Conversation

Huh? The web has been working fine with 3rd party cookies entirely blocked for 2 decades. But never miss a chance to use a crisis as an excuse for rolling back enhanced privacy defaults... Never change, Google...
Quote Tweet
We've temporarily reverted Chrome's SameSite rollout, and intend to pick it back up in the summer. It was a necessary decision given that COVID-19 has redefined how web services are meeting essential needs for so many people right now. blog.chromium.org/2020/04/tempor
2
16
Replying to
SameSite cookies are a CSRF mitigation, not a privacy enhancement. SameSite=Strict stops cookies from being sent cross-origin and should be set for all cookies in newly developed code. SameSite=Lax still sends them for cross-origin GET requests for compatibility with legacy code.
Replying to
It seems like it's both. Disabling third party cookies is not a "hard" privacy protection, but it offloads the storage burden on the parties doing the tracking instead of letting them commandeer your browser to violate your privacy for them for free.
1
3
Replying to
Browsers setting SameSite=Lax by default can be overridden with SameSite=None unless they're going to stop permitting that. SameSite=Lax still sends them for cross-origin navigation via a GET request so a quick redirect bounce through a third party still sends them the cookies.
1
Show replies
Replying to and
Changing the default to SameSite=Lax will mitigate most CSRF attacks by default. SameSite=None was standardized so that developers can opt-out of the changed default. The option to disable third party cookies is a much different thing. That only disallows them from being set.
2
Replying to and
If you disable third party cookies, existing cookies for a third party origin are still sent with requests to it. The only way that SameSite would improve privacy is if every cookie was forced to be SameSite=Strict and developers couldn't switch to SameSite=Lax or SameSite=None.
1
1
Show replies