I'm afraid that protection might not last long.
this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024
6 points (100.0% liked)
Privacy
37846 readers
348 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
We are just rocks tumbling down a cliff side.
An interesting note-
Another issue is that Strict mode is used by roughly 0.5% of Brave's users, with the rest using the default setting, which is the Standard mode.
This low percentage actually makes these users more vulnerable to fingerprinting despite them using the more aggressive blocker, because they constitute a discernible subset of users standing out from the rest.
That's what I've always said, you got no out, if youre a big black blob on the map, the connections show exactly who you are.
Fingerprinting is tricky, you have to be as big standard as possible. Ironically privacy plugins make you more identifiable sometimes
I haven't really looked into it too much, but... Aren't they actually right in this case?
Sure, reading "we can't protect your privacy because you're using privacy-centric extension..." feels like bullshit, but from how I understand it based on the screenshot, the issue is that you have blocked the cookie permissions pop-up, whose main reason is to give you an option to opt-out of any tracking cookies, thus protecting your privacy. While also being required by law.
However, this depends on how exactly is the law formulated. How does it deals with a case where you don't accept, nor decline any cookies, and just ignore it? Are they not allowed to save any cookie until you accept it and specify what exactly can they save? Or should they not let you use the site until you accept it?
I vaguely remember that it used to be enough to just have a OK-able warning that this site is using cookies, but then it changed to include a choice to opt-out. Which could indicate that unless you opt-out, which they are required to give you a chance to, they can use whatever tracking cookies they want. And if that is the case, this message is actually correct.
Right? About what? Legally? Morally? Not-being-cunts-ally? Fuck CNN man, laws schmaws, they are doing everything they can to skirt it, please.
In the EU they must assume you have opted out until you explicitly opt in. blocking the popuip by law, must be treated as opting out. or to be more specific, its aconsent thing. they must assume they do not have consent until you explicitly give it.if this popup is in the EU, its a violation to my knowledge as it is forcing the user to change theirbrowsers settings or opt into something not necessary.
CNN might be the only site I've seen that actually checks if you have made a cookie choice then. The whole cookie acceptance thing is dumb, but they are following the law.
Thankfully there is a plan that EU will make changes fo current policy so those popups might go away.
The plan should be "Tracking opt-in required - no banners or notifications allowed."
Hahaha! "We need access to your private data to protect your privacy." We've come full circle.
Tangentially, CNN does have a text-mostly version: lite.cnn.com
Nah I'm good.
Huh. Must be leftover from the early days of the mobile Internet. Kinda like Reddit's old mobile site (which now just redirects to Reddit's current mobile site).
old.reddit.com’s not working for you? How about reddit.com/.i?
It might be that second one. I was thinking it was m.reddit.com.
Wow, I didn't know this existed. Thanks for sharing!
I'm a noob... But hear me out. Does anyone make a browser extension that fools the site into thinking you've accepted the cookie(s) when you really haven't?
Does cookie autodelete count?
well, if the website thinks that it is allowed to store cookies, it will. but cookies make you easy to track across sessions.
generally i've found that changing the useragent and/or vpn location will work.
Personally I find a good high caliber handgun to work most of the time also.
CNN Management: I’m worried that since our purchase by a right-wing nut job and our spectacular idiot explosion of the last CEO, that we’re still in danger of being considered a valid corporate news outlet. What can we do?
CNN Schmuck: We could force mandatory tracking and ads on all website visitors.
CNN Management: Brilliant!
toilet flushing noises
I'm pretty sure you could argue that CNN is a lot of things but right wing is not one of them.
right compared to actual leftists (not liberals)
The current criticism is that they're trying to turn into Fox Jr, with that clown show of a Trump town hall and such.
I think they are the fox of the left for sure.
view more: next ›