Google is redirecting me to a "consent" page - is it new or just me ?

Hello all,

Recently while trying to google something I've been getting redirects to a
"consent.google.com" page in relation to how I want to have my private data
to be used [1]. (the answer to which is: in no way at all)

Question: has anybody else come across the above and knows more about it ?
Possibly including how to skip/suppress it ?

I've been able to get rid of it a few times by closing the browser (which
throws away all cookies) and opening a new one, but just now that trick
didn't work instantly anymore - had to leave some time between closing and
opening the new one, meaning I could be looking at that (nagging)
time-in-between becoming longer-and-longer ....

[1] With ofcourse the "no" choice leading to a page where all the tickboxes
are ticked, and I have to untick them one-by-one - in short, a "no" choice
which leads to a "yes, unless" page. I wonder if the "yes" choice goes to
a page where all tickboxes are *un*ticked, but for some reason I don't think
I will go and try it)

By the way: FF with JS disabled, and cookies set to session-only.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

P.s,
I know of and have been using DDG too.

P.p.s.
Lol. I tried to post this into this as well as the 7 and 10 newsgroups, but
got a "forbidden crosspost" error back. I already wondered why this
newsgroup got so few crossposted messages recently. Now I know. :-)

R.Wieser wrote:
Hello all,

Recently while trying to google something I've been getting redirects to a
"consent.google.com" page in relation to how I want to have my private data
to be used [1]. (the answer to which is: in no way at all)

Question: has anybody else come across the above and knows more about it ?
Possibly including how to skip/suppress it ?

I've been able to get rid of it a few times by closing the browser (which
throws away all cookies) and opening a new one, but just now that trick
didn't work instantly anymore - had to leave some time between closing and
opening the new one, meaning I could be looking at that (nagging)
time-in-between becoming longer-and-longer ....

[1] With ofcourse the "no" choice leading to a page where all the tickboxes
are ticked, and I have to untick them one-by-one - in short, a "no" choice
which leads to a "yes, unless" page. I wonder if the "yes" choice goes to
a page where all tickboxes are *un*ticked, but for some reason I don't think
I will go and try it)

By the way: FF with JS disabled, and cookies set to session-only.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

P.s,
I know of and have been using DDG too.

P.p.s.
Lol. I tried to post this into this as well as the 7 and 10 newsgroups, but
got a "forbidden crosspost" error back. I already wondered why this
newsgroup got so few crossposted messages recently. Now I know. :-)

I have never gotten that Google request or anything like it.

On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 17:32:10 -0500, Paul in Houston TX
wrote:

R.Wieser wrote:
Hello all,

Recently while trying to google something I've been getting redirects to a
"consent.google.com" page in relation to how I want to have my private data
to be used [1]. (the answer to which is: in no way at all)

Question: has anybody else come across the above and knows more about it ?
Possibly including how to skip/suppress it ?

I've been able to get rid of it a few times by closing the browser (which
throws away all cookies) and opening a new one, but just now that trick
didn't work instantly anymore - had to leave some time between closing and
opening the new one, meaning I could be looking at that (nagging)
time-in-between becoming longer-and-longer ....

[1] With ofcourse the "no" choice leading to a page where all the tickboxes
are ticked, and I have to untick them one-by-one - in short, a "no" choice
which leads to a "yes, unless" page. I wonder if the "yes" choice goes to
a page where all tickboxes are *un*ticked, but for some reason I don't think
I will go and try it)

By the way: FF with JS disabled, and cookies set to session-only.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

P.s,
I know of and have been using DDG too.

P.p.s.
Lol. I tried to post this into this as well as the 7 and 10 newsgroups, but
got a "forbidden crosspost" error back. I already wondered why this
newsgroup got so few crossposted messages recently. Now I know. :-)

I have never gotten that Google request or anything like it.

Just don't use google.

Paul,

I have never gotten that Google request or anything like it.

Up until recently, neither did I.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

gfretwell,

Just don't use google.

With it returning less-and-less relevant "hits" (and those drowning in
lots-and-lots of unrelated crap) I am already looking at other search
engines. :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Charlie+,

it means they dont know who you are

After having used them for a decade thats rather hard to believe.

and your avoidance to Google harvesting all your data has
been successful!

Nah. Although I block all kinds of trackers they should have no problem
with harvesting all my search queries and extract lots of info from that.

Move to StartPage.com as your browser search page would be
my suggestion to you.

Really ?

I went to their "privacy policy" page (duh)

https://www.startpage.com/en/search/privacy-policy.html

and the first thing I got was this, overlaying the whole page (blocking me
from even seeing what their policy is !) :

ENGLISH:
JavaScript appears to be disabled in your web browser. To complete the
CAPTCHA, please enable JavaScript and reload the page.

in multiple languages.

So, I *first* have to enable JS (not going to happen) *and* go thru a
captcha (not going to happen either) to be allowed to read what their
privacy policy actually is ? They must be joking. :-(

And a captcha on their *privacy policy* page ? What the **** do they think
they have in there that needs to be protected that way ?

[quote from that page]
With Startpage you can search and browse the internet privately. *Not
because you have something to hide, but because you have a lot to protect!*
[/quote]

And the first thing that they demand is that I enable JS ? They *got* to
be kidding.


Also, looking thru that "privacy policy" they double-talk (lie?) quite a
bit. As a result if that and the above I do not quite trust them.

Thanks for the suggestion though.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Charlie+",

Fair enough! I did give up eventually on not using js!

I'm a person with low requirements and as a result have yet to encounter a
JS infested website that /I/ need.

But when that happens I will probably grab myself a Raspberry Pi and use one
Micro-SD card per unavoidable website.

The problem is not even that they use JS. More often than not you can work
around it. The problem is that they try to block access to the information
you need to be able to accept their "terms of usage" (of sorts). That
feels rather shady. Or stupid, which might even be worse. :-)

And by the way : the JS requirement and captcha answering on that privacy
policy page is fully bogus. In my case I just disabled CSS (which is a
two-click operation on FF) and I could read the whole thing anyway.
whistle

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 18:17:11 +0200, R.Wieser wrote:
Charlie+",

Fair enough! I did give up eventually on not using js!

I'm a person with low requirements and as a result have yet to encounter a
JS infested website that /I/ need.

But when that happens I will probably grab myself a Raspberry Pi and use one
Micro-SD card per unavoidable website.

The problem is not even that they use JS. More often than not you can work
around it. The problem is that they try to block access to the information
you need to be able to accept their "terms of usage" (of sorts). That
feels rather shady. Or stupid, which might even be worse. :-)

And by the way : the JS requirement and captcha answering on that privacy
policy page is fully bogus. In my case I just disabled CSS (which is a
two-click operation on FF) and I could read the whole thing anyway.
whistle

Google used to work fine even before it's infected with JS. From advanced
search, unsafe search, verbatim search, to specifying the date range of the
results. Everything were done without JS.

Now... almost everything needs JS. And the worst thing is, due to JS
infection, Google has become pure evil. Tracking their users. And the sad
thing is, almost all websites help Google track everyone by using Google
analytic, tag manager, and other craps. Sure, such services help website
growth and development, but the website owners are not aware of the
implication of using Google services, or just downright don't care at all.

Those "consent" pages or popups are a joke. They're more like a confirmation
page/popup for asking users whether they want to use the service **and** be
tracked, or... get the hell out.

JJ,

Google used to work fine even before it's infected with JS.

For me (with JS disabled) it still seems to work fine ...

From advanced search, unsafe search, verbatim search, to
specifying the date range of the results. Everything were done
without JS.

.... that is, it doesn't seem to matter if I search from its front page, or
go to the "advanced search" and put my keywords into the "all these words:"
box. In both cases I get a *lot* of "hits" that do not even seem to be
related to the keywords I used. :-(

Though a "-" prefix to a word still seems to dependantly do its thing :
excluding that word. Go figure. :-(


Those "consent" pages or popups are a joke. They're more like
a confirmation page/popup for asking users whether they want to
use the service **and** be tracked, or... get the hell out.

As I have disabeled JS I do not see such popups. Ever.

And you know, I've encountered /very few/ website which did put an
intermediate "consent" page up (mostly of the kind you described, but which
is actually forbidden under the "cookie law"), and actually consider them
being the "good guys" under he bad ones : You actually get a choice.

Most of them just put a sticky top or bottom "banner" up which bluntly
states that "by using our website you agree to whatever we want" - which is
ofcourse illegal (no information about how your info is used, no choice,
yadayadayada).

As such neither means anything in a legal sense. But as the gouverments of
the different European countries (including mine) seem to love grandstanding
by creating laws - but than refuse to uphold them those websites can stil
say and do whatever they please.

At some point I've just added some GM scripting to automatically remove all
kinds of sticky stuff (removing those and other "you must see this all the
time!" crap) - just so I could enjoy seeing the whole window again.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser.

R.Wieser wrote:
Charlie+,

it means they dont know who you are

After having used them for a decade thats rather hard to believe.

and your avoidance to Google harvesting all your data has
been successful!

Nah. Although I block all kinds of trackers they should have no problem
with harvesting all my search queries and extract lots of info from that.

Move to StartPage.com as your browser search page would be
my suggestion to you.

Really ?

I went to their "privacy policy" page (duh)

https://www.startpage.com/en/search/privacy-policy.html

and the first thing I got was this, overlaying the whole page (blocking me
from even seeing what their policy is !) :

ENGLISH:
JavaScript appears to be disabled in your web browser. To complete the
CAPTCHA, please enable JavaScript and reload the page.

in multiple languages.

So, I *first* have to enable JS (not going to happen) *and* go thru a
captcha (not going to happen either) to be allowed to read what their
privacy policy actually is ? They must be joking. :-(

And a captcha on their *privacy policy* page ? What the **** do they think
they have in there that needs to be protected that way ?

[quote from that page]
With Startpage you can search and browse the internet privately. *Not
because you have something to hide, but because you have a lot to protect!*
[/quote]

And the first thing that they demand is that I enable JS ? They *got* to
be kidding.


Also, looking thru that "privacy policy" they double-talk (lie?) quite a
bit. As a result if that and the above I do not quite trust them.

Thanks for the suggestion though.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Duckduckgo.com
No JS needed.

Paul,

Duckduckgo.com
No JS needed.

:-) I've got a local browser start page with "go find that ****" input
boxes for both Google and DDG.

And I have to give it to DDG, their result pages are clean enough that my GM
page scrubbers have very little to do on them (just removing the few "ads"
entries).

If-and-when that consent redirection keeps nagging I might just put DDG at
the top ...

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 at 23:08:44, Paul in Houston TX
wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
[]
Duckduckgo.com
No JS needed.

How is DDG funded?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Life, liberty and the happiness of pursuit!

R.Wieser wrote:

Recently while trying to google something I've been getting redirects to a
"consent.google.com" page in relation to how I want to have my private data
to be used [1]. (the answer to which is: in no way at all)

Question: has anybody else come across the above and knows more about it ?

You are in the EU where the GDPR [Datenschutz-Grundverordnung] applies.
Google has had the fear of GDPR driven into it. Google must now ask for
your consent when it wants to use your private data.

You are asking people who are not in the EU and where the GDPR does not
apply. Google will simply use their private data without asking. They
will not see the consent page.


Possibly including how to skip/suppress it ?

Use a VPN which makes you appear to be in (say) North America where the
GDPR does not apply.

Those who don't get asked, will get their private data used by Google
without asking. That is the cost you will pay to suppress it.

It would be foolish to equate not being asked for consent with not
having your private data used.


I've been able to get rid of it a few times by closing the browser (which
throws away all cookies) and opening a new one, but just now that trick
didn't work instantly anymore

By the way: FF with JS disabled, and cookies set to session-only.

In the past, Google's general approach to Google settings was to save
your Google preferences in cookies on your browser. (When you throw away
cookies, you have to re-enter all your Google settings again.)

These days, Google is moving to requiring everyone to log in to Google
to have their Google settings remembered on Google's servers.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| How is DDG funded?

This seems to be the deal:

DuckDuckGo makes money in two simple ways: Advertising and Affiliate
Marketing. Advertising is shown based on the keywords typed into the search
box. Affiliate revenues come from Amazon and eBay affiliate programs. When
users buy after getting on those sites through DuckDuckGo the company
collects a small commission.

If you'll recall, Google became a giant by posting text-based
ads next to search results. Clean, simple, useful, honest, brilliant.
But then they got greedy and it never stopped.

DDG uses Bing results, so they don't need to have a search
engine. That's also why they're not as good as Google. I use
Google occasionally. It doesn't require script. Though it often
tries to track me by giving me a rigged URL in links that goes
through their site. They don't give webmasters that data anymore,
but they still collect it for themselves.

Les,

Google has had the fear of GDPR driven into it.

Than that fear has not been driven deep enough into them, as it also states
that it may *not* be used as an entry-blocker ("cookie wall") - which it now
has been set up as.

Also, I've just gone thru that consent - change page (which does some
doubletalk about the(ir) usage of cookies) and selected all "No"s. The
looking at the google.com - consent cookie ot contains a largely unreadable
string (identifying me as a person?) starting with "YES+". I don't know
about you, but that doesn't look kosher to me ...

Use a VPN which makes you appear to be in (say) North America
where the GDPR does not apply.

Lol. Just clicking "I agree" (just do anything with my data you wish)
would than be a lot easier. :-)

I was more thinking of the availability of some kind of an url argument to
convey my choice.

And by the way, I've gone thru that "consent" page (selecting all "no"s
ofcourse) and now get redirected to "consent.youtube.com" - which I have
never used on this (work) 'puter and is even domain-blocked on it. IOW, I
can't even progress. :-|

These days, Google is moving to requiring everyone to log in to
Google to have their Google settings remembered on Google's
servers.

That would be a bit of a problem, as I just use their search engine, and
nothing else. (no facebook or other "social media", no "google groups",
nothing)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser