Another issue is that Strict mode is used by roughly 0.5% of Brave's users, with the rest using the default setting, which is the Standard mode.
This low percentage actually makes these users more vulnerable to fingerprinting despite them using the more aggressive blocker, because they constitute a discernible subset of users standing out from the rest.
I haven't really looked into it too much, but... Aren't they actually right in this case?
Sure, reading "we can't protect your privacy because you're using privacy-centric extension..." feels like bullshit, but from how I understand it based on the screenshot, the issue is that you have blocked the cookie permissions pop-up, whose main reason is to give you an option to opt-out of any tracking cookies, thus protecting your privacy. While also being required by law.
However, this depends on how exactly is the law formulated. How does it deals with a case where you don't accept, nor decline any cookies, and just ignore it? Are they not allowed to save any cookie until you accept it and specify what exactly can they save? Or should they not let you use the site until you accept it?
I vaguely remember that it used to be enough to just have a OK-able warning that this site is using cookies, but then it changed to include a choice to opt-out. Which could indicate that unless you opt-out, which they are required to give you a chance to, they can use whatever tracking cookies they want. And if that is the case, this message is actually correct.
In the EU they must assume you have opted out until you explicitly opt in. blocking the popuip by law, must be treated as opting out. or to be more specific, its aconsent thing. they must assume they do not have consent until you explicitly give it.if this popup is in the EU, its a violation to my knowledge as it is forcing the user to change theirbrowsers settings or opt into something not necessary.
CNN might be the only site I've seen that actually checks if you have made a cookie choice then. The whole cookie acceptance thing is dumb, but they are following the law.
Thankfully there is a plan that EU will make changes fo current policy so those popups might go away.
Huh. Must be leftover from the early days of the mobile Internet. Kinda like Reddit's old mobile site (which now just redirects to Reddit's current mobile site).
I'm a noob... But hear me out. Does anyone make a browser extension that fools the site into thinking you've accepted the cookie(s) when you really haven't?
CNN Management: I’m worried that since our purchase by a right-wing nut job and our spectacular idiot explosion of the last CEO, that we’re still in danger of being considered a valid corporate news outlet. What can we do?
CNN Schmuck: We could force mandatory tracking and ads on all website visitors.
"We are by law forced to give you the option to view our ads and accept our tracking, because of privacy legislation in your region. Since you are hindering us from doing so, you can't come to the birthday party".
Pretty sure CNN is (willfully) misinterpreting the law. The EU is definitely not prohibiting them from just turning off the tracking without providing a choice.
I thank the LORD for GDPR. I am amazed it actually happened. I voted Pirate Party for EU Parliament every time, or whoever was most loud about privacy protections at the time, I wrote to parliamentarians, one of whom I grew up with, and I sure like to think and hope it made a difference. Never thought I'd see something like this happen. The EU works. Democracy works.
Thanks for the tip but I'm good. I'm not going to waste more energy fighting to read whatever CNN has to say if they take such issue with my "browser configuration".
