Is there a way to make web sites shut up about cookies?

[Macro Device]

There's an ongoing clown fiesta since... I don't remember, it's ongoing for a long while already. Every freaking web site asks for my opinion on cookies. Despite me liking being asked for my opinion I hate being asked about the same stuff over and over and over and over again. Is there any automated tool that clicks "only essentials" for me so I don't need to click it myself every time I visit a new site?

Preferrably compatible with Firefox on Windows but I'm open for other options (if they even exist).

 

[Aken Bosch]

Well, I'm using Privacy Badger and uBlock Origin, but I still have to deal sometimes with the damned cookies (at least is more manageable).

Firefox, of course, forgot to specify that.

 

[JWNoctis]

I think that is actually a legal requirement now. That is why it is so common. Pretty contrary to what actually mattered too.

Use uMatrix to disable most scripts, then reenable first party scripts and CDNs by hand if the site is broken. Some basic webdev knowledge as to what each categories and each host listed might do might be necessary to use it to full effect.

 

[Frick]

I think that is actually a legal requirement now.

The complaint is that if you turn all of them off the sites will ask you again later. In some cases weeks, in some cases days. Haven't gone on a site for a few weeks? Cookie time.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

The complaint is that if you turn all of them off the sites will ask you again later. In some cases weeks, in some cases days. Haven't gone on a site for a few weeks? Cookie time.

A cookie is a thing that stores relevant data, so that when you return to a website it can read said data. Ironically, your choice about cookies is a cookie...so disabling all cookies means that no cookie with your preferences will continue to exist and thus they will need to ask you again. Do you see the circular logic? It's like asking how I stop getting calls, without putting my name on a do not call list.

The reason that it sometimes takes more or less time is that your browser does store some things...so on some websites it takes longer to be completely free of data (and thus require filling the thing out again).


I cannot believe that someone who understands cookies wouldn't also understand why they exist in the first place...but this is where we are. It's also why a sane person usually chooses "only the functional cookies." It doesn't completely erase the data storage, but it does minimize it and still give you basic function.


-Edit-
Why not have a standard browser option then? Well, as with most EU laws they set the framework but not the form. They say that you can use a banner to get this consent across, but not how. As such, it's a website's choice on how to implement. No standards means no easy automation. It also means the law is more plastic and less confining...so do you want protection? Do you want a rigid set of rules that people will find a way to break? This is the law trying to keep up with technology by being vague enough to fit the future, but as such being less functional. Gotta love it...or be depressed when somebody renames "cookie" to niblet and thereby voids the law due to it being too rigid to adapt.
-Edit end-

 

[inquisitor1]

I block all cookies and whitelist a select few I need. cookies are the big problem. I block all.

 

[Bill_Bright]

I think that is actually a legal requirement now.

I believe that is true in the EU at least. Not (yet) in the US. It is easier to program sites for universal/global visitors rather than individual countries - at least initially. So even in jurisdictions where such laws do not exist, we are still seeing those prompts.

In many cases, if you allow at least the essential cookies, you will not be asked again UNLESS (or until) you clear your cookies, or the current ones expire. I said "many" not "all" or even "most".

The complaint is that if you turn all of them off the sites will ask you again later. In some cases weeks, in some cases days. Haven't gone on a site for a few weeks? Cookie time.

And that is due in part because some cookies expire - but also the user (or a browser update) might have cleared saved cookies by perhaps running CCleaner or Windows Disk Cleanup.

I think this is one of those pendulum things.

Initially, users essentially had no say at all about cookies and companies (and their direct marketing weenies - but also some bad guys) went to extremes to inundate us with cookies, essential and nonessential (some potentially evil).

Then the public and regulatory agencies complained and the pendulum swung all the way to the opposite extreme. And now users are forced allow or disallow - repeatedly.

Hopefully soon, the pendulum will swing back and quickly settle somewhere in the middle where both sides can at least tolerate what happens.

I cannot believe that someone who understands cookies wouldn't also understand why they exist in the first place.

Who said they don't understand why they exist in the first place? No one did so why say that? I can't believe you would quote a person, then suggest his comment implies something totally different than what he said?

with your preferences

Preference? Well sorry, it seems it is you who doesn't understand completely why they exist. IN NO WAY do users need to set preferences for EVERY site we visit. If the user does NOT have an account there for example, and our location has nothing to do with the data we are seeking, no cookies need to be saved.

