Avast acquires I don't care about Cookies browser extension
Avast, a company known for its security products and services, has acquired the popular browser extension I don't care about cookies.
The extension deals with cookie notices that most websites display these days automatically. Instead of having to click on one or multiple buttons to submit your cookie preferences to a site, you'd have these prompts handled automatically by the extension.
The browser extension may accept all cookies or only necessary ones, staying true to its name. The developer suggests to use other means, such as blocking third-party cookies, to improve privacy while online. I don't care about cookies' aim is to remove an annoyance on the Internet only.
The developer of the extension published a short message on the official website about Avast's acquisition. According to the information, the extension remains free and the developer continues to work on the project.
Avast offered to acquire the project so that we can help each other in creating even better products and I decided to accept the offer: "I don't care about cookies" is now officially a member of Avast family
I will keep working on the project and the extension will remain free to use. Donations are not needed anymore to keep the project going, of course.
Avast has not published a press release about the acquisition up until now. Avast's motivation to acquire the extension are unknown at this point. It is possible that the company is planning to integrate the functionality into some of its products.
Alternatives to I don't care about co0okies are available. We reviewed Cookie Block and Never-Consent recently, which reject consent on many Internet sites. These extensions attempt to pick the best choice for the user automatically, which almost always is reject consent for any form of cookie but necessary ones.
Now You: what is your take on the acquisition? (via Deskmodder)
Beware the comment above leading you to an imposter addon.
The real project is here: https://github.com/OhMyGuus/I-Dont-Care-About-Cookies
If you’re upset by the sale, here you have a safe alternative: https://www.stilldontcareaboutcookies.com/
That’s not the legitimate fork!
Not really open source either.
Isn’t even free (1$).
Go here instead:
[https://github.com/OhMyGuus/I-Dont-Care-About-Cookies]
Ninja Cookie is another alternative.
Backup of v3.4.2, the last pre-Avast version: https://github.com/Darthagnon/idontcareaboutcookies-backup
fork
https://github.com/OhMyGuus/I-Dont-Care-About-Cookies/releases
Brilliant!!
I hope this continues and improves upon the work that was already available, more than that I hope a lot of people join in and carry the development load also.
More collected data by avast
I run my broswer “sandboxed” and EVERY time I start it, after a few seconds, I get the message that the extension has been acquired by AVAST. Doesn’t bode well.
Sadly “super agent” doen’t deal with Youtube’s “Before you continue…” warning.
@hg
Check out the following link:
https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/wiki/solutions
The adblock filters there reliably suppress the nasty window you are talking about. Add them to your custom filters and you are good to go.
I run my broswer “sandboxed” and EVERY time I start it, after a few seconds, I get the message that the extension has been acquired by AVAST. Doesn’t bode well.
I had tried Cookie Dialog Monster last year for a long while but decided to disable it eventually because it was slowing down page loads. I may have to give it a try again.
My question is how does manifest v3 affect these kinds of extensions that use an ever growing list of rules and such. I know Cookie Dialog Monster updated to manifest v3 some versions ago but it hasn’t been released yet and I haven’t tested it myself.
This isn’t an endorsement for the extension but something worth looking into or keeping an eye on.
@Mystique
> My question is how does manifest v3 affect these kinds of extensions that use an ever growing list of rules and such.
Well, with Manifest V3 you have a 30K rule limit per extension and a 330K rule limit in total. Manifest V3 has also no cosmetic filtering support from what I gather.
Anyway, most GDPR cookie prompts are delivered via content delivery networks (CDNs) that websites subscribe to, so that they don’t have to come up with their own dialogue each. Now, such a connection to a CDN can be blocked without the need of cosmetic filtering. The “I don’t care about cookies” extension / list also currently has approx. 25K rules, so the rule limit is not hurting it either currently.
That being said, putting your hopes on Manifest V3’s capabilities is a losing battle. Manifest V3 does improve security by taking away certain easily exploitable permissions from extensions, but it will never be as good as Manifest V2 (mediocre is the best you can hope for, really, mainly due to the rule limit). You should look into native adblockers like the one Brave ships with by default and / or browsers that still have native uBO support like FF (nothing guaranteed though, extension devs are always at the mercy of the capabilities the browser developer grants them).
@Iron Heart
I figured that was the case. This is where the wheels start to fall off the wagon given that manifest v3 imposes such limits on more than just the scale of an adblocker.
Additional rules will have to be added and there is no doubt that ad companies are going to see manifest v3 as a green light to up their game and create more variations knowing that there will be an artificial wall in place to prevent consumers from possibly blocking ads at some point so they will just brute force their way through.
I will have to give Brave a solid update and another try but I can’t see it replacing Firefox based browsers for me but always have to keep an open mind.
For more reasons than one Brave or an independent source should absolutely build their own extensions repository as there are so many other reasons for it outside of the stupidly forced manifest v3 complication of google. There are so many extensions that aren’t allowed on the webstore not to mention the absolutely poor website and quality control issues on the webstore.
Thanks for being honest and genuine Iron Heart.
@Mystique
Variations are a substantial threat, no doubt about it. Of course an upper rule limit invites the practice, a practice that is especially effective if the tracker domain is sufficiently randomized in its naming scheme (so not something like “trackerA1”, “tracker A2”, “trackerA3” for example, which could be blocked by a trackerA* filter). Adblocking should always be based on the premise that you can run an unlimited number of filters.
If I relied on Chromium + extension, I would certainly be an affected party since I run a greater number than 330K filters in total. Extension-based filtering on Chromium will be a mediocre travesty going forward, there can be no doubt about it – the rule limit alone would make sure of that. Going forward, the only real solution for Chromium-based browsers, should Manifest V2 support get dropped, will be built-in adblockers like what Brave ships with, since they preserve unlimited filters, cosmetic filtering etc. which extensions cannot under the new scheme. There’s also the FF version of uBO as long as Mozilla doesn’t follow Google’s steps.
Of course forks like Brave and Vivaldi can try to keep the webRequest API, this should be no real issue until June 2023, since the webRequest API will just be behind an enterprise flag until then – this enterprise flag can easily be flipped to “enabled”. From July 2023 onwards, Google could rip out the actual code and this is where it gets interesting then… Me personally, I am mildly indifferent to any effort in that regard, because Brave’s internal adblocker suffices for my (already extensive) use, but of course it would be great for people who mainly rely on uBO (or uMatrix). You are right that such a move would also necessitate their own extension store, as Google likely removes Manifest V2 extensions from the Chrome Web Store at some point.
Whether or not you should use Brave is not something I can determine, what I do predict though is that Manifest V3 will not have as big an effect as the Firefox community thinks it will have. I mean, look at how many users have dowloaded uBlock Origin from the Chrome Web Store or AMO, this is a clear minority. Not many people care about adblocking, and the less discerning eye might even be happy with what Manifest V3 has to offer (I sure am not!), so I doubt that anything substantial will move until I see it. This means Firefox could continue to bleed and a Chromium-based backup browser increasingly becomes a necessity for many people (I see it mentioned increasingly in privacy communities), and it’s better that this be Brave vs. Chrome / Edge / Opera, you know.
Thanks for your kind words regarding my assessment of the present issues, I try to look at these things fairly, including potential benefits like security improvements. In general, I support the idea of taking away certain permissions from extensions simply due to the fact that most developers are not as trustworthy as @gorhill (like the sellout this article discusses). So going permissionless, as a concept, is fine by me, but the artificial rule limit on top of that is just a dick move that stems from a clear conflict of interest that Google – as a browser developer and ad company – has, and such limitations have me search for other solutions as well.
Cheers.
> I would certainly be an affected party since I run a greater number than 330K filters in total.
That’s without unlimitedStorage permission. Once that optional permission is added, this won’t be any issue – https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/discussions/2261#discussioncomment-3635509
@Iron Core
Good to know, and good to know that @gorhill is willing to look at potential improvements.
The extension was never required to be installed in the first place:
https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/abp/
It is / was enough to add the above URL to your adblocker extension and have the same functionality, without actually having to run the extension and its code (which, I agree, is about to be soiled by Avast most likely).
@ Iron Heart,
IDCAC only partly functions on this site: https://www.theguardian.com/
By ‘partly’, I mean the cookie notices of which there are two of them appear one after the other each remaining onscreen for 3 or 4 seconds after which they disappear until the user refreshes the page, or clicks on another subject at which they reappear. Adding the site to IDCAC’s exceptions menu is pointless since the addon isn’t functioning at all afterwards.
UBO to the rescue, or so I thought. UBO offers two possibilities i.e. to block the element, or to block the element in a frame, both accessible via the context menu.
The first option works, but nothing is clickable afterwards and refreshing the page only serves to reinstate both annoyances.
The second option requires blocking half the element first followed by the second half. This option is permanent and the cookie notices won’t reappear. However, the whole page is overlaid with a transparent grey film which prevents selecting another subject to read. I can get around that by using another addon to remove the overlay, but UBO on its own doesn’t help.
Here are pix of both cookie notices:
https://i.postimg.cc/cHn6tdfS/guardian-cookie-notice.png
https://i.postimg.cc/fLZ1mK9R/guardian-privacy-settings.png
@TelV
I am not seeing any cookie banner on “The Guardian”.
Disclaimer: I am visiting the website with Brave’s built-in adblocker, adblocking set to aggressive, all default lists enabled under brave://settings/shields/filters. Brave shows a very high count of blocked elements on “The Guardian”, currently 51 elements blocked.
Try out enabling the following lists in uBlock Origin:
– AdGuard Annoyances
– EasyList Cookie
And add the following list:
– I don’t care about cookies: https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/abp/
Report back to me if you need further assistance.
@TelV
UPDATE TO PRIOR REPLY: I visited “The Guardian” with both uBlock Origin (in Brave, internal adblocker disabled while using uBO) and Brave (with its internal adblocker), both having the same list configuration(!) and I am getting the banner with uBlock Origin, but not with Brave’s internal adblocker. Not sure what the issue could be since they are running the same list config right now.
If you don’t want to use Brave, then I guess your only option is to report it as an issue here: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues
Could be something for the “uBlock filters – Annoyances” list.
I want to use Brave, but its developer categorically refuses to make a portable version!
@sLak
https://portapps.io/app/brave-portable/
Thanks for the site, but I’ve known it since last year. When transferring the profile from Chromium browser – the bookmarks appeared, but none of the extensions have it! There is not a single extension. And in the folder “data\Default\Extensions” there were all the extensions and while looking at them – I could see how one by one they started to decrease and the folders themselves were deleted…
In general with Brave and manually transferring a profile – it doesn’t work! What conclusions I have since last year!
@sLak
Do you have the same problem with Ungoogled Chromium? Every Chromium browser runs uBlock Origin.
I definitely don’t have this problem because my browser is Ungoogled Chromium v.105.0.5195.127 and the settings were taken from it by backing up the “User Data” folder. And on unzipping that folder with my personal settings into the appropriate Brave folder – only the bookmarks were functional, not a single extension. Only Brave does this, I’ve tested Iron, Centbrowser with their new beta version, I’ve also tested Thorium, I’ve also tested CatsXP. The problem with extensions not being there is only with Brave. A couple of times months ago I was able to get the extensions to show up and be there, but not a few times Brave wouldn’t accept them as being…. I don’t remember what, but…. And Brave wouldn’t allow either to add extension via “crx”…
@sLak
May I ask, what motivates you to use Brave? I mean, I myself use Brave and I like it, but I believe that you can get almost there with Ungoogled Chromium. Ungoogled Chromium with uBlock Origin and HTTPS Everywhere and ClearURLs should already do the trick for you… Yes, there are some things that Brave does in addition to that, like fingerprinting protections, but are they enough of a reason for you to deal with that trouble you describe? A large number of fingerprinting scripts can be blocked from running with the EasyPrivacy list in uBlock Origin, you know. It’s not perfect but could be a workable portable setup.
The motivation is to observe the development of most popular browsers and whether they are acceptable to use when needed! We all know we won’t be using just one browser forever. But Brave initially repels with the reluctance of the developer to release an official portable version, otherwise he left them 8 types for download, but adamantly insists on releasing a portable version. He doesn’t say why he doesn’t want to. There is nothing more user-friendly than a portable version. But Brave also goes with the negatives in principle.
For myself, I can say that I am very satisfied with Ungoogle chromium.
@Iron Heart, I used both ClearURLs and LocalCDN until last year. All in all, with or without them, it’s still the same experience. Realistically speaking – we go without these two extensions, everyone will realize that they can do without them.
@Iron Heart, are you confirming that “crx” isn’t working this year in Brave either?!
