To use this site, you must accept cookies

Topic

New Reply

---

Field Notes

To use this site, you must accept cookies

By Tracey Capen A new element of Web surfing is becoming more common — website cookie–approval notifications. Site publishers might call this “informed consent;” but it’s mostly a reaction to the growing use of ad blockers.

---

The full text of this column is posted at windowssecrets.com/top-story/to-use-this-site-you-must-accept-cookies/ (opens in a new window/tab).

Columnists typically cannot reply to comments here, but do incorporate the best tips into future columns.

Reply | Quote

Replies

May such site publishers eat plenty of fig newton cookies…

"Take care of thy backups and thy restores shall take care of thee." Ben Franklin, revisted

Reply | Quote

Just an FYI when downloading an updated version of Ccleaner you do not have to go to FileHippo. If you properly navigate the Ccleaner site you can download directly from Piriform. Personally, I do my very best to avoid FileHippo as I have no interest in bloatware that may be malicious. Here is how: After clicking “No Thanks” so as to get the free version go to the top of the page and click on the 3rd option from the left “Download”. You will get a new page containing download links to free Piriform software including Ccleaner which appears at the top of the list. Click on the “Download” tab for Ccleaner and your update will come in directly from Piriform not FileHippo.

Reply | Quote

I generally go to the source site also, instead of using FileHippo. In Piriform’s case, I have to do so to get the portable version.

On the left of FileHippo, under the software name, they usually show the origin website. Clickon that. Then for Piriform, click on Downloads. Then down at the bottom, there is a link for “Other builds”. Click that and you will see the portable version at the bottom. I don’t know why Piriform make one jump through so many hoops to get the portable version!

Reply | Quote

Although Tracey does mention it, the main reason for sites putting cookie consent popups is very much to do with the European Cookie Directive (a good explanation at https://www.cookielaw.org/the-cookie-law/). Although USA sites don’t have to comply I think many are doing so anyway as they have international audiences. I don’t really think it is linked to adverts.
3rd party tracking cookies are very easy to block in most browsers and I know of no website that will turn them back on if you click to accept cookies. It is also easy to delete cookies, something I do on a daily basis – some set their browsers to clear them on exit, another option. Also most cookie alerts can just be ignored and you can still read the site content, they don’t always have to be ‘clicked’.

This could have been a good article but it seemed to miss all the important points about cookies.

Reply | Quote

Although Tracey does mention it, the main reason for sites putting cookie consent popups is very much to do with the European Cookie Directive (a good explanation at https://www.cookielaw.org/the-cookie-law/). Although USA sites don’t have to comply I think many are doing so anyway as they have international audiences. I don’t really think it is linked to adverts.
3rd party tracking cookies are very easy to block in most browsers and I know of no website that will turn them back on if you click to accept cookies. It is also easy to delete cookies, something I do on a daily basis – some set their browsers to clear them on exit, another option. Also most cookie alerts can just be ignored and you can still read the site content, they don’t always have to be ‘clicked’.

This could have been a good article but it seemed to miss all the important points about cookies.

Spot on, Dave, but the other thing Tracey mentions is the PUPs-in-installers thing. I’ve never seen an installer (and I’m happy to be corrected here) that didn’t give you the option to decline the software you don’t want. It may be sneakily hidden away somewhere (and there’s the rub), but it’s always there.

Reply | Quote

I don’t mind a few ads if they are relevant to the site I am visiting. But the volume and outrageous graphics used in some ads make ad blockers necessary. (I am surprised that an advertiser hasn’t been sued for pushing an epileptic seizure-inducing ad with bright flashing colors).

Some websites do ads right and get whitelisted on my end. The site ‘smithsonianmag.com’ is an example of how it can be done with little user objection. The site starts with one ad, and uses a first-party cookie to not show you another ad again for a period of time. I can leave the page and come back a couple of hours later, and no ad. Better, the content of the site doesn’t have the clutter and annoyance of sidebar ads.

Websites that don’t curate ads on their sites (for example, a Viagra ad on an auto dealership site) and over-the-top advertisers have only themselves to blame for the popularity of ad blockers. Until they acknowledge that and clean up their abuse of the bandwidth, ad blockers will stay popular and one step ahead of the advertisers.

Web designers who want to make ad blockers unnecessary should learn somet

Reply | Quote

Spot on, Dave, but the other thing Tracey mentions is the PUPs-in-installers thing. I’ve never seen an installer (and I’m happy to be corrected here) that didn’t give you the option to decline the software you don’t want. It may be sneakily hidden away somewhere (and there’s the rub), but it’s always there.

However, I have encountered installers that will install the software products they are pushing, regardless of whether you decline or not!

