Firefox Will Soon Block Third-Party Cookies

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Firefox Will Soon Block Third-Party Cookies

Posted by timothy on Saturday February 23, 2013 @09:30AM from the accept-only-genuine-chocolate-chip dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Stanford researcher Jonathan Mayer has contributed a Firefox patch that will block third-party cookies by default. It's now on track to land in version 22. Kudos to Mozilla for protecting their users and being so open to community submissions. The initial response from the online advertising industry is unsurprisingly hostile and blustering, calling the move 'a nuclear first strike.'"

24 of 369 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Online Advertising Response by FSWKU · 2013-02-23 09:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

The initial response from the online advertising industry is unsurprisingly hostile and blustering, calling the move 'a nuclear first strike.'
Translation: Boo-fucking-hoo. Online marketing scum have been abusing users for years, making this a retaliatory measure. Let them cry all they want, because nobody gives a shit.

--
"So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
1. Re:Online Advertising Response by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-23 09:45 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  The complaining will start as soon as all sites start to go pay-for-content.
  Sorry Charlie, but advertising and monetization drives the "free content" you see on the web. Go ahead an bite the hand that feeds you.
2. Re:Online Advertising Response by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-23 09:47 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I think the advertisers have a legitimate point, and should retaliate. How about trying to pay web site owners to alter their sites so they refuse to load on FireFox? I bet that would be a hilarious and very short negotiation.
  In all seriousness, advertisers are simply the worst form of corporatism: All they want is more of everything, regardless of what they already have. They don't like being blocked like this, let them invent their own Internet with its own bizarre, user-hostile set of rule. They could call it facebook, perhaps...
3. Re:Online Advertising Response by bipbop · 2013-02-23 09:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I think whether or not it's newsworthy is decided by its effects, not how much effort it takes to implement.
4. Re:Online Advertising Response by JaredOfEuropa · 2013-02-23 10:00 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Killing 3rd party cookies doesn't mean the end of advertising, not even the end of targetted ads like Google adwords. Neither rely on 3rd party cookies. It will mean the end of tracking users across sites, collecting browsing history that they have no business collecting (and which most users are not even aware of).
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
5. Re:Online Advertising Response by bhagwad · 2013-02-23 10:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I would much rather pay by seeing ads instead of paying actual cash. Websites are free to advertise to me as much as they want. If I don't like the ads, I stop using them. There's no need for browsers to protect me.
6. Re:Online Advertising Response by MrEricSir · 2013-02-23 10:31 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If I don't like the ads, I stop using them. There's no need for browsers to protect me.
  If you're okay with having your every move tracked across the web, by all means, use a different browser.
  But do yourself a favor and stop pretending that this has anything to do with seeing ads on the internet.
  
  --
  There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
7. Re:Online Advertising Response by Mitreya · 2013-02-23 10:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And to hell with marketers, they can cry all they want. They have already stripped most television show of a title sequence and forced shows to start rolling credits while still running.
  If they only stopped at that!
  Are you not getting the damn characters running across your show, in the middle of the show? It superimposes over the current show I am actually watching, just like a popup ad online
  Also, a simple comparison of show length, demonstrates that in the 60s/70s shows ran for 26.5 minutes, while current sitcoms are around 22.5 minutes per half hour. And you get to see pop-ads in the middle of some of those three 7-minute long pieces.
8. Re:Online Advertising Response by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-23 10:54 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  This has nothing to do with advertising. Blocking third-party cookies does not block ads; it blocks tracking. And you're assuming that everyone who has a website is in it only for the ad money.
9. Re:Online Advertising Response by PopeRatzo · 2013-02-23 11:03 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Sorry Charlie, but advertising and monetization drives the "free content" you see on the web.
  