@sLak
I think there just isn’t enough demand for a portable version of Brave (disclaimer: This is not my personal opinion, I believe portable software does have its uses), so an official version is unlikely. The portable version of Brave I linked to is unofficial, so there might be unexpected issues that are not present in the “official” versions of Brave.
CRX files (.crx) are just Chromium extensions, the stuff you typically download from the Chrome Web Store for example. This file type does work in all non-portable versions of Brave (only tried the Chrome Web Store), not sure why extensions cause problems in the portable build as I don’t use it myself. Anyway, one last ditch attempt at a fix would be describing you issue here: https://github.com/portapps/brave-portable/issues
@crazy-max is the developer you want to talk to.
Another thing you could try is to create a clean installation of Brave Portable WITHOUT transferring your prior profile and just downloading extensions from the Chrome Web Store into that new profile. For your bookmarks, you can export them under brave://bookmarks/ (three dot menu at the top right) and import them into the new profile, also under brave://bookmarks/ (three dot menu at the top right). Sorry that I can’t provide you with any further assistance. :/
@Iron Heart,
But the problems are more complex than we have to imagine. For example – the extensions to be installed are not one or two. Second – Not every extension has the ability to export its settings, and it’s terribly cumbersome for every such extension to set up. Third – the chrome://flags/ settings made in Ungoogled chromium, whether anyone remembers what their personal settings are, but every person on the planet has at least once set something, but not everyone can remember what they set for themselves si, and even these chrome://flags/ settings are not exportable…. This is very burdensome… I had tried last year, but the strong resistance was hiding… first from the developer, who is an official one, but he adamantly doesn’t want to make portable versions, nevermind that he posts 6-7 types. Second – from here (https://github.com/portapps/brave-portable) the updates to the ….let’s call them final versions are not that fast. Yes, I know about this site from before. Third, and most aggravatingly, even if we get around to installing each extension one by one and setting it up one by one, we get to the point where the “crx” files in the portable versions are unusable. Yeah, I didn’t know they worked on a Brave install… I mean I didn’t know this problem was only on the portable version. Therefore, it is imperative that the developer provides a portable version. You ask which extension “crx” files I want so badly I can’t swallow it… eg “Select like a Boss 2015.4.24”, “Select text inside a link like Opera 6.0”. I probably have others, but these are the ones I can think of. And I don’t think when someone migrated to Brave regardless of portable or installed version and had to use their own Brave backups, if I made such backups to save the settings when needed and Brave gave them a message, that the settings are incompatible or nothing from the archive will work as extensions at all. And so…
I definitely don’t have this problem because my browser is Ungoogled Chromium v.105.0.5195.127 and the settings were taken from it by backing up the “User Data” folder. And on unzipping that folder with my personal settings into the appropriate Brave folder – only the bookmarks were functional, not a single extension. Only Brave does this, I’ve tested Iron, Centbrowser with their new beta version, I’ve also tested Thorium, I’ve also tested CatsXP. The problem with extensions not being there is only with Brave. A couple of times months ago I was able to get the extensions to show up and be there, but not a few times Brave wouldn’t accept them as being….I don’t remember what, but….And Brave wouldn’t allow either to add extension via “crx”…
@Iron Heart
Not exactly, Dailymotion is an example. Fortunately, at least for those I visit, sites that require interacting with the consent banner to work are rare.
After that aside from a some personal filters or the lists available on uBlock the approaches that remain are the ones already described: scripts that interact with the banner (Google – dismiss cookies warming) or inject the cookie (Google Shut Up!) if I understand correctly.
All this for a browsing without annoyance. No any other extensions con TCP and there would be IP to consider as well.
@Shiva
> Not exactly, Dailymotion is an example.
All I can say is that I don’t see many GDPR cookie banners anymore after subscribing to the “I don’t care about cookies” list as well as the “EasyList Cookie” list and the “uBlock filters – Annoyances” list. Dailymotion, yes, sadly. None of the lists I have suppresses its cookie banner, and not even the otherwise great Consent-O-Matic extension works on it really.
But you can still do what I do, accept the cookies on DailyMotion and let Cookie AutoDelete take care of it once you leave the website. This won’t suppress the banner, but the cookies themselves are being dealt with.
> scripts that interact with the banner (Google – dismiss cookies warming) or inject the cookie (Google Shut Up!) if I understand correctly.
https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/wiki/solutions
Check out the above link and its filters. This should make these extensions redundant or nigh redundant. Note that I try to only run a minimal amount of extensions due to the associated fingerprinting risk (the more you change your installation, the worse it gets – you know the drill).
I don’t know what you meant to say with your last sentence re. TCP / IP, if you want to discuss something there, please rephrase it a bit. Anyway, I hope the above comments helped you out somewhat.
@Iron Heart
>All I can say is that I don’t see many GDPR cookie banners anymore
I don’t see them either, we use the same lists and probably some personal Google\YouTube filters from that Reddit page that is already bookmarked. Thanks anyway for the tip.
Recently, however, the consent banner is only showing up for me when I directly search for images on Google with a dedicated search engine, so temporarily I also rely on a script (mentioned before as an example in general).
There remains this small difference between using the lists or the extension which comes in handy for example with Dailymotion. Of course if I were to use now the second one I would be well watch out for changes in privacy policy and maybe it could change in some sites also how the extension acts based on the banner (accept\reject).
What I meant to say is that with dFPI I do not sanitize during the session, the cookies are partitioned and there remains in general the IP tracking to be mentioned unless the use of a VPN. Not that I understand much about this, but I too don’t feel like installing too many extensions.
I have installed ‘Clear Browsing Data’ anyway, but the main use is to quickly close all tabs with one click.
@Shiva
> Recently, however, the consent banner is only showing up for me when I directly search for images on Google with a dedicated search engine, so temporarily I also rely on a script (mentioned before as an example in general).
> What I meant to say is that with dFPI I do not sanitize during the session, the cookies are partitioned (…)
Lucky you, I guess, because I always get the consent banner whenever I use Google / YouTube even within the same session, but that’s clearly due to Cookie AutoDelete which is deleting cookies shortly after I close a tab. Partitioning / isolation is great (Brave here has something very similar called ephemeral storage), but it doesn’t shield you from first party tracking. The first party has access to its own site data even under a partitioned scheme, and if said first party is Google… well, shit. I mean, depending on how long one browsing session typically lasts for you, it may or may not be a problem for you. It’s somewhat of a problem for me considering my usage.
> There remains this small difference between using the lists or the extension which comes in handy for example with Dailymotion.
That is true for some use cases. Check out the comment of @assurbani below, perhaps “clean” forks emerge as a result of this takeover, how long-lived they are remains yet to be seen though. Only advice I have here – look out for forks of the extension code, should the adblocking list not be enough. Cheers.
@Iron Heart
Well, I suppose based on their own uses each one can calculate the eventual additional benefit of using other extensions as well.
What I don’t understand is why you see the banners on Google\Youtube, aside when I search for images if I use the personal filters on the page you suggested to me no cookie consent banner appears. Neither when I first access the site, nor if I sanitize the cookies during the session.
I’ve certainly wondered like you how long any forks will last, I don’t think it’s easy to maintain projects like these for years. It may be of interest to other users, at the moment I am quite satisfied only with the lists on uBlock.
@Shiva
I’ve seen banners too albeit when using a VPN and selecting a location which has jurisdiction for showing cookie banners aka California. It depends on location. That’s why you haven’t seen them yet but Iron Heart has. Me personally – not in my actual location but with VPN most of the time. Even with Tor sometimes they become visible.
@Yash
Surely this is a plausible explanation not taking into account the filters mentioned on uBlock.
I was searching on Reddit for some filter updates to solve it, actually I didn’t pay attention to it because I use other services but I get the cookies consent banner even with ‘Map’ and ‘News’ (not ‘Videos’), but I didn’t find any solution.
In the end I blocked the related cookies from Firefox exceptions since I also got a bit tired of keeping up with changes.
@Shiva
> What I don’t understand is why you see the banners on Google\Youtube
Sorry, I meant I *would* see them if I didn’t use those filters. Without the filters, they would always appear of course due to Cookie AutoDelete.
> I’ve certainly wondered like you how long any forks will last
Me too, put me in the “skeptical” camp until they have actually proven their longevity.
Ok, thanks. Stop updating extension right now. avast – company known for spoiling excellent Piriform Cleaner.
Hi,
As a newbie to this forum i would like to contribute my thoughts on the matter. I think a lot or all of these vices could be adjusted by using an emphatically-towards-privacy designed web browser such as Brave or LibreWolf. They will have the possible appropriate settings built in by default !
I do believe our Croatian friend (initial developer of IDCAC) sold out because he got underfunded.