Reply | Quote

Spot on, Dave, but the other thing Tracey mentions is the PUPs-in-installers thing. I’ve never seen an installer (and I’m happy to be corrected here) that didn’t give you the option to decline the software you don’t want. It may be sneakily hidden away somewhere (and there’s the rub), but it’s always there.

What about DivX with its “OpenCandy.com”. While installing DivX, one doesn’t have any option to decline this PUP. The only way to know that DivX is trying to foist this crapware surreptitiously on one’s machine is by way of Malwarebytes anti-Malware or Windows Defender which will alert you with a pop-up from the system tray. There you have it tonyl. You have been corrected!

Reply | Quote

One additional browser add-on category is represented by HotCleaner’s Click and Clean. This add-on lets you go to one site which requires allowing cookies, but as soon as you leave, you can go to a relatively neutral site (e.g., Google Search) and click the clear button. All cookies which might track you are deleted, along with other tracking data, and you start fresh at the next site you visit.

After a session where cookies were accepted, I follow up with Glary Utilities or CCleaner, with additional (non-default) areas marked for cleaning.

I also use Linux, and many Windows oriented trackers and scripts don’t work in Linux. This includes some popover ads and involuntary redirects. Most Windows oriented malware also does not affect Linux, although Flash Player remains a serious point of weakness in Linux as well as in Windows.

Which is why in Windows I scan with Malwarebytes and at least one other stand-alone anti-spyware program (I vary which ones) a couple of times a week (quick scans, then full scans once a month) to clean up most of the other PUM and PUP (tracking malware and unwanted programs) which acumulates in Windows.

To my knowledge, Linux does not need such extra scanning, but I do use Bleachbit (as User and as Root) to clean out any garbage which Linux may be accumulating over time. (Warning — if you use a Swap Partition in Linux, you must re-enable SwapOn after running Bleachbit as Root. GParted is one program which allows you to do this graphically.)

As to sites turning us away if we use ad blockers, ever tried to log in to Wired Magazine lately? They literally won’t let you see their content until you either pay them money or turn off the blockers (though you don’t have to remove the blocker extensions, and Firefox is not automatically banned as it is from some sites). That site is far from alone in tech reporting sites or tech areas within news sites in engaging in this behavior.

As to site owners suing ad blocking writers in US courts, well, good luck with that! It’s easier to put up a thousand paywalls than to get one judgment against software publishers for protecting the security and privacy of browser users. No malicious intent exists, so no jugdgment is possible under US laws.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

I don’t necessarily mind ads on a website but when one translation website that I visit has approximately 34 ads running at one time and would significantly bog down my computer I finally added ad blocking. I recently dropped one website who would not allow me to just turn off my ad blocker and instead wanted me to remove it completely.

Reply | Quote

I have no objection to a site telling me that I have to enable ads to see their content – they have a right to make money via advertising just like broadcast TV and radio stations do. And I have the right to go someplace else if I don’t like it.

Cookies, however, are different. Imagine that every time you went into a store, someone followed you around and made a note of everything you looked at – not just bought but looked at. Then took out your wallet and noted your address and copied down any other information they could find. Then put a tag on your back with an ID so that every other store could note that and share the information they collected about you.

If you think that’s an exaggeration, then you don’t understand cookies. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Online stores may give one person a different price than another based on where else they have been looking and what they have been searching for on Google.

Data mining is a HUGE business and pretty soon they will know everything about you down to whether you crumple or fold. And there is almost nothing you can do to stop them because by visiting their sites, you give them permission to gather information and share it.

It reminds me of what they said about the mess hall in the Army. You always have two choices – take it or leave it.

Reply | Quote

One thing I have to say to “We love the idea of blocking ads on websites….” That is a particularly untrue statement and I object to it. I don’t think anyone minds ads. What we mind is distasteful, blinking, pop-in-your-face ads that will often times follow you as you scroll up or down the page. That is what people object to! There would be no need for ad-blockers ever if vendors would resort to tasteful ads. I for one will NEVER, NOT EVER purchase anything from a vendor with an obnoxious ad. I will go out of my way to make sure I will boycott that vendor at all costs. I also hate targeted ads. Just because I bought something or looked at something doesn’t mean that’s the only type of ad I ever want to see. I also avoid those at all costs and if I really want to purchase something of that nature, it actually drives me to my local stores and vendors to gladly purchase local.

Anyway, if vendors would learn to be tasteful, it would pass all ad-blockers, and I think they would find they would get more sales. But that’s just me.

Reply | Quote

I’m surprised that Tracey (and some commenters) seem to favor accepting ads. I’m willing to pay for content (e.g., NYT and WS) but I do NOT want to see ads, thus I do not watch commercial TV.

Blaming, shaming, and nagging web users because new technology (ad- and cookie-blockers) has made your business model unsustainable seems to me to be a losing strategy.

On the plus side, I haven’t yet found a site that I can’t navigate simply by ignoring the “accept cookies or I’ll kill your dog” nag.

Reply | Quote

I’m surprised that Tracey (and some commenters) seem to favor accepting ads. I’m willing to pay for content (e.g., NYT and WS) but I do NOT want to see ads, thus I do not watch commercial TV.

Blaming, shaming, and nagging web users because new technology (ad- and cookie-blockers) has made your business model unsustainable seems to me to be a losing strategy.

On the plus side, I haven’t yet found a site that I can’t navigate simply by ignoring the “accept cookies or I’ll kill your dog” nag.

Yes, I agree with you.
…and I think it’s a shame that today’s journalists seem overly concerned about revenue (it seems that the old days are gone when the story was the most important characteristic of news).

Image or Clone often! Backup, backup, backup, backup......
- - - - -
Home Built: Windows 10 Home 64-bit, AMD Athlon II X3 435 CPU, 16GB RAM, ASUSTeK M4A89GTD-PRO/USB3 (AM3) motherboard, 512GB SanDisk SSD, 3 TB WD HDD, 1024MB ATI AMD RADEON HD 6450 video, ASUS VE278 (1920x1080) display, ATAPI iHAS224 Optical Drive, integrated Realtek HD Audio

Reply | Quote

…and I think it’s a shame that today’s journalists seem overly concerned about revenue (it seems that the old days are gone when the story was the most important characteristic of news).

I think you would find that even crusaders like Edward R. Murrow still insisted on a good paycheck at the end of the week.

Reply | Quote

ABP found and blocked nine [9] ads on the Windows Secrets site, and Ghostery blocked nine [9] trackers!

I appreciate reading about Privacy Badger. Another good tool to try.

Another irony is that some websites are insisting that we disable adblockers to access the site, but even after we do that and reload, they STILL won’t let us in. Those are the sites that will lose traffic big time.

Reply | Quote

Interesting article, but I’ll agree it is incomplete.

I have run into sites that wouldn’t let me access content unless I turned off the ad blocker for their site, and sites that posted large notices requesting a donation in lieu of accepting ads. I hadn’t realized the Cookie announcements where related as I use a different tool for that.

I’ve now settled on AdBlocker and Privacy Badger. The second does mess up the occasional site but isn’t as aggressive as some I’ve tried. And both are easily disabled on specific sites. I don’t find clearing all cookies useful.

But I fully agree with many of the above sentiments. I started using an ad blocker because some sites where so riddled with obnoxious ads, including loud noises, large download buttons overshadowing the actual download button, etc. etc. I know this is not all sites but they’ve abused our trust. Suing the software designers isn’t going to repair that trust. And these tools never block their own ads, just third party ones.

I would add that many small business sites today use modular tools like WordPress plugins. They come with things the site owner may be oblivious too, like the beacons in some social sharing tools. I’ve seen articles on tech sites talking about such issues where the tech themselves was unaware of what their own site hosted. Most review sites are oblivious to it too.

Sadly, the trend has migrated into cell phones and now with Windows 10, the operating system. Customers are now viewed as a product to be exploited. Try finding ad-free software on Android. Or having data usage not dominated by advertising. I was amazed what a difference in data usage I had after I moved to hard-to-find ad-free apps.

Reply | Quote

I have AdBlock Pro and Badger extensions but I still get lots of tracking cookies in Chrome. I do a daily scan of Hittman Pro which will delete tracking cookies and some malware. It’s self-named as “the second scan”. Since my work takes me to many many websites I wind up with 50-100 cookies and yes. some of them come back again and again. For me it’s easier to delete them than triy to block them through the browser

Reply | Quote

I had used Adblock Plus for quite some time in 3 different browsers. But I kept running into problems where things didn’t always work well on some site. I then switched to UBlock Origin in FF and Pale Moon instead and all my problems disappeared.

Reply | Quote

Third party ad servers are known malware vectors. As such I block ads. It’s not that I want to take revenue away from content producers. It’s that I want to protect myself.

As a society we have a LONG way to go when it comes to eliminating the threat of malware, ransomeware, and every other form of spam imaginable. It’s not getting better, it’s getting worse.

Odd that Tracy says ad blockers are “especially popular on phones.” I suppose they are, in theory anyway. I’ve not found a one of them on Android that actually reliably blocked any ad network.

