tracked when I'm actually seeing certain content. However, I wouldn't want to be tracked by those stupid Facebook and Twitter tracking icons.

 

Then switch to the fork.
I still don't care about cookies.

 

Good point, I see it has now 4000+ users, this gives me a bit more confidence. Will check it out.

 

Roughly the same number on Firefox.

And Guus is quick to add support for sites, or fix issues.
https://github.com/OhMyGuus/I-Dont-Care-About-Cookies/commits/master.
He also keeps an eye on updates to the original extension.

B.t.w., I can't get this Twitter iframe on hln.be working here, no matter what I try...

[Edit]
It works in a clean new profile, when I accept social media cookies via their cookie wall...