←back to thread

582 points SweetSoftPillow | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.594s | source
Show context
tbrownaw ◴[] No.45668288[source]
> Your browser becomes your personal privacy enforcer, and the law would require it to act on your behalf. Based on your one-time choice, it would be responsible for allowing or declining cookies from every site you visit. If a website tries to use a cookie with an unclear or undeclared purpose?

Browsers are something the end-user installs. Inserting the government into that doesn't make sense.

This sounds like the idea is for the site to add extra metadata that's not there now, about what each cookie does. Which would still involve mandating site owners to do things.

.

Also, both private mode and https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account... are a thing already, without government meddling.

replies(2): >>45668335 #>>45668366 #
asplake ◴[] No.45668335[source]
Except that the provider of the most popular browser is also an advertising agency. A conflict there, surely?
replies(1): >>45668822 #
1. tbrownaw ◴[] No.45668822[source]
So that would mean that most users must not actually care that much, then?
replies(2): >>45669029 #>>45671560 #
2. pessimizer ◴[] No.45669029[source]
The provider of the "alternative" browser is also completely supported by the same advertising company, and since this arrangement has begun has shown itself completely uninterested in solutions like this. If anything, it tries to make control over cookies, localstorage, or javascript harder, and to demonize people who would dare to care about such a thing.
3. wackget ◴[] No.45671560[source]
Let's be honest: most users don't know what they don't know. Even tech-literate people have no real idea of the enormity and scale of tracking which goes on across the web. And the tech giants love it that way.