There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

LodeMike ,

Let me guess, itll still let websites see a list connected microphones and cameras with zero user interaction?

Blackmist ,

Trying


<span style="color:#323232;">navigator.mediaDevices.enumerateDevices()
</span><span style="color:#323232;">.then(function(devices) {
</span><span style="color:#323232;">  devices.forEach(function(device) {
</span><span style="color:#323232;">    console.log(device.kind + ": " + device.label +
</span><span style="color:#323232;">            " id = " + device.deviceId);
</span><span style="color:#323232;">  });
</span><span style="color:#323232;">})
</span>

it appears to have no label and the ids are randomly generated per site.

LodeMike ,

So it still ahows the number of devices then?

ArchRecord ,

For those who don’t care to read the full article:

This basically just confines any cookies generated on a page, to just that page.

https://lemm.ee/pictrs/image/c89d41f1-fec9-4f35-8695-fa6d75d047b8.jpeg

So, instead of a cookie from, say, Facebook, being stored on site A, then requested for tracking purposes on site B, each individual site would be sent its own separate Facebook cookie, that only gets used on that site, preventing it from tracking you anywhere outside of the specific site you got it from in the first place.

unexposedhazard ,

Basically creates a fake VM like environment for each site.

peopleproblems ,

Hahahahaha so it doesn’t break anything that still relies on cookies, but neuters the ability to share them.

That’s awesome

ripcord ,
@ripcord@lemmy.world avatar

Honestly, I thought that’s how it already worked.

Edit: I think what I’m remembering is that you can define the cookies by site/domain, and restrict to just those. And normally would, for security reasons.

But some asshole sites like Facebook are cookies that are world-readable for tracking, and this breaks that.

Someone correct me if I got it wrong.

Telorand ,

They’ve been doing this with container tabs, so this must be the successor to that idea (I’m going to assume they’ll still have container tabs).

jollyrogue ,

Container tabs are still a thing in FF. This is based on that work, if I remember correctly.

Telorand ,

I love container tabs. It’s one of the reasons I went back to FF.

snaggen ,
@snaggen@programming.dev avatar

Container tabs are still useful, as they let you use multiple Cookie jars for the same site. So, it is very easy to have multiple accounts on s site.

ArchRecord ,

Total Cookie Protection was already a feature, (introduced on Feb 23st 2021) but it was only for people using Firefox’s Enhanced Tracking Protection (ETP) on strict mode.

They had a less powerful third-party cookie blocking feature for users that didn’t have ETP on strict mode, that blocked third party cookies on specific block lists. (i.e. known tracking companies)

This just expanded that original functionality, by making it happen on any domain, and have it be the default for all users, rather than an opt-in feature of Enhanced Tracking Protection.

ripcord ,
@ripcord@lemmy.world avatar

That’s not what I was thinking of, which was even more fundamental. But that’s good info (and another way to cover stuff in the article).

Edit: what I was thinking originally was really stupid, that 3rd-party cookies weren’t allowed at all. Which was really dumb since of course they are.

catloaf ,

No, you weren’t far off. A single site can only get and set cookies on its domain. For example, joesblog.com can’t read your Facebook session cookie, because that would mean they could just steal your session and impersonate you.

But third-party cookies are when joesblog.com has a Facebook like button on each post. Those resources are hosted by Facebook, and when your browser makes that request, it sends your Facebook cookies to Facebook. But this also lets Facebook know which page you’re visiting when you make that request, which is why people are upset.

With this third-party cookie blocking, when you visit joesblog.com and it tries to load the Facebook like button, either the request or just the request’s cookies will be blocked.

Although that raises an interesting question. Facebook is at facebook.com, but its resources are all hosted under fbcdn.com. Have they just already built their site to handle this? Maybe they just don’t strictly need your facebook.com cookies to load scripts, images, etc. from fbcdn.com.

werefreeatlast ,

I would love to see an icon of a neutered cookie please 🥺😄.

FiniteBanjo ,

Unless that cookie was somehow important for you to use both sites, but thats incredibly rare.

extremeboredom ,

For those who don’t care to read the full article

Or even the whole title, really

CileTheSane ,
@CileTheSane@lemmy.ca avatar

I don’t know why this wasn’t the case long ago.

Quill7513 ,

It increases implementation complexity of the browser and loses people who fund Firefox and contribute code $$$

LiamMayfair ,

Isn’t this basically Firefox’s version of the third party cookie block that Chrome rolled out a few months ago? Or am I missing something here?

I mean, it’s good news either way but I just want to know if this is somehow different or better.

jollyrogue ,

Sites are much more contained now. Is much more like a profile per site.

FiniteBanjo ,

Disabling cross site cookie is already a thing for decades…

Same with Do Not Track requests.

sugar_in_your_tea ,

Do Not Track has never really done anything, it just asks websites politely to not track you. There’s no legal or technical limitation here.

ArchRecord ,

Disabling cross site cookies and allowing them to exist while siloed within the specific sites that need them are two different things.