In my mind, advertisers pushing ads to a data-capped internet service (mainly mobile devices) is tantamount to theft of service. Forcing me to pay more per month for a higher data cap to avoid the even higher per-GB addon bandwidth charge because unavoidable ads are sucking away my data plan is absolutely unacceptable.

Reply | Quote

Odd that Tracy says ad blockers are “especially popular on phones.” I suppose they are, in theory anyway. I’ve not found a one of them on Android that actually reliably blocked any ad network.

In my mind, advertisers pushing ads to a data-capped internet service (mainly mobile devices) is tantamount to theft of service. Forcing me to pay more per month for a higher data cap to avoid the even higher per-GB addon bandwidth charge because unavoidable ads are sucking away my data plan is absolutely unacceptable.

Agreed. I would love to find a good ad blocker for Android on my Nexus 5x phone. It’s beyond me how people put up with these ads if my experience is the same as others.

The flashing ads are most annoying. They are like a strobe light! Sheeze. Then there are the ads that pop-up on top of what I am reading. I click the X to close it but it doesn’t work most of the time. And some time my touch is off by a few pixels and the ad opens and sometimes start flashing. I hit the back key but that often doesn’t get me back to what I was reading but drops all the way back to the article index. Whew.

No wonder smart people use ad blockers!

Reply | Quote

Started using Privacy Badger yesterday (thanks Tracy). But it prevented me from logging in to my bank, so I’m disabling it for that site. Everyone should be aware of that type of potential problem.

Reply | Quote

Feel like scaring the s___ outta yourself? Try changing the setting for accepting cookies to “Prompt” (in the Internet options, under Privacy/Advanced).
This is in IE, and before everybody jumps on that, I know that is bad. Sometimes it’s convenient or you just gotta.
You’ll only leave it set for a little while, because you won’t be able to get anything done. It’s shocking, the number of data miners? these sites do business with.
Maybe it just links one to another if you reject the cookie. Anyone who knows about this, it would be great to hear how it works. But you basically can’t use the Internet without them.

Reply | Quote

I mostly block cookies, and accept them for individual sites when there is a need for them: logging in, some state, a purchase/basket; this is however tedious (Firefox user), at least when the site stores cookies under several domain names.
I allow most cookies only for the duration of the session. I am more wary about the techniques to store information permanently: LSOs, zombie cookies…

Reply | Quote

Once I started seeing bundled crap with sourceforge downloads, I stopped going to 3rd party sites for updates. I use a fair amt of open source and free versions of software – 7-zip, keepass, sync back, ccleaner to name some. I get update notifications from sourceforge but always go directly to the dev site to download the update. In addition to ad blockers and privacy addons, I love “no script”.

Reply | Quote

I believe that Sourceforge no longer bundle other programs in their downloads. That’s what they say anyway.

Eliminate spare time: start programming PowerShell

Reply | Quote

I believe that Sourceforge no longer bundle other programs in their downloads. That’s what they say anyway.

I think you are right – I recall a ruckus a while back about their bundling… just got an update on their site and it was bare, just the app. Not sure if it pertains to all or if only those dev’s who demand no bundling.

Now I just noticed ghostery shows 8 trackers on this page and no script shows 5 scripts… everybody wants to get to know our habits, even if anonymously, it is still irritating!

Reply | Quote

I’m surprised noone mentions Sandboxie. I know that if I give permissions to certain things on a website, the permissions evaporate after I delete the sandbox. If I update Firefox while in the sandbox, the update evaporates when I delete.
Sandboxie used to be well thought of here; is that not true now ??

Reply | Quote

I’m surprised noone mentions Sandboxie. I know that if I give permissions to certain things on a website, the permissions evaporate after I delete the sandbox. If I update Firefox while in the sandbox, the update evaporates when I delete.
Sandboxie used to be well thought of here; is that not true now ??

I’ve used Sandboxie sporadically over the years and it does what you say. Some of the other ‘blocking’ I do is by using Opera now as my primary browser, very easy to configure cookie handling and turn on their Privacy controls. They also recently added an Ad blocker to the mix.

My favorite blocking scheme is to use the awesome hosts file (15,000 lines and counting…) from these folks:

http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm

It’s amazing to visit Websites now and there are no ads

Alas, it’s time to renew my long-term subscription to WS and followed the link in the email and read Penton’s “privacy” policy, HAVE YOU READ IT?

http://www.penton.com/privacy-policy/

I can’t believe they actually use the word ‘privacy’ in their literature, their data collection methods must be modeled on the government snooping so common today. And their sharing . . . even if you opt out of emails the collection/sharing continues WITHOUT your permission.

So sad, have been a loyal subscriber/contributor for years . . . goodbye . . .

Reply | Quote