  And blocking third party cookies does nothing to stop advertising and monetization.
  It just puts it on a more honest footing.
  By the way, there was free content on the web before there was advertising. Maybe you're not old enough to remember.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
10. Re:Online Advertising Response by TheGratefulNet · 2013-02-23 12:51 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I have not watched network/premium tv for quite a while, now (3 yrs, maybe longer).
  recently, I was staying in some hotels and wanted to see what 'was on'. realize, I have not seen the state of 'current tv' for years.
  the moving ads at the bottom and all the rest that you and parent posters have said really turned me off. enough that I will still not consider paying for satellite, cable or anything else 'pay tv'.
  really gross and hard for me to accept. I'm over 50 and I do remember when tv was watchable. (yes, goml, etc). but if you have not been desensitized by it gradually, the jump in annoyance factor is too great. I think they have lost me, forever now, as a customer.
  tv was always an ad medium, but now its just too absurd!
  I can fully, fully understand why the youth culture is all about capturing shows, editing the BS out of them and reuploading them. I fully understand that and I can't blame anyone for wanting to get around the crap.
  sorry, industry; you pissed off your customers and many have rebelled and won't ever come back.
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
11. Re:Online Advertising Response by CFTM · 2013-02-23 13:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Your analysis fails to take into account that for a very long time (since TV was invented) the distribution channels have been tightly controlled thus content creators had to jump through the hoops of the content distributors. This is changing, but change takes time and producing content at this scale is a very expensive proposition thus people are unwilling to take risks on independent distribution.
  You can draw corollaries to the music industry which is notorious for screwing over content creators. Again, music companies were able to use their position in distribution to extract economic rents and dictate how business took place.
  This is *NOT* about the creators not caring, it's about there being no viable alternative in their mind (which isn't the case but someone has to prove ... and oh by the way, Macklemore did just that with "Thrift Shop").
12. Re:Online Advertising Response by LordLimecat · 2013-02-23 19:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That doesnt work in statutory rape cases, why would it work here?
Why wait for v22? by Jimbookis · 2013-02-23 09:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

Stick it in v19.0.1. Bring it on!
A nuclear first strike... by John+Hasler · 2013-02-23 09:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

...would be incorporating AdBlockPlus and NoScript and enabling both by default.
Do it.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
1. Re:A nuclear first strike... by Mr.+Slippery · 2013-02-23 12:44 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  More likely ad supported sites would start testing for and blocking users of those addons
  ...and so we teach the addons to cheat on those tests.
  
  --
  Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
  You cannot wash away blood with blood
Safari by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-23 09:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Doesn't Safari already do this by default?
Re:Not that simple (Re:Online Advertising Response by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-23 10:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

Above post should be moderated to +10.
Sounds like the big guys are looking to squeeze out any smaller competition. Not a surprise, since Mozilla is pretty much Google's bitch.
Re:Nuclear Response by Blue+Stone · 2013-02-23 11:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

The ad industry launched several nuclear 'first-strike' slavos against browsers: pop-ups, pop-unders, interstitials, flashing seizure-inducing Gif ads, javascript pop-overs, flash audio adverts, scroll-overs, surreptitious super cookies, etc, etc, etc.
Fuck them. In the ass.
No lube.

--
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Re:Not that simple (Re:Online Advertising Response by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-23 11:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

Above post should be moderated to +10.
Sounds like the big guys are looking to squeeze out any smaller competition. Not a surprise, since Mozilla is pretty much Google's bitch.
Although I'd prefer that tracking would simply be made illegal, I tell you what: I'm less concerned about letting the big guys doing it because they are more likely to have some basic security in place and controls to at least respect the TOS. I'm more concerned about small guys...
Re:Not that simple (Re:Online Advertising Response by eric_herm · 2013-02-23 11:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

I also think this could block lots of cookies used for SSO. Some people do actually like to be able to log using their twitter or github credentials.
- is tired of hyperbole by SampleFish · 2013-02-23 12:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

Fuck these assholes until they bleed.
"Nuclear first strike"? It's a counter-measure. I'm so sick of people using war rhetoric inappropriately. There is no "nuclear cookie blocker" and there is no "war on Christmas". There are no bombs going off and nobody is dying in the streets. This statement makes me want to bomb the corporate office of an ad agency so they have something to complain about*. Might stop the spam for a week too.
*This user does not support the actual use of explosives to make a point. Bombs are not educational tools and should be used responsibly. We now return to your regularly scheduled flame war.
Re:Not that simple (Re:Online Advertising Response by Firehed · 2013-02-23 17:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

Which is based on OAuth and has precisely nothing whatsoever to do with third-party cookies.
It does cause problems for other completely legitimate use cases, but this is not one of them.

--
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Re:Not that simple (Re:Online Advertising Response by Zenin · 2013-02-23 20:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

If you're relying upon 3rd party cookies for SSO, you're doing it wrong.
Very, very wrong.

--
My /. uid is better then your /. uid