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

"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

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