Frick was very clear - and you quoted him! The issue has nothing to do with what cookies are or why they exist. The issue, as clearly explained by Frick and the OP too, is that these prompts keep coming back even though we have already responded to them.

How many times do you have to answer the same question before your patience runs out and it turns from a minor nuisance, to annoying to extremely irritating? My kids knew not to ask me a third time.

Frick is absolutely right. If it has been weeks, I'm okay with that. But sometimes it is just a few days (or even the next day!) I am NOT okay with that - especially when I know I already allowed at least the essential cookies, and I have not cleaned out my cookies.

The TRUTH is, if website developers and owners ONLY used cookies for their initial purpose, that is, to save language, currency and similar, non-identifying information, for example, or authentication purposes for those sites where we do have accounts, then none of this would be an issue. But instead, cookies are frequently used to track us and target us for marketing or even malicious purposes.

 

[Frick]

A cookie is a thing that stores relevant data, so that when you return to a website it can read said data. Ironically, your choice about cookies is a cookie...so disabling all cookies means that no cookie with your preferences will continue to exist and thus they will need to ask you again. Do you see the circular logic? It's like asking how I stop getting calls, without putting my name on a do not call list.

You can't disable all cookies though. What you disable are like the tracking ones and such, "essential cookies" are allowed to be always on. Also, some sites are better than others. Some I just have to do the settings once and literally never again, others I have to do every other week.

I cannot believe that someone who understands cookies wouldn't also understand why they exist in the first place...but this is where we are. It's also why a sane person usually chooses "only the functional cookies." It doesn't completely erase the data storage, but it does minimize it and still give you basic function.

I have never seen any site that allows you to disable the functional cookies.

 

[Bill_Bright]

That's where only allowing "essential" cookies should be a "one and done" prompt/answer thing - at least until the user or some update wipes out our saved cookies.

 

[Halo3Addict]

I use two firefox extensions to specifically handle cookies:

Ghostery - Has the ability to auto-accept that dreadful cookie confirmation popup with the minimal cookies required. Works pretty well, only a few sites that have to be done manually. Also has other features

Cookie AutoDelete - Has a white/grey list that is fully customizable so that you can stay logged in to sites that you want (YouTube, Twitch, TechPowerUp, etc) and delete everything else! Can also export your settings for backups which is great.

 

[Calenhad]

There are several browser extensions that can help with this. I hardly ever see them here, I use Firefox with Privacay Badger and Ublock Origin. You also have alternatives such as the Brave browser, which does this by default iirc.

 

[chrcoluk]

The popups can be filtered, but this can leave sites not functional, as generally it requires acceptance to fully utilise features.

The best solution would be to allow the popups and auto configure functional cookies only, but never seen such a solution.

Poorly written legislation combined with poor implementation.

 

[Wirko]

Consent-O-Matic. Works on 3/4 of websites.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

Was times with internet before cookies ro be invented.
How it were works don't know. Huh!

 

[kapone32]

At least some of them give you the option to opt out.

 

[Bill_Bright]

I would be okay with an app that automatically blocks cookies. But I would not be okay with an app that automatically allows them - at least not without me whitelisting them first.

 

[kapone32]

I would be okay with an app that automatically blocks cookies. But I would not be okay with an app that automatically allows them - at least not without me whitelisting them first.

It is like Companies forgot the P in PC. Personal

 

[Bill_Bright]

It is like Companies forgot the P in PC. Personal

Or rather simply choose to ignore.

 

[cvaldes]

You can't disable all cookies though. What you disable are like the tracking ones and such, "essential cookies" are allowed to be always on. Also, some sites are better than others. Some I just have to do the settings once and literally never again, others I have to do every other week.


I have never seen any site that allows you to disable the functional cookies.

I deal with this all the time since most of my web browsing (from my computers) is done in incognito/private mode.

The prompt is indeed the after effect of modern privacy legislation. There were few prompts of this kind ten years ago and none twenty years ago.

