News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:California moves to exempt Linux from its age-verificatio... by olalonde on Tuesday May 26, 2026 @04:00AM (#48276576)
Browsers can literally chose not to store cookies... There is no need to bring trust in the equation.
Re:California moves to exempt Linux from its age-verificatio... by freehorse on Tuesday May 26, 2026 @07:50AM (#48278432)
Can browsers know which cookies are necessary for a site functioning, logins, etc and which are for tracking, ads etc? There are many ways one can eg block third party cookies and that helps and rarely causes issues, but tracking can also be done with first party cookies, let alone fingerprinting.

For example, firefox's "strict tracking protection" setting also breaks a bunch of websites.

Re:California moves to exempt Linux from its age-verificatio... by 1718627440 on Wednesday May 27, 2026 @09:29AM (#48294045)
There are some browsers, that implement it like it was originally intended and asks the user for each cookie individually: Do you want to store "PHPSESSIONID=12345"? -> Yes. Do you want "AdTRackingID..." -> No. Do you want "AWStelemtry..." -> No, and reject all further.

Midori is an example for a graphical one, while there is Lynx for the terminal.

Re:California moves to exempt Linux from its age-verificatio... by miki123211 on Tuesday May 26, 2026 @11:28AM (#48281133)
Most laws make a distinction between cookies stored for "technical purposes" and those stored for marketing / tracking.

The former are things like "does the user want dark mode", the language you chose to use the website in, the contents of your cart, your login info etc. The latter are for tracking. Typically, the former don't need consent, the latter do. Browsers have no way of telling the two apart.