Article - Cookies That Go the Other Way

[TWPonKubuntu]

This may be of interest to those of us who are concerned about online privacy...

https://www.linuxjournal.com/content...s-go-other-way

The article, by Doc Searls at Linux Journal, discusses the plans for legislation in Europe with respect to ISPs, Hosts and us, the internet users.

It contains an invitation to join the discussion, BUT it uses DISCUS, the chat software, which I frankly do not trust. YMMV.

There are multiple links in the article which point to additional information.

My prediction (worth every penny you pay for it) is that this will come back to bite us, no matter on which side of the pond we live...

I do like the concept of cookies which act on the ISPs, Hosts and Content Providers. It should not be a one-way contract.

[GreyGeek]

Interesting. While reading that store I had only two pages open in my browser: this forum and LinuxJournal. I opened a Konsole and did "netstat -alp" and noted 13 IP addresses attached to my browser. When I closed the LinuxJournal tab 12 of the went away.

[TWPonKubuntu]

GG; When I ran "netstat -alp", I got a three or four screens worth of info, but nothing that was unusual, mostly Linux apps that are running in background.

NoScript says that there are three URLs which want access: Fontawesome.com, Discus.com and LinuxJournal.com. I would normally leave all of those disabled. I know some are javascript from LinuxJournal.com.

Just for fun, when I enabled LinuxJournal.com, I got this message:

LinuxJournal.com uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By pressing the consent button and closing this message, you agree to our cookies policy. More info

Ironic, considering the topic of the article...

I did not follow the link to read their cookies policy... I also suspect (did not check) that the cookie had already been written...
That tells me something about LJ itself... And why I run NoScript...

[whatthefunk]

GG; When I ran "netstat -alp", I got a three or four screens worth of info, but nothing that was unusual, mostly Linux apps that are running in background.

NoScript says that there are three URLs which want access: Fontawesome.com, Discus.com and LinuxJournal.com. I would normally leave all of those disabled. I know some are javascript from LinuxJournal.com.

Just for fun, when I enabled LinuxJournal.com, I got this message:

Ironic, considering the topic of the article...

Fontawesome is simply an icon font service. It use javascript to implement site icons. I woldnt worry about it. Discus as well. The scripts I wouldnt worry about. If youre worried about your comments being stored on a third party site, I don't really get it but ok.

The reason you got the cookie message after enabling scripts is not because Noscript was blocking cookies but because Noscript was blocking the javascript that toggled the notification. You probably had the first cookies on first page load, assuming you arent blocking global cookies.

I did not follow the link to read their cookies policy... I also suspect (did not check) that the cookie had already been written...
That tells me something about LJ itself... And why I run NoScript...

No script simply disables Javascript and other client side scripting languages. It will do nothing to protect you from cookies. A lot of cookies are actually perfectly harmless. This site is setting 7 cookies for me, all related to login, settings and last activity. Scripts are doing things like autosaving and toggling UI items.

There seems to be a lot of misinformation in this thread... If you're really worried about cookies, use a whitelist cookies policy for your browser. Block all cookies and then selectively allow cookies from sites you trust.

[TWPonKubuntu]

whatthefunk;

With respect, I am aware of each of the points you bring up. Yes, I am concerned about anything which gets archived in a third party database... Discus is one of many which do this.

In the context of the discussion; cookies which contractually bind the other party, not just the end user, I think this is an interesting topic and one which needs development by the internet community. The author of the linked article seems to thing so, also. We need not be "just" a product to those who want to collect our online IDs.

With regard to cookies, I have my OS and browser configuration set to refuse most cookies. On occasion, I will relax those restrictions in a situation in which I know the developers or the owners of a particular website, but that it very rare, very.

I don't mean to disparage your advice, which is valid, but I think I detect a sense of condescension about my own level of understanding. Can we agree to disagree on this? If not, I could simply revert to my country bumpkin, hillbilly persona and pretend that I am incapable of understanding the 'net. That is not likely to happen, but I'll pretend if you need that.

[whatthefunk]

I don't mean to disparage your advice, which is valid, but I think I detect a sense of condescension about my own level of understanding. Can we agree to disagree on this? If not, I could simply revert to my country bumpkin, hillbilly persona and pretend that I am incapable of understanding the 'net. That is not likely to happen, but I'll pretend if you need that.

I didn't mean to sound condescending, and I'm sorry if I came across as such. But please reread your original post, especially this part:

I did not follow the link to read their cookies policy... I also suspect (did not check) that the cookie had already been written...
That tells me something about LJ itself... And why I run NoScript...

This makes me think that you think that NoScript blocks cookies, which is why I posted what I posted. I don't know why you think you need to revert to a "country bumpkin, hillbilly persona" because of my post. A lot of people have no idea how the web works. I know professional developers who have little understanding of the technology that they use because they have always used it through an abstraction like a framework, plugin, or package.

[TWPonKubuntu]

My comment wrt to the notice about cookies is a javascript (JS) issue. NoScript Does block javascript, by default in my configuration. JS is blocked when attempting to write their (LinuxJournal's) cookies. As a test, when I instructed NoScript to allow the URL "LInuxJournal.com", that action enabled JS which then proceeded to issue the "advisory" notice about cookies.

My comment was that I suspected that the cookie had already been written as soon as NoScript allowed JS to run, and which I did not bother to check because I had no intention of continuing to allow LinuxJournal.com to have script access. It was a test...