Still I would like to learn about a 1:1 alternative to his invention.
Avast was being known for having a direct backport to Google, however… (without notice to its users, of course)
Hope this was helpful.
I don’t use the ‘I don’t care about Cookies’ browser extension. I had tried in some time ago.
I do include its filter list in ‘uBlock Origin’ : [https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/abp/] which, toegther with uBO’s ‘AdGuard Annoyances’ and ‘uBlock filters – Annoyances’ native lists manages most of GDPR consent requirements, though not all. The extension would then, when I tested it, sometimes fill the gap. When it did though it wasn’t quite satisfactory IMO because the site’s cookie consent would appear briefly before being handles by the extension, which bothered me (delay, unaesthetic).
For sites which aren’t handled by the three above mentioned uBOfilters,
– First I try to block cookies for that domain, sometimes does it.
– Then I try to change my User-Agent to Bing Bot or Google Bot, sometimes does it.
– Otherwise I refuse the consent cookies. If the site runs incorrectly I accept them.
– Problem for me is that I don’t want to allow cookies or LocalStorage/IndexedDB for a site just to let it know I refuse or accept the Consent cookies : i want to refuse/accept, remove the site’s cookie(s) with the uBlock filters – Annoyance extension, and have my choice nevertheless be automatized : only one way : cookie injection.
Once I’ve refused or accepted the Consent cookie, I check the site’s Consent cookie with the ‘Cookie Quick Manager’ extension, note the Domain and Consent cookie(s) Value(s) then write a short script that will inject the very same cookie on next visits. I have a dedicated Cookie Consent draft script that I set to fit the requirements. Et voila. process looks heavy when described but has become a fast automatic workaround by now.
At this time I have 9 GDPR Cookie Consent scripts, all for 9 .fr domains. The advantage is that the site opens without the slightest hesitation because it has its beloved Consent (or not) cookie, cookie which is removed as we’d remove a bone from a dog’s jaw once the site is exited with the ‘Cookie Autodelete’ extension.
Need to say the GDPR Consent bother, yet I fully accept it. More benefits than bother for a vast majority of users.
This said, some sites refuse to open if cookies, be they or not GDPR Consent, are refused.
Some other sites (i.e. [lemonde.fr] propose a deal : either accept cookies or pay for a subscription. Of course, in my case, we accept then cookies considering they’ll be wiped on exit.
Many sites’ cookie policy (many, not all) are really disappointing, so much trickery for their eternal quest of “Where do we come from”, “Who are we” (cross-site referncing then helps), where are we leading to. I admit that I usually think : “F*** YOU” and proceed accordingly, if I may say.
Thanks tom.
Long time ago, well 12 months to be exact but in pandemic world it feels like a millenium, I used to set uBO in my browser to medium mode(apologies if that’s not a correct name). No cookies banner nothing, allow what you specifically want. Then things went a bit relaxed and I switched to static filtering only.
Back came cookie popups. I then blocked certain domains like qwantcast, etc. etc. using dynamic filtering. Of course I blocked some trash(fb, google) also. Now I enjoy both worlds – less tracking but sites also load fine without too much tinkering.
@Yash, that’s great. uBO is like a racing car : powerful but delivers the best with the correct settings, as two cars with the exact same mechanics can behave differently depending on those settings. So let’s be the winner :)
EDIT :
“– Problem for me is that I don’t want to allow cookies or LocalStorage/IndexedDB for a site just to let it know I refuse or accept the Consent cookies : i want to refuse/accept, remove the site’s cookie(s) with the uBlock filters – Annoyance extension, and have my choice nevertheless be automatized : only one way : cookie injection.”
should have stated,
“– Problem for me is that I don’t want to allow cookies or LocalStorage/IndexedDB for a site just to let it know I refuse or accept the Consent cookies : i want to refuse/accept, remove the site’s cookie(s) with the ‘COOKIE AUTODELETE extension, and have my choice nevertheless be automatized : only one way : cookie injection.”
I never heard of it before, but anything these antivirus businesses touch turns into garbage. It’s time to uninstall this from your browser.
Martin, you refer to an alternative addon but Never-constent is not maintained anymore and can’t be found anymore in the firefox webshop. https://github.com/MathRobin/Never-Consent
Maybe Super Agent – Automatic cookie consent is an alternative?
“Super Agent automatically fills out the website’s cookie consent forms for you based on your preferences. Super Agent will save you a lot of clicks and let you take control of your privacy in a very easy way.” https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/super-agent/
Crap. Another one bites the dust.
James – thx for mentioning Avira. I didn’t know they had been purchased by Norton. Ugg.
The elephant in the room: Norton bought Avira and recently Avast as well, they’re behind this. No doubt in my mind this extension will let through a staggering amounts of cookies from now on. Let’s wait a few weeks..
It’s hard to trust companies like Avast, AVG(Bought by Avast), Avira, and StartPage. I haven’t used Ccleaner in years. They used to be all trustworthy companies, what happened?
startpage.com?
what happened?
@assurbani
https://www.ghacks.net/2019/11/16/startpage-search-owner-changes-raise-serious-questions/
System1 also acquired Waterfox. The jury’s still out on the impact for both.
Happy for the developer who has always worked consistently on a good extension that I have used for years.
Joking about it I might find it funny that a company that cares about its cookies (CCleaner restores ‘CookiesToSave=*.avast.com|*.ccleaner.com|*.ccleanercloud.com’ if you don’t set read-only the .ini file) acquires an extension that is called ‘I don’t care about cookies’. :-)
The reason why Avast doesn’t make their own is because they aren’t capable of winning the users over or developing something that is going to compete that’s why they buy an established and trusted product and then slap their ridiculous logo all over it and then continue to ruin it. They are the Symantec/Norton of the modern era.
It’s likely they will offer a premium paid subscription version of this down the line.
Hmm. “Interesting” aquisition of such a large company with a lot of in-house developers that could have developed something like this on their own. But I still don’t trust the company after their mistakes, mistakes that especially an it-sec company can’t do, ever. But the current CEO, Andrej, is a guy I know since many years on forums, so hopefully he now got full control and can try to build up the company trust that was lost to previous higher levels, but it will take a long time, it always does, and so it should.
But since they are now going together with Norton…:
“Avast and NortonLifeLock merge to tackle new challenges in Cyber Safety”
https://blog.avast.com/avast-nortonlifelock-merge
…that thought this was a good move for an it-sec company:
“Users claim that Norton 360 antivirus installs a crypto miner on PCs”
https://www.ghacks.net/2022/01/05/norton-360-antivirus-installs-a-crypto-miner-on-pcs/
…the trust I once had for Avast will most likely never be re-built again. The bad decisions have been too many through the years. But I wish Ondrej good luck.
@ Karl
I missed Ashwin’s article on crypto-miners being present in Norton 360 I’m afraid, but my question concerning the subject would be who benefits from the operation?
Also, there are crypto services present in the current version of Firefox and its forks to be found in about:preferences#privacy “Certificates –> Security Devices” section. Is that not the same thing as Norton’s setup?
I think the “ePrivacy Directive” laws need to be revised to stop the madness of cookie consent dialogues/banners. Websites are being deliberately obtuse with their cookie consent, to the point they are now more obnoxious than ads and quite often when cookie consent dialogues are blocked with a content blocker, parts of the website do not work properly (because the cookie banner was ignored).
Cookie consent needs to be shifted to a browser level setting, where users can set what types of cookies they want to allow or disallow for *all* websites (for example, allow “Strictly necessary cookies” and “Preferences cookies”, but block everything else such as “Marketing cookies”). Having to do it for every single website that users visit is ludicrous – especially if they regularly clear their browser data.
It was called Do Not Track, but it didn’t work.
Never-consent is not maintained anymore and hasn’t seen an update since 2020 I believe.
A lot of cookie management addons/extensions seem to be poorly maintained or abandoned these days.
I know browsers limited API make it near impossible for extensions like self destructing cookies to function correctly and as such these extensions become abandoned. Ask the developer of ‘Forget Me Not’ why his project is “on ice”.
Avast will find a way to ruin this and bloating it up.
I feel like sooner or later we will have to look for some alternatives.
P.S. I hate Avast
@ Mystique_r4
” I feel like sooner or later we will have to look for some alternatives.”
P.S. ” I hate Avast. ”
Avast majority of us do to.
Hahaha, missed this one. Well done sir. lol
” too “….not to. ‘
Sorry
This. Ad and tracking injection incoming.
I don’t use this extension anyway.
I don’t care about I don’t care about cookies either.