Hacker News Reader

Comment by nolist_policy | Hacker News Reader

Dear CMA, Can you please let Google do the right thing and disable third party cookies like every other browser vendor.

"privacy sandbox" is a deceiving name,it is a harmful tracking tech,glad regulators(UK's privacy watchdog ICO) are waking up,but that also means status quo of 3rd party cookies remains until it's fixed https://www.wsj.com/tech/google-cookies-replacement-not-enou...

Per my understanding, privacy sandbox has been rolled out for a long time already. There is no reason to still keep third party cookies around.

The main problem with disabling third-party cookies is that for certain applications (especially those using iframes and enterprise apps are full of iframes), the proposed alternatives have bugs.

Interestingly, Firefox does have these bugs, but these apps will not work on Firefox due to other issues.

Actually, it’s not clear whether these are bugs or just different interpretations of the specifications

Enterprises can allow third party cookies via browser policy.[1]

[1] https://chromeenterprise.google/policies/#BlockThirdPartyCoo...

So companies need to pay for Chrome Enterprise Premium? Great!

No, you don't need Chrome Enterprise Premium for browser policy/management.[1]

[1] https://chromeenterprise.google/products/chrome-enterprise-p...

I think the concern is that it will make Ads on non-google websites much less efficient and will seriously damage all other companies.

Dear Internet user, third party cookies are also used be embedded web applications in services such as salesforce. Cookies are not only used for tracking, but also as an example, secure session allowing the bank to secure your login and also the person on the phone when call in helping you via their login. There are decades worth of applications created that likely will not be fixed…

Why should all of Society pay so that Saleforce, a profit-making company, doesn't have to maintain its software?

I have 3rd party cookies as well as all ads and trackers blocked and have no major issues. On the odd occasion a site doesn't work, it doesn't get my business/attention. Non-technical people should be afforded the same protections.

I agree with you, but I do think it's fallacious to zero in on Salesforce in the example. That wasn't (likely) intended as a defense of Salesforce, it was just an example showing that there is a long historical usage of third party cookies that aren't purely for ads and tracking. It's impossible to predict how many things might break for people. For me (a uMatrix user and Firefox user) it will be zero. But for people who work and compute inside a corporate office using internal software that was "optimized for IE 6" but they still need to do their job, and the customers they serve (I have no doubt there would be plenty of government offices that will have to tell citizens who need government services to go pound sand), it will be highly disruptive. Dismissing all of those people and use cases with "who cares about Salesforce" is myopic and (for anyone with decision making ability) deeply irresponsible.

That said, this has been on the table now for years so it's time for the operators of these old apps to feel the heat. The Times They Are A-Changin'

You do not appear to understand the “third party” part of “third party cookies”.

Secure sessions (ie first party cookies) are unaffected. Your bank is likely entirely unaffected beyond whatever tracking cookies they’ve been installing.

These cookies have nothing to do with the people you call into. If the bank’s help desk can access your first party cookies, may God have mercy on them because hackers and the government won’t.

These changes almost entirely affect third party tracking, and the occasional niche, legitimate use case. Those are fairly rare, in my experience. The vast majority of core functionality in applications are fine with only first party cookies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com