You can block all third-party cookies. This is a setting in Chromium-based browsers. Not sure about Safari or Firefox. But for sure there are browser extensions that can handle this.

If you browse in incognito mode with basic adblocking (like uBlock Origin Lite) and configure your browser to delete everything upon exit, there are no cookies -- zero -- when you start up the browser fresh.

In the 30+ years I've been browsing the World Wide Web, I've seen pretty much everything that web site operators will try to do. These days I use one browser (Safari on my Mac) for known important sites (banks, insurance, a couple of e-commerce stores, healthcare, government, etc.).

I use Vivaldi for ordinary sites where I need to log in. For ordinary web surfing, I have been using a ungoogled version of Chromium in incognito mode for about five years. A few times a year I will need to loosen up my restrictions to be able to successfully use a site but that's not too much of an inconvenience for the privacy and security my normal M.O. gives.

If I get prompted to accept cookies and there's an option to reject, I'll do the latter first. If there are problems with the website, then I'll usually visit in incognito mode, accept cookies, do what I need to do, then exit the browser completely. End of tracking.

I have fewer security options available to me on my handheld devices (iPhone, iPad) but I do use the Wipr extension. I also manually configure DNS to point to Adguard DNS servers first. However, Apple's privacy policies make it harder for individual apps to skim user data from other apps. So I'm marginally better off using the Amazon app on my iPhone/iPad rather than visit Amazon on a web browser on my Mac or Windows PCs.

And yes, this means I don't surf the web on my computer with an enormous number of tabs open in the browser. Too many privacy and security risks. And yes, I restart browser sessions quite frequently, destroying all history and browser data (including but not limited to cookies).

So even visiting TPU, I always have to log in if I haven't visited for an hour or so.

(Disclaimer: I don't block ads because I dislike advertisers. I block them for security reasons which is an unassailable stance.)

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

I believe that is true in the EU at least. Not (yet) in the US. It is easier to program sites for universal/global visitors rather than individual countries - at least initially. So even in jurisdictions where such laws do not exist, we are still seeing those prompts.

In many cases, if you allow at least the essential cookies, you will not be asked again UNLESS (or until) you clear your cookies, or the current ones expire. I said "many" not "all" or even "most".


And that is due in part because some cookies expire - but also the user (or a browser update) might have cleared saved cookies by perhaps running CCleaner or Windows Disk Cleanup.

I think this is one of those pendulum things.

Initially, users essentially had no say at all about cookies and companies (and their direct marketing weenies - but also some bad guys) went to extremes to inundate us with cookies, essential and nonessential (some potentially evil).

Then the public and regulatory agencies complained and the pendulum swung all the way to the opposite extreme. And now users are forced allow or disallow - repeatedly.

Hopefully soon, the pendulum will swing back and quickly settle somewhere in the middle where both sides can at least tolerate what happens.


Who said they don't understand why they exist in the first place? No one did so why say that? I can't believe you would quote a person, then suggest his comment implies something totally different than what he said?


Preference? Well sorry, it seems it is you who doesn't understand completely why they exist. IN NO WAY do users need to set preferences for EVERY site we visit. If the user does NOT have an account there for example, and our location has nothing to do with the data we are seeking, no cookies need to be saved.

Frick was very clear - and you quoted him! The issue has nothing to do with what cookies are or why they exist. The issue, as clearly explained by Frick and the OP too, is that these prompts keep coming back even though we have already responded to them.

How many times do you have to answer the same question before your patience runs out and it turns from a minor nuisance, to annoying to extremely irritating? My kids knew not to ask me a third time.

Frick is absolutely right. If it has been weeks, I'm okay with that. But sometimes it is just a few days (or even the next day!) I am NOT okay with that - especially when I know I already allowed at least the essential cookies, and I have not cleaned out my cookies.

The TRUTH is, if website developers and owners ONLY used cookies for their initial purpose, that is, to save language, currency and similar, non-identifying information, for example, or authentication purposes for those sites where we do have accounts, then none of this would be an issue. But instead, cookies are frequently used to track us and target us for marketing or even malicious purposes.

You can't disable all cookies though. What you disable are like the tracking ones and such, "essential cookies" are allowed to be always on. Also, some sites are better than others. Some I just have to do the settings once and literally never again, others I have to do every other week.


I have never seen any site that allows you to disable the functional cookies.

Bill....as usual you miss context. The preferences being discussed were whether you accept laws as being vague to fit the future or precise but easy to weasel around. Good on you for consistently missing the context...including why cookies are used to store data. Data like your preferences for what data can be stored. Also, that "required" section you cannot turn off, according to the law, does not require them to store your preferences for cookies...which is kind of the core of this discussion. You...really have a hate boner for some people, and I'm glad to be on your list given how often you want to devolve to pedantry and are just wrong.


Frick, view this as a car. You need a gas pedal and brake. You should have a fuel level gauge. The browser keeps that fuel level reading for some time, but it will eventually reset and you'll have to get a new fuel reading. The optional inclusion of that fuel gauge does clutter your instrument cluster, but it prevents you from running out of fuel. This is why you think a fuel gauge is required...but it isn't. To make a car work you only require a way to start and stop moving in it. A fuel gauge, like the memory of your preferences, is a convenience.


Regarding all of this...you want the browser to remember something without it actually storing that something. Have you heard of the phrase "You can't have your cake and eat it too." If not, then we need to go back to grade school. It means you can't store nothing, and store your choices...so maybe there is a value in cookies? I mean, it sucks to get a speeding ticket, but it's a thing you get when you drive dangerously. The consequence of not storing any data is to not store data...so why are you guys acting butt hurt? This is like being angry you have to fill out your credit card information when buying online, and then turning around and also being upright because you keep yourself safe online by not saving that data into your browser. Actions have consequences...duh... Am I dealing with people who don't understand the original point of cookies was to store data and personalize stuff online with that data?

It's only recently that this personal data has been discovered to be a viable source of saleable information...but that's also a no freakin' brainer. In other news water is wet, fire is hot, and the dumbest decisions on the planet follow the phrase "hold my beer."

 

[Bones]

I had something a LONG time ago that could be set to either accept or reject cookies plus clean them out automatically.
I may still have it, can't remember the name of it but I do know it was for XP....... If I can find it and get to see if it's been updated for a new OS I'll post the link for it if so.

 

[DaemonForce]

It is like Companies forgot the P in PC. Personal

I believe this is the core of the issue.

Consent-O-Matic. Works on 3/4 of websites.

There could be an app, there might be a browser or extension or possibly a simple action of not giving such stupid sites any traffic whatsoever but the Internet keeps changing for the worse. I would say the answer is to stop voting stupid boomers into positions where they pass stupid bills or dictate how the Internet functions but nobody voted for this and in the US we don't care. We just don't like getting hassled by stupid questions or getting shut out of page requests by nags or worse, some evolution of popup that makes anyone my age or similar to millennial experience immediately screech into a frenzy (we REALLY hate ads of all kinds). Ultimately the solution is to get the out of touch boomers out of these critical decisions that have made our experiences worse. Still, we don't know how to do that.

 

[cvaldes]

Guys, it doesn't matter who is in office. With the ubiquity of smartphones, your online activity is a money machine. People want to track what everyone does online so they can sell that data to someone.

If you really want to reduce this kind of activity, just ban smartphones and make everyone go back to the days when being online meant going to a computer parked on a desktop circa 2004 when WiFi wasn't widespread and notebook computers had shitty battery performance.

And explain it all to Millennials, Zoomers, and Generation Alpha why you are taking away their iPhones and Galaxys. I'm sure they will understand that it's for their own good.

Ahahahahahahahaha!!!!



As much as I'd love to see the World Wide Web go back to its (mostly) outlaw ways in 1993 with less than a million active users, that's simply not realistic. You can't turn back the clock on these things.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Bill....as usual you miss context. The preferences being discussed were whether you accept laws as being vague to fit the future or precise but easy to weasel around.

It is you who, as usual, missed the context.

The context has absolutely nothing to do with "accepting laws". It is a total wonder where you got that - clearly not from the context.

The context is all about these site asking over and over again, what our preferences are.

So before you launch your tirade of personal attacks against others, I would strongly urge you to understand what the context really is.

 

[DirtyDingusMcgee]

I can't say that one extra mouse click bothers me all that much. ABP does a good job of filtering cookie consent pop-ups.