You can't disable any of those either by the look of it so yeah, no privacy on that front. And that's in addition to the 10 Oath foundational partners: So let's be European for a moment and see how that experience looks - let's VPN into Amsterdam and try to control my privacy on TechCrunch:Īre you fucking serious? This is what privacy looks like? That's 224 different ad networks that are considered "IAB Partners" (that'd be the Interactive Advertising Bureau) and I can control which individual ones can set cookies.
Or have I got that back to front and Europeans don't deserve the same slick UX experience as we get down here? You know, the one where you click on a link to read an article and you actually get to read the article! Or you move to Australia because apparently, we don't deserve the same levels or privacy down here.
#Does net nanny work in incognito mode how to#
Here's your fix:Īnd if you're smart enough to actually understand what cookies are and be able to make an informed decision when prompted with a warning like TechCrunch's, then you're smart enough to know how to right click on a link and open it incognito.
It might have been nice to read it! /95bpDtmjDO- Paul Court March 8, 2019ĭo you know how hard it is to explain OAuth to technical people, let alone the masses? Oh wait - it's not OAuth - it's Oath but even I didn't get that at first because nobody really reads these warnings anyway! And now that I have read it and I know it's Oath, what does that really mean? Oh look, a big blue button that will make it all go away and allow me to do what I came here for in the first place.īut say you are more privacy focused and you wanted to follow that link in the original tweet. And honestly, how on earth is your average person going to make an informed decision on a message like this:
Is this really what we want? To continue chucking up cookie warnings to everyone and somehow expecting them to make an informed decision about the risks they present? 99% of people are going to click through them anyway (note: this is a purely fabricated figure based on the common-sense assumption that people will generally click through anything that gets in the way of performing the task they set out to complete in the first place).
#Does net nanny work in incognito mode software#
The reason I don't know if it makes it better or worse is that on the one hand, it's ridiculous that in a part of the world that's more privacy-focused than most it essentially boils down to "take this cookie or no access for you" whilst on the other hand, the Dutch DPA somehow thinks that this makes any sense to (almost) anyone: And the Dutch DPA’s guidance makes it clear internet visitors must be asked for permission in advance for any tracking software to be placed - such as third-party tracking cookies tracking pixels and browser fingerprinting tech - and that that permission must be freely obtained. “Cookie walls don't comply with GDPR, says Dutch DPA”: - Troy Hunt March 8, 2019 I’m not sure if this makes it better or worse. I know, tell you something you don't know! The whole ugly issue reared its head again on the weekend courtesy of the story in this tweet: This will be short, ranty and to the point: these warnings are getting ridiculous:
0 kommentar(er)