Previous methods of disabling cross site cookies would often break functionality, or prevent a site from using their own analytics software that they contracted out from a third party.

haywire7 ,
@haywire7@lemmy.world avatar

Forgive me if this is an overly simplistic view but if the ads with cookies are all served on Google’s platform say then would all those ads have access to the Google cookie jar?

If they don’t now then you can bet they are working on just that.

conciselyverbose ,

The way I’m reading it, they allow the third party cookies to be used within the actual site you’re on for analytics, but prevent them from being accessed by that third party on other sites.

But I just looked at the linked article’s explanation, and not a technical deep dive.

NuXCOM_90Percent ,

We’ll have to see what happens but what you are talking about is what Mozilla calls Third-Party Cookies and… they are aware of it.

…mozilla.org/…/third-party-cookies-firefox-tracki….

I can’t entirely tell if that means they will be put in the facebook cookie jar or if it will be put in the TentaclePorn Dot Org (don’t go there, it is probably a real site and probably horrifying) cookie jar. If the former? Then only facebook themselves have that which… is still a lot better I guess? If the latter then that is basically exactly what we all want but a lot of sites are gonna break (par for the course with Firefox but…).

Lost_My_Mind ,

InB4 the guy who replies to defend tenticle porn…

ripcord ,
@ripcord@lemmy.world avatar

The cookie would go to the Facebook or tentacleporn cookie jar depending on which site the user has actually visited. Whatever the domain in the address bar says.

catloaf ,

TentaclePorn Dot Org (don’t go there, it is probably a real site and probably horrifying)

It’s registered through namecheap and points to cloudflare, but there’s nothing behind cloudflare. It just times out. That was disappointing.

pipes ,
@pipes@sh.itjust.works avatar

They are usually separate things. Cookies are produced/saved locally, to be read in the next visit (by the same website or maany websites basically forever unless you use firefox containers or at least clear them once in a while). There’s also local storage which is different but can also be used to identify you across the web. Ads, trackers, all of these categories are often made of many small components: you read a single article on a “modern” newspaper website, hundreds of connection are being made, different tiny scripts or icons or images are being downloaded (usually from different subdomains for different purposes but there’s no hard rule). It’s possible to block one thing and not another. For example I can block Google Analytics (googletagmanager) which is a tracker, but accept all of Google’s cookies.

ricecake ,

So that’s what third party cookies are. What this does is make it so that when you go to example.com and you get a Google cookie, that cookie is only associated with example.com, and your random.org Google cookie will be specific to that site.

A site will be able to use Google to track how you use their site, which is a fine and valid thing, but they or Google don’t get to see how you use a different site. (Google doesn’t actually share specifics, but they can see stuff like “behavior on one site led to sale on the other”)

9tr6gyp3 ,

Get fucked, advertisers.

ngwoo ,

Advertisers track you with device fingerprinting and behaviour profiling now. Firefox doesn’t do much to obscure the more advanced methods of tracking.

MrPoopbutt ,

Don’t all the advanced ways rely on JavaScript?

hoot ,

Lots do. But do you know anyone that turns JS off anymore? Platforms don’t care if they miss the odd user for this - because almost no one will be missed.

pixelscript ,

“Anymore”? I’ve never met a single soul who knows this is even possible. I myself don’t even know how to do it if I wanted to.

I do use NoScript, which does this on a site-by-site basis, but even that is considered extremely niche. I’ve never met another NoScripter in the wild.

deranger ,

Why not just use ublock medium mode?

Roughly similar to using Adblock Plus with many filter lists + NoScript with 1st-party scripts/frames automatically trusted. Unlike NoScript however, you can easily point-and-click to block/allow scripts on a per-site basis.

github.com/gorhill/…/Blocking-mode:-medium-mode

zero_spelled_with_an_ecks ,

Am I in the wild? I use it.

pmc ,

I use LibreJS with few exceptions. If I need to use a site that requires non-free JavaScript, I’ll use a private browsing window or (preferably) Tor Browser.

MigratingtoLemmy ,

uBlock origin + NoScript for me. I deal with the bigger umbrella of scripts with uBlock and then fine tune permissions to the ones that uBlock allowed with NoScript.

They might be fingerprinting me using these two extensions though.

Septimaeus ,

Not all but most, yes. But TBF, sites that still function with JS disabled tend to have the least intrusive telemetry, and might pre-date big data altogether.

Regardless, unless the extent of a page’s analytics is a “you are the visitor” counter, all countermeasures must remain active.

KairuByte ,
@KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

Honestly would be hard to do. There a perfectly legitimate and everyday uses for pretty much everything used in fingerprinting. Taking them away or obscuring them in one way or another would break so much.

unconfirmedsourcesDOTgov ,

It’s not much but they try a whole lot more than most.

ngwoo ,

It’s really strange how they specifically mention HTML5 canvas when you can run any fingerprinter test on the internet and see that Firefox does nothing to obfuscate that. You can run a test in Incognito mode, start a new session on a VPN, run another test, and on Firefox your fingerprint will be identical.

Mubelotix ,
@Mubelotix@jlai.lu avatar

EU outlaws it

TheGalacticVoid ,

The EU isn’t the only place on the planet, even if its laws have an impact.

rdri ,

There is still plenty of fish for advertisers, sadly.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •