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

On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 15:30:37 +0200, R.Wieser wrote:

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

They doe it even before we clicked "I agree"/"Yes" anyway.

The GDPR doesn't protect visitors, it protect the websites (from being
sued).

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
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?

Nearly all of my searches are work related and Google is still the best
for technical stuff. I search maybe 20 times per day.
The first 50-100 results at DGG wants to send me to Facebook but if I
add -facebook then the results are about 50% as good as google.
However, google will not return results for free online movies, whereas
DGG always returns quite few good free links. DGG seems to have an "in"
with FB.

"R.Wieser" wrote:

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.

That's what "consent" is all about. *YOU* have to consent to allowing
them to create a cookie for your web session -- but that doesn't mean
you have to retain their cookie after exiting your web browser (Firefox
lets you purge all locally cached data on its exit, Google Chrome
requires an extension, like Click&Clean, and C-Edge has its purge on
exit setting).

Google is showing you a redirected web page. Many sites use an overlay
that you have to Okay to remove. GPDR doesn't say how the visitor is
informed, only that they be informed.

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

Agree, and then delete all cookies (and other locally cached data, like
DOM Storage) when exiting the web browser. Of course, that means the
cookie won't be there on your next visit, so you'll get queried again.
Ain't GPDR so grand. Glad I don't live there; however, many US sites
are employing GPDR notification, because they're a worldwide enterprise.

I purge all localled cached data by the web browser on its exit. Yep,
that means I have to enter my login credentials every time I revisit a
site where I have to login to an account.

VanguardLH,

That's what "consent" is all about. *YOU* have to consent to
allowing them to create a cookie for your web session

Lol. Trolling much ?

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"VanguardLH" wrote

| Google is showing you a redirected web page. Many sites use an overlay
| that you have to Okay to remove.

That's getting worse and worse. I suspect in the US
they're being used as just one more way to force script.
I typically just switch to no-CSS. But I think I'm going to
start making a list of classes to hide in userContent.css.
I suspect a lot of sites are using standard templates.

"R.Wieser" wrote in message
...
VanguardLH,

That's what "consent" is all about. *YOU* have to consent to
allowing them to create a cookie for your web session

Lol. Trolling much ?

By the way, the above was the best of three : the other possibilities are
that you have no clue what the GDPR law stands for, or that you are
willfully misrepresenting it. But as I'm an "all around good guy" (yeah,
right :-) ) I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

And for the off chance that you simply have no clue : session cookies - as
part of the "functional cookie" group - are excluded from the GDPR
requirements.

The rest of your post didn't do any better.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"R.Wieser" wrote in message
...

And for the off chance that you simply have no clue : session cookies - as
part of the "functional cookie" group - are excluded from the GDPR
requirements.

I put that wrong : They are not /excluded/, but as (long as) those cookies
do not contain PII the GDPR has nothing to say about them.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

if it worked as you wanted in an older version then downgrade, you can get on sites as oldapps or portablesapps
im on v89 but you can also try chrom dev or canary and see if the same issue

On Tuesday, March 30, 2021 at 1:28:12 PM UTC-4, 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. :-)

wrote in message
...

if it worked as you wanted in an older version then downgrade, you
can get on sites as oldapps or portablesapps im on v89 but you can
also try chrom dev or canary and see if the same issue

I think you misunderstood the question. The problem is not to access a
random website, but that Google has put up a mandatory "consent" page which
intercepts and than blocks all my attempts to do some searching.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

VanguardLH,

And for the off chance that you simply have no clue : session cookies -
as part of the "functional cookie" group - are excluded from the GDPR
requirements.
....
Session cookies are [supposed to] get erased when the web session exits.

And that has .... what to do with GDPR consent ?

Mind you, *you* where the one who started to blabber about "have to consent
to allowing them to create a cookie for your web session". Which is
bullcrap.

[Snipping some "water is wet" stuff about how "session cookies" work]

The point of user intervention to grant consent really has nothing
to do with the content of the session or expiring cookie file.

Bingo.

So, what was that "allowing them to create a cookie" all about ?

They are used as a means of tracking visitation, and whether or
not to interrupt with a consent prompt.

Hmmmm ... So your stance is that I should re-enable long-lived cookies, so
Google can store an *absolutily unreadable* cookie on my personal 'puter
that, the next time I visit, tells them they should not store tracking
cookies on my 'puter ...

.... accepting the fact that I cannot read that cookie *and* that someone,
Google or not, could "forget" *not* to put an tracking cookie on my 'puter
and have it live upto-and-beyon my next visit ?

I don't think so.

Kiddo, my choice is that they, apart from session-bound short-lived
"functional cookies" store /absolutily nothing/ on my 'puter.

I've got a cinema in my town. It doesn't expect me to carry a "no
admittance" ticket around so they can check and by it stop me from entering.
I'm sure that Google can come up with a similar system.

IOW, the absense of a consent cookie means they do not have consent.

It *can* be as simple as that. But that doesn't give Google "a foot in the
door", now does it ? So it won't happen ... unless they are forced. I
can only hope that GDPR turns out to be a bit more solid than DNT.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Mayayana wrote:

"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.

And why I use StartPage (was ixQuick). It uses the Google search
engine. Google always has more hits total and more relevant, for me,
than does Bing, so I have StartPage as the default (and DDG as an
alternative).

Rather than bother with the drop-down list on a search to use the
default or alternative search engines present there, I defined bookmarks
in a Search subfolder in my Bookmarks with URLs to the search engines
(followed by %s as a placeholder for my search text) along with keywords
in each bookmark. "g firefox" uses Google to search on "firefox". "s
firefox" uses Startpage. "ddg firefox" uses DuckDuckGo. "b firefox"
uses Bing. And a whole slew of other bookmarks with keywords for other
searches, like "gm addrs" for Google Maps, "gn topic" for Google
News, "gi whatever" for Google Images, and so on, and the same for
search types using other search engine sites, like "yt whatever" to
search Youtube, "imdb title" to search the Internet Movie Database,
and "dict word" to search at Dictionary.com. However, those are handy
for use in the address bar. I can use subfolders in my Search bookmarks
folder to group them, like all Google bookmarks are under a Google
subfolder, a Bing subfolder, References for lots of ref sites
(dictionary, IMDB, newspapers, etc), and so on.

I also add the Selection Context Search extension to give me a context
menu of search engines. It uses the same bookmarks for searching by
keyword that I already created under the Search bookmark folder, and
shows the same hierarchy of subfolders for grouping the bookmarks. I
can select some text in a web doc, right-click, and pick where to search
on the text. In my Search bookmarks folder, I have 30 bookmarks with
keywords (to call using the keyword in the addressbar), or to use with
the extension (to access the search engines on selected text in a web
doc).

I can enter text in the addressbar to use the default search engine. Or
I can select one of the other search engines in a short list. Or I can
use a keyword in the addressbar to directly specify which search engine
to use. Or I can use content selection to pick which search engine to
use on selected text using the context menu.

For deobfuscating URLs, like Google's search hits, or any site that
redirects, I use the Unshort.lnk extension. However, looks like Google
removed that trick of redirection (the URL points to themself to track
the destination, and their server then takes you to the redirected site
specified in a url= argument in the URL) a while ago. I haven't seen
the redirection URLs for quite a spell with Google searches.

Might've been because scammers figured out how to abuse Google's
redirect feature. See:

https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/202...irect-feature/

Their goo.gl redirection service can obviously be used by scammers, but
then it was shown that Google's redirection service intended only to
track search results (that were clicked on) could also get similary
abused. I haven't used goo.gl, so I don't know if they provided a means
to report abusive redirection URLs using their goo.gl service. With
other redirection services, like tinyurl.com, you can report abuse and
the service owner gets those malicious redirects killed in a day.
Google killed their goo.gl redirection service back in April 2018. Not
sure when they quit using redirection for tracking their search results.

Apparently Google switched to using the OnMouseDown event to track on
which search results you clicked. That requires Javascript, so that
tracking is killed if you use Google Search with Javascript disabled.

"R.Wieser" wrote:

VanguardLH,

R.Wieser wrote:

And for the off chance that you simply have no clue : session cookies -
as part of the "functional cookie" group - are excluded from the GDPR
requirements.

Session cookies are [supposed to] get erased when the web session exits.

And that has .... what to do with GDPR consent ?

Sites that interject their "Accept (our cookie)" aren't declaring if
they are for session or permanent (expiring) cookies, and they don't
care. GPDR excludes session cookies now, but since when has GPDR been
fixed in stone? That they create ANY cookie is why they present the
prompt. It's their means of legal indemnification now and later.

Vanguard,

Session cookies are [supposed to] get erased when the web session exits.

And that has .... what to do with GDPR consent ?

Sites that interject their "Accept (our cookie)" aren't declaring
if they are for session or permanent (expiring) cookies, and they
don't care.

Thats a lot of words for saying "nothing". :-)

GPDR excludes session cookies now, but since when has GPDR
been fixed in stone?

Lol. Kid, throwing FUD around doesn't score you any points.

Also, the GDPR has never included rules about session cookies, as it isn't
even about cookies to begin with (as you should have be aware of by now).
The clarification of "functional cookes" vs "tracking cookies" was only
added later, to help the more "morinic" businesses/website owners understand
what they could and couldn't do.

Alas, that has not stopped the more nefarious companies to keep yip-yapping
about how problematic it would be to run a website without being allowed to
use cookies, as well as them push the "the GDPR forces us to ask for consent
so we can place a session cookie on your system" narrative towards visitors.

The very same misguided claim you threw around and which got our
conversation started with by the way.

That they create ANY cookie is why they present the
prompt. It's their means of legal indemnification now
and later.

:-) Who is paying you to blabber this kind of propaganda ?

For later ? When was the last time in your country a Law was retroactivily
applied ? For now ? They had ample time (years) to become aware that
(short-lived) "functional cookies" do not fall under the GDPR - and never
can.

No kid, you know well enough why the different companies are trying to put
the GDPR in a bad light by bothering visitors with consent that they
supposedly need to give for even a session cookie - its simply a
multi-pronged attack.

Either the visitor will get tired of ticking all of the the "no" boxes and
just press the "yes"button so they can go on, or will start to take a stand
against the GDPR because of the bull**** those companies have been feeding
them.

And thats besides, as mentioned before, forcing the visitor to (re)enable
long-lived cookies and accept an effectivily opt-out system (by way of a
"no" cookie) for the consent form itself *and* having to accept that such a
"consent" cookie content is unreadable - there is no way to check if it
reflects the made choice(s).

A so called no-lose situation. The only queston is how big the win will
be.

Kid, when you started I considered you to be part of that lattter,
mis-informed (bull****ted to) group. Though currently I get a kind of
'Stockholm syndrome' vibe ...

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"R.Wieser" wrote:

Also, the GDPR has never included rules about session cookies, as it
isn't even about cookies to begin with (as you should have be aware
of by now).

Oh, so YOU decided to mislead with your arguments.

You: session cookies - as part of the "functional cookie" group - are
excluded from the GDPR requirements.
You: They are not /excluded/, but as (long as) those cookies
do not contain PII the GDPR has nothing to say about them.
You: isn't even about cookies

Can't make a decision, can you.

The clarification of "functional cookes" vs "tracking cookies" was only
added later, to help the more "morinic" businesses/website owners understand
what they could and couldn't do.

Verification from you the GPDR was not set in stone. Thank you.

No kid,

Your insult isn't working. So, post a URL where are you online
credentials as a contract lawyer.

Vanguard,

Oh, so YOU decided to mislead with your arguments.

Did/do I now ? Lets see :

You: session cookies - as part of the "functional cookie" group - are
excluded from the GDPR requirements.

They are excluded from the GDPR *because* ...

You: They are not /excluded/, but as (long as) those cookies
do not contain PII the GDPR has nothing to say about them.

.... they do not contain PII. The "exclusion" is only given to take the wind
from under the "but we don't know what it applies to and what not" whining
companies wings.

You: isn't even about cookies
Can't make a decision, can you.

:-) Lol. You really are trying to grasp (at) straws, arn't you ?
*Claiming* that someone is wrong is easy enough. The remarkable (yeah,
right) thing is that people than, just like you did, go to a full stop, not
even bothering to try to support their "you're wrong" claims. :-p

But, I'll give you a chance : How does "(it) isn't not even about cookies"
contradict the the other two ? Up for it ?

I didn't think so.

The clarification of "functional cookes" vs "tracking cookies" was only
added later, to help the more "morinic" businesses/website owners
understand
what they could and couldn't do.

Verification from you the GPDR was not set in stone. Thank you.

Ah yes. I can see how the word "added" in the above quote must have
confused you. But, if you parse the *full* sentence you might notice that
that "added" is about "The clarification", not the Law itself.

Than again, I get the (rather strong) feeling you already knew that, but
where trying to find something, /anything/ you could complain about ...

No kid,

Your insult isn't working.

I don't get it, how is calling a kid a kid insulting ? If you do not want
to be referred to as a kid than stop behaving like one.

So, post a URL where are you online credentials as a contract lawyer.

Ah yes, "if you cannot prove you are talking with authority than you cannot
tell me I'm wrong" joker card.

Alas kiddo, I can tell you wrong on the same authority that you think you
may act as if what you post is right.

The whole difference between you and me is that I can-and-have underbuild my
position and taken yours down, while you on the other hand have done nothing
of the sort. Not underbuilding your own "That's what "consent" is all
about. *YOU* have to consent to allowing them to create a cookie for your
web session" claim, not responded to anything thats wrong with the
consent-cookie method, heck, not even acknowledged it, nothing, nada, zip,
zich.

All you have been doing is to try, one way or the other, get outof the pit
you dug for yourself.

There is as old saying : "Its not the mistake which defines a person, but
how he deals with it".

You made a simple mistake of not knowing much of anything about the GDPR,
but acting as if you did. You had the bad luck of encountering me, an
European who has followed the GDPR a bit , simply because he's affected by
it, and as such has picked up a few things about it.

Your second, *and by far biggest mistake* was not allowing yourself to
acknowledge that you perhaps might have been wrong. The rest just trails
off of that.

I think its a good idea to end our conversation here. You've shown you've
got nothing that I can learn from. Other than perhaps a bad attitude. :-)

Goodbye.
Rudy Wieser